Sitting of 28 October 1996

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    Bus Passenger Journeys
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bus passenger journeys outside London were made in (a) 1994–95 and (b) 1985–86.[561]
    The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): There were 3.25 billion passenger journeys on local bus services outside London in 1994–95. The comparable figure for 1985–86 was just under 4.5 billion.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Do not those figures disguise the serious problems that affect many bus users in rural areas? Will the Minister consider the position in Denby Dale, between Wakefield and Huddersfield? A key service—No. 234—has been withdrawn from Upper Denby, as a result of which local pensioners cannot cash their pensions and cannot get to the doctor. Will he also consider the representations that I have received from Denby Dale parish council about that and about the behaviour of the bus operators, which chase passengers and block competitors' buses? Are not those activities a direct consequence of the Government's policies? What does the Minister intend to do about the problems?
    Mr. Watts: If certain socially necessary services cannot be run commercially, county councils or. in metropolitan areas, borough and district councils, have the power to provide those services by competitive tender. We propose to introduce legislation to give parish councils powers to secure local transport.

    Schoolchildren (Car Journeys)
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what statistics he collates on the numbers of children travelling to school by car in 1995; and what were the figures in 1979. [562]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): On average, 2 million children aged five to 15–26 per cent. of the total—usually travelled to school by car during the period 1993 to 1995. Figures are not available for 1979, but the equivalent figure for 1975–76 was 1.1 million—12 per cent. of the total.
    Mr. Hutton: Would it not make more sense in terms of the environment and road safety for the Government to
    312
    do considerably more to persuade parents, bus operators and local authorities to encourage children to travel to school on public transport? Are we not, yet again, being prevented from making any progress by the Government's dogma on those issues?
    Sir George Young: I reject the premise on which that question was constructed. The circular on traffic policy and programme that we sent to local authorities emphasised the importance of measures to reduce over-dependence on the car by children going to school.
    We have introduced a number of initiatives to promote safer routes to school. I visited a school in Hampshire where children, parents and teachers were finding safer ways of getting to school than by car. The Government want to work with local authorities, parents and teachers to reduce over-dependence and promote safe alternative routes to school.
    Mr. Lidington: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government's recently published document about reducing child pedestrian accidents addresses the problems that have been identified in those exchanges? Will the Department bear in mind the need to promote road safety when it considers bids from local authorities for transport supplementary grant?
    Sir George Young: Yes, of course. One of the aims of the safer routes to school campaign, which is being pioneered by many local authorities with Government support, is to make it safer for children to walk to school through the introduction of traffic restraint and traffic calming measures, and the promotion of routes that are well supervised by adults or shopkeepers. Children should be able to walk to school in groups knowing that the risk of being molested is sharply reduced because the route that they are taking is supervised by adults.

    Air Traffic Control (London)
    Mr. Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much public expenditure has been invested in replacing the London air traffic control centre with the new ATC centre at Swanwick, Southampton. [563]
    Sir George Young: The Civil Aviation Authority forecasts a capital spend of approximately £340 million for this project, of which £303 million has so far been spent.
    Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister acknowledge that the interests of public safety require more than one air traffic control centre in the United Kingdom? Will he guarantee that the new Scottish centre will be built at Prestwick as a public service for the public good?
    Sir George Young: The interests of safety must be paramount and there must be contingency arrangements to cope with any failure of one specific centre. As the hon. Gentleman and the House may know, Sir Malcolm Field, the newly appointed chairman of the CAA, is conducting a review of the two-centre strategy. He hopes to complete that review quickly and is well aware of the strong feelings in Scotland about the importance of Prestwick in any future strategy.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Why has the new centre near Southampton proved so late in coming into operation?

    313
    Was that delay in any sense a factor in the decision by the Civil Aviation Authority to conduct a review into the proposed new Prestwick centre? Has the Department of Transport drawn any lessons about the benefits or otherwise of the private finance initiative for such projects?
    Sir George Young: The delay was due to problems in integrating software sub-systems into the air traffic management system. More than 2 million lines of software code are involved. Of course we must try to introduce, where possible, tried and tested systems in preference to brand new ones. The review on which Sir Malcolm Field has embarked is due more to the need to revisit a strategy that was started some time in the 1990s and it is being carried out in the light of operational changes and technological advances.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the Secretary of State confirm that air traffic control and the paramount need for public safety are, like national defence and policing, the prime responsibility of Government to secure? What views has he received from the Ministry of Defence about the Royal Air Force on the privatisation of the centres? Does he accept our argument that the two-centre strategy must proceed and that the new Scottish control centre must go ahead? For once, will he take some notice of the public, who are overwhelmingly opposed to the privatisation of those centres and see it as profoundly ill-judged dogma?
    Sir George Young: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to what I think is his first appearance as shadow Secretary of State for Transport. I know that he will bring with him the disciplines that he exerted as shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury in restraining any extravagant proposals by any of his Front-Bench colleagues. I hope that he will find time to welcome the introduction of a more regular service between London and Oxford which has been introduced by the recently privatised train operator.
    I see no reason why the air traffic control service should not be adequately provided by the private sector. The air traffic service is already provided by private companies at a number of our airports. Serco provides such services at nine United Kingdom airports. Other countries in Europe have services that are not wholly provided by Government, so there is no reason why this service has to be provided exclusively by the Government. I wonder why the hon. Gentleman spent so much time abolishing clause IV when he resists proposals such as this for more to be done in the private sector. The best argument for putting the service in the private sector is that the industry is capital intensive. It needs access to private sector capital and should not be restrained by the disciplines of the public expenditure survey.

    Newbury and Thatcham (Transport Requirements)
    Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his decision in relation to Government funding for the future transport requirements of Newbury and Thatcham. [564]
    Mr. Watts: I expect to announce details of the local transport capital settlement for 1997–98 in December.
    Mr. Rendel: Does the Minister agree that the plans that are being presented for traffic rearrangement in Newbury
    314
    and Thatcham will ensure that the benefits to the environment that will be produced by the bypass, assuming that the plans can be financed, will last not merely for a year or two but will be retained for the long term?
    Mr. Watts: It would be wrong of me to pre-empt the decisions that still have to be made about transport policies and programme bids. However, I agree that the completion of the bypass will present an opportunity to return Newbury to its people and to resolve the current traffic management problems by taking through traffic away.

    London Taxicard Scheme
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to secure the future of the London taxicard scheme; and what measures he will take to promote the adoption of similar schemes by local authorities elsewhere. [565]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Bowis): I recognise the value of the London taxicard scheme and other such schemes. The establishment and management of such schemes are a matter, in London, for the London boroughs and, outside London, for other local authorities.
    The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee—the Department's statutory adviser on disability issues—has produced guidelines for local authorities on the establishment of taxicard schemes. Copies have been distributed to licensing authorities throughout the country.
    Mr. Jones: The Minister will be aware of how well received the taxicard scheme is in parts of London, where it is a great asset to disabled people. When is it likely to be extended to other major cities and even to towns in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Bowis: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the successful London scheme, which carries some 60,000 trips a month. Other schemes are starting throughout the country. It is entirely a matter for the local authorities concerned whether they start schemes, but we are trying to encourage that by setting up the guidelines through the DPTAC. I hope that he will find that helpful in persuading perhaps Clwyd county council to consider starting such a scheme because I understand that, as yet, it is not moving in that direction.
    Mr. Bendall: Is the Minister aware that the taxicard is being reviewed and that the review body is liable to recommend that more money be spent on policy, not on management? That is causing great concern to voluntary organisations in London and to the 50,000 users of the taxicard scheme. Is he also aware that this suggestion is being made by a Labour party member of my local authority?
    Mr. Bowis: I am not aware of the last point, but I am certainly aware of the London Committee on Accessible Transport's review of the accessible transport unit and of the committee's view that the unit could be downsized. It is entirely a matter for the London boroughs what sort

    315
    of review they have and what emerges from that review, but I have no reason to suppose at the moment that there is any threat to the service for disabled people in London.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister agree that the Government's Disability Discrimination Act 1995 does not outlaw all discrimination on all forms of public transport? Does he accept that, because the Government have reneged on their funding promises, the London taxicard scheme is being presented with difficulties? How do the Government intend to respond to people's expectation from the Government that disabled people will be assured of access to mini-cabs and unregulated taxis? How do the Government intend to deal with people who use wheelchairs and people with guide dogs and hearing dogs? Surely this Minister, coming from London as he does, views this as a splendid opportunity to build best practice as a beacon for the rest of Britain.
    Mr. Bowis: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's reference to my experience of London and of its transport needs, including the needs of disabled people in London. I know and recognise their needs and shall seek to further their interests. There are many ways in which that can be done. The taxicard scheme is part of that. The dial-a-ride scheme transports some 1 million people a year. The discrimination Act will not only bring in accessible taxis—as the hon. Gentleman knows, in London, that will be required by 1 January 2000—but is making great progress in terms of accessible buses and trains, and even in terms of access to the underground, so we have progress. I shall seek to ensure that that progress is furthered.

    M66
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects contracts to be let for the last stage of the M66; and when he expects the section of M66 from Denton to Middleton to be open. [567]
    Mr. Watts: Invitation of tenders will be subject to the availability of resources.
    Mr. Bennett: The Minister will realise that many of my constituents, who have suffered from the traffic spilling out at the Denton roundabout for many years, will be disappointed that the date for the scheme's completion appears to have slipped from 1998 to possibly 1999. Unless the last contract can be let, much public money will be wasted because the first four contracts have put bridges and flyovers into place, but there is not yet a linking road between them. Surely the Minister will now guarantee that that linking road will be built quickly and that the motorway will open as soon as possible to relieve the problems that my constituents face?
    Mr. Watts: There is no doubt about our commitment to completing the project, which is extremely important to Greater Manchester, but I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman today when we shall be in a position to invite tenders for the final contract. It is our intention to take it forward as rapidly as the availability of resources permits.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: When my hon. Friend the Minister eventually lets that contract, will he include
    316
    a requirement for the contractors to use the new porous asphalt, which is much more skid-proof and quieter—and which we are trying to persuade my hon. Friend to use on the M6 stretch between Lancaster and Carnforth?
    Mr. Watts: We always try to use the quietest materials available, commensurate with traffic levels. Typically, porous asphalt is not as hard wearing as conventional dressings. As to the M6 scheme, more than 1,200 properties will be fitted with secondary glazing to mitigate the effects of noise.

    National Air Traffic Services
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the potential proceeds of privatisation of National Air Traffic Services. [582]
    Sir George Young: I have made no estimate of potential proceeds from privatising National Air Traffic Services.
    Mr. Miller: It was interesting that the Minister, in an earlier reply, did not respond to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) about the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Air Force. When the right hon. Gentleman considers the proposal's financial benefits, will he carefully examine the practical ways in which civil air traffic control and the Ministry interrelate? It would be ludicrous to create a charging policy that would work in those circumstances. Does the Minister not realise that the majority of people are totally against that crass privatisation?
    Sir George Young: A number of representations were in favour of it. The reply that I gave on Friday was on behalf of the whole Government, so of course the Ministry of Defence agrees with the strategy that I have outlined, and its needs will be met under the new strategy of a privatised NATS.
    Sir Alan Haselhurst: Is not the most obvious benefit to be derived from privatising National Air Traffic Services that it would provide the best guarantee that moneys would be forthcoming for NATS's huge investment programme?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend has succinctly summarised the best argument for privatisation, which will free management investment decisions from public sector constraints.
    Mr. Foulkes: I am sorry that I was not present for Question 3, but I was delayed—not by air traffic control but by the appalling London underground system. Irrespective of the arguments for and against privatisation, will the Secretary of State give an absolute guarantee that the Government will continue to support the two-centre strategy that is vital for the future of those of my constituents who are among the 650 workers at Prestwick? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing with the two private funding initiative bids that he received some months ago?
    Sir George Young: The Oceanic bid is proceeding. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not in his place

    317
    earlier when I replied to Question 3. I say out of courtesy to the hon. Gentleman, who doubtless for good reasons was not present at 2.38 pm, that Sir Malcolm Field, the newly appointed chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, is conducting a review of the two-centre strategy. He is aware of the strong feelings in Scotland about Prestwick, and he hopes to complete his review at an early date, so that the uncertainty to which the hon. Gentleman referred can be brought to a speedy end.
    Mr. Fabricant: When the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) flies down from Scotland and finds that his aircraft is circling above Heathrow airport, he may not be aware that his plane is unable to land because the UK has only half the density of aircraft in the air as the United States. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason for that lack of air traffic density is that the UK does not have the latest computers in air traffic control? Would not privatisation be the best way to provide the funds that would allow greater air traffic density and less in-air delays?
    Sir George Young: Density is a slightly different issue from the best form of air traffic control. We are building at Swanwick a modern en route centre that will have the latest technology. My hon. Friend is right in thinking that the ability to access funds without the constraints of public expenditure requirements is the main reason for privatising NATS.

    Merchant Shipping
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what response he has received to consultation on the draft Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill. [583]
    Sir George Young: Fifty-four replies were received to the consultation on the draft Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill.
    Mr. Ainger: Is not the United Kingdom coastline the most vulnerable in Europe to oil pollution? Are not urgent measures needed to deal with that? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the intervention measures included in the draft Bill are welcome, but unless they are backed up with the necessary expertise—the expert individuals who can provide advice to the Secretary of State and give him the powers of command and control of operations such as the Sea Empress—they will be useless?
    Does the right hon. Gentleman further accept that we need those command and control measures in the national interest, so that we are not dependent on private salvors which, at the end of the day, have only their commercial interests at heart? Is it not about time that experts were put in place to take command and control of operations such as the Sea Empress?
    Sir George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said at the beginning of his question. The Bill was widely welcomed when it was introduced in another place last week. Its measures are aimed at improving safety at sea and minimising marine pollution. I hope that they will consolidate the considerable progress that we have already made.
    318
    On the point about intervention, the hon. Gentleman will know that there is a parallel consultation exercise on the powers needed by local and harbour authorities, on which the Government have not yet reached a conclusion.
    I will consider the hon. Gentleman's point about expert advice. However, it is my view that I and my Department have access to the best advice available to enable me to discharge the responsibilities that fall on my shoulders.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: I welcome the fact that the Government have finally decided to implement the majority of the recommendations in Lord Donaldson's report. However, it is deeply disappointing that they have not used the opportunities provided by the draft Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Bill to address some of the more fundamental problems—such as the fact that over the past 15 years the British merchant fleet has been reduced to a quarter of its former size; that 50,000 seafaring jobs have been lost; that maritime overseas earnings have been halved; and that there has been an increase in flagging out and the use of cheap, unskilled labour forces. Is it not the case that two thirds of accidents involve vessels sailing under a flag of convenience? We hope that the Government will expand the possibilities under the draft Bill to begin to redress the downturn in the British merchant fleet.
    Sir George Young: We have accepted 91 of the 103 recommendations in the Donaldson report and we have already implemented half of those accepted. The maritime Bill, which is now before the other place, will implement even more.
    On the broader question, I should be interested to hear exactly what proposals the hon. Lady is making from the Opposition Front Bench and exactly how much they will cost if she intends to put money behind the suggestions that she has just made.
    The Government have helped our Merchant Navy. In two successive Finance Bills, we have given the roll-over relief much wanted by the shipping industry. We have given specific help with the training of officers. The industry also has a national insurance regime that is preferential to that enjoyed by many other industries. If the hon. Lady has any concrete proposals, she should put them forward, cost them and tell the House exactly how she proposes to pay for them.

    Asthma (Air Pollution)
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on asthma and air pollution from road transport; and if he will make a statement. [584]
    Mr. Bowis: The Government have commissioned and evaluated a range of research related to health and air pollution. The report of the expert advisory Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, "Asthma and Outdoor Air Pollution", was published in October 1995. Copies are in the Library of the House.
    Mr. O'Brien: The Minister must be aware that air pollution exacerbates, and in many instances causes, asthma. Why, therefore, does he continue to pursue policies

    319
    that result in one in seven of our children suffering from asthma and 2,000 people dying from asthma each year? In addition, traffic congestion costs business £19 billion a year and our cities and towns are becoming gridlocked. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in pressing for targets on pollution to be set throughout the country so that we can at least measure the problems that are causing so much pain and suffering and do something about them?
    Mr. Bowis: We are setting targets to reduce pollution levels, and, in particular, emission levels. I should correct the hon. Gentleman on his first point. The report makes it very clear that there is no evidence that air pollution causes asthma. There is evidence that, to a small extent, asthma may be exacerbated by air pollution, but the causes are unknown and unproven.
    The hon. Gentleman made a fair point about what we should be doing. As he knows, we envisage a package of proposals composed of tax proposals and powers for local councils. The package also includes Government proposals on vehicle emission levels, unleaded fuel and cleaner diesel fuel and discouraging car and lorry use by encouraging public transport, cycling and rail freight. Those measures will help. If we can meet emissions targets, the hon. Gentleman will see results in the nation's health and the public's quality of life.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: What damage to health, if any—I presume that there is some—comes from diesel vehicles? Is my hon. Friend aware that many people switched to diesel vehicles because we thought that, by doing so, we were reducing air pollution, but that we have now been told that we are not?
    Mr. Bowis: While petrol emits gases that affect the ozone level, diesel emits gases—particularly nitrogen oxide, which affects local air—and particulates. That is why it is so important that industry looks for cleaner diesel fuels, that vehicle operators use them and that we implement ever-higher emissions standards for lorries, taxis and buses. Those vehicles are checked frequently, regularly and randomly by the Vehicle Inspectorate.
    Mr. Bradley: The Government must accept that the most effective way to reduce air pollution would be to reduce car usage and to invest in high-quality public transport. Therefore, why did the Government not allow Greater Manchester passenger transport executive and others identified in the National Audit Office report to bid for passenger rail services on a revenue-sharing option basis, which would have allowed extra resources to be invested in public transport and not caused taxpayers to be ripped off further by rail privatisations?
    Mr. Bowis: One of the measures that I mentioned in answer to the question of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) was our effort to reduce car use by promoting public transport. The Government have a proud record of investing in public transport in London and in our other major cities. We are also attempting to persuade people to leave their cars at home more often and to use bicycles and their feet. We have strategies to achieve all those measures to promote non-car use, and I hope that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) will support them—to achieve the ends that he claims to want.
    Mr. Forman: In an earlier answer, my hon. Friend conceded that one of the causes of these problems are particulates from diesel engines. Will he assure the House that enforcement measures taken by local authorities and others are sufficiently stringent and based on roadside action? My impression from travelling round London is that that is often not the case, and that air pollution levels probably would not satisfy the standards set by the World Health Organisation.
    Mr. Bowis: I note what my hon. Friend is saying and asking. The Government, scientists and technologists are hunting constantly for better methods of preventing diesel pollution—such as by the use of particulate traps, which are being developed. However, there is not yet sufficient evidence that traps are an effective method to achieve our aim.
    I take on board my hon. Friend's point about ensuring that local authorities have not only the duty but the power to tackle pollution. We have already given powers to reduce volumes and types of traffic in some areas. We have imposed the duty to designate air-quality management areas in areas where that is appropriate, and we shall soon consult on the provision of new local powers to check vehicle emissions. Another matter to be addressed is vehicle idling.

    National Air Traffic Services
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the privatisation of National Air Traffic Services. [585]
    Sir George Young: Over the past few weeks, I have received representations about privatisation of National Air Traffic Services from representatives of airlines, general aviation, NATS trade unions and other air traffic control service providers. I have also heard from a number of individuals, who wrote directly or through their Members of Parliament.
    Mr. Hanson: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in a consultation held in 1994, 114 of the 188 respondents opposed privatisation? Is it not simply a matter of dogma for the Government to proceed? Will he outline to the House the representations that he has received on safety? There are genuine concerns that safety will be compromised by privatisation.
    Sir George Young: There will be no compromise on safety. NATS will continue to be regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority. The main concern expressed by those whom we consulted was that they should be fully involved in the process of working up legislation. We are committed to that. Many of those whom we consulted supported the objective of freeing NATS from public sector financial and management control.

    Dorchester-Weymouth Relief Road
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his decision on the Dorchester to Weymouth relief road. [586]
    Mr. Watts: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to make an announcement on the Dorchester to Weymouth road by the end of November 1996.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward by two months the possible date with which we had been threatened, as it were, by the Department in Newcastle. May I say with the utmost respect, however, that the time that it takes for the Department in Newcastle to study paperwork and for inspectors to produce reports is not good enough? My constituents want to know whether they can make a decision and my county council wants to know whether to put the money aside. Can the Minister make the result available sooner?
    Mr. Watts: That is unlikely. My hon. Friend should acknowledge that the inspector's report was received only last month in my Department. The target for a decision by the end of November is ambitious, but we shall try to meet it because we recognise the urgency of the matter for my hon. Friend and many of his constituents.
    Mr. McAvoy: When the Minister makes a decision on the Dorchester relief road, will he take into account the fact that there is an existing road plan on the books? That is entirely different from new motorways and new roads. He should aim for the completion of the existing road scheme in Dorchester, and those in Denton and Newbury, and he should ensure that dogma against the building of new roads does not interfere with the construction of roads that would give relief to those areas.
    Mr. Watts: I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman criticise dogma against new road building. I thought that that tended to be a characteristic of his party.

    Highways Agency Properties
    Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received in connection with the management of properties owned by the Highways Agency in the Bury, South constituency; and if he will make a statement. [587]
    Mr. Watts: I have received many representations from my hon. Friend on behalf of his constituents.
    Mr. Sumberg: Although my constituents were delighted when my hon. Friend announced the cancellation of the M62 relief road, they are less than delighted by the situation that they now face. The management of the houses by my hon. Friend's agents is appalling. Many houses are still boarded up; there is a question mark over the safety of the gas boilers in some of the houses; worse, my constituents cannot sell their homes at anything like market value. It is totally unsatisfactory to keep on denying them compensation for the loss, in many cases, of their life savings. We must be able to deal with the matter in a better way. Will my hon. Friend re-examine it?
    Mr. Watts: I think that my hon. Friend is aware of the reasons why it is not possible to use discretionary purchase in respect of a scheme that has been abandoned. However, I accept that conditions for many of his constituents have been unsatisfactory. That is why, earlier
    322
    in the year, I took steps to speed the rate at which we can dispose of the properties, which are now entirely surplus to requirements. Having introduced sales by auction, we have sold a total of 70 properties—65 by auction and five by private treaty—and a further 42 sales have been agreed and are in the pipeline.
    Mr. Lewis: Behind those figures lies the disgrace of the way in which the agency is dealing with the problem. The Minister knows the problems that the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) and I have brought to the House on several occasions—some of my constituents are also affected. The devaluing of whole areas of property, caused by the handling of the issue, is disgraceful. It is time that the Minister took a direct hand and took the matter away from the agency. He should start worrying about people for a change.
    Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the poor condition of a property is usually the result of vandalism or, in some instances, of ill treatment by the temporary tenants. I have already explained that I have taken a direct hand in switching from sale by private treaty only to auction sales, which have proved successful. The best way to bring comfort to the remaining owner-occupiers in the area is to dispose of our holdings as rapidly as possible so that we no longer exert a blighting influence on the neighbourhood.

    Buses
    Mr. Pope: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many buses more than 12 years old are currently in use; and what was the comparative figure in 1985–86. [588]
    Mr. Bowis: In 1994–95, there were 26,000 public service vehicles in the bus taxation class having nine or more seats and more than 12 years old. The comparable figure in 1985–86 was 12,000.
    Mr. Pope: Does that not show that the number of old buses in use has doubled since deregulation 10 years ago? We have seen passenger safety compromised and people getting a worse service because of dogma. Is there not a case for the Government to accept the need, as we have suggested, for a new public-private partnership and a new regulatory framework to provide a better, safer service for passengers?
    Mr. Bowis: The answer is no. The figures need to be looked at in context. The total number of public service vehicles has gone up from 67,000 to 75,000 over that period. In the past five years, new registrations have gone up from 3,000 to more than 5,000, with reports of significant orders being placed. Age is not the determining factor for safety or for pollution. Quality of maintenance is the key. If the hon. Gentleman is reflecting his party's policy, I hope that he has had the cost to the taxpayer that it would bring in cleared by his hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), the former shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
    The hon. Gentleman is also posing a threat to the wish of Londoners to have the Routemaster in service—a bus which goes back 30 years. If the Labour party's policy is to ban it because it is more than 12 years old, the people

    323
    of London will want to know. We shall resist that just as much as we shall resist Mr. Kinnock should he put forward European legislation on the matter.

    Motorway Repairs
    Mr. Rooker: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures his Department takes to ensure value for money on motorway repair work carried out under annual schedule of rates contracts. [589]
    Mr. Watts: The Highways Agency secures good value for money on motorway maintenance contracts through its choice of contract form, competitive tendering procedures and supervision by the agency's managing agents.
    Mr. Rooker: What is the total value of the work—mainly routine maintenance contracts—that is not specifically tendered for each job? Would it not be a good idea to change the list of contractors for the jobs completely every few years? That would provide transparency, assuring the public of value for money on such work, much of which is not specifically tendered for.
    Mr. Watts: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with an accurate figure on the precise value of the total work undertaken under schedule of rates contracts. Generally, we find that such contracts provide the best value for money when the volume of work cannot be anticipated at the start, such as contracts for routine maintenance, with work ordered and paid for on a needs basis. The lists of contractors are amended and reviewed from time to time.

    A2
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve the A2 road to Dover. [590]
    Mr. Watts: The road programme includes schemes to improve the A2 between Lydden and Dover, the A2 and M2 between Cobham and junction 4 of the M2, and the A2 and A282 at Dartford. On 22 May this year, I announced two new schemes for widening the A2 between Bean and Cobham, near Gravesend.
    Mr. Shaw: Does my hon. Friend accept that, under the present Government, there have been considerable improvements in the roads to Dover? We welcome the improvements to the A20 and the Sandwich to Dover road and the fact that the A2 between Lydden and Dover is gradually being duelled. However, can my hon. Friend give us some intimation of how he will press the Highways Agency to develop long-term plans to improve the A2 between Lydden and Dover? The improvements so far have been of enormous benefit to Dover's ferry industry and we should like further such developments to be made.
    Mr. Watts: I thank my hon. Friend for his acknowledgement of the value of road improvements to Dover in recent years. The Lydden to Dover improvement scheme will be undertaken when substantive progress has been made on other main programme schemes that are more advanced.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Alterations (Expenditure)
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what expenditure on alterations to the Palace of Westminster has been approved by his Committee in each year since 1992.[596]
    Mr. Paul Channon (Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee): Excluding the phase 2 building, approved expenditure for all new works in the parliamentary estate since 1992 has been £10.45 million in 1992–93, £9 million in 1993–94, £7.16 million in 1994–95, £9.85 million in 1995–96 and £9.2 million in 1996–97.
    Mrs. Jackson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. Will the Committee seek to find the money necessary to alter the use of the shooting gallery in the Palace of Westminster to a more appropriate use? The right hon. Member will be aware that it has been said before, almost as a joke, better a creche than a shooting gallery. As the vast majority of hon. Members now support a ban on the private use and ownership of handguns, is it not appropriate that steps are taken to put that into practice now?
    Mr. Channon: I understand the hon. Lady's concern, but that it is a matter not for my Committee but for the Accommodation and Works Committee. Perhaps she should write to the Chairman of that Committee; if we can assist financially, we shall certainly do our best.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend have a view on whether pressure on the budget would be relieved if Parliament decided that the boundary changes would reduce the number of hon. Members from roughly 660 to about 450 after the next general election?
    Mr. Channon: That is an extremely ingenious question, but I am not sure how it relates to expenditure on alterations to the Palace of Westminster.

  TRANSPORT

    Barking to Gospel Oak Line
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve services and rolling stock on the Barking to Gospel Oak line; and if he will make a statement. [578]
    Mr. Bowis: The franchising director is consulting on his passenger service requirement proposals for the Gospel Oak to Barking line. The draft PSR safeguards the current level of service for the line. He will also be requiring bidders for North London Railways to make proposals for the replacement of the existing rolling stock on this branch.
    Mr. Corbyn: I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) that tomorrow the Minister, or his colleague, is travelling on the Gospel Oak to Barking line. I hope that sufficiently

    325
    crummy, out-of date, broken down heritage rolling stock is being prepared for them. Without wishing the Minister a bad journey, I hope that the train breaks down tomorrow so that he can experience what it is like to travel on the Barking to Gospel Oak line. We have had numerous debates and questions on the matter. Will the Minister please ensure that money is made available quickly to bring new equipment and signalling and a better service to the line rather than letting it run down and close, which is the real intention of some in his Department?
    Mr. Bowis: That is very ungenerous to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I am sure that the House will join me in wishing him a very happy journey tomorrow.
    Mr. Tony Banks: There is no restaurant car in it, though.
    Mr. Bowis: I am sure that there are plenty of facilities at the station.
    The only thing in the House that is broken down is Labour policy on trains. As a result of privatisation and franchising, there are new standards of service, comfort, reliability and punctuality on the line, affecting the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I should have thought that he would be delighted about that and would be standing up and cheering at the thought that privatisation was galloping to his rescue.

    London Transport
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the amount of money he estimates is required (a) this year and (b) next year for the current programme of work of London Transport. [580]
    Mr. Bowis: This year, London Transport is planning to invest more than £1.1 billion in the network and the Jubilee line extension. I cannot anticipate future funding decisions by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Hughes: Given, as I am sure the Minister would agree, that a well-functioning public transport system in London is a prerequisite not only for London but to the country functioning well, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his Department received the famous "What If' memorandum during the summer holiday, which confirmed that major works on the London underground were urgently needed to ensure that stations were safe, that escalators worked, and so on? Will he assure me that he and his colleagues are doing all in their power to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the best thing he can do for public expenditure on transport in the Budget will be to ensure that we have the money to carry out all necessary works, continue the expansion of London Transport and complete the Jubilee line on time next year?
    Mr. Bowis: The figure that I gave—£1.1 billion for local transport in London under this Government—is in real terms four times what it was in 1979. I believe that that commitment to London's transport is enviable. The hon. Gentleman is right to praise the Jubilee line extension, which will provide many new facilities for his and many other parts of London. London Transport has expressed confidence that the extension will be ready on
    326
    time as planned. Alongside that, the City branch of the Northern line has just reopened, work is coming forward on the Croydon tramlink, orders have been received for new Northern line trains and private finance initiative plans are coming forward for power-supplied electronic ticketing, and so on. Much work is going on in many parts of public transport.
    Documents may have been produced, but to London Transport's management and to me, safety comes first. Safety is the priority. Thereafter, we can look to expand the comfort, reliability and punctuality of our trains. The record is good. Of course, at this time of year we all send letters to Father Christmas, but sometimes they go to Santa Ken as well.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Did my hon. Friend see press reports a few weeks ago suggesting that some stations were a serious danger to passengers and were unsafe? Does he agree that it looks as though such reports were a means of trying to press the Exchequer for more money for work on those stations? Will he confirm that no station in London, including Northolt in my constituency, which was one of those named, will be allowed to be used if it is not completely safe for passengers?
    Mr. Bowis: Of course it is true that London Underground management have the responsibility for ensuring that services and stations are safe. It is up to them to take immediate action if it is thought that anything is proving unsafe for the travelling public or, indeed, the staff working on our London Transport railways and bus systems.
    The alleged report to which my hon. Friend referred is the same document to which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred, and I make the same point. If a safety item is identified in the very large sum of money that is available for London Transport's purposes—concerning both the Jubilee line extension and its core needs—it will be a priority.

    Aircraft Noise (Heathrow)
    Mr. Jessel: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he intends to take to reduce aircraft noise around Heathrow. [569]
    Mr. Bowis: On 28 August 1996, the Government announced more stringent noise limits for aircraft taking off from Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, to come into effect on 1 January 1997. Between 1979 and 1992, there was a 77 per cent. reduction in the number of people living around Heathrow exposed to levels of aircraft noise likely to cause annoyance. This was achieved despite a 41 per cent. growth in the number of air transport movements. The compulsory phasing out of older, noisier, chapter 2 aircraft by 31 March 2002 is expected to bring further improvements. The United Kingdom played a leading role in securing international agreement to that.
    Mr. Jessel: Although the Government stopped the fifth terminal at Heathrow last time round in 1985—
    Mr. Mellor: 1984.
    Mr. Jessel: 1985—and although they stopped the Heathrow-Gatwick helicopter link and have contained the number of night flights at Heathrow to one in 60, is my hon. Friend aware that there are now more than 1,000 flights every day from Heathrow, that my constituents regard the noise as a pestilence and that they want the noise drastically curtailed?
    Mr. Bowls: My hon. Friend is, as always, a robust defender of his constituents, and rightly so. He will have noted, I believe with pleasure, that as from 1 January next year the decibels permitted will be reduced for daytime flights from 97 to 94 and for night-time flights from 89 to 87. Fines are applicable if aircraft exceed those limits. As of tonight, experiments with alternating runways will take place for night flights, which should help my hon. Friend's constituents in Twickenham.
    Mr. Mackinlay: What about terminal 5?
    Mr. Bowls: Terminal 5 is a question for the planning inquiry, not for me today.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Sitting Hours and Days
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Lord President of the Council how many (a) days and (b) hours the House of Commons has sat in each of the last 10 years. [598]
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The House of Commons has sat for between 83 and 240 days in the past 10 Sessions. I have written to the hon. Gentleman with the full details.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful for that answer. The mischievous question would be, "How many days will we sit this Session and will the Lord President please be precise?", but the serious point is that, although the Minister has been helpful in organising many aspects of our business, two steps remain: first, to end the nonsense of the spillover when we could easily finish all our business in the summer; and, secondly, to ensure that we have reasonable summer holidays, not a huge expanse of summer holiday—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I mean holiday from this place. We could come back and start the new parliamentary year in September, like everybody else who has an annual autumn start.
    Mr. Newton: On the latter part of the question, the House has already spoken for me in resisting the suggestion that the recess is a matter of being on a beach with a bucket. Members of Parliament have many matters to attend to elsewhere in their constituencies.
    On the earlier point, we have just had the shortest spillover for many years. I share the hon. Gentleman's view that having a short spillover and an early start to the new Session, which is what we have achieved this year, is a sensible way to proceed.
    Mr. Rooker: Does the Leader of the House accept that the real issue is the effective use that we make of our time
    328
    in the House? Changes could be made in that respect. I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be responsible for the dates of next summer's recess, but does he agree that it might be a good idea to ensure that the House never sits for more than six weeks at a time, but never goes into recess for longer than six weeks either?
    Mr. Newton: In view of how helpful I have been to the House in recent years on recess dates and the like, I find the hon. Gentleman's introductory remarks a little churlish; however, I understand why he made them.
    On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, he will be aware that it is not long since all those matters were examined by the Select Committee on Sittings of the House and set out in the Jopling report. The Committee looked carefully at a number of options and concluded that a modified pattern, along current lines, would be sensible.

    Procedure Committee Reports
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Lord President of the Council how many reports by the Procedure Committee are awaiting his response. [599]
    Mr. Newton: Taking account of my observations in the debate on procedure, which took place on 11 July, I have made some response to all the reports but one. I hope to respond shortly to the Committee's second report of the last Session on reference to matters subject to injunction.
    Mr. Banks: Notwithstanding the Lord President's comments in the debate of 11 July, is it not advisable to implement the Procedure Committee's recommendation regarding Prime Minister's Question Time and at least try a change this side of the general election rather than after it? We have time on our hands and it seems right that those who may leave the House, either voluntarily or by force, should have the opportunity to say what they really think about changes in procedure. Given that we have creeping presidential government in this country, is it not about time that we organised proper debates in the House involving the Prime Minister and the leaders of the Opposition parties? If the Prime Minister has not got the bottle to face the Leader of the Opposition outside the House during the election campaign, perhaps he could do so in this place. The people of this country are entitled to see what the two leaders would do on a head-to-head basis.
    Mr. Newton: I shall leave aside the latter part of the question, because my right hon. Friend has shown no disinclination to debate with the Leader of the Opposition either during questions or in other ways in the House—as he did only last week.
    As to the hon. Gentleman's point about the Procedure Committee's report, as I said during the July debate—it becomes clearer by the minute—it is easier to see what some people believe is wrong with Prime Minister's questions than to find a solution that is acceptable on both sides of the House. I do not think that this is the time for Parliament to embark on radical change in that respect.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Two weeks ago, you said clearly that you wanted the Committee on Standards and Privileges to examine an issue in a transparent and open manner and the whole House supported you absolutely. Madam Speaker, would it concern you and your office to learn that a Committee member had taken a strong position in the battle between Tiny Rowland and Al-Fayed and had tabled 58 early-day motions on one side of the argument—namely, Mr. Al-Fayed's? In those circumstances, would it be in the interests of the House of Commons for that hon. Member to stand down from the Committee?
Madam Speaker: It is a simple matter. The issue has been referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and it is now for him to make a recommendation to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may recall a debate on private legislation when my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) referred to a practice in this place as a "constitutional outrage". Evidence has been provided since then that a lobbying organisation conducted activities, which were probably perfectly proper at the time, to frustrate legislation introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) designed to curb the promotion of that most deadly addictive drug, tobacco. As the rules have changed in the post-Nolan days, is it not appropriate to reconsider the Bill in Government time?
Madam Speaker: Would that it were a matter for me and that I had the authority to determine what the House considers in Government time. That is a matter for the Government, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

FAMILY LAW
That the Social Security (Adjudication) and Child Support Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 2450) he referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Debate on the Address
  [FOURTH DAY]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 October],
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.—[Sir Norman Fowler.]
  Question again proposed.

  Home Affairs
  3.32 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): Madam Speaker, my first priority as Home Secretary has always been to protect the public and to build a safer Britain. The legislation in the Gracious Speech adds up to the most radical attack on crime this century. It will build on the progress that we have made in every area to tackle crime more effectively. There will be five Home Office Bills in this Session of Parliament and each and every one of them has one simple aim: to protect the public.
  The tragic events at Dunblane highlighted the need for radical reform of our firearms legislation. I intend to introduce a Firearms (Amendment) Bill this week to achieve that reform. With the co-operation of all parties, I hope that it will be law by Christmas.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: The Home Secretary will know that the tragic events that occurred at Dunblane have greatly motivated public opinion on handguns. Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that there is a real need for the House properly to express its view on the matter? That would best be done if Conservative Members were accorded a free vote.
  Mr. Howard: I do not accept that view. One of the most important considerations that the House should bear in mind as it approaches the proposed legislation to which I have referred is the need to get it on to the statute book as quickly as possible. It may help the people of Dunblane to draw a line under the dreadful experiences to which they have been subjected, and to put those matters behind them, if we bring the matter to a close in the House as soon as possible. I do not think that a free vote would assist in achieving that objective.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain a little further why getting such a measure on to the statute book quickly will help the people of Dunblane? It seems highly unlikely that such a horrible incident is likely to occur anywhere near the people of Dunblane in the foreseeable future. Are not they as concerned as anyone else that we should proceed in a careful and orderly way, and not in a hurry?
  Mr. Howard: With respect to my hon. Friend, I think that it will be possible to examine the proposed legislation

  331
  in a careful and orderly way and with expedition. It is important to get such legislation on to the statute book as quickly as possible, and that is not inconsistent with examining it carefully. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be one of those Members who will ensure that we do indeed examine it carefully.
  Mr. Terry Lewis: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall make some progress.
  The proposed Bill will ban all handguns from the home. It will outlaw higher-calibre handguns of the sort used by Thomas Hamilton altogether, and it will ensure that all other handguns are kept under safe lock and key at all times. The Bill will lead to the destruction of at least 160,000 handguns—80 per cent. of those legally held in Britain.
  I know that some hon. Members believe that we should go further and ban all handguns completely, but I believe that we can both provide protection for the public and allow target shooting with low-calibre handguns—which has always been an Olympic sport—to continue in the security of clubs. Indeed, I believe that banning all handguns might drive some target shooters underground. That might well mean that the public had less protection than will be afforded by my proposals.
  Clubs that cannot meet the new security arrangements will have to close. We will also ban the sale of guns through the post, narrow the grounds on which applicants can appeal on being refused a licence and outlaw expanding bullets except for the shooting of deer.
  Mr. John Carlisle: My right hon. and learned Friend will understand that there is a large lobby outside the House—innocent people who enjoy the sport of shooting—that entirely disagrees with the line that he has taken. It took six weeks to produce Lord Cullen's report. It is a comprehensive report, as my right hon. and learned Friend knows, because he, like me, has read it. Yet he has decided almost to ignore the report's conclusions. The report does not state at any point that all handguns, or the categories that my right hon. and learned Friend has put forward, should be banned. Why has he gone beyond the report? Why did he not stick to the report? Or is there some deep political motive of which my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are not aware?
  Mr. Howard: I understand the feelings of those members of the community to whom my hon. Friend has referred. He is right to say that the vast majority of them are decent, law-abiding citizens. I accept that. I do not agree, however, that the conclusion that the Government have reached ignores the conclusions of the Cullen report. We have carefully examined the report. We have carefully taken into account Lord Cullen's analysis and his conclusions. We disagree in some respects with his conclusions, but that does not mean that we have ignored them. On the contrary, we have given them the most careful attention.
  Our proposals are clear and consistent. We promised to await the outcome of the Cullen inquiry, and we did. We promised to act speedily and positively after we received
  332
  his report, and we have. Contrast that with the reaction of the Opposition parties. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) stressed in September—.
  Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Howard: No. I am not giving way to my hon. Friend.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn stressed in September that Labour would not make final decisions about gun control until it had
  "received and studied the conclusions of Lord Cullen's Inquiry".
  That message somehow failed to reach the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). He was telling his constituents:
  "We support a ban on the holding of handguns in residential property. People such as yourself,"
  he said to one of his constituents—
  "will still be able to own handguns but they must be kept safely under lock and key at properly run centres".
  But, to be fair, the hon. Gentleman was just following the policy set down by the Opposition spokesman on rural affairs. In a letter to the Shooting Times and Country Magazine published on 3 October, the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said:
  "We do think that handguns should be limited to the Olympic Standard of .22 calibre and we do think there is an argument for handguns to be kept in secure storage and under supervision at clubs".
  He went on to explain that claims that Labour supported more "draconian" measures were a figment of the "hysterical imagination" of the Shooting Times and Country Magazine.
  They were all wrong. The day before Lord Cullen's report was published, the Leader of the Opposition pulled the rug from under their feet. He rewrote Labour's policy. He let it be known without, apparently, telling his party's home affairs spokesman that Labour would ban all handguns. So much for waiting for Cullen. So much for studying his conclusions. So much for allowing people to keep lower calibre handguns under lock and key in clubs. The draconian measures described by Labour's rural affairs spokesman as a figment of people's imagination are now official Labour party policy.
  Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Howard: I give way to the hon. Member for Workington.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: If that is the case, it is quite clear that there are varying views across the Commons on these matters. Why not have a free vote? Then Conservative Members will be able to walk into the Lobbies quite freely and vote as we intend.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's repetition of the question that I answered earlier does not improve the question, and I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave earlier.

  333
  The Liberal Democrats have been just as hypocritical. At their party conference, they voted for a motion that endorsed the policies in the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. Two weeks later, their spokesman, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), said:
  "The Government's proposals have much common ground with our proposals to the Cullen inquiry…we are prepared to support and facilitate legislation based on those proposals"—[Official Report, 16 October 1996; Vol. 282, c. 836.]
  Last week, the Liberal Democrats said that they would vote against the Bill. Once again, the gulf between the sanctimonious platitudes of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and the squalid manoeuvring of his party is shown to be as wide as Westminster bridge.
  Mr. A. J. Beith rose—
  Mr. Howard: I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Beith: We have never said that we would vote against the Bill. The issue, as I said when the Government's proposals were announced, was whether the Government's proposals for an 80 per cent. ban would prove adequate and workable. As the Police Federation has said that they are not, the Home Secretary should not be surprised that we take some lead from what the police say on this matter. Can he name any organisation, from either side of the argument, which thinks that the Government's proposals are satisfactory?
  Mr. Howard: There have been many reactions in support of the Government's proposals. Many people think that our proposals get this difficult balance right. The right hon. Gentleman has not seriously answered the question why the proposed legislation, which corresponds to the measures that he put to Lord Cullen, which he welcomed when I announced them on the Floor of the House less than a couple of weeks ago, are now proposals that his party is not prepared to support.
  Mr. George Robertson: This subject deserves a more serious and high-minded contribution than we have had so far. The Home Secretary is making much—unnecessarily, I think—of when decisions were made. The Government did not show us the Cullen report until a few hours before it was published and announced to the House, yet every heavy Sunday newspaper on 13 October, the day before the Government received Lord Cullen's report, ran almost identical stories saying that, irrespective of Lord Cullen's recommendations, the Government's response would be to ban handguns from the home. The Home Secretary surprisingly said that he did not know who had told the Sunday newspapers. Will he now tell the House that he has no evidence to suggest that anyone close to him or acting on his behalf told those Sunday newspapers exactly the same story?
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman and his party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will answer the question: I am dealing with the hon. Gentleman's initial observations. He and his colleagues are the last people to talk about taking a high-minded and serious approach to the proposals.
  334
  I have no idea where the stories in the Sunday newspapers came from: they were all wrong. The hon. Gentleman must know that they were completely wrong. They would hardly have come from the Home Office or from me, because they were all, without exception, absolutely wrong, and did not accurately forecast the Government's response to the Cullen report.
  Mr. Budgen rose—
  Mr. Donald Anderson rose—
  Mr. Howard: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), and then I shall move on.
  Mr. Anderson: Will the Home Secretary answer a serious question about compensation? When a private interest yields to a public interest, the usual pattern is that the private interest is properly compensated. A legitimate shooting establishment in my constituency will be made non-viable as a result of the likely measure. What assurances will the Home Secretary give that private interest that it will receive compensation according to normal principles?
  Mr. Howard: We shall, indeed, follow normal principles. People whose guns will be banned under our proposals will be compensated for their loss, and that is as it should be. It is not in accordance with normal principles for those whose business interests are affected by tighter regulation and legislation automatically to be compensated for the consequences of that change. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall follow normal practice. Our measures will be strictly in accordance with precedent and with our obligations under national and international legislation.
  Mr. Budgen rose—
  Mr. Lewis rose—
  Mr. Edward Leiw rose—
  Mr. Howard: I have already given way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), so I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh).
  Mr. Leigh: My right hon. and learned Friend answered that question very well. However, does he accept that, as a matter of honour, a Conservative Government would take the view that if a lawfully held private possession were confiscated by the state, the Government would pay the full market price to compensate the individual concerned?
  Mr. Howard: Yes. I have already said that people who now lawfully hold guns that will not be lawfully held under our proposals will be compensated at market value. I am happy to repeat that assurance to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. David Mell rose—
  Mr. Howard: I shall give way for the last time during this part of my speech.
  Mr. Mellor: How would my right hon. and learned Friend feel if people who received compensation for handing in their higher calibre guns immediately invested in .22 guns?
  Mr. Howard: If the Government's proposals find their way to the statute book, that will be perfectly legitimate

  335
  and will be a matter for individuals. We propose that the use of .22 calibre guns should be limited to stringently secure conditions in clubs under security arrangements about which we shall consult the police and others. No sensible comparison can be made between those who now use higher-calibre weapons in different circumstances, and those who will use .22 calibre weapons in the strictly controlled circumstances that our legislation will create.
  I shall now consider the Police Bill. The Government are determined to ensure that the police have the resources and the powers that they need to fight crime. Spending on the police has doubled since 1979, even after allowing for inflation. The police are having considerable success in combating crime. Thanks to their efforts, recorded crime has fallen by 10 per cent. in the past three years: there have been more than 500,000 fewer crimes. Between 1993 and 1995, England and Wales showed the greatest fall in recorded crime of any OECD country for which figures are available. But there is more to be done. Organised crime is an increasing threat, and as a result of last Session's Security Service Act 1996, which came into force this month, the Security Service is able to work in support of the police and Customs and Excise in tackling serious crime.
  Criminals do not respect police force boundaries and often travel long distances to commit crime. The Police Bill will establish a national crime squad to build on the existing regional crime squads. This will not be a British FBI nor will it become one. Policing will remain locally based, but that squad will provide an improved, nationally co-ordinated approach to organised crime. The Bill will also put the National Criminal Intelligence Service on a statutory footing—reinforcing its leading role in gathering intelligence for the police and others.
  In addition, the Police Bill will create a criminal records agency. Access to criminals' records raises important issues. On the one hand we must do what we can to rehabilitate offenders, to help them find work and to keep them on the strait and narrow. But we must also ensure that the public are protected, particularly the most vulnerable in society—our children. All those who work on a regular unsupervised basis with children—among others—will be eligible for an enhanced criminal record check which will include both conviction and non-conviction material. In addition, all doctors and teachers will be eligible for a full check which will list all convictions and cautions centrally held. These are difficult issues, but I believe that our proposals strike a fair balance between the rights of individuals and the need to protect the public.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Can the Home Secretary confirm a newspaper report which suggests that section 9 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 about bugging may be lifted? I have no objection to that in principle, provided that there is full disclosure about the how the bug was placed, what resulted from it and how the evidence has been used since then.
  Mr. Howard: I can neither confirm nor deny that report. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for a possible decision on that question to be announced. I am sure that if such a decision is announced the caveat that the hon. Gentleman has entered will be considered carefully.
  336
  Sex offenders pose a particular danger because many of them are highly manipulative and likely to reoffend. To help protect the public the Police Superintendents Association last year called for a register of paedophiles. We have consulted widely and concluded that serious sex offenders, not just paedophiles, should be required to notify the police of their address and any subsequent moves. They will also be required to notify the police of any change of name. These proposals will enable the police to keep tabs on such criminals and help to protect the public from their activities.
  In the past year a number of widely publicised stalking cases have come to court. The current law does not give the victims of this dreadful crime the protection they deserve. The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) raised this issue earlier in the year with her private Member's Bill, but there had been no consultation on those proposals and the Bill had significant deficiencies.
  As Evonne von Heussen of the National Anti-Stalking and Harassment Campaign said:
  "A had Bill is worse than no Bill…and her proposals"—
  referring to the proposals by the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen—
  "were not precise enough. You have to be able to defend legitimate activities such as debt collecting against the stalking charge".
  Our proposals have been the subject of wide consultation. They are tough and they will help to protect victims. They focus on the impact on the victim and they do not require proof of intent. Victims would have several remedies open to them. They would be able to seek a civil injunction against someone who was molesting them and a breach of that order would be a criminal offence punishable by up to five years in prison. We shall create two new criminal offences, which I shall explain to the House after I have given way to the hon. Lady.
  Ms Janet Anderson: Why does the Home Secretary feel that it would not have been possible in a Standing Committee to iron out any differences between us on the contents of my Bill?
  Mr. Howard: It is because there was no time and there would not have been full and proper consultation. Those who criticise the Government for our attitude to the hon. Lady's Bill are the first to criticise us for rushing into legislation without proper consultation hasty and ill-considered proposals. We have published a consultation paper that sets out in great detail the basis of our proposals. We invited comments on that paper. We have modified our proposals in the light of that consultation exercise. As a result of the consultative exercise, we are now in a position to introduce legislation that is substantially better and more effective than the hon. Lady's Bill. That is the right way to approach difficult legislation, when definitions are of the essence. That was our approach and it is the right one. I hope that the hon. Lady and her friends will give our proposals full support.
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: Why did the Home Secretary think that the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) was not appropriate because time was not available? Why, when a longer time was available, did he think that a private Member's Bill was appropriate for his current

  337
  proposals, until the Prime Minister stepped in? Why did the Home Secretary think that my hon. Friend's Bill was not the appropriate Bill?
  Mr. Howard: I have just answered that question, if the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said. The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen introduced her Bill at a late stage in the previous Session. There was no time to engage in the sort of consultation exercise in which we have since engaged. That was why we could not do it in the previous Session.
  Sir Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Howard: I will in a moment, if my hon. Friend will bear with me while I answer the question of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe). In this Session, we thought that the speediest way forward would be through a private Member's Bill, until we received the offer in the House last week from the Leader of the Opposition. In that context, it is right that I should draw to the House's attention a most worrying communication that my right hon. Friend the Captain of the Hon. Corps of Gentlemen at Arms has received from the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip in another place. It shows that that party looks as though it is likely to obstruct the passage of that legislation and go contrary to the assurances of the Leader of the Opposition in the House last week. A passage from the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip's letter says:
  "We favour the principles behind both measures but we will insist on full debates in the normal timescale provided in the Companion to Standing Orders. We would resist any suggestion that the timescale should be abbreviated in any way whatever."
  So it looks as though the best intentions, I am prepared to accept, of the Leader of the Opposition and of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may yet be endangered by the party political manoeuvrings of the Liberal Democrats in another place.
  Mr. Beith rose—
  Mr. Howard: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman wishes to disown the Chief Whip of his party in another place. I hope that that is exactly what he will do.
  Mr. Beith: I rise merely to confirm the assurance that we gave that we will support and assist the passage of these Bills, but it is unusual for the Home Secretary to conduct on the Floor of the House the sort of discussions that go on in another place to ensure that, if this House does not have the details of the Bill right when it reaches the other place, it will sort the Bill out. To assist the matter, will the Home Secretary guarantee that he will introduce no amendments to the Bill in the other place?
  Mr. Howard: That fell some way short of the sort of assurance that we might have expected from the right hon. Gentleman and his party, if they were determined to co-operate to get the legislation through as quickly as possible on the fast track promised by the Leader of the Opposition last week.
  Sir Michael Shersby: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that I first tabled an amendment to provide for a law to deal with stalking during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994? Does he further agree that the difficulties that were explained then by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, made it clear beyond any shadow of doubt that, before this sort of legislation could be introduced, it had to have the most careful consultation and consideration, including representations from organisations such as Liberty?
  Mr. Howard: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We pay careful attention to the representations that have been made, both by Liberty and police associations, and they have all contributed to the fact that the legislation, which we hope to introduce shortly, will be in such excellent shape.
  The first criminal offence is to catch persons who behave on more than one occasion in a way that causes the victim to believe that immediate violence would be used against them, and the maximum penalty would be five years in prison. The second offence is to catch persons who behave persistently in a way that causes someone to be distressed, alarmed or harassed. The maximum penalty would be six months in prison. Those proposals will also help to protect the victims of racial harassment and nuisance from neighbours.
  Ms Liz Lynne: As to paedophilia, why is there no Bill in Government time on sex tourism, to prosecute men in particular who engage in sexual acts with children in other countries?
  Mr. Howard: A similar private Member's Bill made excellent progress through the House in the last Session and is now on the statute book—and was none the worse for taking that route. However, we will take the hon. Lady's comment on board when we make our final decisions about the way in which our proposals will be taken through the House.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Howard: No.
  The centrepiece of our legislation will be the Crime (Sentences) Bill. The proposals that it contains have one simple aim—to protect the public from serious persistent and dangerous criminals. The police have revolutionised the way in which they fight crime. They are increasingly targeting persistent and known criminals who commit the majority of crime. About two thirds of crimes are committed by a hard core—one fifth or so—of offenders. Operation Bumblebee and Operation Christmas Cracker are testament to the success of the police.
  We need to ensure that the criminal justice system targets also the career criminal. Our proposals will do just that. They represent the most radical reforms to our sentencing system this century.
  For serious sexual and violent criminals, the maximum penalty for crimes such as armed robbery and rape is a life sentence. Such offenders rarely get life, even if they offend again. In 1994, 217 offenders were convicted of a second or subsequent serious sexual or violent crime.

  339
  All 217 offenders could have been given a life sentence but only 10 were. Unless such offenders are given life, they must be released even if they remain a danger to the public. That cannot be right. It does not give the public the protection that they deserve.
  Two months ago, for example, a rapist was sentenced to life at Chelmsford Crown court. He was described by the judge as "verging on the satanic" and had been convicted of rape before, not once but twice. One of his victims was a nine-year-old girl. Because that rapist was not given a life sentence, he had to be released—released to rape again. He did. That is something that should never happen.
  The Crime (Sentences) Bill will ensure that second-time serious violent and sexual offenders get a life sentence. In such cases the trial judge will set the tariff—the minimum period to be served for retribution and deterrence. Once that term has been served, the parole board will decide whether the offender still poses a danger to the public. If he does, he will remain in prison. If he does not, he will be released on life licence and subject to recall for the rest of his life. The Association of Chief Police Officers, supporting my proposals when I announced them in 1995, said:
  "The public have a right to be protected."
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Lord Justice Donaldson has been quoted as saying that he disagreed with that particular issue. My understanding is that a judge could say, in exceptional circumstances, that a second life sentence should not be imposed. Will my right hon. and learned Friend clarify that point?
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right, as I was about to explain.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn likes to pretend that he supports that policy, but there are fundamental differences between us. The hon. Gentleman does not, despite his strenuous efforts to give the opposite impression, support automatic life sentence for second-time rapists and other serious sexual offenders Under his proposals, those offenders—once judged safe to be released—could not be recalled back to prison. In addition, his proposal would not cover repeat violent offenders. As the hon. Gentleman explained in his document, "Honesty, Consistency and Progression in Sentencing",
  "Offences of a sexual nature should be distinguished from other violent offences."
  The Opposition think that the public do not need greater protection from those who conspire to commit murder or from armed robbers. Despite all the synthetic fuss that they are presently making about knives, they argued against giving the police greater stop and search powers to deal with those who carry knives on our streets and they now oppose automatic life sentences for those who twice use knives to inflict serious injury on others.
  Mr. George Foulkes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howard: Yes. I am not surprised that the Opposition do not like to be reminded of the effect of their policies.
  Mr. Foulkes: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is great disappointment throughout the
  340
  country that he has not seen fit to introduce a measure to ban combat knives, on the spurious excuse that he cannot tell combat knives from household knives? Has he ever seen a combat knife? It is one of the most horrific and easily identifiable knives that he will ever see.
  Mr. Howard: However much the hon. Gentleman and his party may pretend otherwise, the truth is that we have not been able to come up with a satisfactory definition of a combat knife.
  Mr. Foulkes: Rubbish.
  Mr. Howard: It is not. The Association of Chief Police Officers agrees with us, as do the Scottish Police Federation and the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales. We have been working with the police for some time to try to come up with a satisfactory definition. ACPO has said, and the other associations agree, that it is not possible to do so without at the same time banning lawful knives.
  Mr. Jack Straw: On Independent Television News at lunchtime, a representative of the Police Superintendents Association said:
  "If they can get a man on the moon, I am sure they can come to a definition of a combat knife."
  Does not the Secretary of State think that there is a palpable difference, which can be defined in law, between a kitchen knife and the sort of knife advertised in the magazine Gun and Accessories Mart as:
  "Special operation knife, ¼" stock, 12" overall. 145 lbs",
  which has no purpose whatever other than killing or maiming people? It should be banned.
  Mr. Howard: ACPO, in a letter dated 9 May—[Interruption.] We have been looking at the issue, together with ACPO, for some time. The letter said:
  "I should first say that we agree with you on the impossibility of defining an undesirable dangerous knife without also catching other knives which should not be banned. We can all sympathise with the public view that certain types of hunting knives should not he on sale, but their definition would he difficult and the benefit dubious if carving and other catering knives are to remain available."
  The Police Superintendents Association, to which the hon. Member for Blackburn referred, issued a press release this afternoon saying:
  "The Association's views do not differ from our colleagues in the Police Service and mirror those of the Home Secretary."
  The truth is that the Opposition were invited last week by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to put forward any suggestions that they might have, but what was their response? They came forward not with a suggested definition, but with a petition. What we need are definitions, not petitions, and rather less of the trivialising gesture politics in which the hon. Member for Blackburn and his party indulge.
  Mr. Straw: Would the Home Secretary like to read on? The national secretary of the Police Superintendents Association says in today's statement:
  "We believe that both the Home Secretary, Michael Howard, and the Shadow Home Secretary, Jack Straw, have the same ambition to deal with so-called 'combat knives'."

  341
  I hope that that is true. The statement goes on:
  "It is up to those concerned now to see if such a definition can be agreed and to support any measures proposed by the Government as a result."
  It was the same representative of the association who, at lunch time, asserted on ITN that it was possible to distinguish between a kitchen knife and a combat knife—and it is.
  Mr. Howard: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is casting any aspersions on the credibility or veracity of the secretary of the Police Superintendents Association. I read what the association's press release said—that its views mirror my own. Of course I would like to ban combat knives if we could come up with a satisfactory definition—we have been trying to come up with one for a considerable period of time. If the hon. Gentleman has any suggestions, I will consider them carefully—but we need specific suggestions for a definition, not party politics built on petitions.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I agree very much with my right hon. and learned Friend about kitchen knives and so forth. I am a keen cook—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) appears to be amused; I remind him that I was the country's No. 1 housewife in 1960. It would be difficult to define the knives in my kitchen. I do not believe that my right hon. and learned Friend saw the kitchen knife displayed by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), but the only thing that that proved is that his wife has never let him into the kitchen—no one would regard that as an eligible kitchen knife.
  Mr. Howard: I have never had the privilege of being invited into my hon. Friend's kitchen, but I am certain that she would not give kitchen room to the knife that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) played with during his absurd shenanigans in front of the television cameras on Friday.
  I want to draw attention to the real reason why the Labour party has engaged in this entirely synthetic fuss about knives. Three Labour Members rose to intervene during the part of my speech in which I pointed out the fact that Labour has no proposals to deal with second serious violent offenders. That is a diversionary tactic designed to divert attention from the extremely important proposals that I shall explain to the House.
  Mr. Alan Howarth rose—
  Mr. Howard: It always gives me great pleasure to give way to and deal with the interventions of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), so I am delighted to give way to him now.
  Mr. Howarth: There is a pressing and urgent problem in respect of knives, and it is fatuous of the Home Secretary to contemplate some kind of endless Socratic dialogue in which we attempt to define a knife0that is, of course, impossible. He must accept, however, that any police officer, magistrate or judge can recognise the sort
  342
  of knife that is designed for violence. Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's difficulty0which I can well understand in view of his uncomfortable experiences at their hands—that he is prejudiced against allowing the judges any more discretion? Because of that prejudice, he is prepared to allow the knife culture to fester and citizens to remain at risk of being injured or killed.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is absurd. Everybody, including the police, agrees that a definition is needed before those knives can be banned. I understand that even the hon. Member for Blackburn agrees with that. We have welcomed co-operation in trying to find a definition, but it is not an easy task.
  Mr. Alun Michael: You have not.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that we have not invited co-operation. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote a letter in which he specifically invited co-operation. He said that, if Labour Members were able to suggest a definition, we would be happy to sit down with them and discuss it. That remains our position.
  Mr. Clive Soley rose—
  Mr. Michael: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), but I shall not allow Labour Members to continue to divert attention from the serious matters that I was addressing in my speech.
  Mr. Soley: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way at last. There are several proposals, some of which have been around since at least 1985, when I put one to one of his predecessors. It was seriously considered then and should be considered again now. A sub-committee should be set up in the Home Office to consider imitation guns and knives, and to make recommendations on them. Using the statutory instrument procedure, certain types of knives should be designated unacceptable for sale or production. If we can ensure that it is impossible even to look through the window of bookmakers' shops, the Home Secretary can ensure that knives are not displayed so that some young lad with a fantasy of violence can look in a window and see how much it would cost to turn his fantasy into horrific reality
  Mr. Howard: There is no difficulty about the procedure. The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the statutory instrument procedure. We have used it in order to ban 14 knives and sharp instruments. We are not reluctant to use it. That is why 1 have said repeatedly that as soon as we have a definition—if such can be produced—of a combat knife, we shall not hesitate to use the procedure that we have used in the past. I have no hang-up about using it; I would be delighted to do so. The only difficulty is the purely practical one of finding a workable definition.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that he and I considered carefully how to deal with that very problem when I was preparing for my own knives Bill—the Offensive Weapons Bill? Does he agree that one of the

  343
  problems is that a combat knife could be outlawed, but the same weapon could then be described as a diving knife or some other kind of knife? It is easy for the House to apply glib descriptions to an acutely difficult problem.
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. If my recollection is correct, it was in the context of her private Member's Bill in the previous Session that we engaged in consultation with the police staff associations, which produced the letter from the Association of Chief Police Officers to which I referred earlier.
  I return to the Opposition's proposals for dealing with serious violent offenders and the ways in which those proposals differ from ours. Their proposals will not deal with someone convicted of armed robbery who serves his sentence, is released and subsequently commits rape. But Labour have a record on the matter: eight years ago the hon. Member for Blackburn and the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) voted against increasing to life imprisonment the maximum sentence for taking a gun to a crime. Now they refuse to support the proposal that criminals who do that twice should get an automatic life sentence, despite the dangers that those criminals pose to the public and the police. Old Labour, new Labour, it all comes to the same thing: a serious violent offender can rely on Labour to protect him.
  Mr. Straw rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. There are two Members standing at once. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to intervene, he might let it be known not only to the Secretary of State but to me, rather than simply standing at the Dispatch Box. Is the Secretary of State giving way?
  Mr. Howard indicated assent.
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, and to the Secretary of State. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that we adopted that position in 1988 not only because of firm advice that we had received from the Police Federation that the proposal was likely to be inoperable, but because, perhaps unwisely, we took the advice of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who said of the proposal for life imprisonment for carrying firearms that it was
  "another con on the public."—[Official Report, 18 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 711.]
  Mr. Howard: The proposal was not and is not a con on the public. The hon. Gentleman's comments do not go an inch of the way towards explaining Labour's present position on the proposals contained in the Crime (Sentences) Bill.
  I turn to the subject of drugs. Drugs devastate lives, often young people's lives. A recent sample showed that the average sentence for a third conviction for dealing in hard drugs was just over four years. People subject to such a sentence would often be out after two years. That does not remotely give the public the protection that they deserve. The Crime (Sentences) Bill will ensure that anyone convicted of dealing in hard drugs on three separate occasions would get a minimum of seven years in prison, and the maximum would remain life.
  344
  House burglary is another dreadful crime. Victims lose treasured personal possessions. The sanctity of their memories, as well as their homes, is violated. Persistent domestic burglars deserve long prison sentences, but they rarely get them.
  Mr. Beith rose—
  Mr. Howard: I must make progress.
  A sample of the most serious domestic burglars convicted in the Crown courts in 1993 and 1994 showed that the average prison sentence for a first-time offender was 16.2 months. After three or more convictions, it was 18.9 months, and after seven or more convictions it was barely higher, at 19.4 months—and, of course, only half of that is served.
  Those sentences do not deter career burglars, for whom the occasional short spell in prison has become an acceptable occupational hazard. The Crime (Sentences) Bill will ensure that career burglars spend a minimum of three years behind bars. Such sentences will, I believe, deter many burglars altogether. Others will not be deterred, but at least the public will have a lengthy break from their criminal activities. As the chairman of the Police Federation has said:
  "People whose homes have been desecrated by intruders will applaud the automatic sentences in store for persistent burglars."
  Mr. Beith: As the proposals will require the construction of perhaps as many as 12 new prisons, will the Home Secretary give us an idea of when they will be brought into force?
  Mr. Howard: I gave that estimate in the White Paper, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has seen. The provisions for automatic life sentences and mandatory minimum sentences for those who traffic in hard drugs for a third time will, I hope, be brought into force in October next year. I hope that the provisions for honesty in sentencing, which I have yet to explain, and for minimum mandatory sentences for career burglars will come into force in 1999.
  The White Paper, which I published in April, made it clear that the courts would have the discretion not to impose minimum sentences in exceptional circumstances. The Bill provides them with that discretion. The White Paper also made it clear that we were considering a discount for guilty pleas. For professional house burglars and dealers in hard drugs, the Bill will enable the courts to take up to 20 per cent. off the minimum sentence for guilty pleas. Such a provision is, of course, not necessary for automatic life sentences for second time serious sexual or violent offenders, because judges will be able to take into account a guilty plea when setting the tariff.
  Fourthly, there is honesty in sentencing. Automatic early release from prison enrages victims. The former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor, strongly disagrees with many of my proposals, but he made it clear that the current early release arrangements
  "have the appearance of a charade".
  The fact is that the majority of prisoners are released after serving only half their sentence. The Crime (Sentences) Bill will abolish automatic early release. Instead, prisoners who co-operate and behave well will be able to earn a small discount—20 per cent.—off their

  345
  sentence, creating an incentive for them to behave well. All those sentenced to more than a year will, on release, be supervised in the community for 15 per cent. of their original sentence. These proposals will ensure that the most dangerous criminals spend the longest under supervision. In addition, all sex offenders will be subject to extended supervision of 50 per cent. of their sentence, or 12 months, whichever is the longer. The courts will have the power to increase the period up to a maximum of 10 years.
  Those are the main provisions in the Crime (Sentences) Bill. The Liberal Democrats are clear that they oppose them. They believe that current sentencing practice is adequate for persistent and dangerous criminals. They are entitled to that opinion. We at least know where they stand.
  Labour has been less forthcoming. The hon. Member for Blackburn said that he would say whether his party would support the Bill when he saw it. But on Friday, having seen the Bill, he consistently refused to tell the BBC lunchtime news how his party would vote. Labour's position is untenable. The hon. Member for Blackburn has complained that my proposals raise "important issues of justice" and that they would lead to
  "sentencing becoming arbitrary, taking insufficient account of the full circumstances of the offences and the offender".
  On 19 June—two months after I published the details of my proposals—the Labour party and its leader voted against them. That at least was logical. Apparently, Labour now argue that my position has changed. My position has not changed. The proposals in the Crime (Sentences) Bill are those set out in the White Paper in April—the very proposals that the Opposition attacked as unjust and voted against on that basis.
  Yet over the past few days, Labour spin doctors have been working overtime. They have had two objectives. The first is to create a myth that my original sentencing proposals have been ditched. That is not the view of my critics in another place. More important—as I have already explained—it is completely untrue. Secondly, they seek to create the headline "Labour supports tough sentencing" when it does nothing of the kind.
  The hon. Gentleman's proposals would leave it up to the Court of Appeal. There would be no guarantee whatever that the present pattern of sentencing for persistent house burglars and dealers in hard drugs would change at all. My proposals would provide that guarantee. If Opposition Members want the credit for supporting tough action, let them earn it. There should be no abstentions and no weasel words in reasoned amendments, but clear, unequivocal support. It can be demonstrated in only one way: by voting with us in the Division Lobby.
  The Crime (Sentences) Bill was drafted to meet the need to protect the public. As the president of the Police Superintendents Association said, it is in "the national interest" that it should become law as quickly as possible. Yet Opposition Members complain that it was designed to put them on the spot. They made the very same complaint two years ago when they voted against the Prevention of Terrorism Act as IRA mortars were raining down on Heathrow airport. That complaint tells us all we need to know about the new Labour party. Labour
  346
  Members are put on the spot when they are asked to support tough anti-terrorism powers. They are put on the spot when they are asked to support stiff minimum sentences for career burglars and dealers in hard drugs. They are put on the spot when they are asked to support automatic life sentences for repeat serious sexual and violent offenders.
  The Conservative party is not put on the spot. Our instincts are clear. We understand the importance of protecting the public. The country needs the Bill. It is crying out for the Bill and we are the only party that can be trusted to deliver it.
  Madam Speaker: At this stage, I must announce that all Back Bench speeches are restricted to 10 minutes as there is such a great demand to participate in the debate.
  4.27 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: After that speech, only one person is on the spot—the worst Home Secretary in Britain since the war.
  Let me deal immediately with gun control. Of all the traumatic events in recent history, none has been worse than the killing in Dunblane on 13 March of 16 children and their teacher and the wounding of many others. When similar appalling events have occurred in the past, time has undermined the resolve of Parliament and the people to seek remedial action. Sadly, that was the case after Hungerford, but not after Dunblane. Thanks to the huge courage of the parents and the strength and dignity of the Snowdrop campaign, there is ever-increasing public support for an immediate ban on handguns in general civilian use.
  We shall have a further opportunity to debate the issue on Second Reading of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill in a few weeks' time, but in view of the Home Secretary's opening speech, let me make Labour's position quite clear.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and I, after careful consultation with the Home Affairs Committee and the Scottish group of Labour Members, presented the following report to the Cullen inquiry in May. It stated at paragraph 18:
  "In general, given the lethal nature of handguns, we see a strong case for banning them altogether. The shooting fraternity must make a case for possession and if they can, they must suggest and accept restrictions and costs necessary to prevent such guns for being used for anything other than for target practice."
  At the end, we said:
  "Following discussions with the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland this report has been prepared to set out our initial views to the Cullen Inquiry. We shall of course, carefully consider all the evidence given to the Inquiry and the recommendations which Lord Cullen makes before coming to final conclusions."
  And that is exactly what we did.
  On such a crucial issue, there is of course scope for honest disagreement. I am the first to accept that but, as I did in the statement two weeks ago, I must ask the Secretary of State to think again and reflect on the merits of his decision to allow a fifth of all handguns to remain available for licence.
  Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will lift the veil a little more on the decision-making processes of his party and explain the circumstances in which his hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) came to write a letter to his constituent on 24 September stating very clearly:
  "People such as yourself will still he able to own handguns but they must be kept safely under lock and key at properly run centres."
  Mr. Straw: I have just explained the Labour party's position. I am sorry to have to tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I do not write the constituency letters of my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson).
  Mr. David Harris: Does he write yours?
  Mr. Straw: Nor does he write mine. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition explained, we shall be having a free vote on the issue. If my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool wants to take a different decision from that which some of us will take, it is entirely a matter for him. In our judgment, gun control should be the last issue to be made into an official dispute between the parties. We and the Liberal Democrats have played our part in seeking to take the issue out of party politics by pledging a free vote. It is up to the Government to respond in a similar way.
  Having observed the spectacle of disunity behind the Secretary of State while he was speaking, there can be only one reason why he and the Prime Minister are sticking to the decision not to allow a free vote: the Secretary of State is scared of the result of allowing Conservative Members to follow their own judgment on the issue. I must ask the Secretary of State to think carefully about the consequences of turning the issue into a partisan one, for it cannot then be resolved as a result of votes on the Firearms (Amendment) Bill and will end up following us through into the general election.
  Mr. John Carlisle: We have noted that the hon. Gentleman does not want the issue to become party political. On that basis, perhaps he will tell the House whether his party invited Mrs. Ann Pearston of the Snowdrop campaign to address its conference or whether it just so happened that she was passing the door at the time and was invited in. Was she invited by the Labour party to address the conference or not? If she was, is that not taking the issue right into the party-political process?
  Mr. Straw: Mrs. Pearston was a Conservative voter and we invited her without knowing anything about her party politics. She has made it clear that she would very readily have accepted an invitation to speak at the Conservative party conference as well. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman was slightly more measured in his tone than he was a couple of weeks ago when, with a quite deplorable lack of taste, he accused the Dunblane parents of being hysterical and emotional. Had I been in the position of the Dunblane parents, I would have been hysterical and very emotional indeed. They are also very angry about the lack of a proper response from some Conservative Members to the campaign for effective gun control.
  Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful for the chance to clear up the matter. I said that the people who were getting
  348
  hysterical and emotional were the leaders of the campaign and its spokesmen and spokeswomen. I might say that the enormous postbag that I have had since then endorses that view, which is held by very many people and many, many members of the Labour party. Regrettably, I believe that such emotion takes those leaders and spokeswomen out of the argument. They have approached it in such a hysterical and emotional way, which has no place in the formation of legislation.
  Mr. Straw: If that is so, I hope that the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) will write to the Dunblane parents to apologise and withdraw his appalling words of two weeks ago.
  On the Secretary of State's current position, the more I consider the case for allowing .22 pistols to continue to be licensed, the flimsier I find it. As the Police Federation said, .22 multi-shot pistols are just as lethal, and faster on the draw, than higher-calibre weapons. The only argument advanced by the Secretary of State for not imposing a complete general ban was his fear that a complete ban would
  "drive underground an activity that could then be conducted without any safeguards for security".—[Official Report, 16 October 1996; Vol. 282, c. 835.]
  That would not happen, not least because rifle and shotgun shooting will still be available as alternative lawful sports. Moreover, we should not be blackmailed into such a position by the increasingly shrill and disingenuous arguments of the gun lobby. The Dunblane children could have been killed as easily and swiftly with a .22 pistol as they were with a 9 mm Browning. There must therefore be a complete ban on all handguns in general civilian use.
  Mr. Budgen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I had intended to leave the matter of firearms now as we shall return to it under the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene I will accept his intervention.
  Mr. Budgen: Is it not a question of proportionality? Some 1 million firearms are held illegally; we wish to guard against the risk that somebody who holds a handgun in a heavily regulated club might leave it in circumstances such that someone else could pinch it. If regulations on such clubs are efficiently carried out, someone who wants to do a dreadful deed will get hold of an illegally held firearm rather than break into a club. The risk that the hon. Gentleman is guarding against is therefore tiny.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is an issue of proportionality, but he and I obviously disagree about how the public would best be served. I suspect that throughout the Firearms (Amendment) Bill we shall be on different sides of the argument. The most horrific massacres in the past decade have taken place using not illegal but lawful firearms. The Secretary of State's position is logically inconsistent: while he accepts that weapons of a higher calibre than .22 should be banned from general civilian use, he has created a huge loophole by allowing the continued availability of .22 multi-shot and single shot and lower calibre weapons.
  Mr. Mellor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Cullen specifically found that Thomas Hamilton would not have bought weapons on the illicit market had he been unable to obtain weapons legally? Is he also aware that it is precious little consolation to Robert Kennedy and Yitzhak Rabin that they were shot with a .22 calibre weapon?
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman is right on both points. In response to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) about greater control on clubs, he should look at page 121 of the Cullen report, where Lord Cullen quotes in detail the view of the British Shooting Sports Council that, no matter what system of checks and paperwork was in place, somebody like Thomas Hamilton could still withdraw his weapon and use it.
  The major issue before the House today is the Secretary of State's proposals for better control of crime. The Government's record on crime is the worst of any Government of a major western country since the war. In 17 years, crime has doubled. Today, 50,000 crimes will be committed—one every two seconds. Under the Conservative party, violent crimes—those that cause most fear in people—have risen even faster, and street robberies have risen by 400 per cent. since 1979. There is much more crime, but many more criminals are getting away with it. Although the number of crimes has doubled, the number of people convicted or cautioned for those crimes has fallen by almost a tenth. Only one crime in 50 results in a conviction. The Crown Prosecution Service drops far too many cases. Sentencing has become a lottery, witnesses are routinely intimidated and costs have spiralled. Alongside that, people must face not only the fear and reality of specific crimes but the constant, wearing anxiety of disorder in the streets caused by criminal anti-social neighbours, drug dealers and gangs of youths.
  The Government's record is worst on youth crime. In 10 years, the number of youth crimes has risen sharply but the number of young criminals dealt with by the courts or the police for those crimes has fallen by a third. It is no wonder that so many young people believe that they can get away with their crimes when the youth justice system is in serious disarray. Many youngsters do not believe warnings or cautions that further criminal behaviour will lead to serious consequences because, even if they get to court, in more than half the cases another warning follows. The system fails too often to confront young offenders and their families with the consequences of their unacceptable behaviour. It fails too often to impress on young offenders the difference between right and wrong.
  That appalling record on crime is an indelible stain upon the Conservative party. As the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), a former Home Office Minister, said in the summer, the Conservative party is losing the plot on law and order. Having promised more law and better order, the Conservatives have delivered greater lawlessness and more disorder.
  Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman goes too far in what he says. I said that the Conservatives were in danger of losing the plot on the gun control issue; I made no wider comment.
  Mr. Straw: With respect, the right hon. and learned Gentleman did say that. I will read the whole quotation. In The Guardian of 1 August 1996, he said:
  "The Labour party is outflanking us on law and order and there is a serious danger of the Conservative party at all levels losing the plot."
  Faced with the rising tide of crime, the reaction of Conservative Ministers has been to panic. There have been 33 criminal justice Acts in 17 years, 12 in the past four years, more crime Bills since 1979 than in the previous 60 years, and there are five more Bills before the House this Session.
  There would be no objection in principle even to that incontinent torrent of legislation if each Bill had been thought through carefully, if each Bill had built upon the experience of the last and, when it became an Act, if it had worked to cut crime and to improve public safety. Instead, the Government have lurched from one extreme to the other. As one ill-thought-through stratagem failed to work, the Conservatives discarded it for the exact opposite in the arrogant hope that the public would not notice the difference.
  In March this year, the Secretary of State described the present sentencing system as a "mockery and a farce". As ever, the clear implication of his criticism was that that "mockery and farce" had nothing whatever to do with him. However, the system—that "farce and mockery"—is not the creation of some misguided liberal philanthropists of the last century nor or previous Conservative or Labour Governments. The system is just five years old: it is the creation of this Prime Minister and of this Cabinet, of which the Home Secretary is, and was, a leading member.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows that he is being absurd. He must accept that the system of parole and early release dates back a very long time—far beyond the Criminal Justice Act 1991. That Act increased the proportion of the sentence passed by the court which was served by the criminal. It did not go far enough, but it was a step in the right direction.
  Mr. Straw: I am afraid that that will not do, as I shall show that huge parts of the 1996 crime sentencing legislation overturn key parts of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, for which the Home Secretary voted. It is not a matter of the Bill's proposals differing a little in emphasis from the 1991 legislation: one is a total contradiction of the other.
  As the Secretary of State said, under the new Bill an offender's previous convictions will be critical in determining sentence length. However, under the 1991 legislation—for which the Secretary of State voted—the courts were generally banned from taking any account of previous convictions. The then Home Secretary—that well known left-winger, now Lord Waddington—referred to the need to ban courts from considering such convictions. He said:
  "If an offender has already been punished for a previous offence it seems unfair and unjust to punish him twice over by increasing the penalty for a subsequent offence".—[Official Report, 20 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 141.]
  Fixed so-called minimum sentences will now be the cornerstone of the Government's strategy for punishing the guilty. In 1991, the Government explicitly rejected

  351
  fixed minimum sentences on the grounds that they would increase crime. The 1990 White Paper, which preceded the legislation, stated:
  "A system of minimum sentences…could result in more acquittals by juries, with more guilty men and women going free".
  Today the Government propose to trim the discretion of the judiciary because of inconsistency and a lack of progression in sentencing practice. In 1991, Ministers fiercely defended judicial discretion and, when Labour advanced measures to provide for greater consistency and uniformity in sentencing, they dismissed our proposals as unnecessary.
  Mr. Nicholls rose—
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment. The then Home Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), said that our proposals would
  "end up like the experience in the United States".—[Official Report, 20 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 232.]
  He said that they would produce
  "the dead hand of conformity".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 7 February 1991; c. 721.]
  Ministers—including the present Home Secretary and, I suspect, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls)—voted down our proposals for greater consistency and instead voted in favour of unfettered judicial discretion.
  Mr. Nicholls: So that the public can understand the hon. Gentleman's point about inconsistency, does he recall that he and his shadow Cabinet colleagues voted against the proposition that the prosecution should be entitled to appeal against over-lenient sentences? Will he take this opportunity to apologise both to the House and to the public for doing so while pretending that Labour is serious about matters of law and order?
  Mr. Straw: I will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman on our voting record. I have a transcript of the debate that took place on 20 June 1988. In debate on the Criminal Justice Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) introduced a series of proposals to control the sale of knives to those aged under 16 and to control the advertising and marketing of combat knives. The hon. Gentleman, however, together with the Home Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister, voted against them and the Conservative party defeated our proposals. If those proposals had gone through, we would not have the dreadful knife culture that now afflicts this country.
  As I made clear in a detailed document published in March this year, the present sentencing system is not working as it should. The description of sentences amounts, at best, to a benign deception of the public who can be clear neither about what a sentence means nor about when a prisoner is likely to be released. Worse still, the system lacks proper consistency or progression. The punishment that an offender receives may depend more on where the offender is sentenced than on what he or she is sentenced for.
  In the Staffordshire Moorlands magistrates court, one in six defendants convicted of indictable offences receives an immediate sentence of imprisonment. In Maidenhead, Berkshire, the chance is not one in six, but one in 66.
  352
  We now have the bizarre situation where, according to figures that I gave in my paper, the sentence length for repeat house burglars remains the same—at 15 months—whether for a first, second or third conviction. The custodial sentence for dealing in drugs on a third conviction is two months less than on the first.
  We need a sentencing system which operates clearly and transparently, is consistent between courts and is progressively more severe the more persistent or dangerous the criminal behaviour. It is on those aims—on the paramount need to improve public safety—that we shall judge the Crime (Sentences) Bill. The public, especially women and children, must be protected as far as possible from those who have raped and then rape again. Some 21 years ago, an official committee recommended an indeterminate reviewable sentence for such dangerous offenders. The proposal in the present crime Bill for an indeterminate life sentence to be imposed for repeat rapists and other serious sexual offenders, with exceptions, amounts to the same thing— and we support it. The sentence served will of course still be determined by reference to the particular offence and the particular offender.
  Mr. Bermingham: I declare an interest as a practising lawyer. I recognise unreservedly the danger of the repeat rapist, but half the problem has always been that those serving a sentence for rape are not regularly medically assessed to determine whether there are any predilections toward a repeat offence. Would it not be sensible to invest in regular medical assessments for those who are sentenced once—never mind twice—for rape, and to allow those assessments to form part of the view of the parole board in deciding when it is safe to release them?
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend makes an important point and we must consider it carefully. I know from my visits to vulnerable prisoner units that the Prison Service is already doing a good deal to get sexual offenders to confront their offending behaviour. I recall a chilling occasion when I was sitting in a cell with three prisoners who had been convicted of rape and one of them said to me—I think that he was telling the truth—that it had taken him eight years to recognise that it was not he, but the woman whom he had raped, who was the victim. The capacity of such rapists to turn the world upside down and to convince themselves that they are the victims is quite extraordinary.
  Such people are profoundly dangerous. That is why we support the proposal that the decision to release someone convicted of a second serious sexual offence should not be made at the moment of sentencing, but at an appropriate time when it is judged safe to do so. The sentence in such a case will be determined by reference to the particular offence and the particular offender. After the minimum laid down by the trial judge, the parole board will decide on release when, in its opinion, it is safe to do so. There will therefore in practice be nothing fixed or automatic about the length of term served in such cases.
  We support the aim of securing greater transparency or honesty in sentencing. I am concerned, however, that the Home Secretary's proposals could result in serious criminals being released without an assessment of the risk that they pose to the public and that the proposals could reduce the period of supervision in the community after release. That strong, though not irrefutable, case was

  353
  made by the Parole Board. We believe that there may be a means whereby the Home Secretary can achieve the accepted aim of greater honesty in sentencing without scrapping the mechanism developed to protect the public from dangerous criminals after they have served their sentence. We want to pursue that matter in Committee.
  The third proposal in the Crime (Sentences) Bill is for so-called automatic fixed minimum sentences for drug dealers and domestic burglars convicted for a third time. The Home Secretary told us today that he had not changed his position. Who was he trying to kid? When he first announced the plan at the Conservative party conference last year, he said that he had a simple answer to those who offend again and again and again:
  "If you don't want the time, don't do the crime."
  There were to be no exceptions to that rule. The word exceptions did not appear once in his speech to the 1995 conference.
  The Home Secretary knew that his words were good for a headline, but he also knew that they would be hopeless as a policy: a wholly rigid and inflexible sentence to apply in every circumstance was, as he well knew, bound to produce manifest injustice and to lead, as his predecessors had all predicted, to more not guilty pleas and to more guilty people walking free.
  The Home Secretary had to start watering down his proposals. In December, he conceded that there might have to be exceptions to the rule. By April, in a statement to the House, he grudgingly acknowledged that there would have to be exceptions, but said that they would be limited to
  "genuine, very special, exceptional circumstances."—[Official Report, 3 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 394.]
  The Government's White Paper referred to "occasional, quite unforeseeable circumstances".
  Now all those qualifications have been dropped from the Bill and the courts are to be given a much wider discretion not to apply the so-called minimum if they are of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances. As both the prosecution and the defence will be able to challenge the trial judge's definition of exceptional circumstances, the Court of Appeal will quite swiftly lay down detailed guidance on the criteria.
  Next we learned that there would be up to a fifth off the sentence if the defendant pleaded guilty. In addition, for the largest category of criminals concerned—repeat domestic burglars—the provisions would not in practice start to bite until 2001.
  The problem with the Home Secretary's original simple answer is that it was never really simple, just simplistic and naive. His clarion call about time and crime has now become, "If you don't want the time, don't do the crime until 2001 and, by the way, there's 20 per cent. off if you plead guilty and even more discount for exceptional circumstances." We dispute not the Home Secretary's aim—stiffer sentences—but his methods. He has rowed back a long way and we shall examine his proposals with greater care in Committee.
  We support other proposals in the Bill, including the proposals for sensible alternatives to imprisonment for fine defaulters, the substitution of the Parole Board for
  354
  the Home Secretary's discretion on juveniles detained at Her Majesty's pleasure, and a new and long overdue provision for mentally disordered offenders.
  Mr. Howard: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has no proposals for automatic life sentences for second serious violent offences?
  Mr. Straw: I am glad that the Home Secretary asked that. In the past I have spoken of my concern about the breadth of the categories of offences that would trigger that proposal. I have no difficulty at all about those offences of serious violence which result in homicide or about sexual offences, but I have some reservations about the breadth of section 18 wounding. It would be sensible to discuss that matter in Committee, and we shall do that.
  We shall ensure that the Bill receives a Second Reading when it is debated next week. In Committee, we shall scrutinise the detail and try to improve the Bill as a whole. We shall make final decisions on its separate specific elements once they have been fully considered.
  One other measure in the Bill has our whole-hearted support: that relating to the calculation of time spent on remand. One thing that the Home Secretary told the Tory party conference last year has certainly come true: "Release from prison—", he said, "it comes too soon." Those words were ringing in the ears of 541 hardened criminals as they walked free in August, months—in some cases years—before their sentences should have come to an end. There are few better illustrations than that bizarre spectacle of the chaotic way in which the Home Secretary has administered the Prison Service. Clarification of the law is long overdue, and we shall secure it.
  The legislative programme is as significant for what has been omitted as for what has been included. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been Secretary of State for three and a half years. He has presided over a Prison Service in persistent crisis, a youth justice system in disarray, mounting public fear about crime and rising anxiety about the fracturing of our society. However, he has notched up one achievement to his credit that we would not dream of taking away.
  Mr. George Howarth: Do not be so generous.
  Mr. Straw: I am generous.
  Opinion polls record that the Conservative party is even less trusted on law and order now than it was three and a half years ago, when the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was Home Secretary.
  It may be the growing realisation that the Home Secretary's principal powers of persuasion are to drive voters into Labour's hands that led the chairman of the Tory party to make an otherwise extraordinary decision about the timing of debates at Conservative party conference a few weeks ago: those stars of the political stage, the Secretary of State for National Heritage and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, were put on at prime time, with live coverage; but the Home Secretary's speech was delayed until live television coverage had been switched off—his place taken by Oprah Winfrey. Even Sky abandoned him. I had to surf the radio waves to hear his familiar tones crackling through the medium wave of Radio 5 Live. Those

  355
  members of the British public who, like me, were able to hear the Secretary of State, if not see him, would have heard him promise action on paedophiles, stalking and sex tourism. With regard to a Bill for a paedophile register, he said:
  "I intend to bring it in."
  Of the proposed stalking Bill, he said "I will make sure" that women get protection from stalking.
  If Conservative Members want to know why the Tory party has lost the plot on law and order, they should consider what followed. First, the Minister of State announced 10 days ago that the stalking Bill was to be left to the lottery of the private Member's Bill procedure. Only last week, we learned from The Times that the Bill to introduce a paedophile register would also remain outside the Government's programme. As soon as I found out about that change of position, I wrote to the Secretary of State to offer our co-operation to get the measures through. He wrote back almost as swiftly as I had sent the letter—rejecting the offer.
  At 11.30 am last Wednesday, as Her Majesty was about to read her speech, the Secretary of State's senior officials and aides were briefing heavily on his behalf that there was no way in the world that the Secretary of State would allow these measures in Government time. It was to be the private Member's Bill route or nothing, and that position was repeated by Ministers in all lunchtime interviews.
  At 3.30 pm my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition repeated the offer that the Secretary of State had rejected the day before. We then witnessed the extraordinary spectacle of an impromptu meeting of the legislation committee of the Cabinet taking place on the Treasury Bench, followed by the public humiliation of the Secretary of State as the Prime Minister overruled his decision of the previous day and announced that the two measures would, after all, be in the Government's legislative programme.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman knows how preposterous is the version of events that he has just given. The truth is that the offer made by the Leader of the Opposition across the Floor of the House bore no relation to the offer that the hon. Gentleman made in his letter to me. The offer that he made in his letter to me was that the Labour party would treat these Bills in the same way as in the last Session it treated the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill and the Security Service Bill, both of which took seven months to reach the statute book. We do not have seven months for these Bills to reach the statute book, so we could not possibly have acceded to his offer. The Leader of the Opposition made an entirely different offer of a fast-track procedure for these Bills, and that was why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister accepted it.
  Mr. Straw: I have the letter with me that I wrote to the Secretary of State. The offer that I made was exactly the same as the offer that my right hon. Friend made. Indeed, my right hon. Friend made the offer because I had made the offer the day before and the Secretary of State had refused it.
  So far as co-operation is concerned, the Secretary of State just made a very unwise intervention. I will, if I may, offer him this gratuitous advice. It does not do for
  356
  the Secretary of State to talk about the delays that took place on the Security Service Bill. He knows that we co-operated fully on that Bill. It was given its Second Reading on 10 January. It then went to Committee. Its Third Reading took place on 14 February and it was committed the very next day to the House of Lords. What happened next? For no reason to do with Opposition Members, but everything to do with Government business managers, the Conservative party then delayed the introduction of that measure for three further months. That was why it took seven months. It would have taken four months if they had followed our timetable.
  Mr. Howard rose—
  Mr. Straw: This must be the last intervention.
  Mr. Howard: Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that if a Bill has to be slotted into the main legislative programme without any offer of fast-track procedures that is precisely what will happen? That is why, in the absence of the assurance that we had from the Leader of the Opposition, it was sensible to say that a private Member's Bill would be the best way forward. It was only the assurance of the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that made things different. Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that?
  Mr. Straw: What I do understand is the advice that my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Healey once gave, and which I now give to the Secretary of State:
  "If you are in a hole, stop digging."
  I am delighted that in the end we have ensured that the Secretary of State's clear promise at the Tory party conference will be now be backed by action and, as I said in my letter, we shall co-operate fully on these Bills, as we did last year on two important criminal justice Bills—the Security Service Bill and the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill. Indeed, so much did we co-operate that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State put their thanks on record.
  Do not this sorry shambles and the dreadful display that we have just seen from the Secretary of State show how vacillation and indecision have again taken over the current Administration? They say one thing; they do another. The talk may be tough, but the action is weak and ineffectual. Indeed, in some cases, they say one thing and then do nothing.
  One has only to consider the three-year saga on identity cards. First, we had the flagship policy from the Prime Minister, in April 1993, of compulsory ID cards. Then we had the holding policy from the Secretary of State of voluntary ID cards, followed by a diversionary argument about whether the Union flag should appear on the cards, and whether they were voluntary or compulsory. Then we had the intervention of the Tory right-wing leadership challenger, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who said that any kind of ID card was a bad idea. So now we have no ID cards, just the fig leaf of a draft Bill that the Secretary of State did not even bother to mention.
  As I made clear last year in the debate on the Security Service Bill, we support the principle of a properly accountable national police squad and look forward to co-operating with the Government to get this measure on

  357
  the statute book. We have also supported the plan for a criminal records agency, provided that there are effective safeguards, but we believe that that measure alone will not provide adequate protection against the scourge of cowboy, criminal private security companies.
  There is now widespread appreciation that our society is deeply fractured. We are reaping the whirlwind of a selfish "me first" society in which too often people demand rights but refuse to accept responsibility. What we have proposed are measures so that communities can rebuild confidence and control over people's lives, so that young offenders and their parents are forced to accept responsibility for their wrongdoing before it goes too far. We have called for comprehensive measures to deal with neighbourhood disorder, where youngsters roam the streets without any adult supervision, to establish an effective duty on local authorities to work in partnership with the police, for a thorough reform of the youth justice system, new and tougher drug treatment and testing programmes to get addicts away from their habit, for a major shake-up of the Crown Prosecution Service, with locally accountable prosecutors for each police force area, and effective regulation of the private security industry. As we heard earlier, we also propose a ban on the marketing and sale of combat knives.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on that point, although I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be surprised that it has taken him so long to get there. Assuming that the hon. Gentleman is not synthetic in his strong views on the banning of knives, will he now give a clear definition of a combat knife so that the House can legislate swiftly to outlaw them?
  Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman had been here earlier—
  Mr. Fabricant: I was.
  Mr. Straw: In that case, if the hon. Gentleman had been awake, he would remember that I quoted the representative of the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales, which has said that if they can get a man on the moon—
  Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When one asks a clear question for a clear definition so that the House can legislate—for the record, I have been present throughout the whole debate and have heard what the hon. Gentleman is about to read out—is it in order for the hon. Member to rattle out an answer that he gave a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes ago and not to answer my question?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): That is not a point of order for the Chair. Indeed, if it were, the burden on the Chair would be tremendous.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the drafting of Bills does not take place across the Floor of the House. However, like the Police Superintendents Association, I believe that it is possible to distinguish between a kitchen knife and a combat knife. What is
  358
  more, I also believe, and it was our opinion back in 1988—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in the House then, but no doubt he would have joined his hon. Friends and voted against the measures on the control—[interruption.]
  Mr. Straw: I know that the hon. Gentleman was not here. It is just as well, and he will not be here next time—
  Mr. Fabricant: You still have not given us a definition.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. As the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) is very keen that we should all be in order, I remind him that seated interventions are out of order.
  Mr. Straw: We believe that it is possible not only to give a definition that will distinguish between kitchen knives and those disgusting combat knives, but to control the sale and marketing of combat knives, and we have done so for eight years.
  I have made it clear that we require a more effective sentencing system. Given that only one crime in 50 results in a conviction, sentencing is only a partial solution to a far wider problem. A co-ordinated strategy is required to prevent crime and to tackle the underlying causes of crime, such as bad parenting, truancy, youth unemployment and drug and alcohol abuse. Each of the measures that we have proposed would make some difference and would improve the quality of people's lives, but taken together they would significantly shift the balance against the wrongdoer, and improve the self-confidence of citizens and their communities. They would re-establish the notion that responsibility and respect for others are the preconditions of rights and freedoms from others.
  None of the proposals to which I have referred should be controversial, because they have been widely welcomed by the police, local authorities and groups campaigning for better standards of parenting. Yet time and again, our proposals are dismissed by this Administration. First, they say that the measures are not necessary. Then, as they discover how detached they are from public opinion, they introduce half-hearted versions of our proposals and hope that the public will not notice that they have made yet another U-turn.
  The current Administration have presided over the near collapse of the youth justice system, which is ineffectual, wasteful and replete with delay. It permits scandals such as the one in Mansfield, Nottingham, where six young offenders were arrested 419 times last year before any effective action was taken. The Secretary of State always talks tough, but his actions are too often weak or even non-existent.
  The Government have been panicked by our proposals and by an Audit Commission report that is likely to be damning in its criticism. Consequently, they have drawn up new plans for young offenders, as the Prime Minister told the Tory party conference. However, it seems that there are no plans to reform the youth courts, and there is little prospect of any action this side of the election. It has been the same old story with knives, child sex tourism, stalking and paedophiles: so anxious are the Government

  359
  to score cheap political points that they put the interests of victims and their communities below the self-interest of the Tory party.
  The first duty of any Government is to secure the safety of their citizens and their communities. On that, the present Administration have failed. They have lost not only the plot on law and order, but the confidence of the British people. The Government are profoundly out of touch with people's feelings and anxieties. They lack a proper understanding of the causes of crime, and they have no coherent strategy or vision for dealing with the epidemic of crime and disorder that now scars the nation. We shall be tough on crime, and tough on its causes. We shall give communities the power to help people face up to their responsibilities. We shall close the yawning gap between the number of crimes and the number of convictions. We shall make this country a safer place.
  5.13 pm
  Mr. David Mellor: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on a vigorous speech, with almost all of which I entirely agreed. I am sorry that, owing to the constraints of time, I must focus on the one section with which I did not agree.
  I can tell the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) that I recall the comment about losing the plot. It was made on the radio in the aftermath of the publication of the Home Affairs Select Committee's report. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if I had thought that the Government had lost the plot on law and order, I would not have been afraid to say so, but that is not what I said. I suspect that he is relying on an errant transcription taken down from the radio.
  I reiterate what I have said since Dunblane. I think that the Government would have been well advised to move more swiftly on this matter, and in the direction of a total ban. But I do not believe, and have never said—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not continue to say that I said it—that the Conservative party has lost the plot on law and order.
  I hope that the superficial, partisan element of this debate will be calmed down. In the aftermath of the shooting, the Prime Minister invited the Leader of the Opposition to go with him to Dunblane. The two of them stood together with the Secretary of State for Scotland and the shadow Scottish spokesman. As they were all deeply moved, indeed overwhelmed, by such a singular tragedy in the history of our nation, I hoped that it marked the beginning of a process that would enable the House to move swiftly and decisively towards a resolution of this matter in a way that would gain the public's sympathy.
  Thomas Hamilton was able to obtain a small arsenal of handguns with the assent of the public as expressed through our laws and the way in which they were applied. He was then able to go into that school and massacre 16 infants and their teacher. It is perfectly understandable that the public want a repudiation of the gun culture, and of the introduction in this country of the alien concepts of the right to bear arms and the right to use handguns—I am not making the point about shotguns, because they are different—as depicted in American mass entertainment.
  I still think that it would have been better to have disciplined discussions between the parties. Hon. Members should have had the opportunity to state their
  360
  views before the Government had made up their mind on their response to the Cullen report. My right hon. and learned Friend has proposed a measure that will go a long way towards resolving the problem: indeed, I previously thought that it could have been an opportunity for compromise. The tragedy is that public opinion has hardened. As predicted, Lord Cullen was unable to help on policy issues—he is a judge, and it is not a judge's job to make policy.
  Mr. David Martin: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Mellor: I do not have time to give way.
  It is a judge's job to evaluate evidence, not to make policy. My right hon. and learned Friend must have been as distressed as the rest of us when he woke the day after he made his statement. It was as if he had done nothing about this matter. He said that, after such a singular tragedy, each of us should draw on our own experience when making up our minds, and I hope that that is the spirit in which hon. Members will make up their minds—some more speedily than others, because some of us have had experience of this problem. I was a Minister in the Home Office for more than five years, which is at least as much as anyone else. My view is that a tightening of the gun laws is long overdue.
  The range of options is fairly narrow: we reject the Government's proposals—as some of my hon. Friends want to do—because they go too far; or we accept them as a reasonable balance between the interests of the wider community and those of shooters; or we say that they do not go far enough and that there should be a total ban.
  The Government are faced with two unpalatable alternatives, one of which is to be defeated. After 17 years in the House, I have never voted against the Government on a three-line Whip. I do not want to be turned into a rebel merely to be consistent in my view about what needs to be done. Ultimately, we will all have to bend to the will of the public, as the Government have shown. I am sure that they wanted a much less draconian proposal than the measure that they have introduced.
  The public will not be denied on this issue. The tragedy for the Government is that, even if they carry the day, they will gain small comfort, because the public will think that the measure is wrong.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Mellor: No, I will not, because I have only 10 minutes.
  It would be better if we were allowed to bring our independent judgments to bear. There would be no shame or disgrace on anyone for having held any particular view. I hope that that can be done.
  Clubs will have to go to much trouble and fuss to establish proper storage arrangements for .22 calibre guns. There are more than 2,000 clubs, whose members do not want this measure. They are supposed to operate a compromise that they have rejected out of hand. I do not see the point of that.
  Derisive comments were made when I asked my right hon. and learned Friend how he would feel if people traded down from one calibre of handgun to another.

  361
  If it is the public will—as I believe it is—to do away with handguns altogether, what is the point of saying that only 40,000 of the 160,000 handguns will be left, when the truth of the matter is that many people will simply invest in .22 calibre guns? Those .22 calibre guns are known to be extremely dangerous. They were responsible for the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and Yitzhak Rabin, and for the attempted assassinations of Governor Wallace and President Reagan. That is why I hope that the House will not underestimate the strength of public feeling on this matter.
  The Government have a good record in dealing with the problem of knives. Some categories have been banned by order, and the Bill that had Government support in the last Session increases the penalties for going out with knives. It is right to look further, and I hope that that will be done in the spirit of sensible co-operation between the Front Benches.
  We should make some further legislative intrusion into the culture of violence which leads to those dreadful magazines that were produced by Opposition spokesmen and the description of weapons that are manifestly sold on the basis of their ability to harm others rather than on their usefulness in the kitchen. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) mentioned that. That should not be beyond the wit of people, and some of the ingenuity that is being used to say that it cannot be done should be used to say that it must be done.
  Why are Rambo side-swords or whatever they are called being produced? It is for only one reason—as a contribution to the culture of violence that we have imported by our unthinking acceptance of American entertainment norms. The House needs to grasp that. I was a Minister with responsibility for broadcasting and I am aware that we have all permitted this to happen, but even in Hollywood people are becoming aware of the unacceptable culture of violence. Each film is trying to push the frontier even further forwards, gratuitous violence is pumped in and television follows.
  What is spawning the kind of young thug who murdered Philip Lawrence? It is the fact that he could go round as a Triad. Did he learn about Triads even in the advanced history classes in inner-London schools? Absolutely not: he learned about Triads from a cult of unpleasant and unattractive films, which influenced his immature mind. Many people can endure such stuff but others cannot, and we shall have to look long and hard at the issue. It is not a matter for legislation. It is more likely to be a case of asking the British Board of Film Classification to tighten up on violence.
  Throughout the 1980s, we were obsessed with sex in films, when we should have been obsessed with violence. It is the unwillingness of television companies, film makers and film distributors to come to terms with that which leads to the kind of climate that breeds the parasites, the people who run the clubs that pander to the taste for violence that has captured the imagination of some people in society, some of whom inevitably ape what they see in public entertainment.
  I warmly welcome the Home Secretary's proposals on paedophiles. The problem is that it is extremely difficult for a person, once committed to paedophilia, to get rid of
  362
  the habit. The difficulty that bedevils the law in this area is that people are punished for what they have done but are released without any test for dangerousness. Future danger is what we must fear, and that can lead to ghastly situations, as in the murder of young Sophie Hook. Howard Hughes, who was a known paedophile, was regarded as a ticking time-bomb, a disaster waiting to happen. However, he could not be apprehended until he had done something vile. I hope that the Home Secretary's proposed changes to the law can deal with that.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's 10 minutes are up. I call Mr. Denzil Davies.
  5.23 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: Some of the Bills mentioned in the debate will receive a Second Reading and be debated again several times. In the nine and three quarter minutes that are left to me, I shall deal with the seven lines in the Gracious Speech on the European Union and their failure to relate to the single currency or its constitutional consequences.
  I am not surprised that the Government did not mention the single currency. Since 1972, the Government and, I am sorry to say, the Opposition have embarked on a journey of obfuscation on the constitutional consequences for the House and for democratically elected Governments of a single currency. The leadership of both main parties are determined to establish that a decision to join the single currency is a matter of economics and nothing else. It is said that it is a question for the counting house and not about the United Kingdom's constitution and the power of the Government.
  Whatever the economic advantages or disadvantages—that matter poses difficult questions—the single currency is substantially about democracy. As I have said, it is about the power of democratically elected Governments over the economy. Whatever one's view of the economic consequences, it cannot be denied that joining the single currency would considerably diminish our already imperfect democracy.
  The powers that now reside with democratically elected Governments over a range of significant economic functions such as the exchange rate, the setting of interest rates, the control of the money supply, price stability, the control of inflation and the level of public borrowing would be lost. Those powers would go to a European central bank or to the Commission, or they would be entrenched in treaties, all of which would be supervised and controlled by the European Court of Justice. Powers currently exercised by Ministers in democratic states would be exercised by bankers, bureaucrats and lawyers.
  Many people argue that it is not necessary to have such powers, or that they are illusory, and democratic Governments do not really possess them. It is also said that they are too important to the functioning of a modern economy to be left to democracy. For example, let us examine power over the exchange rate. We have been told that devolution is bad and no panacea, so it is better not to have it. Of course it is not a panacea. Everybody understands that, from time to time, short-term adjustments have to be made to an economy, and that the power to devalue helps to make such adjustments.

  363
  The German Government are desperate to devalue the mark because of problems over productivity and wage costs. I have not read pompous editorials in the Financial Times about how terrible is devaluation. The Germans are said to be adjusting their parity, or trying to, and of course it is being adjusted down, because that has short-term benefits. I make no criticism of the Germans for that.
  A few years ago, many people said to me that the Government no longer had power to set interest rates, and that anyway the Bundesbank does it. One good feature that emerged recently is the transparency introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his fine-tuning of the British economy with the Governor of the Bank of England. It is a crazy system, but at least we know that it is done by the British Government. That has been happening since the war, but it now it takes place more or less in public. The British Government, quite properly after consultation with the Governor of the Bank of England, determine interest rates.
  Price stability is a strange concept. I understand that it means that inflation should be zero, or perhaps 1 per cent., and that decisions should be taken on the basis that inflation must remain very low or be non-existent. That is the latest economic ideology. Again we are told that price stability is too important to be left to politicians but must be entrenched, as it is in the Maastricht treaty. None of us must touch this economic icon.
  One can imagine on 1 January 1999 this icon of price stability being carried through the streets of Frankfurt, bedecked, bejewelled and painted, taken to the cathedral of the European central bank and placed there away from democracy and the mobs in the streets, so that it is unsullied and undesecrated. But economic fashion changes, and economic ideologies come and go. The gold standard was considered a marvellous ideology, and perhaps it was for a long time. If the Maastricht treaty had been drawn up in the gold standard era, we would have had an entrenched clause in the treaty saying that the gold standard had to go on for ever and be protected by treaty.
  It is said—I do not know whether it is true—that, when Britain eventually came off the gold standard in the 1930s, a former Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer said, "Nobody told us we could do that." If we had had the Maastricht treaty in the 1930s, we could not have gone off the gold standard.
  We come to the 1950s and that now despised ideology, if I can so describe it, of Keynesianism. For 20 years, from the 1950s to the middle of 1970s at least, there was no alternative to the doctrines and theories of John Maynard Keynes. All the political parties agreed. Bankers did not spit on Keynes in the 1950s and 1960s. Again, if we had had the Maastricht treaty then, Keynes's theories would have been entrenched in that treaty, to go on for ever, despite the changing economic circumstances of the 1970s, which in the end destroyed that economic fashion and ideology.
  I dare say that price stability will not last very long either, and that that economic fashion will become outdated, but we are asked to entrench it for ever. The House will not be able to change it. Democratically elected Governments will have no power to do so. It is supposed to be put beyond the reach of the horrible mob and that terrible thing called democracy.
  364
  Finally, there is public debt and public borrowing. The House knows—I will not go over it again—about the 3 per cent. and the 60 per cent., but, in addition, it is necessary to introduce a stability pact into the operation. Understandably, we cannot have Governments inflating their public borrowing and then seeking redress or recompense, or to be paid by the other European Union Governments, so we are going to write in another limitation on the power of democratically elected Governments—this time the limitation that they cannot borrow more than a certain figure—again all to be entrenched in non-democratic institutions and treaties.
  My party believes—I subscribe wholly to that belief—in devolution. We believe in taking power from bureaucracy in the United Kingdom—in Wales, Scotland and the regions of England—and handing that power somehow to regional assemblies, which will be able to debate these matters. That would be two steps forward for democracy, but, if we signed up to the single currency, it would be eight steps back for democracy.
  We all protest that we believe in democratic accountability, in bringing power to the regions—we all make these speeches and, I think, we all believe them—yet here we are embarked on an exercise that will diminish and floor democracy by entrenching these ideologies and theories, which will never be able to be changed, either by the House or by a democratically elected Government.
  I mean no disrespect, but the Gracious Speech is half a speech, because it is for half a Parliament. The next Queen's Speech in about six months will be that of a new democratically elected Government. It will be made at the threshold of conclusions in the intergovernmental conference and of major decisions on the single currency. I live in hope that the next Queen's Speech will frankly tell Parliament and the people the consequences of the single currency for the House. I live in hope, hut experience tells us otherwise.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Sir Peter Lloyd.
  5.33 pm
  Sir Peter Lloyd: I am not going to follow the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) in his disquisition on the single currency, but I am happy to endorse what he says, and hope that his party listens to him with care. Instead, I should like to reach guns and sentencing via Hong Kong—a circuitous route, I know.
  I applaud the references to Hong Kong in the Gracious Speech. I took the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990 through the House. It proved a far-sighted measure—good for Hong Kong, for China and for the United Kingdom—even if it was more limited than I would have liked it to be. I was conscious, however, that some loose ends were left, which I expected to be dealt with reasonably soon afterwards. Citizenship for war widows was one example. Although the substance was conceded, with an undertaking that they could come to the UK whenever they wanted, the desire for citizenship was insensitively and pointlessly denied for years.
  That is now to be remedied, I believe, but it should have been done before. I hope that any other such claims on our duty and loyalty to the people in Hong Kong—for instance, in relation to the armed services or the ethnic minorities, who have no other home—will be dealt with imaginatively and generously.

  365
  It would be a pity if our departure from Hong Kong were marred by minor meanness. I am glad that we shall be having a debate on Hong Kong before Christmas, when such matters can be dealt with more thoroughly than I can do now.
  We shall also have a debate, it seems even sooner, on the firearms Bill. It was right that the Government should immediately set up a review of gun laws in response to the appalling atrocity at Dunblane. It was right to pay special attention to the bereaved parents and the horrified disbelief of the public at large. It is, however, seldom right to legislate at high speed out of sympathy and guilt. Our duty in the House is to make sound, just and effective law. Lord Cullen appears to have produced a thorough review, which should be studied and thoroughly discussed. I am not yet convinced that the Government are justified in going beyond his recommendations.
  I have never been interested in shooting. It has always seemed to me a boring sport, and I have always felt suspicious of people who find it exciting. However, many law-abiding people gain sober pleasure and satisfaction from the combination of discipline, co-ordination and concentration that accurate shooting requires. They are not a threat to society. Their guns are held securely, and we can require that they are held even more securely and that licences are even more difficult to obtain.
  We should do that, but I wonder whether it is right, or a fitting memorial to the murdered children, to ban a lawful sport and to incur a large bill for compensation, which could be spent on genuinely effective anti-crime programmes, when there is little or no evidence that the public—children or adult—would be any better protected as a result.
  I have similar reservations about the crime Bill. It contains much of value, but its proposals, particularly on sentencing, do not seem to have been properly thought through, and we shall regret it if they reach the statute book unchanged. It will not achieve greater honesty in sentencing, and ending parole will leave the public less well protected. Minimum sentences will not better deter, but they will certainly lead to injustice in a proportion of cases, which will bring those changes, and thus criminal justice in Britain, into disrepute.
  By contrast, not enough use is made of indeterminate sentences—partly, I suspect, because, to sound fiercer, they are called life sentences, although that greater honesty that is much spoken of in this context would demand another name.
  I made those points more fully in the debate on sentencing in the summer. As I shall no doubt repeat them on Second Reading, I shall not weary the House now. I will say that Parliament has the duty as well as the power to limit the discretion of judges, if justice and the safety of the public require it. In 1991, Parliament restricted the right of courts to take previous offences into account. That was a mistake that had to be remedied.
  We should beware of making a similar error at the other end of the law and order spectrum. It will not be sufficient to allow judges discretion just in cases where there are exceptional circumstances, as the Bill presently does. The problem will come with cases in which a concatenation of ordinary factors makes the mandatory sentence the
  366
  wrong one. The court will be left with no opinion but to pass it. I hope that further debate will produce amendments that will transform the Bill into the good legislation that it could be.
  5.39 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Never have home affairs Bill provided such a large proportion of the Gracious Speech—and that was true even before two Bills were added, although that was more by accident than design. I welcome the Prime Minister's decision—a genuine change of mind to incorporate the stalking Bill and paedophile register into the Government's programme—but I criticise some previous actions. I heard the Minister of State's announcement the week before because I attended the conference that he addressed, and it was successfully designed to secure the headline "Government will put stalkers behind bars". However, he never said that the Government would not introduce the Bill. That should have been the announcement: "Government to exclude stalking Bill from programme". Thankfully, that was overturned by the Prime Minister.
  To compound the felony, Ministers went around saying that a private Member's Bill would have been a fast-track method of dealing with that legislation. Clearly some Ministers have never attempted to take a private Member's Bill through the House—otherwise they would know that such a Bill could not be introduced until shortly before Christmas at the earliest, and that its prospects would depend on which hon. Members came high in the ballot. I can think of two or three Conservative Members—a couple of whom have intervened in this debate—who would not have adopted such a Bill. Also, the subsequent stages of a private Member's Bill are much more staggered than those of Government Bills.
  If the Government want to know what is meant by a fast-track Bill, they should consider their agenda for Thursday, when the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Bill will be taken on a fast track through the House in Government time. That is the only real fast track that allows proper debate and consideration. The Minister of State, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), suggested that the stalking Bill could be taken through all its stages in one day—that we should not even debate and properly examine the details of that complex legislation. One can take a Bill through the House reasonably quickly and still examine it properly. Taking it through the House without any debate at the closing moments of Friday business is not a reasonable way to legislate—and would be a great disservice to the people whom we seek to protect. Both Bills are important. If we get them right, they are potentially of real value.
  Other Bills have fallen by the wayside. The Government have now announced that they are sympathetic to a sex tourism Bill, but it is still not in their programme. This afternoon, the Home Secretary appeared to suggest, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), that the Government have not finally decided to exclude such a Bill from their programme. Perhaps it will appear as one of the other measures that will be laid before us. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not seem to exclude that possibility, so we will continue placing pressure on him.
  We would like a Bill, or the inclusion of appropriate clauses in other Bills, to regulate the private security industry. It remains a scandal that criminals can gain such

  367
  easy access to an industry that offers them the opportunity to commit further crimes while posing as protectors of the public. The industry itself wants change and is crying out for regulation.
  We are in favour of draft Bills, but it is a bit of a joke to say that the identity cards Bill is being published as a draft. It has already been the subject of widespread consultation and the Home Secretary has already told Ministers which flags must appear on the card. It is called a draft Bill because of deep division in the Government.
  The route for draft Bills looks compromised and blocked, now that the draft adoption Bill is not to feature in the Government's programme. It was the subject of widespread consultation but has disappeared from view, despite having enjoyed widespread support—which suggests that the Government's inclusion of various measures as draft Bills is not constitutional reform but the pigeonhole into which losing candidates were put when left out of the Queen's Speech.
  We welcome the Police Bill. I am on record as arguing that it should have come before the House before the Security Service Bill, because it attempts to put in place a system of national co-ordination of police intelligence and national operations against crime, into which Security Service work must be plugged. The provision for formal authorisation of eavesdropping is important and we need to get it right. It raises the matter to which the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) referred—press speculation that admissibility of eavesdropping evidence in court might be introduced by means of yet another Bill. The Home Secretary sounded as though he had not heard about that issue before and gave an extremely defensive answer.
  It is a matter of anxiety that a body as important at the National Criminal Intelligence Service appeared to command such little confidence in a recent survey. That service's work is extremely important. Its position has been far too shadowy and has been inadequately provided for in legislation.
  What is needed are more policemen and confidence-building measures in communities. Must the new policeman's helmet be in the form that has appeared? The public will find it baffling to see police officers looking like people gathering for a cycle club outing. Police uniform has some bearing on public perception, and many officers regard the dignity of their uniform as something to be considered with care. I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who is the Minister of State, Scottish Office, is not in a position to comment, because the traditional helmet is not worn in Scotland except by the British Transport police. However, that helmet is significant in England, where the public make traditional assumptions. Anything that chisels away at those assumptions can be unwise.
  We have said all along that we will assist during the passage of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill through the House. The Government have accepted a mass of Lord Cullen's recommendations. Some of them present cost problems. The vetting of youth leaders is important, but the Scout Association has pointed out that it will incur extra costs. Many other organisations will do the same. Those costs will represent an investment in preventing crimes that may be committed by unsavoury people who get into youth leadership work, and will ensure that youth
  368
  organisations can continue their good work. That is vital in turning another generation of young people away from crime. Their role is underestimated.
  All parties have gone beyond Lord Cullen's recommendations on handguns, which did not say that they should be outlawed. All parties have sought, in different degrees, to take account of strong public concern and demand. That emphasises my party's belief that there should be a free vote on that legislation—the differences of opinion we have heard from Conservative Members make it obvious that that should be so—or some hon. Members will be dragooned into voting for something in which they do not believe and think unwise.
  The Government's proposals on handguns do not command support from people who would like a total ban or from shooting sports organisations, which view the proposals as unworkable and offering no reasonable prospect of a continuation of Olympic standard sports shooting. Nor do the Government's proposals command support among the police. The Police Federation has made it clear that it anticipates real difficulties in trying to administer the Government scheme. We must look for another approach. When an amendment on a total ban is proposed—perhaps by a Labour Front Bencher—right hon. and hon. Members will examine its exemptions. Will there be an exemption for professional use, such as by veterinary surgeons? Will there be an exemption that would allow the Commonwealth games to take place in Manchester in 2002, as planned? It is clear that all party leaders have felt it necessary to respond to enormous public concern.
  The Government will also have to re-examine compensation. They have shown a willingness to compensate at market value the owners of guns that are made illegal, but clubs may be forced to close. Many of the legitimate businesses involved are small firms of the kind that the Government claim to favour, but those firms are being hit disastrously. Compensation must not be limited to gun owners. If the Government's proposals are passed, some gun owners will be unable to use their legal weapons because no club will be available to them—and will be unable to sell those guns because the market in them will have collapsed. If a total ban is not introduced, some provision will have to be made for that category. Let us not pretend that the legislation that we eventually pass will solve the problem. Many other types of gun will still be legally available and licensed and there will be many illegal guns. Effective policing remains crucial.
  We want the Government to look at the knives issue and we have underlined our willingness to co-operate. Even if the only effect of banning combat knives is to prevent certain types of knives from being advertised, that, in itself, will be helpful.
  We are also concerned about violence on television and videos. I gave a wry smile when I heard the Home Secretary say with pride that the Government had legislated against violent videos, as I knew that it was the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that forced the Government to take action in a previous Criminal Justice Bill.
  I want to deal with sentencing. Our prisons are already scandalously overcrowded. Leading figures in the Prison Service concede that we might have to move to weekend prison sentences to cope with the pressure on our prisons.

  369
  Prison regimes designed to stop people coming out of prison as hardened criminals are falling by the wayside because of the pressures on the service. It is against that background that the Government want to make the fundamental constitutional change of taking away from courts and judges the ability to decide when life or other sentences are appropriate.
  The issue is not whether a rapist should receive a life sentence at the second offence; it is whether Parliament should decree that a judge should, in all but the most exceptional circumstances, pass that sentence. That is what the issue is about—not the effectiveness of particular sentences. It is about what the framework should be. We believe that the proposed legislation—as well as its Scottish shadow to be brought in in its wake—is fundamentally misconceived. It runs counter to the Government's previous policies and legislation and to the work of previous Home Secretaries, such as the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd). There are constitutional objections as well as numerous practical objections.
  If the legislation is passed, in cases of rape there will be fewer guilty pleas and greater ordeals for women victims of rape as they are questioned in an extremely unpleasant and oppressive way. More rapists will walk free because they will not have the incentive to plead guilty. Indeed, some rapists may murder because there will be no difference in penalty for the two crimes.
  There will be an effect on the fight against drugs. If the legislation is passed, less intelligence will be available because the sentence will be automatic. Recently, some serious drug offenders were given extraordinarily broad concessions, presumably because they had provided intelligence that assisted in the apprehension of other offenders. [Interruption.] Whether or not that was the right route to use in that case, there is no doubt that it will be more difficult to use that route in future and intelligence will dry up. In addition, the parole system will be seriously undermined, almost to the point of being destroyed.
  The cost of the proposals will be phenomenal—about £400 million a year on the Government's own estimate. Twelve new prisons are to be built. Where will the money come from? What part of the Home Office budget will suffer? Will it be policing? Will it be probation work? Will the money come from other Departments' budgets, such as education or social services? Will it come from the other agencies that are needed to fight crime?
  Mr. Michael Stephen: The right hon. Gentleman rightly points out the cost of keeping people in prison, but what about the cost of leaving them at large to burgle our constituents' houses? What about the costs to the insurance companies, our constituents, the courts and the police who arrest those people time and time again?
  Mr. Beith: We want offences prevented. The whole of the Government's policy approach is from the wrong end. It says, "Let us accept that there will be lots and lots of burglaries and violent crimes and then let us lock up people for longer and longer and in such a manner that they will be even more likely to commit further crimes when they eventually get out." The Government's policy does not deal with crime prevention.
  370
  The transfer of resources involved in building 12 new prisons will decimate the programmes necessary to prevent the offences from being carried out in the first place. In particular, the potential impact on policing is disastrous. Of course, it will not happen. We know—and the Government know—that those 12 new prisons will not be built. No part of this policy will be implemented—it is gesture politics. The Labour party should not fall for gesture politics. I acquit the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) of doing so with the Scottish Bill, as the Labour party made clear its fundamental opposition to it. Labour's opposition is not so clear when it comes to the English Bill. Indeed, if it does not oppose the Bill, it had better say how many prisons it is prepared to build and how much expenditure it would approve for a massive prison building programme. We will oppose the Bill because it is fundamentally misconceived and will damage programmes to prevent crime.
  Sentencing is only a small part of fighting crime. Policing, preventing crime in every community and teaching young people the practical skills of parenting and citizenship and making them feel that they have a place in society will all be severely damaged by the transfer of resources involved in the proposed Bill, yet they are essential if we are to tackle crime.
  The Conservative party, which is in office for just a few more months, has seen a doubling of crime, despite taking the opportunity to introduce a new Criminal Justice Bill every year. Each Bill was supposed to contain the answers to the problems of crime. Now, the Government are engaged in last-minute gesture politics, bringing forward proposals that will not work and that will not even come into force until long after the Government have gone for good. They cannot be taken seriously.
  5.55 pm
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I do not know why the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) says that it is gesture politics to promise to build 12 more prisons. We have built 22 prisons over the past decade and a half at a cost of £1.4 billion, providing 11,656 new places. If we have done it once, we can do it again. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks are just one example of the Liberal Democrats' ridiculous attacks on the Government.
  The ludicrous speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) should not pass without mention. As the Opposition see their lead in the public opinion polls slipping away, they are beginning to panic. As a result, the noise as they leap on to every passing bandwagon is becoming deafening. The whole country knows that their record on law and order is a disgrace. They have opposed or failed to support practically every toughening measure that the Government have introduced over the past 13 years.
  Many of the ills in our society are due to the years of weak, wet, feeble socialism that the Labour party now rejects, but that found its way into all our Departments of State, including the Home Office. The Opposition seem to think that the public are less intelligent than they really are in noting such nonsense. They will get a big surprise when the next election comes if they stand on a law-and-order platform.
  In contrast, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is determined to protect people from crime. He has presented this country with a series of excellent

  371
  measures for the protection of society. They have the support not only of the police but of those whom we represent in this place. I shall come to those measures in a moment, but in passing I want to mention handguns. The Home Affairs Committee found that there was no rational case for banning handguns. That position was vindicated by Lord Cullen—someone who could not be considered to be a member of the Conservative party or to be looking at the matter through political eyes. However, there is a political imperative, because in a democracy a Government who ignore the deep feelings of a large number of people do so at their peril. So there is some justification for doing what the Government propose, despite there being no practical, rational case for banning just handguns.
  On the Police Bill, I welcome the Government's response to the Home Affairs Committee's recommendations on organised crime—a national crime squad and closer liaison between the police and the home security service. I also welcome the Bill's provision on employees' criminal records—again, something that the Home Affairs Committee recommended in its report on the private security industry. As one who originally encouraged the Stalking Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson), I commend the Government for making the Bill so much more useful and effective after proper and due consideration than it would have been had it been rushed through.
  The Home Affairs Select Committee has not had time to consider the issue of combat knives. I find it very odd, however, that, after the many years in which we have been talking about this issue and as recently as January 1996—during the passage of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland)—Labour agreed that there was, as yet, no definition that could exclude combat knives. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has suddenly decided that there is a definition for such knives. Unfortunately, he could not remember the definition, or there was not one, and he did not have it written on the piece of paper that he had in front of him.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn told us that the police, or representatives of the police, have changed their minds on the subject. They said that there must be a definition. But where is the definition? The British public will laugh at the hon. Gentleman and at the Labour party for saying, "There is a definition, but we cannot tell you what it is."
  Labour says, "There is no need for a definition for sales and display restrictions." But that is nonsense if one cannot define what it is that one cannot sell or display. Moreover, it is spurious nonsense, because anyone found with a combat knife in a public place without a good reason would be liable for up to two years' imprisonment under the Offensive Weapons Act 1996, which Conservative Members introduced and passed earlier this year.
  I come now to the main issue that we are debating: the sentencing Bill. Ordinary people have grown fed up with what they consider to be rising crime. I do not think that it is necessary to argue about whether they are fed up with increasing crime or with an increase in reported crime because more people are reporting crimes. Whatever the facts, people are fed up with the situation and with the inability of the police, the courts and the criminal justice system to do very much about it. In any given part of the
  372
  country, they are fed up with a relatively small hard core of offenders who are back on the streets a short time after being arrested, who then commit more crime. The public are fed up with the absurdity of judges telling offenders that they will go to prison for four years, and the offenders being out and about in a year or two.
  So the Government are doing something about the situation. The Government have taken a string of action to reduce crime. That action has been effective, because crime has fallen by 10 per cent. over the past three years. There is more to be done, however, and we are not complacent about the situation. The proposals have the people's overwhelming support, as measured in public opinion polls.
  I must make one very important point. The proposals are not justified only because they are popular, but because, in our free society, our criminal justice system works only if it has the approval and support of the people it is protecting. Public approval and support are important for the containment of crime. Without that support, witnesses will not come forward, jurors will not serve—or, if they do serve, they will not convict—and crime that should be unacceptable if a society is to remain healthy and free becomes more acceptable. That is why it is vital, first, to restore honesty to the sentencing process.
  Under these proposals, the sentence served will—more closely than ever before—match the court's sentence, with a small discount of about 16 per cent. for co-operation and good behaviour, which will be continually assessed. There will be no early release and parole, and time off will not be a right regardless of good behaviour. I am sure that the public want those measures, and that they will support and encourage them. If the measures result in an increase of about 10,000 or 11,000 prisoners, so be it—we will build those prisons. It is ridiculous to say that what we have done once before we cannot do again.
  It is not only necessary and sensible for the system to ensure that the sentence served by prisoners is nearer the sentence delivered by the judge, but—if we are to have public support—we must put a stop to the more persistent and the worst offenders. Who are they? They are offenders who simply cannot get violence and hatred out of their systems. They are those who cannot stop inflicting serious sexual violence on women and children. They are those who make a profession of crime, such as the professional burglar—the crime that most people fear, because of the desecration of their homes and prized possessions, and the shock of catching villains in the act. They are those who push drugs to our children and to young people in schools, in pubs and on the streets.
  Those offenders get up every morning to go to work with their tools, cocaine, heroin and amphetamines packed in their bags, and they come back at the end of the day. That is their work, and they are professionals. The public, whom we represent, expect—they have a right to expect—the Government to do more than they have so far succeeded in doing to stop those types of crime.
  So people over 18 years old who are convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence and who have one previous conviction for that type of offence will receive a life sentence. It will not necessarily be a lifetime in prison, but they will be released only if they no longer pose a danger to the public. What on earth is wrong with that? The public have a right to be protected.

  373
  A life sentence is already available for rape, attempted murder, the most serious wounding and having sex with a girl who is aged 13 or under, but the point is that offenders rarely receive a life sentence in those cases. Too often, they are released to offend again, after which they still do not receive life sentences. A sample taken from 1993–94 shows that only one in 10 of those convicted a second time received a life sentence. In 1994, only 10 people out of 217 convicted received a sentence of life imprisonment for a second rape or serious violent assault. Unless those people receive a life sentence, they must be released after serving two thirds of their sentence, even if the authorities believe that they will try to murder, rape or wound again.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I have already declared my interest in this subject. So much has been said about crime, the need for deterrent sentences and the need for this or that new power, but no one has ever gone back to the roots of what causes crime. Where is crime caused? Who commits it? We know that certain juvenile criminals are repeatedly arrested and released. They get out on bail and are perhaps put into the care of their family or local authority. Then they commit one offence after another, increasing the crime statistics. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) will then—quite rightly, because we have never tackled the problem head on—tell us about someone committing 417 offences.
  Madam Deputy Speaker, you once travelled across the Atlantic to Massachusetts with me and other hon. Members to observe the old Massachusetts experiment. In that experiment, if a youngster was delinquent, he was taken out of society until he could prove that he was safe to be re-admitted to it. Had we done that in the United Kingdom, we would not have youngsters committing 417 offences, because they would not have committed three offences before they were deemed to be delinquent and put into care, custody or control. Moreover, they would have had to prove themselves before they were released from that care or custody.
  Why do not we examine some of those ideas? I have advocated such ideas for the past 10 years, but they have fallen on deaf ears because they are not cliché ridden or headline grabbing. We must think through where and how we combat crime. When we begin to think through the issues, we discover—as Massachusetts discovered, all those years ago—that the adult crime rate also decreases if we take a delinquent off the street and keep him off until he learns not to be delinquent. The child who is a criminal and gets into bad habits often becomes the young person in his or her 20s with whom those who work in the criminal courts deal every day.
  Perhaps we could start at the right end for once, instead of for ever starting at the wrong end—when the crime has been committed, the victim has been hurt, and the offender, if he was unlucky, has been caught.
  I welcome the Police Bill, which is why I intervened on today's speech by the Home Secretary. It has always seemed to me to be nonsense that the decision in Regina v.
  374
  Preston and the constraints of section 9 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 stopped people talking about bugging or matters of that nature. We all know that there are such practices and surveillance devices. Perhaps the matter can now come into the open, evidence can be adduced and proper safeguards erected.
  As this is a short debate, I must be careful not to address too many issues. I therefore propose to deal with only one other. The cliche that the sentence must reflect the crime should be examined with considerable care. It is too glib and easy to say, "He got four years, but did only two." There is much more to it than that.
  Some of us are old enough and experienced enough to remember when the Government—the current Government under the same leadership—introduced the Criminal Justice Act 1991, sections 28 and 29 of which liberalised sentencing. Every lawyer in the land told them that it would not work, but it took about a year and a half for the Government to realise that they had made a complete and utter mess.
  If we are to sentence, let us sentence the offender and the offence. Let us do it honestly; no one is against that. The idea that a person can have two or three strikes and is then out is not fair. I shall give a simple example involving a section 18 crime of violence. If I go up to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and hit him on the head with a bottle and it cuts him, that is a wound and it was inflicted with intent. Under section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, the maximum offence currently is life, even if it is a first offence. Suppose that I am 17 and stupid when I do it. At the age of 21 I am involved in a pub tight. I may or may not be the cause of it, but I am convicted. Again there is a wound, and again it is said that it was inflicted with intent. Under section 18 do I then—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has obviously forgotten his law—if there is a wound and if there is intent, section 18 applies.
  Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way for a tutorial?
  Mr. Bermingham: No; just sit down. If the hon. Gentleman had dealt with as many cases as I have over the years, he would recognise that I know what I am talking about, even if he does not.
  In the case that I described, a second sentence would be imposed—and a potential life sentence. That is ridiculous. The matter must be examined with great care. Exceptions must be defined, as must the application of section 18, which has become a commonly charged offence.
  I dealt with rape in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), so I shall not do so again. There are so many issues to be considered. Are we to reconstitute the Parole Board so that it can consider all the relevant matters? What would that cost?
  On pleas, should we consider the present situation as opposed to the proposals? The accused would get one fifth off for pleading guilty; currently the proportion is one third. What incentive would there be to plead guilty? Guilty pleas should be encouraged, as they save a great deal of money and court time.
  If remission is to be removed, the views of prison officers should be taken into account. They deal with prisoners day in, day out. The way to discipline and

  375
  control prisoners is to give them an incentive to qualify for remission. Removing that incentive will stir up trouble. The prison system will become overcrowded beyond belief with people who have nowhere to go and no hope. The only thing that their idle hands will do is cause trouble.
  Let us think logically about sentencing. Let us begin with the causes of crime and consider how we can deter crime among juveniles. If they are still committing crime as adults, of course they must be made to pay, but that must be done in a sensible and constructive way. providing a disincentive to entering the criminal system. Those who do enter it should emerge rehabilitated.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I welcome the Queen's Speech, but it is a "Nine o'clock News" version rather than a Reith lecture version. The two main parties are competing to load on to a Christmas tree more and more populist measures. The individual measures may have some merit, but there is great danger in a race between the two Front Benches to get as many of these measures as possible on the statute book by May. We may be in danger of producing over-hasty legislation that will not stand the test of time.
  I have made known my views on the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. Each year we seem to become a less free and more censorious society. I did some research in the Library this morning. I noticed that in 1979 we passed 1,770 statutory instruments, whereas in 1995 we passed 3,345. There is a common view in Parliament that society's problems can be solved by banning pursuits that, up to now, have been legitimate. If I believed that violence could be reduced or massacres prevented by banning ownership of particular weapons, I would be the first to advocate that, but there is insufficient evidence, I fear, to warrant such a view.
  I was speaking last week to a Labour Member whom I shall not name. She disagrees with her party's policy on guns. She said that in one London borough last year there were 700 gun-related incidents to which the police were called. Every one of those incidents involved illegally held guns. By banning legally held guns, we will leave in place up to 1 million illegally held guns. There seems to be a "Witches of Salem" witch hunt against a part of the community which, up to now, has been exceptionally law abiding.
  Mr. Budgen: On the matter of illegally held guns, there is a dispute about the figures, which range from I million as the lowest estimate to 2.7 million as the highest.
  Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend cites an extremely worrying figure. Nothing that we can do through prescriptive legislation will affect such a serious problem.
  I am worried about the stalking Bill as well. Would Romeo have been guilty of stalking Juliet? There must be a definition. We cannot simply pass in a few months legislation that will put at risk practices that hitherto have been considered legitimate, if rather odd. There must be a proper definition so that the courts can be certain that an ordinary person—a lady—is being made to suffer intense, physical, personal fear.
  We have heard, rightly, that there is no proper definition of knives. We need a clear definition with regard to the paedophile register. None of us has any time
  376
  for paedophiles, but we must consider these matters carefully. If we must wait until the next Parliament to produce properly framed legislation on stalking, paedophiles or guns, so be it. That is the function of Parliament.
  We commissioned Lord Cullen to study a specific matter, which he did extremely carefully. We should have allowed him to publish his report; a short statement should have been issued on which people could comment; after a few weeks there should have been another debate in which we could express our views, and draft legislation should then have been produced. If it meant that we could not pass that legislation by the May deadline, so be it—at the beginning of the next Parliament we would at least have ended up with legislation that would stand the test of time.
  I support the Home Secretary on minimum sentences. I have suggested that course of action for many years, but the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) is right: that alone will not solve the problem.
  I wish that we had the time and the majority—which, clearly, we do not—to debate a Queen's Speech that got to grips with the real problems in society. The series of measures that we are debating is merely a palliative. They cannot address the real problems. We need to start, as the hon. Member for St. Helens, South made clear, right at the beginning. Hon. Members may not be aware that 33 per cent. of children under the age of five are raised on income support, or that our rate of taxation on working-class families, where the father is working and the mother is at home looking after the children, is one of the highest in Europe.
  The Budget is probably as important as any measure in the Queen's Speech, if not more important. I hope that the Chancellor addresses the problems of society not simply with a cut in the base rate, but by using the benefit and tax system to encourage children to be brought up by parents, with one parent looking after small children full time.
  In the debate about morals, freedom in society and law and order, we hear that there should be more emphasis on civic values in school. There is a danger that there will be increasingly faddish courses based on the latest fashion. We already have provision for daily religious assemblies—the legislation has been on the statute books since the second world war. Let us enforce it. Let us ensure that, at least for half an hour each day, all our children have a simple prayer, psalm or gospel story. Those stories have been around for 2,000 years. They have some effect in instilling basic civil, civic and ethical virtues in children.
  The Government propose to introduce a Bill to address the problem of social security fraud. We cannot simply address the issue at that stage. Why are youngsters being paid to do nothing? Is it surprising that we are creating a desperately unhappy, purposeless, valueless underclass when we pay youngsters to do nothing? Should not we have an individual-based social security system that encourages youngsters back into work and training? Most of the crime that we are considering is committed by youngsters aged between 15 and 25. Every youngster should be nurtured by society to make a contribution. If that means having a fully functioning workfare system, a Bill should be proposed in the Queen's Speech—or, if

  377
  we do not have a sufficient majority, in the next Queen's Speech—to bring in a workfare system for young people, because the problem starts early.
  We could go all through society. What sort of Queen's Speech do we really want? Our social security system is breaking down. At the moment there are three working people to every retired person. By the time I have retired, there will be only two working people to every retired person. We have £6,000 of unfunded pension liabilities for every retired person in the country. I do not blame the Government because they do not have the majority, but there is nothing in the Queen's Speech to solve that fundamental social problem. The Select Committee on Social Security will soon produce a report on how to address the problem. It has been addressed elsewhere in the world by the creation of properly funded personal pension systems in private companies, so that everyone has an individual pension and can be secure in old age.
  I wish that there were proposals in the Queen's Speech for a Bill to extend the voucher system, so that we could have true parental responsibility throughout the school years, not just for nursery education.
  One theme runs through what I have said: we cannot solve society's problems simply by bringing in fashionable legislation at the last moment to ban this or that. Conservatism is about nurturing the individual. We must try to nurture ethical and responsible individuals before school age, at school, while they are seeking work and when making provision for the education of their children and for their pensions.
  That is the sort of Queen's Speech that we should have. I very much hope that, after next May, we shall have a majority to enable to us to put it through Parliament.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: It is unlikely to come as a surprise to Ministers that I have chosen to address my remarks to that part of the Gracious Speech which deals with organised crime and terrorism.
  The Gracious Speech says:
  "The fight against terrorism. organised crime and drug misuse and trafficking will remain a priority".
  What does that mean? The need to protect society from the sophisticated and professional threat posed today by terrorism and organised crime requires effective detention and deterrent measures before we can begin to think about the length of sentences.
  I am astonished that, apparently, the most daring proposal under consideration for hindering organised crime is for a draft Bill to open the way for voluntary identity cards. I suggest to the Home Office that terrorists and criminals are unlikely to be volunteers, unless the measure is so innocuous as to have little or no relevance in the fight against crime.
  I know the Home Secretary's dilemma. He must face the obstruction and ridicule of that small but vocal bevy of bleeding hearts who are, allegedly, so eager to protect our civil rights. I cannot take too seriously the protestations of those who consider the civil rights of terrorists and drug barons worthy of precedence over those of society, which has had to carry the brunt of the
  378
  Canary Wharf, Manchester, Hyde park and Warrington bombings, or over those of parents who grieve for children who die through drug abuse.
  I have no regard for those few misguided, malicious and treacherous hon. Members who seek to promote the interests of IRA terrorists such as Gerry Adams. By their actions, they demean our democratic system.
  The problem that any Home Secretary faces is that organised crime is so elaborate that it will not be overcome unless every one of us is prepared to pay a share of the price required. I believe that we may have to sacrifice some of our rights as individuals to underpin the rights of society. That is where the Home Secretary must start.
  The Home Secretary must embark on an intensive, coherent and co-ordinated public information campaign. The public have a right to know what organised crime costs them, not least in their pockets. For example, the state loses nearly £600 million in tax revenue in one year because of tobacco smuggling. What is the Home Secretary going to do about that? In this age of instant communication and worldwide travel, alcohol, drugs, gambling and the financial markets are all areas in which huge illegal fortunes are being made and where the standards of our society are being corrupted.
  I do not believe that retribution is solely dependent on longer prison sentences, although the professional criminal who gambles for enormous stakes at the expense of society must pay a heavy price in that respect. For a hardened criminal and a terrorist, retribution should be a balance between the length of sentence and tougher, more austere prison conditions. It is time that the man in the designer suit—there are many such criminals—understood that prison is not about cellular phones and a free office courtesy of Her Majesty's Prison Service where he can conduct business as usual. He should find it a miserable place, where every vestige of his corrupt existence is effectively challenged.
  Real retribution must become what it once was—being subjected to a rigorous, disciplined regime in prison and to the reality that the evildoer, even on release, will never be able to enjoy his ill-gotten gains.
  The Nick Leesons of this world should not be elevated to folk hero status, entitling them to private visits from all and sundry, especially not cheque-book journalists and publishers. He is no folk hero. He knew the implications of what he was doing. He, and others, such as the Maxwell dynasty who preyed on their employees, are scum and should be treated as such.
  The press has a part to play. The Home Secretary must seek to educate society through the responsible and objective elements of the press. The press must accept responsibility and promote, not diminish, our legal system by its presentation of law and order issues.
  Turning specifically to terrorism, I commend to the Home Secretary's careful attention an article in The Observer yesterday which examined the way in which the IRA's financial business is organised. It will come as no surprise to learn that Gerry Adams was the architect of the complex multi-million pound business which is IRA Murder Incorporated. Terrorism needs finance. To deal effectively with that problem, we need new thinking from this administration.
  Currently, politicians in Northern Ireland have had to create structures and arrangements for the rehabilitation of an organisation that has made it patently obvious that

  379
  it has not the slightest intention of abandoning its adherence to violence and insurrection. Instead, IRA-Sinn Fein rejected the otherwise unanimous acceptance by the Dublin Forum for Peace and Reconciliation of the need for political consent as the basis for a political way forward.
  The IRA, unlike Loyalist terrorists, has a strategy that is intended to take it into the next century and beyond. It does not intend to deviate from that strategy. It has, therefore, to be opposed, but opposition that depends merely on conventional policing, including the work of the intelligence services, will not be enough. Instead, there must be effective action on the financial front where the terrorist consistently crosses the murky boundary between terrorism and what is foolishly called ODC—ordinary decent crime. The setting up of the terrorist finance unit in Northern Ireland was a start, but more needs to be done.
  One of the biggest problems arising from organised crime and terrorism is that Joe Public does not know and is not told enough about what it all means. Having been kept in the dark, he treats the issue as though it is someone else's problem. The public in general has to be actively recruited, encouraged to support the authorities and, most importantly, protected when it does so. The use of informer evidence should be re-examined. Ten years ago, we almost succeeded in that, but our public relations were totally inadequate and we failed to withstand IRA propaganda, particularly in the United States.
  So-called supergrass or converted terrorist evidence must be permitted within strictly controlled conditions. In that respect the world has changed in the past decade. The United States now knows the treachery of the IRA and has experienced terrorism at first hand.
  Converted terrorist evidence has worked in Italy. There was a time when the mafia ruled supreme and no one dared challenge its awful authority, but that has changed. While the United Kingdom system of law and order has served us well in the past, it now needs to be radically reviewed. My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux)—the present and the previous leader of my party—have advocated the use of investigative magistrates, endowed with wider powers than the police to call witnesses and to ensure their protection afterwards. That idea was mooted again yesterday in The Observer.
  The Administration could learn from the way in which other countries deal with terrorist incidents. I have advocated the introduction of quite stringent measures to deal with terrorism and criminality. I do so not because I wish to see the creation of authoritarianism in our country, but because there have to be new, potent measures to protect society.
  Incumbent upon any Administration with the courage to embark on such an effective programme will be the responsibility to ensure that the state is beyond reproach in its implementation of those measures. With every new initiative, there will have to be a transparent system of checks and balances, not to ameliorate the effect on the offender, but to reassure society.
  6.33 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: One of the closing remarks in the speech by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) struck me as particularly right. He said that
  380
  the first obligation on the Government of the day was to protect the people. That overriding obligation runs through the law and order theme in the Queen's Speech.
  Part of the current debate has been to assume that some of the appalling events of recent months, particularly the murder of Mr. Lawrence, suggest that our society is fractured and the fact that a young person was capable of behaving in that way means that there is something rotten about our society. I do not agree. The fact that someone could murder Mr. Lawrence is evidence not of a fractured society, but of the eternal battle between good and evil. Those of us who take pride in our society feel that, despite all the complex problems that a sophisticated country faces as we approach the second millennium, we have a fine and decent society that should be protected.
  There is an obligation on us to use the language of good and evil—unfashionable as that may be. I do not consider the murder of Mr. Lawrence to be evidence of fracture, but of a society under siege. A society that has confidence in its own worth and believes in its virtues and the sense of common purpose that most of us feel represents a corpus of values that is worth protecting to the last extremity.
  One subject that has not been mentioned so far in the debate—perhaps because it has become increasingly unfashionable—is the role that capital punishment might have to play in any proper penal system.
  I am delighted that the Government are committed to building 12 new prisons. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) said, we should believe that as it has already happened in the past. However, in time, we shall need more than 12 extra prisons if we constantly incarcerate the most odious scum that society can produce. If we continue to lock up rapists and murderers from the time of their conviction to the end of their natural lives, we may have to consider what happened in the United States where it was thought that capital punishment had been abolished for ever—it has been brought back.
  When my constituents spoke to me about Dunblane—the same is true for every hon. Member—it was clear that, had Hamilton survived they would not have wanted to know why he went off the rails. They would not have wanted to know whether he had an unhappy childhood. They would not have been concerned—as the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) was—that had he been put in prison, he might have been deprived of hope. They would have known what they wanted to happen to Mr. Hamilton: they would have wanted him to be taken to a place of execution and executed.
  Although I greatly respect the views and judgment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) in these matters, he should face one fact. He says that there is a political imperative for banning handguns which goes far beyond the demands of logic and reason, but if there is an imperative to be followed, it leads in another direction too. We know the views of the parents of Dunblane on handguns and the House will deliver what they want, but we also know what their views on the restoration of capital punishment would have been had Hamilton survived.

  381
  The House will respond with commendable speed by doing what parents want when it coincides with what we want, but time and again, in regard to capital punishment—which is not a party political point—the House debates what the people of the country want. There will come a time—in 20, 30, 40 or 50 years' time—when we simply cannot have our gaols bulging with the very worst creatures in society when the public demands that some of them at least should pay the ultimate penalty.
  I do not understand how anyone can believe that the principle of minimum sentencing is wrong. It is not unknown to the criminal system and where it exists it works well. It is something that I have called for over the years, and at times I have been told that it was quite impossible. Why should it be impossible? What could be wrong with a mandatory life sentence for a second offence with the provision that in exceptional circumstances a judge could say otherwise, if it provides a mechanism for dealing with those who are unable to control their urges and satisfy the parole board that they are safe? Some may still subscribe to the idea that property is theft and feel that it is unfair to have minimum sentences on burglars, but the abhorrence of offences of trafficking class A drugs cuts across ideas about education, background, left, right, Conservative, Liberal, Labour or whatever. How can anybody deny that someone who has been convicted of a second offence of trafficking in class A drugs should not receive a minimum sentence of seven years? Such a sentence seems entirely appropriate.
  I was having a discussion recently with some judges over lunch. That shows how catholic my eating habits are. Given my views, it shows how catholic their eating habits are as well. One judge asked me whether I realised that if the proposals of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary went forward, it would not be the views of the judiciary that counted but those of the man in the street. I thought for a moment that I was being treated to some sort of exercise in heavy judicial wit, but the comment was truly meant. When I said that I, as somebody elected by people, thought that the ideas and views of ordinary men and women about criminal sentencing should be taken into account—not as final writ without any qualification—my comment was regarded as truly extraordinary. I am afraid that the judiciary will learn in due course that what ordinary people believe in passionately ought to play a part in framing policy.
  One can never stand still; one should always think about measures that could be introduced in future. Speaking as somebody who has practised criminal law for well over 20 years, I should say that the inability of the jury to know, except in the most exceptional circumstances, the previous convictions of those standing before them leads to many outrages. On many occasions I have heard a gasp from a jury when, having acquitted someone, its members have suddenly discovered the knowledge that they have been denied—that that person had a string of previous convictions—and that the defendant has to stay behind because other matters are pending against him. It is not beyond the wisdom of a competent judge to advise a jury and direct its members that the mere fact that a person has previous convictions does not mean that their guilt must be assumed, but it should be taken into account.
  382
  If the ideas that run through the Queen's Speech and inform this debate appeal to the public—as I believe they do—the public need have no doubt about who will be capable of delivering such an agenda with passion and conviction. The simplest proposition of all, that the prosecution should be able to appeal against an over-lenient sentence, was fought tooth and nail and derided by the Labour party when it was introduced. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) took a great deal of time during debate on that proposition to say what he thought about it. How on earth can a party that cannot even summon up the collective will to support the right of the prosecution to challenge an over-lenient sentence come to this House, let alone go to the country, and speak with conviction? The law and order matters in the Queen's Speech are right, correct, effective and go with the grain of what people want. When people consider that, they need have no doubt about which party to look to in order to deliver it.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. Don Touhig: I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate. I must declare an interest. As many hon. Members know, I am a parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation. I think that it is only right that I should remind the House of that fact in this debate.
  I was surprised when I heard in this year's Queen's Speech that we were to have another crime Bill. The Government have introduced more than 30 crime Bills in 17 years, and they still have not got it right. When there is no crime Bill before the House of Commons, there will be a gap in all our lives.
  I was even more astonished to discover that the proposed crime Bill did not include measures to combat paedophiles and stalking—two issues about which the Government have made a great deal of noise. Indeed, until Monday last week, the Home Secretary, no less, led us to believe that legislation on those two issues would be introduced as private Member's Bills.
  I was particularly surprised because, in May, I shared a platform with the Home Secretary when he addressed the Police Federation conference in Scarborough. Then he said that he would introduce legislation to combat stalking
  "at the earliest available opportunity".
  There we have it. Until Monday last week, he was planning all along to introduce a private Member's Bill himself. Having undergone that experience myself in the last Session, I would happily give him some tips.
  Perhaps the real reason why the Home Secretary made that announcement to the Police Federation conference in May was that, just before he spoke, the conference had unanimously voted to press for legislation to combat stalking. The Home Secretary received no applause for his announcement at that conference. The Government had just wrecked a private Member's Bill on stalking introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson). Clearly, the police, like the rest of the society, simply no longer take the Government at face value.
  Members on both sides of the House agree that Bills to combat stalking and paedophiles must get on the statute book as soon as reasonably possible. When, day after day, our papers feature stories of how this stalker cannot be arrested or that paedophile was known to the police but not the local school, it is no wonder that the public have

  383
  lost faith in the criminal justice system. By dealing with those two high-profile issues effectively, we in this House can play our part in restoring public confidence in the criminal justice system.
  Thus, unusual though it was, I welcomed the Prime Minister's U-turn on Wednesday, when he suddenly let the Home Secretary off the hook. The Home Secretary will not be queuing with us to sign up to introduce a private Member's Bill tomorrow morning.
  I welcome some of the measures that the Government have announced, such as those to combat organised crime. The establishment of a national crime squad and a more developed role for the National Criminal Intelligence Service will help fight organised crime. We must ensure that an atmosphere of co-operation rather than competition is fostered between the various crime-fighting agencies, and that there is a smooth exchange of information between them.
  I am sure that the Government were inspired in part by the excellent report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs on organised crime in November 1994. That report noted that organised crime in the United Kingdom was
  "a cause for serious concern",
  and that
  "the fight against organised crime must involve more than just the normal law enforcement agencies".
  Another measure that I would have liked to see in the Queen's Speech was a statutory requirement for local authorities to work with the police on crime prevention strategies. Two weeks ago, I took part in a national conference in Manchester on anti-social behaviour, where I learned of the excellent work being done by local authorities, co-operating with the police across the country.
  In partnership with Gwent police, my own Caerphilly borough council has been particularly active in that area of crime prevention. The council has appointed a crime reduction officer. Regular meetings are held between him and the police, and crime prevention panels, involving members of the community, are being set up throughout the borough. Partnership at a local level between the police, local authorities and the community can reduce crime.
  There are a great many demands on local authority resources, but only by placing a statutory duty on councils to undertake crime prevention work in conjunction with the police can we ensure that prevention remains at the top of the local authority agenda. As all hon. Members know, the public's faith in the criminal justice system is very low at present. If local authorities are not seen to be taking steps against those whose anti-social behaviour causes havoc and misery in our communities, the public will lose confidence in their councils.
  Such a loss of confidence is just part of a downward spiral. If people think that the police take no action when crimes are reported, they will not be prepared to make witness statements, and will feel frustrated. People also become frustrated when criminals are not caught—none more so than the police. When officers cannot tackle stalkers, they become frustrated. When they cannot tackle those responsible for anti-social acts in our community, they become frustrated. When they see convictions fail because the public, disillusioned by the criminal justice system, are no longer prepared to make witness statements, officers become even more demoralised and frustrated.
  384
  A recent Home Office study found that, on high-crime estates in Britain, 13 per cent. of crime reported to the police by victims and 9 per cent. reported by witnesses resulted in people being intimidated. The report said that there was
  "a general unwillingness on the part of the public to come forward as witnesses"
  and that less than a third of people interviewed had reported crimes that they had witnessed. Those findings are clearly disturbing. We need to restore the public's faith and confidence in the criminal justice system.
  As other hon. Members have said, we could help to improve the conviction rate by increasing the number of officers patrolling our streets. The Government must think that that is a good idea, because they keep promising to do so. They promised an extra 1,000 police officers before the 1992 general election and a further 5,000 at their conference last year, but where are those officers? That is what my constituents are asking me.
  Since 1991, the Government have spent nearly £15 million recruiting special constables. Why do they not show a similar enthusiasm for expanding the establishment figures of the regular police force? Compared with 1992, 1,000 fewer officers now serve in Britain. Welsh police forces are threatened with the loss of £4.6 million if the Government decide to extend the area cost adjustment to the rest of England and Wales. That will not improve law and order for the people of Wales, but will result in cuts and fewer officers on the streets. How many more promises will the Government break?
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Touhig: I would normally give way to the right hon. Gentleman but I have only 10 minutes in which to speak.
  If the public no longer have confidence in the criminal justice system, it is because they no longer have faith in the Government. The country wants to pass sentence on the Government, and that sentence will be a stiff period in opposition. We shall then have a Government who truly begin to fight crime, and who, I hope, will not need to introduce a crime Bill year after year.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I shall confine my remarks to the Government's proposals on guns, particularly handguns—
  Mr. John Carlisle: Pistols.
  Mr. Budgen: I have always called them pistols. My hon. Friend rebukes me and I have rebuked others. But we must all be fashionable occasionally.
  I also wish to say a few words about the Government's proposals on gun clubs. Gun clubs used to be regarded as highly honourable, patriotic organisations, set up in much the same spirit as the Territorial Army. Historically, many of them were set up after the South African war, when many people who lived in urban areas and were prevented by draconian laws on poaching from exercising skills with guns in the countryside, were encouraged to set up their

  385
  own sporting rifle and pistol clubs in urban areas. They have been regarded as highly responsible and potentially patriotic people ever since. Although they are a minority, they have never previously regarded themselves as threatened.
  Many other minorities know that they are threatened, such as those who indulge in game shooting and the quarter of a million people who go hunting. As soon as they perceive themselves to be threatened in any way, they are quickly on to their parliamentary representatives, urging them to protect their rights.
  Curiously, the urban people who have so honourably and responsibly run their gun clubs—the people of Burnley, Bradford and Birmingham—have been abandoned. Their natural representative, the Labour party, has been so anxious to support the high-minded middle-class people of Islington and Hampstead that it has forgotten many of its traditional supporters. I hope that the Tory party will not make that mistake. We have many supporters in urban areas—natural Tory patriots who regard their membership of a gun club as part of that patriotism.
  Whenever there is a hue and cry, contrary to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) says, it is the role of the High Court of Parliament to take into account public opinion; but we do not have the high honour of being Members of Parliament to be a lynch mob. We are assembled here to weigh carefully the rights and liberties of every section of the community, and gun club members have as much right as anybody else to have their views carefully considered when they are unpopular.
  Unfortunately, it has been put about that some sort of deal has been done between the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland on what sort of shooting should be continued in clubs and the use of what I agree should be described as pistols. I am all for deals on public expenditure, and deals must take place between constituencies and ministries. There is nothing immoral about that. But when it is a question of taking away the rights and liberties of a substantial section of the community, there must be some principle about it. That cannot simply be done by a deal dependent on whether somebody has a marginal seat and whether he is running in front of the wind of public opinion. The public must have the sense that their liberty has been taken from them only out of great necessity and principle.
  In his statement to the House on 16 October, the Home Secretary set out proudly, not reluctantly, how he would take away the liberties of ordinary, decent, law-abiding, patriotic citizens. First, he said that he would go further than Cullen in banning the custody of single-shot handguns remaining in people's homes. I think that that is justified—
  Mr. John Carlisle indicated dissent.
  Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend takes a different view. He is entitled to his view.
  386
  The second extension of the Cullen proposals, however—that high-calibre pistols should not be used in the highly controlled environment of a shooting club—is justified simply by one sentence:
  "We believe that a distinction needs to be made between high-calibre handguns, which are principally made for police and military use, and .22 rimfire handguns, which are largely intended for target shooting."—[Official Report, 16 October 1996; Vol. 282, c. 832.]
  Surely it is not the purpose for which the handgun is made that is important but the use to which it is put. Some heavy-calibre pistols may originally have been manufactured for police or military purposes, but, once they are in the controlled environment of a shooting club, they are used for the peaceful purpose of shooting at targets and no other purpose.
  Moreover, let us look at the Government's response to Lord Cullen's report and why they say that they want to go further. On page 5, paragraph 24, we do not see much of an argument explaining why it is all right for people to use .22s in gun clubs but not all right for them to use heavy-calibre pistols. We know that 80 per cent. of pistols—160,000—will be taken out of use. May I be so impertinent as to suggest that, if you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, wanted to take up a life of crime, you would not pinch a pistol from a gun club, but would find out where somebody had an illegally held handgun or rifle? As about a million of those are presently in the public domain, it would be much easier to get one of them than to break into a gun club.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: There are many more than that.
  Mr. Budgen: My right hon. and learned Friend knows much more about the Bar than I do, and is a regular and serious operator at the Old Bailey. I am sure that he is right to say that there are many more than that, but I am taking the Government's figures. They say that there are at least a million illegally held firearms; at most, there may be 2.7 million. I am trying to use the figure that is least advantageous to my argument.
  It is difficult to see why 45,000 people should be deprived of their rights because of the outside chance that someone seeking to commit a crime may break into a gun club. Of course the parents of Dunblane have rights, and those who feel very strongly and emotionally about the use of all handguns should have their case considered carefully. However, Parliament is not the place to reflect the emotion of the moment. We must try to establish some principles so that someone who is deprived of his liberty believes that he has been deprived justly.
  At present, I cannot discern any principle in the Government's distinction. I hope that I shall be persuaded to the contrary, but I hope also that the process will be slow, careful and conciliatory, as 45,000 people must be persuaded as well.
  7 pm
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: Before I raise the issue of crime, which is the subject of tonight's debate, I shall refer to other elements of the Queen's Speech that concern me and probably some of my colleagues.
  There are no positive initiatives in relation to the national health service. The Coventry and Warwickshire hospital in my constituency has provided a service for

  387
  many years. Many people in Coventry have much affection for that hospital, but, in the longer term, it may be threatened with closure and, in the short term, its role will be diminished. That concerns me and my constituents. The Queen's Speech contains no major proposals in relation to homelessness or increased funds for old age pensioners. I touch upon those issues as part of the general debate.
  We must put in context the issue of crime and the crime Bill to which the Home Secretary referred. Ministers boast that they have turned the tide of crime, yet it is on the increase. For example, there were 9,000 recorded acts of violence in the west midlands last year, and the number of notifiable offences increased by 7.8 per cent. Some £227 million-worth of property was stolen—an increase of 94 per cent. on 1988.
  Yet while there is more crime in Coventry, more criminals are getting away with it. The clear-up rate for attempted murder and wounding in the west midlands is 11 per cent. down on the rate six years ago. Criminals are three times more likely to escape conviction now than in 1980. To paraphrase a former Prime Minister: criminals have never had it so good.
  Many problems—such as anti-social neighbours—remain untackled. The crime Bill and the Queen's Speech fail to introduce measures to tackle the rising tide of disorder caused by anti-social neighbours, yet it is fast becoming the issue of most concern among residents, tenants and owner-occupiers.
  Earlier this year, I advanced proposals to enable victims of anti-social behaviour to give evidence against their aggressors. My Witness Protection Bill is a sensible and a practical proposal to deal with a problem that is ignored by the Government. It was received warmly by the national tenants associations and by all sections of the community—both the private and public sectors—in Coventry. However, the Government failed to respond to my initiative. It is not surprising to find that the crime Bill does not tackle anti-social behaviour. The people of Coventry and beyond will be disappointed to learn that the Government have failed to act once again.
  Those people will be disappointed to learn also that the Government have no plans to ban the sale of combat knives. Last year, two young people in my constituency were stabbed. In addition, there were several shootings. The local community was shocked and grief-stricken by those stabbings, and people were particularly alarmed that the weapons used were easily available. I believe that the Government should be held partly responsible for those crimes, as their record on the control of knives is chequered—to put it mildly.
  In May 1995, I asked the Home Office about its plans to ban the sale of knives to children. The Minister replied that no measures needed to be taken, as they would have little effect. Events have moved on since then. Despite repeated warnings from Opposition Members and others, it took a tragedy to force the Government to reconsider their position.
  I welcome the Government's change of heart, but it does not go far enough. It is surely possible to frame a law that clarifies the difference between combat and household knives. That must be within the scope of the Home Office, if only it had the political will. However, it appears that the Government do not have the will to act: they simply tinker around the edges.
  388
  Measures such as minimum sentences instead of greater consistency in sentencing; automatic life sentences instead of greater honesty in sentencing; and abolishing parole instead of introducing reviewable, indeterminate sentences which would protect communities better will do nothing to tackle the real problem of low conviction rates. That is a glaring example of the Government failing to recognise the key issues of concern to the public. The Government are interested in one thing: the election. They are not concerned with protecting the public. If they were interested in safeguarding our streets, they would reconsider the measures that I have outlined.
  7.5 pm
  Mr. Phil Gallie: At the outset, I apologise to my right hon. and learned Friend and to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) for not being present for the beginning of the debate. I made the mistake of travelling from Glasgow airport to Heathrow instead of from Prestwick to Stansted and, as a consequence, I suffered a two-hour delay.
  I listened to the opening speeches in the debate on the Gracious Speech on Wednesday and I was pretty dismayed by the Leader of the Opposition's presentation. Despite his comments about negative campaigning, his speech was filled with negatives, from beginning to end. That contrasted with the positive contribution of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who responded in a reasonable way to the one positive proposal advanced by the Leader of the Opposition—regarding measures against stalking and paedophiles. However, I am somewhat concerned about the introduction of legislation on stalking, as I believe that definitions of stalking will be difficult to clarify, particularly when individuals live in close proximity to each other.
  I commend my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for the way in which they have attempted to deal with criminal law in recent times. My right hon. and learned Friend has been in constant dispute with the courts regarding his interpretation of what is right and just, but it seems to me that his interpretations are very much in line with those of the public at large.
  I listened with interest to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who said that the law is the same for everyone in this country; it is not simply for the lawyers and the judges who operate within the criminal justice system. Respect for the law must be maintained across the land because if people lose respect for the criminal justice system, society will suffer.
  The Gracious Speech did not concentrate simply on the Crime (Sentences) Bill or the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill, measures to which I shall return. It went much further than that. It referred to developments in education, which I believe will have a positive effect on standards in society in the longer term, and also developments in health and primary care. It commented on future legislation. In the environmental sphere, there will be legislation on coastal protection which will improve our quality of life. The Gracious Speech also foreshadowed the introduction of the police Bill, which is a very important step in the battle against organised crime. All the measures are designed to make the United Kingdom a safer and more pleasant place to live in.
  The social security Bill contains important compensation provisions. In considering crime and the criminal justice system, we should recognise that the

  389
  victims should benefit from compensation, especially with regard to the pain and suffering element of that compensation. I look forward to that matter being dealt with by the Bill.
  The firearms Bill is important to everyone in Scotland, because what happened at Dunblane fills us with deep regret. However, I have some reservations about the powerful campaign to ban all so-called handguns. I believe that other factors should be considered and that in the main the Government have got it right. Yesterday I heard the Lord Provost of Glasgow say that he looked forward to the day when Edinburgh and Glasgow could co-host the Olympic games. I asked whether a handgun ban would automatically knock the United Kingdom out of consideration for hosting games. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) suggested that a handgun ban might have an effect on whether Manchester could host the Commonwealth games in a year or two. If a ban does not rule us out from hosting the games, it would certainly rule us out from competing in them.
  If we ban handguns, would it not be logical to go further and ban all guns? I believe that that would be wrong and that it would kill off sporting interests that we have had for many years. I wonder about the tradition of show grounds, where we and our children have all enjoyed the air gun stall; would we ultimately have to scrap air rifles and air gun facilities and stores?
  On combat knives, I wonder whether political opportunism rather than reality might not be the message of the day. It is already illegal to carry on the streets a blade more than three inches long. When I hear of deaths through crimes of violence I have to ask whether the perpetrators are using combat knives, or kitchen or industrial knives; I would suggest that the majority of attacks with knives are made with domestic, not combat, knives.
  That would be of particular interest to people in Scotland. Over the weekend, five people became victims of extremely serious knife attacks in the west of Scotland. We have legislated and banned the carrying of knives, but still such things happen. What would happen with handguns? I suggest that the situation could be the same: we ban handguns and that drives them underground to the extent that the situation is more dangerous than under the limited controls that the Government intend to put in place.
  There is to be an education Bill and I believe that there is much that we could do about discipline. Perhaps it would be a great step forward in instilling some discipline if we were to bring the belt back in Scottish schools. Perhaps there should be other penalties, such as withholding child benefit from parents whose children are persistent absentees or persistently disrupt classes. We should consider such matters, and perhaps the Bill could go a little further.
  I warmly welcome the intention to make sentences mean what they say. My constituents cannot understand why someone who gets a four-year sentence should be out after two years. I argued against that two or three years ago, and I was ridiculed for it by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), among many. Only recently, however, Lord Macaulay said that my arguments had won
  390
  the day, and he is quite right, although they are not just my arguments but those of my constituents, of the people of Scotland and, above all, of common sense.
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It was Lord McCluskey who said that—not Lord Macaulay, who is a very senior judge.
  Mr. Gallie: I thank my right hon. Friend for that correction.
  I welcome the change—it was an amendment for which I pushed—allowing the procurator to appeal against solemn court judgments that are seen to be lenient. I believe that that has been highly successful and I look forward to that right being extended to sheriff court judgments by the Bill on criminal proceedings in Scotland. That is an important step forward.
  My constituents keenly await the introduction of the right of the police to confiscate alcohol from under-age drinkers. That is a testing matter for my constituents, who experience constant problems with young—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I call Mr. Soley.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: I want to concentrate on family issues, crime and crime prevention. I have been commenting on those issues since well before the recent media coverage of the alleged moral crisis that we face. In 1994—the United Nations Year of the Family—I chaired an all-party committee on the family; many of the recommendations in our report concern the questions that we are discussing now.
  It is a tragedy that it took Dunblane and the murder of Mr. Lawrence to make everyone sit up and take notice. The media should recognise that it is important to pick up such issues as early as possible. and that many of them should have been addressed in 1994, the Year of the Family. When people pick on the media and say that they cause violence, they frequently blame television without recognising that newspapers—especially the tabloids—have a problematic way of presenting crime and that they increase the fear of crime by the repetitive reporting of certain cases.
  The current general debate about the family should not panic us into thinking that everything is disastrous. Many good things are happening within family groups and in society as a whole. Many of the young people whom I meet have a high standard of moral behaviour and are deeply concerned about society and about the environment. We are in danger of belittling what they are doing and saying if we carry on pretending that everything is bad.
  I caution hon. Members against looking back at some golden age that in my judgment never existed. I went to school in the 1940s; there were failing schools then and there was plenty of violence in and around our schools. I do not doubt, however, that the situation is much worse now. Hansard will show that I have spoken on the issue in the House over many years, and that the Government were warned about what would happen. In the early 1980s I said that the crime rate would rise faster here than in other European countries if we continued with some of the social and economic policies that were then being pursued.

  391
  I take no satisfaction in saying that I also predicted that there would be a riot in our prisons, before the riots that took place in the early 1980s, and I warn the Government that it will happen again if we continue to use prisons as dumping grounds for people with multiple problems, giving them the impression that we have locked the door and thrown away the key and that even if they behave well they cannot expect any improvement in their conditions or any hastening of their release time. We then expect prison officers to deal with that crisis. That is neither fair nor responsible.
  My next point relates to parenting and crime. Again, there is a danger at the moment that we assume that all crime is the result of bad parenting. Bad parenting is a crucial factor in the causation of crime—I do not doubt that—but it is not the sole factor. Much is also down to the social and economic structure. One reason why parents often fail is that they are tipped into crisis by an economic or social problem that they face—frequently, for example, homelessness or unemployment. If families with young children are put into bed-and-breakfast accommodation—for example, when their houses are repossessed—or if one of the parents of a family that is only just coping, only just holding together, is put into long-term unemployment, the children are more likely to get into trouble. That is why crime goes up when unemployment is higher and tends to go down when it is lower. That is one of the reasons why we must get it right.
  If I had a single message to get across to the Government today, it would be to say to them what we said in 1994 in our all-party parenting committee: they must have a policy on the family. This is not about marriage or single parents: it is about all types of families, because families come in different shapes and sizes and it ill behoves this place to start moralising to people about what kind of family they should have. Many hon. Members—particularly Conservative Members in recent years, but it could apply equally well to Opposition Members—will fall by the wayside if we start moralising in that way. It does not help. Instead, we have to try to help families, and particularly the children, to cope well.
  The one recommendation that I would make would be that a sub-committee of the Cabinet should be set up to look at family matters and to co-ordinate between Government Departments and outside agencies, including local government. People throughout the country are crying out for such co-ordination. We could have aims which, though simple, would affect the crime rate. For example, we could say that no child will be kept in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for more than a month or two.
  Another good way to deal with crime committed by young people would be to ensure that any child expelled from school, as increasingly happens, is back in some full-time education structure, be it a school, a special unit or one-to-one tuition, within a week or so of being expelled. Otherwise, they end up adrift in society, lose their place in the educational queue and become liable to crime.
  The same applies to parenting education. One cannot just dump parenting education on schools and expect it to work. The policy on it needs to be thought out. Nobody in the Government or the country at the moment—other than voluntary groups and one or two people who are ahead of the field on this—is giving much thought to that.
  392
  Let us get tough on crime. My great criticism of the Government is that they have never been tough on crime, in the sense that they need to stop crime happening. They are soft on crime. On punishment, they think that they are hard, but in fact they are just muddled. If they were to say to a hardened criminal, "We are going to lock you up for life if you carry a gun, and you will get the same sentence if you kill the person you faced," the criminal might as well kill that person. To go down that rather stupid road would endanger the public. We can ban the sale of guns. In 1985, when I was shadow Minister for home affairs, I put it to the House that there should be a standing committee of the Home Office to consider the question of imitation guns. At that time, two youngsters had been shot while holding imitation guns that the police thought were real—understandably, in the circumstances. There was also Hungerford. We should have taken action there and then.
  What about knives? Who can believe that it is beyond the wit of the House to legislate to prevent the open display and advertising of killing knives? Of course it is within our capacity, and we should have legislated against that ages ago.
  We should also have a proper policy on crime prevention. Every local authority and police force should be required to come up with a crime prevention policy to target crime. There is one bit of hope for the Government, and it does not come from them. Crime levels may drop, but that is because unemployment is falling and police and local authorities now have good crime prevention policies. We have cut burglaries on one estate in Hammersmith by 66 per cent. in two years, but we did that only by crime prevention policies between the police and local authority. If we can do it in Labour-controlled Hammersmith, the Government could ask for it to be done throughout the country, but the police and local authorities have to take the lead and they should be given encouragement to do that.
  7.24 pm
  Mr. David Atkinson: I begin my speech on the home affairs debate on the Loyal Address by applauding the Government for all the measures that have succeeded in halting the rise in crime in my constituency. The Bournemouth police division is experiencing its second successive year of falling crime. Particularly encouraging to my constituents is the dramatic decrease in burglaries of domestic homes—so far this year, 34 per cent.—while crime in general has decreased, by 13 per cent. I thank the Government for those measures and for the greatly increased resources and police manpower that are making my constituents more secure in their homes and safer as they go about their business.
  Under the Conservatives, since 1979, spending on the Dorset police has increased by 112 per cent. in real terms—by £57 million. Police strength has risen and there are an additional 467 officers and staff. I understand that we are to obtain a further 66 officers following last year's announcement of an extra 5,000 police over the next three years, and, for the first time this year, the Home Office will pay the security costs of the Conservative party conference, which took place in Bournemouth a couple of weeks ago, to the tune of £1.5 million, all of which is good news for my constituents.

  393
  Nevertheless, despite those achievements, the chief constable of Dorset remains concerned that his force remains undermanned and under-resourced, particularly in comparison with other areas. For example, the population-police ratio for Dorset is 1:527, compared with the average of 1:494 for all the non-Metropolitan police forces. Two months ago, one of my constituents, the mother of a 16-year-old boy, telephoned 999 to report that her son had been assaulted by a number of youths in an attack involving knives and CS gas. The father subsequently went off to confront the youths alone. The mother complained to me that the police did not respond to her call. Apparently, in attempting to respond to her call, the police were diverted to other calls; it was proving to be an exceptionally busy evening and all local officers were already committed to other duties, including the policing of an AFC Bournemouth football match.
  I accept that difficult decisions had to be made that evening, but personal experiences such as that are rightly encouraging my constituents to press for more police for Bournemouth. I hope that the Government will fully accept and implement the recommendations of the Elliot report, which found that Dorset's present area cost adjustment does not adequately and fairly reflect our costs. The recommendations would mean extra resources for the Dorset police authority.
  The success of Dorset police in reducing crime in Bournemouth is attributed to more effective intelligence-led policing, leading to the conviction and imprisonment of persistent offenders. I pay tribute to the police for that. It is also put down to habitual burglars receiving longer gaol sentences from the courts. In the light of this local experience, I welcome the proposal in the Queen's Speech for a new crime Bill providing for stiff new minimum prison sentences for professional house burglars. Because so much crime today is drug related, I welcome the stiff new minimum prison sentences for persistent dealers in hard drugs. Only by keeping such hardened criminals locked up for longer can our constituents be better protected from them and others deterred from following their example. I hope that, while in prison, criminals are made to spend their time more productively. I believe that prisons should be profit making, that prisoners should work to pay compensation to their victims and pay for the cost of their accommodation.
  Of course, longer sentences may mean heavier demand on prison places. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is already responding to that with more places and new prisons. However, I urge him to consider the position of people who end up in prison for minor offences, such as non-payment of television licences or default on fines, when that was not the court's intention. Richard Tilt, the head of the Prison Service, recently referred to that. Community work and curfew orders were intended for such people, and electronic tagging was intended for young offenders. Prisons should be a last resort, to be used for people who pose a real threat to the rest of us in the community.
  I welcome the Government's decision to introduce legislation to curb stalkers and to establish a national register of child sex offenders. The cases of two of my constituents were referred to me recently. Their quality of life is being destroyed by stalkers, one of whom is
  394
  apparently working in collusion with others. Those tragic cases can be dealt with only by new and effective legislation.
  The establishment of a paedophile register has been welcomed by my local newspaper, the Bournemouth Evening Echo, which has given a lead with its "protect our children" campaign. It has pioneered the establishment of a register available to key groups working with children in the community. That campaign was in response to a one third increase in the number of Dorset children facing violence, sexual abuse and neglect. It has already been picked up across the water in France by newspapers in Cherbourg. Given the events that have taken place in Belgium, it should be emulated there and throughout the European Union. Just as there is a single market for jobs, we should establish common standards of protection for our children. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office will deal with that matter in his winding-up speech. Why cannot the lead taken by the Bournemouth Evening Echo result in a Europewide register available to all?
  I welcome the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. It is a fair and realistic compromise between the Cullen recommendations and the reasonable demand of gun owners and clubs for the retention of target shooting with low calibre pistols, which, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary reminded us, is an Olympic sport. Given the figures quoted in the media, I suggest that the amount to be set aside for compensation is totally inadequate. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister give me an assurance that it will adequately compensate not only for guns but for ancillary equipment, such as holsters, magazine pouches and shell slides, which will become useless, and possibly illegal, under the Bill?
  Bournemouth and other seaside resorts have a problem with houses in multiple occupation and hostels, which attract benefit claimants from inner cities and from the Irish Republic, who are often encouraged by the advertisements of commercial organisations. Constituents complain that some of those places are centres for crime, drugs, prostitution and other anti-social behaviour. They adversely affect my constituents' quality of life, and threaten the viability of our tourism industry, on which our local economy and jobs depend. People will not want to take their families for a seaside holiday in a hotel next door to such places.
  I welcome the special control provision in the Housing Act 1996, which gives local authorities the powers that they previously lacked to respond to this problem by closing the places that management and landlords clearly cannot control. It is essential that resort authorities apply for those new powers and use them to reverse the present decline. I hope that Bournemouth borough council, which is controlled by the Liberal Democrats, will use those new powers. As a result, they will revive the tourism industry in parts of the borough, and the quality of life of my constituents will no longer be threatened. I thank the Government for responding so positively to this problem.
  7.33 pm
  Mr. Robin Corbett: People in my constituency and elsewhere do not understand what the Government claim they are doing to make their lives safer. People know that crime has doubled, and that

  395
  violent crime has doubled and then increased by a fifth, because they are the victims of such crime. No measure proposed in the Queen's Speech deals with their concerns.
  It is unclear how 22 new prisons and an extra £500 million a year to keep convicted criminals in prison longer will make the lives of my constituents safer. If I could choose how to spend £500 million to deter, prevent and detect crime, I am not sure that I would build new prisons. How many closed circuit television schemes would £500 million provide? That would stop the present ludicrous practice of schemes having to compete against each other for funds—a process that shows the great need for such schemes in many parts of the country.
  In Erdington high street, traders, who already pay the business rate, must now raise £50,000 to enter a lottery to get a matching amount out of the Home Office. On Friday, I attended a meeting of a group of people from Erdington neighbourhood watch. It was one of several such meetings that I have had across the constituency in the past few months. Those people are concerned about changes made in the organisation of West Midlands police. They believe that Erdington police station delivers a worse service at a time when crime along the high street has grown. For long periods, the police station is run by what they describe as "green jumper" civilians rather than police officers. They are worried that liaison between the police and neighbourhood watch groups is to be passed to a civilian, so that there will be even less contact between the police and the public whom they serve.
  In the Birches Green and Stockland Green areas of my constituency, we have held public meetings involving the police and city council officers to discuss ways of building partnerships to prevent crime and anti-social behaviour. Work led by Birmingham city council, for which no specific grant is available, has been innovative and ambitious in building and developing a community safety strategy. The aim is to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour, to reduce the fear of crime and to improve responses to issues of public concern. The strategy is broader than mere crime prevention, and enables the council to examine social and economic causes of crime and anti-social behaviour.
  The city's track record led to Home Office funding for a three-year study to evaluate that work. The report was submitted in June, and it is believed that it makes the case—made as long ago as 1991 in the Morgan report—that more progress could be made in community safety if local authorities had a statutory responsibility to deliver those services.
  I shall briefly mention three steps that have been taken under that initiative. First, in May, a community partnership day in Druid's Heath brought together community groups, residents, city council departments and other agencies, and led to the drafting of a neighbourhood action plan to respond to the concerns of local residents about policing, youth provision and drug misuse. Secondly, the city council, West Midlands police and the West Midlands probation service have signed a tripartite agreement that lays the foundations for an expanded inter-agency commitment to community safety. Thirdly, and interestingly, community safety packages are part of the curriculum in all schools in the city. They encourage citizenship and responsibility among secondary school students and are entitled BRUM—being responsible, understanding and motivated.
  396
  The Government must understand that community policing will succeed only if it involves the community. People should take more responsibility for what goes on in their areas, with back-up from the police, the city council and other agencies. People also need to feel that the criminal justice system and the police are on their side. It does not help when, at the Government's behest, guidelines are issued to the police that lay down when they should and should not charge people with assault.
  In a recent case, Mr. Leonard Watts was punched in the face during a vicious road rage attack. He took the driver's registration number, and drove straight to the police station despite a cut and bleeding mouth. He was told by the police that they would not investigate the matter because, under those guidelines, the injuries were not serious enough to warrant a charge.
  Neither Mr. Watts nor anyone else can understand that: it must be wrong on several counts. It means that in some circumstances the police, rather than the courts, decide the punishment. It means that, unless someone can afford a private prosecution, which can cost up to £1,500, the thugs can walk free. It means that, while violent crime is still rising, perhaps thousands of such incidents will simply vanish, although reported, because the police feel unable to bring charges. As Graham Wright, senior law lecturer at the university of Central England, said,
  "There is a danger that the true crime picture will be distorted."
  Chief Inspector Barry Evans, chairman of the West Midlands branch of the Police Federation said:
  "We believe this is a cost-cutting exercise."
  Whatever the reasons, it has gone down badly with Mr. Watts and many others.
  A shopkeeper in my constituency spotted two young thieves in his shop, chased them, apprehended them, retrieved the goods and held them until the police arrived. In front of those two young villains the police said, "You have got the goods back. What's the problem? See your solicitor." How are young people supposed to be turned away from crime when they hear police officers saying such things? Why should the police deny the courts the opportunities to act on behalf of the community to turn these and other young people away from crime?
  Even those working in the criminal justice system do not understand what the Government are about. Prison officers in Birmingham's Winston Green prison have written to tell me that the prison board is considering contracting out to the private sector the administration of finance, personnel and prisoner services in all 126 prison establishments and at Prison Service headquarters. Management estimates that that puts 2,510 jobs at risk. In their letter, the officers state:
  "This revelation has angered the thousands of loyal, hard working Prison Service staff, who have responded to numerous changes and challenges in recent years and helped the service through difficult times."
  I hope that I shall not be alone in endorsing what they say next. They state:
  "We believe that the functions concerned should only be undertaken by public servants for reasons of integrity and confidentiality in such a sensitive, demanding and, at times, dangerous, area of public life."
  I hope that the Minister will comment on that in his winding-up speech.
  Increasing the number of police officers and building more and more prisons to keep more and more people locked up for longer will not, on their own, make our

  397
  communities safer and it is wrong to pretend that they will. Community safety is best assured when communities relearn what living in a community is about and learn that some things can be done only by acting together. In one sense, it is rediscovering neighbourliness and recognising that the cost of crime for all communities is high and rising in economic and social terms.
  A Government who have presided over a doubling of crime have shown that they are incapable of restoring a sense of safety to people and their communities. There is one last contribution that this Government can make. It is to step aside and make room for a new Government who know what needs to be done and will do it.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. David Martin: This debate is a useful opportunity to raise some concerns that should be addressed in the new Session, either in the legislation proposed in the Gracious Speech or in other parliamentary ways. Many improvements that I have in mind for my constituents do not require legislation. I shall give two examples. I welcome the proposed health care Bill, which will offer doctors opportunities to set up even better and more diverse services for patients and build on the significant improvements that have been achieved in recent years, but I should like two more specific developments in the national health service as soon as possible.
  First, more needs to be done to meet the reasonable concerns of people who do not want to share non-emergency wards with the opposite sex. Mixed-sex non-emergency wards are relatively new in the NHS. No doubt some hon. Members will remember the time when such wards would not have been introduced. At that time, single-sex wards were considered the only way to be treated in hospital. I am aware of the costs which it is claimed are saved and the shorter waiting time for beds in some cases, but the patients charter gives the patient a right to be told before admission whether it is planned that he or she should enter a mixed ward. If a patient prefers single-sex provision, those wishes should be respected where possible.
  For the sake of respecting the dignity and comfort of patients, and to meet the concern of many people on this issue, which has been expressed to me and in petitions recently raised in Portsmouth over a longer time and in the local newspaper, more effort should be made in Portsmouth and nationally to provide real choice and separate provision, without unreasonable delay in admission or treatment. If necessary, the patients charter should be strengthened to make that clear.
  Secondly, I urge the Government to make it clear that health care must include an automatic reminder for breast cancer screening for women over the age of 64. They currently have a right to such screening but, as there is no regular recall, many do not realise it, let alone take advantage of it.
  I support the promised provisions of an education Bill which will strengthen teachers' powers of suspension, exclusion or expulsion of badly behaved pupils. The Home Office should be concerned to know where such pupils go and what they get up to when they are not at school. That was mentioned by the hon. Member for
  398
  Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). The problem is already noticeable in Portsmouth and arises from truancy as well as from suspension or expulsion. The answer is that such pupils make nuisances of themselves on the streets.
  The Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment must consider providing places which such pupils must attend. They could be called attendance centres or attendance units, but whatever they are called they should quickly provide some hours of the day that are more unpleasant than those at school. The centres should also be constructive and reform young people so that they can return to their schools and not make nuisances of themselves as before. Having to do something else when they are expelled, excluded or suspended from school would be not only a deterrent to persistently bad school behaviour but prevent children from roaming the neighbourhood with nothing to do but make trouble.
  I welcome the inclusion in the legislative programme of Bills to deal with paedophiles and stalkers. Paedophiles cause immense suffering to children and their families, and the more information there is about particular people the better so that parents and the authorities have a better chance of protecting children from their evil activities. The criminal law has been added to over the years in an attempt to meet the curse of stalking which, with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), goes well beyond the actions of Romeo pursuing Juliet. There have been some spectacular successes when there has been the will to bring a prosecution using existing law, but there is no doubt that further measures are required. They should improve present procedures, which have proved too costly or cumbersome to protect those who are literally terrorised by people who are often disturbed and violent.
  I have considerable sympathy for the Government in attempting to square the circle on the proposed provisions for gun control, and considerable contempt for the opportunist party politicking of the opposition parties. The powerfully argued case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) will take some answering and I hope that I shall hear some answers in due course. In any change in the law, there has to be proper compensation for all those responsible people whose hitherto lawfully held weapons are to be banned and for clubs and businesses whose lawful activities will be made impossible.
  I am pleased to see that the Home Office will be busy in this Session. I hope that means that there will be no more legislation on the extension of drinking hours late at night in densely populated areas in my constituency such as Southsea and Portsmouth. I do not welcome such legislation and I have consistently opposed it over the years. Residents in those areas will welcome the absence in the Gracious Speech of any such measures. Hopefully, there will be no parliamentary time to bring in any more.
  One thing is certain, and it applies to all legislative programmes. Whatever we pass or do not pass into law, the great engines of Government churn on and the fuel for bureaucracy never fails. The endless offspring of earlier legislation—the thousands of statutory instruments and orders, of both domestic and European manufacture—pass year by year into our law and administration, mostly with scarcely a nod from members of some underpowered parliamentary Committee, let alone the vote of anyone on the Floor of the House. Such legislation is relentless,

  399
  never ending and pushing us ever closer to the continental system of government, with powerful functionaries and weak parliamentarians, in which Members of Parliament are at best irritants and at worst powerless to change much of any great significance.
  That is one of the main reasons why I am strongly against any further integration into European economic and monetary union, and why I am, in principle, against our country joining a single currency, in whatever details it is dressed up in due course. I understand of course the difficulties of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on this subject and the formula for as much peace in the ranks as possible, but I have long made my opposition to a single currency plain and I will do so right up to the general election.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy: The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) referred to his contempt for what he called the opportunistic Labour party. I assure him that it is nothing compared with the contempt of the people of Scotland for people such as him, who are totally out of tune with feeling in Scotland and who do not seem to give two hoots for the strength and feeling there, so I assure him that contempt is directed back to him across the Chamber.
  In describing the Queen's Speech, the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) referred to the positive way in which the Prime Minister had responded to the two measures on which Labour had offered co-operation. Rather than showing a positive side, it showed a weak Prime Minister. The thrust and tone of the Queen's Speech was designed, he hopes, to embarrass the Opposition. It, too, showed the Government's weakness and desperation. As they get closer and closer to their nemesis of the general election, they are scrambling about in an opportunistic way, with a Queen's Speech that is designed around, not a positive programme, but an electioneering programme to try to wrong foot the Opposition. That is weakness and deserves contempt because, instead of being used for the sake of Britain, the Gracious Speech is being used entirely for negative party interests.
  I should like to spend some time on Dunblane, because people such as me better reflect national feeling in Scotland and throughout the UK than the hon. Member for Ayr. There is a revulsion against the importation into Britain of the gun culture. The right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) mentioned the fear of that gun culture being imported from America into the UK. That is important.
  I take the point about gun clubs made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). I understand how those people feel. They have been conducting this activity for a long period, but society as a whole wants to take action against a gun culture and against guns being regarded as a normal part of society. When it comes down to the potential use of guns, and to society wishing to show its disapproval of a gun culture, the rights of club members pale into insignificance.
  I again condemn the Government for not allowing a free vote on the issue of whether there should be a complete ban on all hand guns. Other hon. Members have made the point about the deadliness of the .22 and the individuals who have been assassinated with that gun. There is no justification for retaining the .22 in clubs.
  400
  A knife culture has been mentioned. Unfortunately, we have such a culture. An increasing number of young people do not seem to realise the damage that can be done by knives, in particular the combat knife. They carry them as an act of bravado. They become involved in some silly incident that flares up. The knife is pulled out and used and, all of a sudden, young people face a charge of murder or serious assault, and the family of the victim must deal with the loss of or a serious injury to a member of their family.
  Politicking has gone on. I am always amazed at the ingenuity of hon. Members on both sides of the House, who come up with ideas and with ways of getting around legislation and problems, but, all of a sudden, the Government tell us that, on this issue, there is no way they can distinguish between a kitchen knife and a combat knife. I do not accept that.
  I am pleased that the Minister of State, Scottish Office, is here tonight because I have just received from him through the post a three or four-page résumé of how wonderfully the Government have been doing in Scotland in relation to his sector of responsibility. His letter states:
  "1995 was the fourth successive year in which recorded crime in Scotland decreased",
  but nowhere does he mention the violent crime figures. It would be interesting if he could respond to that in his winding-up speech—but not during my 10 minutes. Elsewhere in the UK, although crime might have been going down, violent crime seems to be going up. I would be interested to know what the Scottish figures are.
  Closed circuit television schemes were mentioned. There was some mirth earlier in relation, I think, to the Bournemouth Evening Echo. I shall mention the Rutherglen Reformer, which has been behind the lookout CCTV scheme in the Cambuslang, Halfwayhouse and Rutherglen region. There has been terrific community support for that scheme and first-class work from the police. The scheme will be a first-rate contender for funding from the Scottish Office in the next few months.
  I am putting in my plug to the Minister who will take the decision, but is it not ludicrous that, with the amount of money being spent, regions and communities are having to compete with each other for CCTV schemes, which are welcomed and wanted by the community and can serve a good purpose?
  Although strictly speaking not in the Queen's Speech, the next issue I want to mention comes within the home affairs function of the Minister. His circular mentions that the Children (Scotland) Act 1995
  "introduced legislation dealing with public and private law affecting children."
  He makes the point:
  "Consultation is presently under way on draft regulations, rules and guidance which will be required for full implementation by 1 April 1997. Part I of the Act will be implemented in November 1996."
  As I am sure he is aware by now, I have written to him about a constituent of mine who raises issues that the Act clearly does not deal with. They relate to the rights of a father when there is a dispute between him and a mother regarding custody and/or access to a child.
  My constituent maintains—he is backed up by charities—that people such as him are disadvantaged and that the rights of a father are not regarded equally within

  401
  the law. I have written to the Minister asking for a meeting with my constituent to discuss his concerns. I hope that the Minister will agree to that meeting at some point.
  There comes a time when society decides on change. I bear in mind the point made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that the House is here to frame laws. I do not believe in populist laws, but there must be exceptions. The strength of feeling among people not only in Dunblane but the whole of Scotland and throughout the United Kingdom is a clear indication that they expect action. If it is an emotional bandwagon, so what? If we cannot be emotional about an incident such as Dunblane, we cannot be emotional about anything. We should use the determination arising from Dunblane to root out any possibility of a gun culture becoming established in the UK. That would be a first-class testimony to the people of Dunblane.
  8 pm
  Mr. John Whittingdale: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of the measures in the Queen's Speech. I had intended devoting the first part of my speech to a particular welcome for the Local Government and Rating Bill, but given the imposition of 10-minute speeches, I will save my detailed comments for another time. I will merely express my welcome for that Bill's provisions, which will provide a lifeline to many small village stores and post offices in my constituency.
  I will concentrate on those elements of the Queen's Speech that relate to home affairs. Among the more controversial of them is the proposal to introduce minimum sentences for persistent burglars and dealers in hard drugs, together with automatic life sentences for persons convicted for a second time of a serious violent or sexual offence. I can understand the concern of the legal profession that those proposals represent a limitation on the freedom of judges to impose whatever sentence they see fit, but those measures are necessary to restore public confidence in our judicial system.
  There have been too many cases of serious offenders being given sentences that are far too lenient, then released after serving only a fraction of the original sentence. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary referred in his excellent speech to a case in my constituency. The details are so horrific that I believe that it would be useful to the House to provide further information.
  In July, Mr. Harry Bannerman of Asheldham was convicted of multiple rape. At the beginning of his trial, he changed his plea and admitted the rape and false imprisonment of a 67-year-old woman with drink problems and the rape, buggery and false imprisonment of a mental health patient at Severalls hospital in Colchester. Similar charges remain on file, including the rape of an 89-year-old woman at the Asheldham residential home for the elderly, which Bannerman helped to run.
  If that were not enough, it transpired that those were not Bannerman's first convictions. He had a history of offences going back 25 years, to when he was gaoled in 1971 for the rape of a nine-year-old girl whom he had lured into a derelict building and the indecent assault of
  402
  a 12-year-old girl a few days earlier. On that occasion, Bannerman was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. He was let out, only to be gaoled again in 1975 for three years, for four offences of child stealing. In 1980, Bannerman was convicted of the rape of a woman at knifepoint and gaoled for eight years. It seems extraordinary that Bannerman should have received only an eight-year sentence. The judge's description of Bannerman's behaviour on sentencing him this summer of "verging on the Satanic" was no exaggeration.
  The public are entitled to ask why Bannerman was released after his second conviction for rape—particularly as the first was for the rape of a nine-year-old child. Bannerman is now serving a life sentence, but if he had been given life in 1980, the chances are that he would never have been free to commit his latest appalling crimes. We must address that failure of the judicial process.
  Under the proposals of my right hon. and learned Friend, Harry Bannerman would have been sentenced to life imprisonment in 1980. It is possible that he might have been released subsequently, but only under licence and when persons in positions of responsibility were satisfied that Bannerman was no longer a danger to the community. For that reason alone, I strongly support my right hon. and learned Friend's proposed measures—and to achieve them, I am willing to accept a curtailment of the freedom of judges.
  After the tragedy of Dunblane it was right for the House to consider any measures necessary to ensure that such a tragedy could never happen again. The Cullen recommendations are sensible and I am pleased that the Government have moved swiftly to accept them all. I welcome the improvements in school security, vetting of persons working with children, and increased police powers to refuse applications for firearms licences and to revoke existing licences. My reaction will be shared by every responsible gun owner throughout the country.
  I would like the Government to go further in some areas. Controls on the availability of air guns should be reassessed, particularly in relation to the possession of such weapons by young people. Earlier this year, a pupil at the Philip Morant school in Colchester was shot in the eye with an air gun while quietly riding his bike. The youth responsible, who was a member of a gang, shot his victim without any provocation. The result is that the victim has permanently lost the sight of one eye and the fear that any operation to remove the pellet could lead to loss of sight in his other eye.
  The youth responsible was not evil in his intent. He was charged with committing the offence, but he was so horrified at the consequence of his actions that he committed suicide shortly afterwards. That double tragedy came about as the result of a young person being able to obtain and play with an air weapon.
  It is already an offence for anyone under the age of 17 to purchase or hire any firearm, including an air weapon. Perhaps the existing law is sufficient and the problem lies in the law not being properly enforced. The easy availability of air weapons suggests that there is scope for tighter controls.
  There seems little doubt that had the firearms rules been properly enforced, Thomas Hamilton would never have been allowed to possess a handgun. Despite that, I recognise the public's wish for far greater controls. The

  403
  impracticality of Lord Cullen's suggestion of disabling methods leads me reluctantly to accept the case for a total ban on home possession of handguns—although I anticipate difficulties. One of my constituents is the national squad director of a pistol team and tells me that he regularly shoots at 30 different clubs, as well as competing abroad. A ban on home storage will make such participation far harder for my constituent. The House will have to address that matter during the Bill's progress.
  I am saddened that it is felt necessary to go beyond that measure and to outlaw completely pistols of more than .22 calibre. Many of my constituents are members of gun clubs and enjoy target shooting with pistols. I have done so at Bisley, along with other hon. Members. I understand the resentment of responsible target shooters that their sport is to be banned because of the actions of one lunatic who should never have been allowed to have a gun in the first place.
  I welcome the Government's commitment to pay compensation to gun owners, although I suspect that the true cost will prove higher than estimated. The Government are proposing to remove 160,000 guns. I understand that the average cost of a handgun is £600. The Home Affairs Select Committee was quoted a figure of £700. Full compensation for those weapons could total £96 million, and that figure does not take account of the cost of associated equipment such as ammunition, magazines, sights and storage equipment.
  Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend also favour compensation for those businesses that produce handguns and run ancillary activities, as they may be bankrupted?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I agree that those businesses have a legitimate case for compensation. It is something that we must examine.
  The cost of the extra security measures that gun clubs will be required to install is likely to be unaffordable for many of them. The consequence of the Bill may be that it becomes impossible for any sportsman to pursue target shooting with any calibre of gun because gun clubs will no longer exist. I understand the public feeling on the issue and why the Government have felt it necessary to act. However, it is a tragedy that the right of thousands of responsible and law-abiding target shooters to enjoy their sport may prove to be the last casualty of Dunblane.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: The Home Secretary outlined five important Bills, each of which could involve the House in full debate, quite justifiably. I want to talk about what should have been a sixth Bill, but instead was a shattering omission from the Home Secretary's speech.
  This parliamentary Session will end with a general election on or before 22 May 1997, yet this country has a wholly inadequate system of electoral registration. It is creaking and corrupt and it must be replaced with a modern system. On modest estimates, about 3.5 million people—7.5 per cent. of those entitled to be registered—are missing from the electoral registers. In November 1994, an internal memorandum from Dennis Roberts, the director of statistics at the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, said about my figures:
  "Surely the estimate produced by Mr. Barnes MP is broadly correct."
  404
  Why do I believe that so many people are missing from the electoral registers? One way to arrive at an estimate is to compare the eligible population with the numbers actually registered. That is a simple method. There are mid-year population estimates and the appropriate population groups can be examined. Based on that comparison, the shortfall is 2 million people. The latest figures for England and Wales for 1996, which I have just obtained from the Treasury, show that 95.3 per cent. of the eligible population are registered, which means that 4.7 per cent. are missing. In 1983, the registered figure was 97.7 per cent. That is a fantastic change within that period. The position is worse among attainers—those who are coming up to voting age and who should be appearing for the first time on electoral registers.
  The shortfall of 2 million people does not tell the whole story. Registers exaggerate the true number of people registered. For example, sometimes people who have died are still on registers. Other people have moved. They may not be on a new register. Some may be unlikely to get a postal vote. There are also double entries. Many people are just carried over from old registers.
  There is a huge time lag between registering and the production of the register. People are expected to reply in October, but the register comes into operation the following February. The register is based upon October residence. Therefore, the registration lasts for 16 months. In 1991, the Hansard Society said that registers were 16 per cent. out of date by the time they were finished. Research shows that between 7.4 and 9 per cent. of people are missing from registers.
  In 1993, Stephen Smith of OPCS investigated the 1991 electoral registers and his survey shows the categories of people who are missing. For those living in rented, private, unfurnished accommodation, the figure for missing people is 19.4 per cent.; for inner London it is more than 20 per cent.; for the age group 21 to 24, it is almost 21 per cent.; for attainers at 17, who should be coming up for registration, it is almost 22 per cent.; for people who are black it is 24 per cent.; for those who have moved in the past year it is almost 28 per cent. Others in that category must also be taken into account as they often turn out to be in the wrong place and do not take advantage of postal or proxy votes.
  Given the nature of our system, it is not surprising that for those from the new Commonwealth who are settled in this country and who are entitled to be included on British electoral registers, the missing figure is 36.6 per cent. For people living in rented, private, furnished accommodation—those who are moving around, who are on their bikes looking for jobs—the figure is 38.2 per cent. Those figures should worry Parliament greatly as they show the state of the electoral registers on which we depend to come to this place on behalf of those whom we represent.
  There has been no research into missing registrations among homeless people. As those eligible to register have to be residents, and therefore generally would have to have residences, by definition homeless people are massively excluded. A few have managed to get on to the registers, but about 90 per cent. are missing. Home Office regulations and circulars to electoral returning officers should be changed to rectify that position. The law needs to be changed to remove the residency qualification so that homeless people can qualify, within constituencies, to vote.

  405
  What are the consequences of under-registration? Some 3.5 million people lose their basic democratic right—the building block on which a democracy should be based. Furthermore, as I have shown, those missing in the greatest numbers are not a cross-sample of society—they are special groups. That means that there is a serious impact on election results. It also distorts opinion polls, which do not make use of the registers, but merely ask people whether they are on one. They do not get correct answers. In fact, the Labour party's position in the opinion polls is sometimes shown to be better than it really is. The matter should be put right.
  In this time before the general election, the Government should introduce a decent system of electoral registration. That goal could be achieved with a rolling electoral register, such as they have in Australia. I introduced the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill—in 1993, and again in 1995—to achieve that aim, which was supported by all Opposition and by some Conservative Members, although not by the Government.
  The category of "homeless" should be changed and the term "resident" redefined. We have talked a great deal about the importance of definitions, which is an area in which the Government could greatly assist us. Disabled people should have good access to polling stations. Although they may be registered to vote, they cannot exercise their right to vote as easily as the rest of us.
  Electoral registration is an immensely important issue, and the Government should do something to enhance it before the next general election.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. David Hanson: I very much welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on crime and the Home Office's proposals. The issues are very important in my part of the world—north Wales—because, last year, 41,645 crimes were recorded, a 79 per cent. increase on the figures in 1979, when my party was last in office. It is also a 20 per cent. increase on the figures of five years ago. In north Wales, there has been a 96 per cent. in violent crime since 1979, and large increases in criminal damage. The chances have greatly increased of people in my constituency and in the North Wales police area being affected by every type of criminal activity—such as assault, vehicle theft and burglary.
  In real terms, the statistics mean an increased chance of old-age pensioners being affected by sneak robberies and distraction robberies, an increase in car crime and violence, and an increase in the use of shotguns, other firearms and knives in the North Wales police area. Those increases have occurred when the "party of law and order" has been in office.
  The conviction rate has decreased dramatically in north Wales. In the past 15 years, there has been an 80 per cent. increase in crime, and a 10 per cent. decrease in convictions.
  Mr. Stephen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hanson: I do not have time. We are operating under the 10-minute rule, as the hon. Gentleman would realise had he been in the Chamber earlier.
  406
  The number of police officers has remained fairly static in north Wales over the past 17 years, during the time in which the Government have been in office. We have slightly more than 1,300 officers in north Wales, which is only 6 per cent. more than we had in 1979, since when there has been a 77 per cent. increase in crime. The demand for police services is obviously outstripping their resources.
  In north Wales, there is great concern that the area cost review being conducted by the Home Office will result in funds for police forces in Wales being redirected to police forces in south-east England in particular. I have received representations from one of my local authorities—Denbighshire county council—and from others in north Wales about the potential threat to funding. I urge Ministers at least to maintain police funding levels in Wales at current levels. In addition to increased crime, we face a major child abuse inquiry, the costs of which will fall especially hard on the police and deplete their resources.
  In the past few years, crime has risen faster in the UK—while the "party of law and order" has governed us—than it has in any of the other 16 western nations. Since 1987, crime has increased by 42 per cent. in the UK. I do not think that the crime Bill will take the long-term action necessary to prevent crime.
  The Bill's impact will be to achieve an increase in inmates. An additional 11,000 gaol places are anticipated to be necessary, as are 12 new prisons, and another £3 billion to run the system. This increase is occurring at a time when there are 57,000 people in gaols, and when gaols are filled to record levels. Since 1979, 22 prisons have been built, and a further 11,000 inmates have been put into them—yet crime has doubled. We must examine more than the "one-club approach" of sentencing and gaoling people to prevent crime, although sentencing is and must remain an important sanction.
  We must examine detection, prevention, police numbers and a long-term strategy. I commend to the Minister the suggestions by my hon. Friends the Members for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). They have presented crime prevention measures that will help to reduce criminal activity in north Wales and elsewhere. Closed-circuit television is an important factor, but the question of which local authorities will receive funding for it is like a lottery. I should like CCTV to be made more readily available.
  We must support youth services and imaginative schemes for early intervention in cases of potential troublemakers. We must examine issues of truancy and unemployment. In my constituency, the areas with the highest crime rate are often those with the highest rates of unemployment and poor housing. Other areas in my constituency reap the whirlwind of the breakdown of the social fabric caused by unemployment and poor housing.
  We must examine ways of preventing the supply and abuse of drugs, and offering treatment to abusers. We must re-examine recreational facilities. Today, I received a letter from a constituent in Flint, who raised concerns about the lack of recreational facilities, the knock-on effect on young people and the fact that idle hands potentially turn to crime. We must examine suggestions by Labour Front Benchers for child protection initiatives, and for helping parents to bring difficult children into line. In particular, we must examine the issues of a paedophile register and combat knives.

  407
  The main message that I would like to send to the Government is that some of the money spent on prisons and increasing prisoner numbers could be spent on preventing criminal activity in the first place. Prevention and punishment go hand in hand, and we must consider both issues to make a difference.
  On the issue of a paedophile register, I should like to mention the case of Sophie Hook. She was taken from her uncle's garden, not far up the coast from my constituency, by an individual with a history of offending, who was known to the police. There was recently an incident in my constituency in which an individual who had offended previously entered a guilty plea at Chester crown court for indecent assault on an eight-year-old child and was fined £200 by the judge. That sentence has horrified the parents, created absolute revulsion in my community and caused a great deal of damage to people's confidence in how those matters are handled.
  The fine imposed on that offender was, of course, insufficient punishment. The point, however, is that the perpetrator of the assault has moved from my constituency to England, where he will be free to perpetrate his acts again and again. It is well known that sexual offenders will not go away, but will continue to offend. The police, local authorities, social services and the education department in the area to which he moves will not know that he is there, because there is no paedophile register. That is unacceptable. The sentence is unacceptable, and the lack of a register is unacceptable.
  I hope that the Bill's proposals on a paedophile register will be examined in detail. It would bring a great deal of comfort to my constituents, who have been traumatised by the case, to know that the Government and the Opposition are pressing for measures to ensure that such a case is not repeated.
  I welcome the crime Bill's inclusion of action on combat knives. It is not acceptable for AMK Warrior "skull-crushers", with curved serrated blades, to be on sale in shops for £197; for Combat Smatchets with double-edged blades to be on sale for £295; or for bowie knives, commando knives and machete-type knives to be on sale. My local authority, and certainly Flint town council, have pressed hard for the introduction of standards in nightclubs and other public places, to ensure that knives are not brought in. I believe that it is possible to create a definition to ensure that combat knives are banned. This week, my local police are considering the possibility of equipping police officers with chain mail protectors against knives. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said only last week, such knives are not used for peeling potatoes. They have one purpose: threatening, intimidatory behaviour. The Government should be able to produce a definition so that such knives could be banned.
  This weekend, I took the kids away to Blackpool, as I thought that they would like to see the lights. We stopped at the amusement arcade there to have a go at some of the games. In the corner was a live video machine with a handgun which people aged between 16 and 20 were using to shoot real people on videos. I do not consider it acceptable for such machines to be in amusement arcades at this time. I do not want to see live action video machines being used for that purpose.
  408
  Finally, I have an advertisement from Country Landowner magazine, which states:
  "An ideal present and useful training aid. Recommended for ages 4–9".
  The object described is a life-size shotgun, which is advertised as suitable for young children. Whatever else we do on the subject of guns, let us make sure that we decry the gun culture, and do not introduce our young people to using handguns.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am extremely grateful to you for allowing me to catch your eye at this juncture in the debate. I have an apology to make to the House. Because of constituency and other engagements and visitors from the constituency coming to the House this afternoon, I did not have time to pay full attention to this important debate, other than briefly during the Front-Bench exchanges. I was absent after that, but I hope that no hon. Members will feel that I did not pay sufficient attention. I will, of course, read the Hansard report of the entire debate.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) on the immense amount of content that he introduced in the short time available to him. That was an object lesson in how to speak in the House of Commons when time is short.
  The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who is a colleague of mine on the Select Committee on European Legislation, raised some interesting points about electoral qualifications and systems, which need closer examination. I would guess that, in the debate today, he was the only hon. Member who spoke on such matters, which are of great interest.
  I share some of the hon. Gentleman's anxieties that the general psychology of public participation in the election process is diminished by the social and economic factors he mentioned, and also by physical factors in the past. The psychological intensity of the commitment of many members of the public—hundreds of thousands of them—is diminished by a feeling that worries me as a Member of Parliament—that the House of Commons has somewhat lost its way in serving the public.
  Whatever our party allegiances, we represent the political views of thousands of people and provide clear party platforms within the adversarial structure of the Chamber and the parliamentary tradition, much of which is good and valuable, but which also has its drawbacks.
  I get the impression that there is a tremendous ground swell of public demand for politicians of all parties to tackle certain issues rigorously and vigorously; yet there is also impatience and frustration among the public who feel that politicians are indulging their own detailed—but legitimate—arguments. Of course, that is indispensable and I make no complaint about it, but it does not meet the public's objectives.
  One of the matters about which people are deeply concerned is the seemingly inexorable rise in crime in recent decades. It is right, per contra, to congratulate our present Home Secretary. He is an extremely robust, clear-cut and decisive Home Secretary, for which we should be grateful. He has considerable talent, and his own forensic legal experience, and has shown that, in recent years, there has been a fall in crime figures in

  409
  certain leading categories. In my constituency, there has been a recent sharp fall in the number of burglaries and violent assaults and in various other categories.
  I pay tribute to the work of the police, not only in my area but in general terms. All too often we take their work for granted. The work of the police at all levels, from the chief superintendent down to the newest constable, is probably one of the most stressful jobs in society. We in the House of Commons should constantly remind ourselves that one of our first duties is to uphold the strength of the police, in psychological and resource terms, so that they feel that they have the backing of the mother of Parliaments in fulfilling their task.
  I pay tribute to my local police force, under an excellent chief superintendent and his senior colleagues, and to the entire corpus of the four stations in my area. They have achieved considerable results in controlling crime, supported by a much more realistic attitude on the part of local magistrates in proper sentencing. Sentencing should be severe when the crime is heinous, and that message is gradually getting across, within the limits of the legislation and what the lower benches can do, of course.
  Mr. Den Dover: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Dykes: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way; speeches are subject to the 10-minute rule, and I have a number of points to make in a limited time.
  The factors to which I referred have been something of a turning point in the self-confidence of the police, which leads to the development of a much more positive attitude to community relationships. For example, police visits to local schools were often resented, but are now more easily accepted. The police in my area and elsewhere also do outstanding race relations work.
  There is still something of a problem in the Metropolitan police in this respect, mainly south of the river and among younger police officers. However, the problem is not so evident north of the river, and one must pay tribute to the great efforts being made there. It is essential for us to continue to support the police, so that they feel that they have the backing not just of one party or only of politicians wishing to gain a short-term advantage but of the whole House.
  A recurrent theme of today's debate—it is, of course, the subject of a Bill to be introduced this Session—is that of weapons of violence. There is still time for the Government to consider allowing a free vote on handguns and on the relevant legislation, which I believe is to be published in the middle of this week—I am only guessing about the timetable, and perhaps the Minister replying to the debate can give the House further details. Indeed, it may already have been referred to today.
  Weapons of violence are another example of a topic on which the public want the House to take unequivocal and decisive action. I confidently believe that it is possible to construct wholly logical and coherent legislation framing a complete prohibition of handguns for private use. I think that gun club members simply have to accept that, although I know it may be hard. There may be schedules in the relevant Bill to provide for the exclusion of, for
  410
  example, Olympic sports pistols, but I would not go further than that. That also has to be examined with care because we know what can happen even with low-calibre guns, which can still be destructive or even lethal. They are different from agricultural shotguns. There is a distinction between various types of guns, and it can be satisfactorily encompassed in legislation.
  Knives pose a more difficult problem, and are, in a way, more worrying than handguns. They are not so much on the public's mind at the moment, but they are receiving attention thanks to some dramatic press conferences. Handguns have a higher profile because of recent dreadful tragedies, but knives are more worrying, and a harder subject for Parliament to grasp.
  There is already a long list of prohibited knives, yet there are other knives which are obviously weapons of violence and destruction and which must not be associated with the old tradition of the schoolboy carrying a penknife, or the scout with a legitimate scouting knife on a camp site. We need to act, because the public want Parliament to tackle the problem.
  We shall shortly see the text of legislation dealing with minimum sentences, but we have to be careful not to excessively limit—I apologise for the split infinitive—the discretion and power of the judges. I believe that there is to be more flexibility in that legislation, so the Government have taken on board the need for it—I hope so. Although it is intrinsically and originally the high court of Parliament, I do not think that it is possible for this place to limit too precisely the discretionary power of judges, particularly senior judges, in dealing with heinous crimes of violence and the worst kind of criminal offence such as murder. It is up to us to let the judiciary make the final decision, perhaps within the framework of tighter legislation, if that is deemed to be in the public interest.
  There has been a visible growth in crime in every country in the western world. We often lose the ability to distinguish whether the press is now reporting crime far more than before. Many people, particularly those of older generations, feel that there was a lot of crime in the old days as well, but that it was less well reported, because the press did not have the sensationalist attitude which is now creeping into local newspapers.
  Those points show that the debate on home affairs and crime and punishment—particularly what we should do about sexual crimes—is one of the most important. Parliament has a lot of work to do, and it will be important for politicians of good will on both sides to get together on this crucial issue—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: One wonders what the Government have been doing for 17 years. Some 31 criminal justice Bills have come before Parliament in that time, and we are still no further forward on tackling crime. I wholeheartedly agree with some of the Government's sentencing policies. I agree with their attitude towards paedophiles without a shadow of doubt, because 95 per cent. of them go on to reoffend. I also agree on double rapists. If my party gets its act together, I hope to be supporting the Government at least on those two issues.

  411
  I want to talk about drugs. The other week, I asked the Library to dig out some figures on drugs. We have a problem with drugs, although most of us, particularly the Government, bury our heads in the sand. I should like to take a minute to announce the figures, because this is the first time that the Library has compiled such information.
  Between 1987 and 1995, the amount of heroin in circulation increased by 167 per cent. The figures for methadone, a heroin substitute prescribed by doctors, went up in the same period by 686 per cent. In the same eight years, the figures for cocaine went up by 320 per cent. The death rate among young people taking drugs has been running at 37 per cent. over the past eight years. The illegal drug industry—which is connected to crime; the police will not deny that—now runs at £5 billion, but we are still burying our heads in the sand.
  I have written to the Prime Minister to ask for a national inquiry or even a royal commission on where we are going on the drug issue. I have given the House the Library's figures on the enormous increase in drug circulation. I shall quote figures later on the connection with crime. Now is the time to sit round the table with the people who know. We should get organised and see whether we are doing the job properly.
  The police say that there is a direct link between drugs and firearms. Drug gangs use firearms. It is said that 80 per cent. of crime is committed because of illegal drug taking. If that is the correct figure, my God, somebody had better get their head out of the trough and get something done. Let us have a national inquiry to see where we are going.
  The police do their job as best they can. I have no grumbles about the police. They do the best job possible with the resources they have. However, I get a bit upset about one or two things and I worry about some of their tactics. For example, the police allow some drug dealers to deal because information comes back to them about petty criminals. Allowing a drug dealer to stay in business if he gives little bits of information about who is burgling this and who is burgling that might keep the figures down in the local area, but I am not sure that it is the answer. A national inquiry might get to the bottom of such issues.
  Last year, the chief constable of Avon and Somerset said:
  "I am in no doubt that the abuse of illegal drugs is responsible for the majority of recorded crime. Solve the drug problem and the crime wave will reduce."
  Nobody took any notice of him.
  Where are the drugs coming from? We do not make drugs in this country. We may try, but the real stuff comes from abroad, so we should look at Customs and Excise. What is going on there? Over the past three or four years, at least 700 Customs and Excise officers have lost their jobs. A port in my constituency had three Customs and Excise officers—two part-time and one full-time. They have all gone—replaced by a fax machine. If that has happened in one little port in my constituency, what has happened throughout the land?
  Where are the customs officers coming from? They do the best they can—I cannot blame them. They have had some good successes. They are like the police—they can do only what their resources allow. If we can stop drugs coming into this country by using more resources we could crack a little bit of the crime.
  412
  It is all right saying that we can put drug offenders in prison, but I would hazard a guess that some drug pushers on council estates would take a chance on seven years in prison. Some of these people are desperate. They are drawing dole, or they are on income support of £47 a week. Some Conservative Members may think that art enormous amount for someone on a council estate to live on, but it is not.
  Those people are getting into the drugs game because, once they start to supply drugs, they are on at least £100 a week on top of their dole. They will take the chance of supplying drugs. Who do they supply them to? They supply them to the young ones. How do the young ones get the money to feed the habit? Of course, they go burgling. Some of those burglaries spill over into violence.
  We have a problem with drugs. "Tackling Drugs Together" was the Government's answer. I am not saying that that was wrong, but we have not got to the bottom of the problem. In my area we shall be launching a programme called "Living for Learning" to educate kids. I think that we have now accepted the need for education. At one time, some people argued against educating kids, but we have to accept that we must have local initiatives, setting up organisations to work within the drug culture.
  The most important aim is to cut the supply of drugs. They are coming through at an enormous rate. I have given the figures to the Minister and the Prime Minister. The figures are unacceptable. Those drug dealers are causing up to 80 per cent. of crime in this country. Until we get that settled, we will get nothing settled. I call on the Prime Minister and the Government to set up a national inquiry to work out where we are going. Let us get round the table and sort out the issue once and for all.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. Michael Stephen: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) who made some profound points that we would all do well to ponder. As he rightly points out, drugs are a scourge of modern society, affecting the entire western world. They are at the root of so many of our social problems, particularly crime.
  I sometimes feel that our debates on home affairs are conducted in a vacuum, because the criminal law is only one constraint on human behaviour. Not so many years ago, there were other powerful constraints, most of which, sadly, have fallen away, leaving only the criminal law as our defence against deviant behaviour. We all know that the criminal law is not up to the task.
  What are those constraints? They include respect for others and the realisation that every right has a reciprocal responsibility. There was respect by men for women. but when one can read articles and see photographs in a family newspaper that a few years ago one would have found only on the top shelf of a seedy newsagents, is it any wonder that respect between men and women has weakened?
  There was respect between parents and children. In the 1960s, as teenagers became more financially independent, respect began to break down; given some of the half-baked left-wing ideas in our schools, is it any wonder that respect between parents and children has weakened?
  Respect for religion used to be a powerful constraint on human behaviour. People really worried about what would happen to them when they died. They regarded the

  413
  laws laid down in the Bible as rules by which they should lead their own lives. Perhaps bishops and the other clergy would do better if they spent more time trying to reinforce belief in religion and the laws laid down in the Bible, rather than dabbling in politics, as they so often do.
  Respect for the police has also been undermined. Is it any wonder that young hooligans laugh at the police when a policeman who seeks to impose reasonable corporal punishment on some young hooligan is dragged into court and fined?
  Is it surprising that young bullies in schools laugh at their teachers when, only last week, a teacher who made a brave attempt to stop bullying in her school was criticised and will be dragged before a tribunal?
  It is all upside down. Why has it happened? There is one common denominator. I shall not seek to blame it all on them, but they must take a substantial share of the blame. They are the television editors and producers. When people with low standards of personal behaviour are portrayed on our television screens every day, is it any wonder that young and impressionable people imitate that behaviour?
  It is no answer for the television producers to say, "We just reflect society." They do not, and they know it. They know that they are in charge of the most powerful medium ever invented for moulding ideas and changing behaviour. Why else would people pay tens of thousands of pounds for a few minutes advertising time on television? They must accept their responsibility.
  Television has another charge to answer: it is often the thief of time—the time that parents should be spending with children, husbands should be spending with wives and communities should be spending together.
  Television has also served to undermine respect for Parliament. The main responsibility for undermining respect for Parliament among our constituents must rest with us. If we spend our working day trying to make out that other Members are crooks or incompetents, as we so often do, is it any wonder that the public begin to believe that we really are crooks and incompetents? We all know that it is not true, and that hon. Members on both sides of the House work extremely hard and conscientiously for their constituents.
  Television trivialises and sensationalises everything. I doubt very much whether the well-informed and thoughtful speech of the hon. Member for Blyth Valley will be broadcast on television. I doubt very much whether any of today's proceedings will be broadcast on television, except perhaps an ill-tempered exchange across the Dispatch Box. If respect for Parliament, the monarchy and all our institutions is undermined, is it any wonder that crime and lawlessness are increasing?
  We should also consider the rise of single-interest pressure groups. Many of them are responsible, but some are not. Some say, "Elected Parliaments and Governments are a complete waste of time. If you want to get anything done, you should take the law into your own hands. Go and sit down in the road. Go and smash lorries. Go and sit in trees. Don't care about democracy." Their activities are extremely dangerous, because the liberty of British people rests here in the House, and in our hands as their elected Members of Parliament. We cannot abdicate our responsibility to single-interest pressure groups, or, indeed, to judges.
  414
  Expectations of what Governments and Parliaments can do have run far ahead of their ability to deliver, and that causes disillusionment. To some extent, we are responsible for raising expectations that we know cannot be delivered. We should think carefully before we do it in future.
  The general breakdown of society is often blamed on my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher. That is nonsense. In so far as our problems stem from increased prosperity—we have more cars, videos and everything else to steal—perhaps she is responsible. [Laughter.] However, when we consider that that phenomenon has been taking place since long before my right hon. and noble Friend became Prime Minister—it has been happening for 30 years, not just in Britain, but throughout the western world—it is easy to see how silly was the laughter from the Labour Front Bench when I suggested that the responsibility did not rest on the shoulders of my right hon. and noble Friend.
  Governments can do only so much, and this Government have done it. Funding for the police has increased by 100 per cent. since we came to office. More prisons have been built to protect society against dangerous criminals, and new powers have been given to the courts and the police.
  I have, however, one criticism of my party, and that is that we listen too much to the siren voices of the left-wing criminologists and other do-gooders within the criminal justice system, who were in and out of the Home Office almost every day. Fortunately, we have got rid of them, and we now have a Home Secretary and a ministerial team who are determined to roll back the liberal ideas that have done so much damage to our country.
  Some judges say that prison does not work, but, with the greatest respect to them, that is none of their business. [Laughter.] I hear more silly laughter from the Opposition. There was a time when the judges imposed a self-denying ordinance on themselves. They did not descend into the political arena to take part in party political debate, because they knew that their value to our society rested upon the fact that they were impartial and were seen to be so. If the judges forfeit their impartiality, this nation will be losing a priceless asset. I warn the judges of the danger of departing from the very wise rule that they once imposed on themselves.
  We should put dangerous criminals in prison. Prison works because it deprives them of the opportunity to commit further crimes. While they are in prison, however, there are opportunities to help criminals to come to terms with their offending behaviour. I commend to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench the work of the Addicted Diseases Trust at Downview and other prisons. It does excellent work, and, we should give it even more support than we do.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. George Robertson: Not surprisingly, I shall not follow the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) down the strange alleyways in which he seemed to find himself.
  I intend to speak about Dunblane and firearms, and it is probably the first time that I have done so without the presence of my opposite number, the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is a strange occurrence, but I am sure that the Minister of State will be a good substitute. The

  415
  Secretary of State is in Luxembourg, fighting the cause of Scottish beef in the various channels available, and we wish him well in that regard if not in any other.
  I find this speech slightly awkward on another count as well. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) made an allegation about a deal between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary. In military circles, I think that that is referred to as friendly fire. I am not in any position to know whether deals were done or not. Perhaps the Minister will address himself to that point in his winding-up speech.
  In this debate, we are considering a number of pieces of legislation, some of which we have seen and others that we have yet to see. Inevitably, the focus of attention has been on the Crime (Sentences) Bill, for England and Wales, and the Government's more poetically entitled—one might say even literary—Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill for north of the border. The debate has also concentrated on the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, which apparently we are to see for the first time later this week, and which we shall certainly speed on its way to Royal Assent before Christmas.
  The issue of firearms is, of course, serious. It crosses normal party divisions and arises out of a horrific event which took place on 13 March in the town where I live and which the Secretary of State for Scotland represents, and a 200-page report by Lord Cullen that has taken seven months to produce. The issue is serious, sober, and crosses party boundaries. I for one was much saddened by the approach taken by the Home Secretary in his opening speech. His tone—and, indeed, the content of his speech—was not what the British public would have expected on a subject that has carried the country with it. I hope that when he reflects on what he said, and on how it sounded to the House and the country, the Home Secretary will regret the way in which he put it forward.
  The Home Secretary said that his proposal for a partial ban on handguns on a whipped vote through the House of Commons would somehow allow the people of Dunblane—by that, I think that he means the parents of the murdered and injured children, the injured teachers and the family of Gwen Mayor—to draw a line under the events of 13 March. As somebody who knows those people and lives in the same town, I have to tell him that a partial ban on those weapons of destruction, those easily concealed, easily carried and all too easily used handguns, will allow no line to be drawn. Nor will such a ban draw a line under the real fear in the wider community that the remaining 40,000 handguns—20,000 of which are semi-automatic repeater pistols—will continue to represent a serious danger to public safety.
  Although we shall be debating the matter again when we see the Government's precise proposals, I should like to make three simple points in considering what has been said in this debate. Dealing with the menace represented by handguns is not some sort of sop to the parents of Dunblane. Their feelings are deep, profound and understandable to any human being, but they were not the only reason why people were shocked to learn that on 13 March 200,000 handguns were held in homes all over Britain. Thus the demand for a full ban on the civilian use of handguns comes from every part of Britain and every kind of person, not simply from one small community that was afflicted by evil on that day in March.
  416
  The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), who participated earlier in this debate but has since evacuated the Chamber, said that the Dunblane parents and those who spoke for them were hysterical and emotional. He referred specifically to Mr. Les Morton, one of the bereaved fathers who spoke on the day that the Cullen report was published. His comments touched a new low for a Member of this House. He is an individual known for hysterical response on occasions. I am glad, however, that Tory Members dissociated themselves from what he said on that day. I only wish that the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister had done so publicly as well, as that might have mended some of the wounds caused by what the hon. Gentleman said.
  This issue naturally concerns emotion and the point that must be grasped is that it has been under consideration for the past seven months. None of us was absent from the debate that took place in the country. I accept that we were waiting for Lord Cullen's report. Lord Cullen is a learned judge who was chosen in consultation with this side of the House. I helped to write the terms of reference that he worked towards, and I asked the parliamentary question that led to his appointment to look at the circumstances surrounding the shooting. But he is not a royal commission. Neither is he some oracle nor the fount of all knowledge. We saw what went on at the hearings in the Albert hall in Stirling. The Secretary of State and myself gave evidence to the inquiry and saw the evidence as it piled up.
  If the debate that took place during the summer in communities all over the country—in pubs, clubs, homes and the street—was soured or influenced, it was because, regrettably, a number of factors politicised it. The first reason for that was the premature publication of a report by the Select Committee on Home Affairs. It did not have to report; it spent only a day considering inadequately evidence that Lord Cullen was to consider in greater detail. It divided on solely partisan grounds because the Conservative majority on the Committee would not listen to arguments put forward by my hon. Friends on the Committee. Nobody should underestimate the report's impact on public opinion, and how it hardened the public's views and stopped them keeping an open mind until Lord Cullen had reported.
  As I said during the Home Secretary's opening speech, the Sunday newspapers on 13 October also had an impact on public opinion, not only on the opinions of Labour Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and myself, who read those newspapers and wondered whether that really was the Government's view in advance of Lord Cullen's report being handed to them. But we had no reason to believe that that was not the official line.
  Mr. Howard indicated dissent.
  Mr. Robertson: I hear the Home Secretary's protestations of innocence. We have listened carefully. There was a degree of amusement when he protested his innocence in that regard. Somebody briefed the press. It was somebody close to the Home Secretary, the Home Department or the Conservative party brief. It might have been a false trail or designed to test the water, but the line told people that the Government appeared to have come to a soft conclusion. That hardened public opinion. When

  417
  we found out, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn asked the Home Office, while I simultaneously asked the Scottish Office, whether we could see, on Privy Council terms—we all know the meaning of that—the Cullen report before the statement on the Wednesday morning. Naturally, we had to discuss the contingency arrangements in the event of certain evidence being in Lord Cullen's report. No announcement was made until we had seen the content of Lord Cullen's report, which backed up what we had said in May in our evidence to the inquiry.
  The second point is that even the Government have gone beyond Lord Cullen's recommendations, so no Conservative Member can fairly criticise the Labour party for going further than the Government. The Home Secretary said that they had considered Lord Cullen's analysis but had disagreed with some of his conclusions. We agree with the Government that some of Lord Cullen's conclusions seem strangely adrift from his good, comprehensive and well-summed-up analysis. All we ask the Government to do is to go one stage—albeit an important stage—further, and to ban all handguns in civilian use.
  I commend the changes that the Government have made. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) was right when he implied that there was some dishonourable deal between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary, but I commend the distance that the Government went, because it was certainly further than most of us expected. However, it is still not enough. To leave in private hands 40,000 lethal handguns, 20,000 of them automatics, with the same firepower that they have always had, and the same devastating impact on the individuals at whom they may be fired, is still a serious risk to public safety.
  The Scottish Police Federation, which originally said that it would be prepared to countenance an exemption for single-action pistols, has now said that that would leave a dangerous loophole in the law. The most devastating argument of all, cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn in our brief statement two weeks ago, lies in the words of the British Shooting Sports Council. In evidence published in paragraph 9.68 on page 121 of the Cullen report, it said:
  "no matter what system of checks and paperwork is maintained in such circumstances, it would be a simple matter indeed for a shooter intent in recovering his guns to enter a competition, provide evidence to his club secretary that he had done so, recover possession of the complete gun together with ammunition for it, and perpetrate an outrage."
  That is the gun lobby—the British Shooting Sports Council—saying that a partial ban on handguns is fatally flawed. I do not see how the Home Secretary can shrug off the evidence not of those who are opposed to handguns but of those who want to keep handguns for sport.
  The third point—perhaps the most important of the whole debate—is expressed in a plea to the Home Secretary and to the Government to keep the issue non-political. Inevitably, the issue is political with a small "p", because it is a great issue of public concern, but this afternoon the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) attacked the Government's proposal and the
  418
  hon. Members for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) supported the case for a total ban; it is also true that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) holds a view different from that of Opposition Front Benchers. This is a great public debate across party lines.
  Who can deny that there will be huge passions and that political parties will be involved? What passions in the public arena can escape the involvement of political parties? In the past seven months, however, despite temptations and provocations, we have managed to maintain a reasonable degree of consensus, and I hope that it will be possible to continue that until Christmas, when the Bill receives Royal Assent and becomes law. That can happen only in one circumstance—if the Government allow Conservative Members to have a free vote. There will be a free vote for Opposition Members irrespective of the Government's decision. We have said that that is the right way to proceed. If we say that it is the right approach for the Government to adopt, that must apply to the Opposition as well. Some Members may find it convenient to be away from the House when the Division takes place. There will be others who might find it convenient to go through the Government Lobby. But let the will of the House be expressed through a free vote.
  On this great issue, where passions run so strongly through national newspapers, individual journalists and writers and the vast majority of the public, let us avoid a whipped vote by the Government. Whatever the result of a whipped vote, however that is achieved and whatever the majority may be, it will not have the sustainability of a vote taken freely by individual Members accepting their own responsibility on such a great issue at a defining moment for this Parliament.
  The Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Scotland. the Prime Minister and the Government generally cannot escape from the fact that if they try to dragoon the issue through the House on the marshalled votes produced by the Government Whips some time in December, that will become an issue in the general election. That must be because that is the nature of our process. It would be a bitter and sad day for democracy if we were left in that position.
  Handguns are special and the issues surrounding them are in turn special and difficult. Thomas Hamilton, whom the Secretary of State for Scotland and I both, to use the wrong figure of speech, crossed swords with in the past, took 743 bullets with him when he went on 13 March to Dunblane primary school. He fired 106 rounds, causing 58 wounds and killing 18 people, including himself. He injured 15 people. He used two legally held semi-automatic handguns. It took only four horrifying minutes to do that damage. No other weapon could possibly create such havoc and so much desperate damage. That is why handguns are special. That is why only a decision that is made freely in this place by the country's law makers will lead eventually to legislation on handguns that will stick.
  The Government have shown in the past week that they can change their mind, even at the last minute. I hope that before we come to the day when a decision on handguns must be made they will consider all the implications and all the arguments. I hope that the Home Secretary will listen to his right hon. and hon. Friends as well as to Opposition Members and come to the right conclusion for his party, his country and for Parliament.

  419
  Another feature of the Queen's Speech that affects us all is beef. The Government will produce two Bills, one for England and Wales and one for Scotland. They will be strangely different, and I shall return to that matter. Inevitably, I wish to concentrate on the issues that relate specifically to Scotland.
  My right hon. Friend—I almost referred to the Secretary of State as my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), which might have been a terrible mistake to make, especially if anyone from the Scottish press had been listening. The Secretary of State for Scotland is in Luxembourg talking about beef. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) brought me a piece of paper this evening, which I hope somebody has faxed to the Secretary of State. On it was a question from a Conservative Member, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), asking the Secretary of State for Defence whether British beef is purchased by the armed forces for their own consumption in the United Kingdom. The Under-Secretary of State replied:
  "The majority of our requirements are, however, for frozen beef, which is not readily available from the British market and I understand that on cost grounds the majority of beef joints have been sourced from south America, predominantly Brazil and Uruguay".
  So the NAAFI buys Latin American. The Secretary of State for Scotland, who as I have said is in Luxembourg and supposed to be defending the interests of Scotland, might want to take that on board.
  We have had 17 years of Conservative Government. This has not been the first day of a theatrical performance from the Home Secretary, coming along with yet another definitive answer to the crime problems that have affected us. I tried to see whether I could find adequate words to describe the situation in Tory Britain after 17 years of this Government, and these words came to mind.
  "When parents dare not let their children go out to play; when senior citizens who have given a lifetime of service to the community are forced to spend their sunset years—which should be among the most rewarding in their lives—as prisoners in their own homes; then we have reached a point where action must be taken."
  Those are the words of the right hon. Member for Stirling, Secretary of State for Scotland, in September last year when he was appointed to a job in the Cabinet—a job which, he tells us, he has coveted all his political life. It is a description of Tory Scotland by a Tory in 1995. It is not something of which the Conservative party can be proud, because it is all too accurate. They have had 17 years to get it right, so why should anybody believe that suddenly, startlingly, they have the answer? [Interruption.]
  The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) has now joined us to make yet another contribution to law and order by shouting from below the Gangway. His party has had 17 years, and now we are told that they have the answer.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I apologise for not being here earlier. As the hon. Gentleman will accept, the wind-up speeches started early this evening, because many hon. Members were told that they could speak for only 10 minutes, so the debate has been shorter. Why do he and his hon. Friends bang on as though the world has not changed at all over the past 17 years, as though the situation with crime, families, everything, has been static and that all a Government had to do was to improve things
  420
  over 17 years? The world has changed immensely, and unless he realises that by dealing with the matter sensibly, he will be thoroughly incredible to the people outside.
  Mr. Robertson: Of course the world has changed, and crime has got much worse, but every year we are faced with Conservative Ministers who tell us that they have the answer. Now, six months before the election, without the faintest possibility that any of this stuff will be in place and working beforehand, they tell us that after 17 years they have spotted all the social undercurrents, all the serious problems that are there, that they have discovered the defects in the prison system, the police system, the sentencing system, and here it is, in one Bill. Actually, the Home Secretary has half a dozen Bills, but the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill is an omnibus Bill for Scotland that is supposed to sort it out. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member for Burton asks about the defects of socialism. He has put his finger on it. I thought that the Conservatives had eliminated socialism over 17 years. They always have to blame somebody else. I do not think that the people are convinced by these arguments.
  I regret the Government's approach to crime, which is a serious issue, and I speak as the grandson of a police officer, the son of a police officer and the brother of a serving police officer. Indeed, I think that my son will. within the next year, become a police officer as well, so I do not speak from the crevices that the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) spoke about, which could be defined as weak, do-gooding liberalism. I speak from the genuine, deep concern that my constituents feel about the way in which crime impacts on them. But from the Conservative Government we just get excuses. "Blame somebody else". There is no apology for the policies that have failed, no confessions that they have made mistakes in the past—no contrition at all, just sound bites, headlines and yet another Bill.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Perhaps we can test the hon. Gentleman's view about law and order and people who commit crimes. What view does he take about the two serving Labour councillors who, in a dawn raid, committed criminal damage at the home of the Deputy Prime Minister and say that they would be proud to do it again? Does he condemn it, as I do, or does he condone it?
  Mr. Robertson: If anyone, including a Labour councillor, breaks the law, he should be dealt with by the law as severely as anyone else—and that goes for Tory councillors, a few of whom have been involved. We are all equal under the law. The hon. Member for Harrow, West should not use hand-picked examples that are good for the local newspaper, although I know that he needs to recover some of the ground that he may be sacrificing down here. I think that he spoke, very properly, about what is genuinely the issue. The law is the law, and it should apply to aberrant Labour councillors, as well as to Westminster city councillors, whose aberration goes way beyond anything that most of us would consider to be normal.
  Mr. Gallie rose—
  Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has woken up. As he is in the last few months of his parliamentary career, I shall give way to him.
  Mr. Gallie: I have heard all this before from the hon. Gentleman, and he usually gets it wrong. We heard about his background and his close links with the police. What do the police think about stop-and-search laws? How important have they been to the control of criminal elements in recent times? Has the hon. Gentleman always voted in support of stop-and-search powers for the police?
  Mr. Robertson: It is rather curious. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman comes from and what he is talking about. We have always been in favour of the police having appropriate powers. There is nothing in this huge Bill about stop and search. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the police should have powers that his right hon. Friend has not included? Is he being critical of the Conservative Front Bench? A number of measures are not in the Bill.
  What is most remarkable about the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill is that the Secretary of State for Scotland has proposed it as the great answer to the problem of the Scottish crime wave. The Bill should be called the Repeal of Ian Lang Bill. It is ironic, but perhaps just, that the Minister of State, Scottish Office, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), is present as he was the junior Minister who wound up the debate on 19 October 1992, when the Government were proposing exactly the opposite of what is in the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill.
  The then Secretary of State for Scotland, now El Presidente at the Board of Trade, said:
  "There are those who argue that the sentence of the court should mean precisely what it says—a fixed number of years in custody."
  That is what the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) said in his speech. The then Secretary of State continued:
  "The Government believe, however, like the Kincraig committee, that a better approach is to allow, within the compass of the total sentence, for a period in custody, and a period in the community during which the offender will be encouraged to resettle under supervision."—[Official Report, 19 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 238–9.]
  That was the Government's position in 1992, just after they had won a general election in Scotland. Now, only three years later, they say, "All that was wrong. Sorry we got it completely and totally wrong, and we are now going to turn the whole thing completely upside down." No wonder the public are not convinced that this Bill is the answer.
  The public saw the new Secretary of State for Scotland emerge into a society afflicted by crime and criminals, as he described it in Flourish magazine in September of the year in which he was appointed. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) spoke movingly about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell), in a significant speech, pointed out the way in which ordinary people are affected by the crime wave. The public are not convinced by the Government's consultation process, because although 99 per cent. of those consulted were opposed to the Government's proposals, the Government still brought them forward.
  The day after the consultation period ended, the front page of the Scottish Daily Mail said, "Forsyth proposes new laws for drug traffickers." Those new laws were not
  422
  included in the initial consultation. Moreover, yesterday's Scottish edition of The Sunday Times included a brand new idea produced by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Its headline said:
  "Forsyth to tag teenage tearaways."
  There is no mention of tagging in the English one.
  Mr. Howard: There will be.
  Mr. Robertson: The Home Secretary says that there will be. That is an amendment already notified and another memory lapse, like who told the Sunday newspapers about what the Government intended to do or who was in the Front-Bench meeting that decided the U-turn on the Bill on paedophiles and stalkers. The newspaper report states:
  "Although the Bill refers only to offenders aged 16 and above, Michael Forsyth, the Scottish secretary, is considering extending tagging to juveniles. A senior source said, 'We are now exploring with officials the dispersal of electronic tags for children and we will consult on it."
  At each stage, the goalposts move further. It seems that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not interested in consulting, but only in deciding. He is not interested in having a fight with criminals, but in the publicity that goes along with having a fight with the judges. He is not interested in public welfare, but in his own constituency survival. That is highly regrettable in terms of law and order in a country whose people, as hon. Members have said throughout the debate, are deeply worried about the impact on them of crime and criminality.
  The Bill is not right and proper at this time. We shall look at it carefully. We may not oppose it on Second Reading because it might be appropriate to look at some of the issues in detail in Committee to see whether matters can be improved. We are in favour of being tough on crime and on the criminals who are making the lives of so many people in Scotland a complete misery—and we always have been. The people of Scotland will not be convinced by a Government who have been in power for 17 years and who have been getting it consistently wrong in every one of those years now saying, "We have it right at last." They are not convinced—and nor are we.
  9.31 pm
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has set out his position fully and with some passion.
  The debate has been overshadowed by the appalling tragedy and atrocity which occurred at Dunblane. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) spoke about hearing of it with horrified disbelief. We owe it to our countrymen to put in place measures that will provide far greater safeguards for the public. That is why we are determined to implement Lord Cullen's recommendations, after receiving his powerfully argued report.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said earlier we are acting quickly on Lord Cullen's recommendations—as we promised. There are three key areas of action. First, we have supported Lord Cullen's recommendations on improving school security. The action plan for each school is a workmanlike approach which will improve security for all school users.

  423
  We have backed it by committing ourselves to a special grant towards security measures and my right hon. and learned Friend will do the same in England and Wales. We think that councils should have as much discretion as possible on the measures to be undertaken.
  The second key area concerns the vetting and supervision of adults working with children and young people. Here again we have accepted the Cullen report recommendations, including the important innovation of accreditation by a national body of clubs and groups working with young people. However, we have gone further. The Queen's Speech foreshadowed legislation to improve access to criminal record information by bodies which will include those who work with young people. We are also producing a Bill to require sex offenders to notify the police of any change of address so as to protect the public, and especially children, from these dangerous criminals. I endorse what my right hon. and learned Friend said about the merits of that Bill, which will apply to Scotland as well as to England and Wales. That was welcomed by the hon. Members for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) and for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell), by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) and for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson).
  There may be objections on civil liberties grounds, but we believe that the protection and safety of our country's children and young people must have priority. Therefore, sex offenders should be easily identified and traced to ensure the safety and well-being of our families, and particularly young children. To that end, we are determined to ensure that the police are given every assistance in the prevention and detection of crimes of this nature, and the measures proposed in the forthcoming Bill will achieve that. Therefore, it is important to get this necessary legislation on the statute book as quickly as possible. I welcome the support that the Opposition have offered and their co-operation in putting through that Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East asked whether we could have a Europewide register of sex offenders. I say to him and the Bournemouth Evening Echo, which he mentioned, that the Government's proposal is to require paedophiles and other serious sex offenders to notify the police of any changes of address to improve the prevention and detection of future offending. Obviously, that scheme cannot be applied outside the UK, but we expect co-operation between enforcement authorities throughout Europe. Such co-operation is vital. We are actively considering with our European partners the means of improving co-operation in the fight against child abuse.
  We are going further than Lord Cullen recommended on firearms, which is the third key area of action. We accept his view that a partial ban on handguns is the right solution. The Bill to be published later in the week will implement the partial ban, which is somewhat stricter than he envisaged.
  As Lord Cullen made clear, our action must be proportionate and just. Hon. Members will, I am sure, accept that he acted impartially and took account of expert advice. He did not recommend a total ban. His preference was for disabling handguns when not in use. He had very good reasons for coming to that conclusion. The Government's position, which my right hon. and learned Friend has described, is clear and is based on the need to secure public safety. I strongly commend it.
  424
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said that we must have some principle. We do. Lord Cullen's statement at chapter 9, paragraph 108 of his report was:
  "It is not enough to consider what would be practicable and effective. No assessment of what should be done would be complete without considering what would be proportionate and just."
  He went on to say in paragraph 113:
  "I do not consider that the banning of handguns for target shooting or the banning of shooting clubs would be justified."
  A difference of opinion has been expressed in the debate. Some hon. Members have said that we are going too far and others say that we are not going far enough. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham, my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and for Wolverhampton, South-West and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, queried whether we were going too far. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) and the hon. Members for Hamilton, for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) said that we were not going far enough.
  I agree with Lord Cullen, but we have reached the view that his suggestions for disabling weapons of that sort would not go far enough to protect the public. We have therefore decided to ban the private ownership and use of all handguns over .22 calibre. Those of less than .22 calibre will also be banned, except in clubs that meet the highest standards of security and have been so approved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
  It is worth noting that, as soon as the legislation comes into effect, every handgun currently in private hands will have to be handed in to the police. The immediate effect of the legislation will be the removal of all handguns from private ownership. Those weapons will be returned to their owners only if the club in which they intend to store them meets the required security standards, or they will be destroyed.
  The House should not underestimate the significance of the measures being undertaken, which will lead to the destruction of 160,000 handguns and will rightly give Britain what the Home Secretary has described as some of the toughest gun control laws in the world.
  Mr. Stephen: Many of the handguns that would have to be handed in under the new Act are of special historical or technical interest. Will the Government consider making special arrangements for those weapons to be preserved in some suitable place?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes. Indeed, that has happened in the case of amnesties. I remember one gun being handed in which had been used by monks. It was hidden in the middle of a bible. I do not know what use it was put to, but it went to a museum. In unusual circumstances, that will happen, provided that the gun is appropriately disabled.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) raised the subject of ancillary equipment and compensation. The Home Office is examining compensation arrangements and my hon. Friend's points will be considered.

  425
  The Government were asked to take a collective view on Lord Cullen's report and have done so. Our considered view is that legislation is the right way ahead, and we shall bring a Bill before the House in the usual way. The Prime Minister has made it clear in the House that the Government have formed a judgment of what is right, and we will invite the House to support that view.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made a significant statement, when he promised his party's collaboration and support in implementing Cullen's recommendations, which I regard as extremely important. We will welcome that support in respect of not only the Firearms (Amendment) Bill but essential provisions which are likely to appear in the Police Bill and the Bill for the sex offenders register.
  Mr. George Robertson: The Labour party has made it clear that it will support the firearms legislation and speed it on its way. There is much in that proposal with which we agree and of which we strongly approve, as will be revealed in debate.
  I return to the partial or full ban on handguns. The Government managed to offer a free vote on two alternative Government clauses for the Sunday Trading Act 1994 but are unwilling to do the same in respect of an issue that the Government know is of considerably more importance—in which the conscience as well as the judgment of individual hon. Members can be called into play. Why are the Government standing so firmly against a free vote on handguns?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That is a completely different issue. The 1994 legislation involved Sunday openings, which are traditionally free vote country.
  We strongly believe that Cullen's recommendations should be acted on, and we want them on the statute book as soon as possible. I seek to persuade those of my hon. Friends who feel that we are going too far that not only I but my Secretary of State strongly take the view that it was thoroughly obscene that Thomas Hamilton could have in his home the amount of armoury and ammunition that he possessed. We have announced that guns of the type that Hamilton used will never again legally be held by private citizens. That firm and decisive response is strongly expected by the public.
  I must take issue with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed in respect of identity cards. The Government are extremely serious in our plans to introduce a voluntary identity card scheme. The Home Affairs Select Committee recommended a further period of consultation once the Government have decided on detailed proposals for the introduction of ID cards. We will publish a draft Bill which will provide a full opportunity for further consultation on that important issue.
  The key aim of the Bills that we are bringing forward is greater protection for the public. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who sadly cannot be present, is entitled to a reply to his impressive speech on the need to confront organised crime as effectively as possible. We are committed to doing so. The Security Service Act 1996 already enables the Security Service to support the fight against organized
  426
  crime. The new package of measures which we will bring forward in further legislation will include the creation of a national crime squad for England and Wales—a Scottish crime squad already exists. We also propose strengthening the central contribution made by the National Criminal Intelligence Service to the overall response to organised crime. Services provided by NCIS will include strategic analysis of the threat from organised crime, acting as the gateway to Europol and Interpol. NCIS will have a UK-wide operational remit.
  The hon. Member for Islwyn asked about policing. In the three years from 1996–97, South Wales constabulary's share of the funding for the 5,000 additional police officers promised by the Prime Minister will amount to another 118 officers.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) raised issues involving community policing. In recent years, there has been widespread consensus on the need to reduce imprisonment for fine defaulters and to give the courts greater flexibility when dealing with persistent minor offenders for whom a fine is not suitable. Accordingly, the Crime (Sentences) Bill contains powers for the court to impose a community service or curfew order instead of a fine, if it is satisfied that a fine would not be an appropriate punishment, or as a penalty for fine default.
  Mr. George Robertson: Will the Minister tell us what is in the Scottish Bill relating to fine default?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should be delighted to do so in a moment.
  If the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) would like to send me the information on the video machine that he found so offensive, I shall look into the matter.
  I can tell the hon. Member for Rutherglen that we are interested in extending closed circuit television schemes, which we view as extremely effective in crime prevention.
  I come now to the point raised by the hon. Member for Hamilton on real-time sentencing. He referred to the 1993 Act which reduced the maximum amount of early release available and aimed to restore meaning to the full length of the sentence by getting rid of unconditional release. It was a step in the right direction, but in my view it did not go far enough. Further tightening is required. The Government now believe that it is necessary to go further to protect the public, to maintain public confidence, to deter offenders and to ensure that the punishment really does fit the crime. A recent poll by the Daily Record—a paper not usually associated with support for the Government—showed that 93 per cent. of its readers supported the policy of honesty in sentencing. The hon. Member for Hamilton would be wise, therefore, to advise his colleagues not to vote against the Bill.
  On restriction of liberty orders, we believe that, just as it is important that really dangerous criminals should be kept in prison until they are no longer a danger to the public, at the lower end of the scale minor offenders should be dealt with through measures of use to the community, such as community orders, supervised attendance orders and restriction of liberty orders. The restriction of liberty order will be introduced under the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill, which will add usefully to the range of sentencing options available to the courts. It will enable them to restrict the liberty of the

  427
  offender in the community in a way that reduces the risk of offending. For example, an offender could be ordered to remain at home between 8 pm and 8 am. That is a way of allowing offenders to remain in the community rather than going to prison. The pilot projects south of the border have been very successful. Further pilot projects will be monitored electronically. That method of monitoring has been tried out successfully. We will implement the policy in the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Rutherglen asked about statistics on violent crime. I can tell him that 1995 was the fourth successive year in which recorded crime in Scotland fell—it was down by 5 per cent. That was due almost entirely to a decrease in the number of crimes of dishonesty—mainly housebreaking and theft, which fell considerably. The number of non-sexual crimes of violence increased, but crimes of indecency fell. The clear-up rate for crime rose from 37 to 39 per cent., but there is no room for complacency. The fact that the number of non-sexual crimes of violence increased strengthens our resolve to ensure that we put the necessary measures to deal with that in place in the Bill.
  I shall give one very good reason why we believe that automatic life sentences are absolutely necessary—it is because of the Maguire case, to which many Opposition Members referred. Maguire severely sexually assaulted a girl, went to prison for a considerable period, came out, severely sexually assaulted a second girl, went to prison for a second considerable term, came out and was then charged with assaulting a further girl. That charge was not proceeded with very far, but he then murdered another girl.
  Under our proposals, that man would have attracted a life sentence after the second really serious offence. We believe that the public requires much more protection from dangerous criminals, who are likely to do enonnous harm to women.
  Mr. John McFall: Will the Minister enlighten us as to why the Bill for England provides for a mandatory sentence for repeat burglary offences—it is seven years for the third offence—but there is no such provision for Scotland?
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, I shall. Circumstances in Scotland and England are not identical on that matter. The burglary rate in Scotland, for example, has decreased substantially. Moreover, Scots law has traditionally relied much more on common law. We believe that all the necessary powers are properly in place.
  The hon. Member for Blyth Valley, who has temporarily left the Chamber, raised the issue of mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences. We are determined to fight against the evil scourge of drug dealing. Although courts already deal severely with dealers of class A drugs, those convicted of a third or further offence of dealing in class A drugs will face a minimum sentence of seven years. When I debated the matter with the former chief judge of Scotland before the Law Society, he went so far as to say that that provision was not unreasonable.
  Drugs offences are contained in UK statute, and drug trafficking is a national and international business. Drug traffickers might well be encouraged to move their operations to Scotland if we do not have minimum sentences. It is therefore entirely appropriate that we should apply a British policy on that matter.
  428
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) has been a doughty warrior in introducing measures to control not only knives but under-age drinking. We do not seek to criminalise unsupervised under-age drinking, as that would drive the whole business underground, where it would be even more difficult for helping agencies to deal with the problem. We have announced that we will take legislative action to provide police with powers to confiscate alcoholic drink from under-age drinkers in public places. The police have said that they would welcome such a measure, which is practical and will offer a real prospect of reducing the nuisance that results from under-age drinking while reducing the scale and opportunities for such drinking.
  The new powers will apply in all public places that are neither domestic nor licensed premises. That means that street corners, public parks, derelict property, shopping centres and all the other favourite haunts of under-age drinkers will fall under the new power. We have taken into account evidence on the measure from southern Ireland, which introduced similar legislation. It was discovered that problems arose because under-age youths were handing the drink to someone a bit older immediately before police arrived on the scene. We are getting around that problem by ensuring that drink can be confiscated if a person is suspected of supplying to someone under 18 years old.
  We should be very willing to consider the suggestions of any hon. Member who has a workable definition of combat knives which distinguishes them from other knives, and effective proposals on how to control the marketing of such knives which will deal with the mischief without damaging legitimate businesses.
  We believe that increases in sentencing powers are necessary. We have decided to increase the sentencing powers of sheriff courts and stipendiary magistrates. In future, sheriffs will be able to sentence to up to five years' custody under solemn procedure—instead of three years, as at present. Under summary procedure, in which a judge sits without a jury, the maximum sentence to custody will be increased from three to six months, and from six to 12 months for certain repeat offenders.
  We are very much aware that there is considerable variation in courts in sentencing patterns. There may, of course, be good reasons for the variation. However, we have found that some of the variations seem to exceed what we might reasonably expect. That is why, in order to inform the public debate, we are to publish information on sentencing in those courts. We have also given the High Court specific statutory powers to develop comprehensive guidelines to ensure consistency in sentencing.
  Where, exceptionally, a sentence is imposed which appears unduly lenient, the Crown will have the power to appeal against it. From Friday this week, the Crown's right of appeal will extend to all summary cases. That will allow the Appeal Court to review such sentences and whether they should be amended. That process was started in the higher courts by the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr. With those safeguards and the continuing attention being paid to judicial training, I am sure the new powers will be well used.
  I turn now to certain statutory sexual offences in Scotland. The senior judge drew to our attention the concern of the judges that the maximum penalty for the

  429
  statutory offence of lewd and libidinous behaviour towards girls did not enable the courts adequately to punish the entire range of offenders convicted before them of such conduct. We therefore propose to increase the penalties for three statutory sexual offences against girls from two years' to five years' imprisonment to give the courts the power that they need to impose sentences which reflect the seriousness of such offences.
  We are determined that when offenders are released from custody effective supervision arrangements are in place to reduce the risk of their reoffending, and thereby increase public safety. The supervised release order, or SRO, is an effective tool to achieve that. In the case of specifically defined sexual and violent offences, the court must impose an SRO. In other cases, if a court considers that supervision of an offender is necessary to protect the public from the risk of serious harm on his release, it would impose a supervised release order. That will be for up to two years or one sixth of the custodial sentence, whichever is the longer. Exceptionally, in the case of serious sex offenders, it could be for up to 10 years. Any breach of an SRO can lead quickly to custody for any unexpired period of the order.
  We are also dealing with mentally disordered offenders under hospital direction. We will discuss that thoroughly when we debate the Bill.
  I have put in train in Scotland a measure to ensure that our emergency services have a working party to protect them from assault. The Government want to be sure that we are doing all we can to protect the fire and ambulance services and the police. The police forces have been equipped with new batons. We are funding research to provide more effective protection for the police against knives; we hope to find a suitable stab-proof vest. To ensure that these and other measures are adequate—[Laughter.] Such vests are available, but they are heavy and uncomfortable, and many police officers refuse to wear them. We are doing everything in our power to provide the means that will save the lives of our police officers. We will share with our colleagues south of the border any important information that we acquire.
  We want to put in place the most effective means of informing victims before their assailants are released from prison. We also want more effective witness support schemes, which are being established in three sheriff courts. We will make certain that victims are given useful information about what will happen when they report a crime and what their rights will be. That will be presented in a leaflet.
  We are significantly shifting the emphasis away from the criminal towards the victim. We are giving much more funding to victims. This year we increased funding to £1.28 million, so the work of Victim Support Scotland can be developed.
  It must not be forgotten by the House that the Labour Opposition voted against the Attorney-General having a right to appeal against lenient sentences in the Criminal Justice Act 1988. They voted against other legislation relating to Scotland involving police powers of stop and search. They voted against the legislation giving the courts the power to impose longer sentences for persistent, violent and sexual offenders in the Criminal Justice Act 1991. I should also mention that Labour has, in the past,
  430
  opposed the prevention of terrorism Act, and certainly failed to support it. For years, they were happy to put up with far too few police officers in Strathclyde, where the police were working under-strength. That is far from an unblemished record and it leaves a great deal to be desired.
  We are determined to take crime by the throat. If Opposition Members want to claim to be tough on crime, it is time for them to stand up and be counted in support of our legislative proposals. We are putting together one of the strongest offensives mounted against crime in years. It is about saying no to half-time sentences for full-time crimes; no to repeat offenders; no to the private ownership of handguns; no to those who persist in stalking innocent citizens; no to sex offenders and their appalling crimes.
  We will go ahead with the package of measures called for by Lord Cullen. We have an inescapable duty to fulfil that responsibility.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Peter Ainsworth be discharged from the Select Committee to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills and Mr. Nick Hawkins be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

PETITION

  Riding Schools
  10 pm
  Mr. Harry Greenway: The petition reads:
  The Petition of citizens of the United Kingdom,
  Declares that, since the introduction of the Uniform Business Rate in 1990, riding schools' rates have soared. Around 15 per cent. of riding schools have been forced to close as a result. Following the revaluation in April 1995 many riding schools have seen further increases in their rates assessments, in some cases as much as 60 per cent., leading to a rise in their rates liability.
  In rural areas riding schools provide much needed business and employment. In towns they provide recreational amenities as well as vital green space in areas that are under considerable development pressure.
  There are 3 million riders in Britain. An estimated two thirds of the country's current riders had their introduction to the sport at a riding school. Riding schools are under threat. An estimated 15 per cent. have closed in the past five years. Horses are expensive animals in terms of upkeep and management. Facilities to give people access to them are costly to build and maintain.
  On top of spiralling costs, the revaluation of non-domestic rate bills in 1991 has been the final straw for many small riding schools, already operating with tight margins. I could give many examples. I should like to give one.
  One Norfolk riding school owner, a pensioner, went out of business after 28 years when her rate bill soared from £760 to £9,000. Only six months ago, an Essex riding school with a predominantly urban clientele was hit by a 60 per cent. rate increase.

  431
  Riding schools are not big money spinners. They are a way of life for people who have devoted themselves to training and developing young people and adults as riders and horsemen. As such, they serve as a lively meeting place and a focus for the community, often providing teenagers with work experience, a sense of responsibility and social skills.
  The Local Government and Rating Bill, announced in the Queen's Speech, to safeguard village shops and post offices does not provide the protection needed by riding schools, which have similar problems—
  Madam Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Greenway: The petitioners request—
  Madam Speaker: We are coming to the point now, are we? Very good.
  Mr. Greenway: I thank you for your indulgence, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot indulge the hon. Gentleman. I have to adhere to Standing Order No. 132, as the House requires me to do, but the hon. Gentleman is coming to his point now.
  Mr. Greenway: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  The petition reads:
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Environment to bring forward legislation to provide riding schools with either an exemption from rates or a clear cut provision of rate relief.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc …
  To lie upon the Table.

  Industrial Accidents
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. Lair]
  10.4 pm
  Mr. Graham Allen: Amid the background noise of everyday political life, particularly in this place, it is easy to forget about the relentless drip of economic casualties caused by hazards at work. I initiated the debate to remind us that every day in my constituency a family has to come to terms with a personal disaster caused by an industrial accident that is usually preventable.
  One of my constituents fell into a cement mixer which had a faulty safety grille. He was killed by asphyxiation and multiple injuries. A trainee hairdresser fractured her pelvis by falling through an unguarded opening while alterations were taking place in the salon. An escalator engineer was fatally crushed while working on an escalator in the Broadmarsh centre in the middle of Nottingham. A Bulwell warehouseman fell through an unguarded mezzanine floor opening and crushed his ribs. A garage worker was trapped in a car wash and broke his arm. A Nottingham heavy goods vehicle mechanic was crushed to death when the hydraulic arm of a truck he was repairing collapsed on top of him. A 17-year-old Nottingham construction worker recently fell to his death from scaffolding. A 60-year-old man was rushed to the Queens medical centre in Nottingham with a 12 in screwdriver embedded in his chest.
  Those are just a few recent local cases in Nottingham. Hard figures are difficult to come by. As Christine Wood, regional secretary of the midlands Trades Union Congress, pointed out to me,
  "One of our biggest problems is that the statistics are compiled on a sectoral basis and that makes it difficult to discern local trends."
  Will the Minister take another look at how Health and Safety Executive statistics are compiled and see whether they can pinpoint black spots so that action can be taken more readily?
  The Conservatives are finally putting the squeeze on the HSE. The highly respected HSE staff have lost 67 inspectors since 1993 and overall staff numbers have been cut by nearly 10 per cent. over the same period. There are now only 30 inspectors covering Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Lincolnshire. In addition, the HSE is losing a large proportion of older, experienced inspectors.
  We also know that there is not one medical adviser to the HSE on station in Nottingham and the east midlands, inevitably making the prevention of accidents less likely and advice less readily available.
  Much health and safety work is done by the environmental health officers employed by Nottingham city council. While their numbers are constant, over the years they have been given more activities and more premises to cover. As a result, they may not visit some businesses for many years. That has a direct effect on the health and well-being of my constituents.
  Local employers would like the HSE health and information service to be developed, but the current Government appear to have a policy of benign neglect towards the HSE and health and safety generally. For example, believe it or not, the European Health and Safety

  433
  Week began on 7 October. The HSE in Nottingham placed an advertisement in the Nottingham Evening Post but, according to local sources, it was given little encouragement or resources to promote the initiative further. Last week, I called the chamber of commerce and carried out a quick survey of some of the major employers in Nottingham. None of them knew about European Health and Safety Week. A great opportunity was missed for propaganda about health and safety among employees and employers.
  Similarly, the Government have done very little about penalties, which are small and getting smaller. The average fine in the midlands region is 40 per cent. lower than it was last year—a paltry £2,087 per prosecuted offence. The Government are flying in the face of the good employers and seem to be telling the worst employers that even serious breaches of safety at work are nothing much to worry about.
  Jenny Bacon, director general of the HSE, and Frank Davies, chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, said at the launch of the annual report of the HSC last Wednesday that they thought fines were too low. Indeed, they have been disappointed at the response to a letter that Mr. Davies wrote in The Magistrate urging the use of high penalties.
  Rather than prosecuting dangerous employers in Crown courts, where large fines or gaol sentences can be imposed, 99 per cent. of all health and safety prosecutions go to magistrates courts. Magistrates can fine companies up to £20,000 but consistently fail to do so. Will the Minister take this opportunity to give the House his view on the greater use of Crown courts for serious offences—I do not want to drown the Crown courts—tougher sentencing by magistrates and the allowance of appeals on small fines? Will he issue some guidance for magistrates or give them some advice?
  We have just had a debate on home affairs, during which great play was made of allowing appeals against lenient fines and sentences. Will the Minister consider extending such an approach to health and safety, where injuries and damage can be just as great as those caused by more obviously criminal activity? The Court of Appeal recently called a High Court fine of £100 on British Steel for a safety offence "derisory", but could do nothing about it. Similarly, the HSE has no power to appeal against a fine that it considers too lenient. Such things affect the way in which employers act in my constituency and the fate of my constituents at work.
  We will join the Confederation of British Industry and the unions to get tough on the tiny minority of employers who compromise the health, and sometimes the lives, of their employees. We will of course work with good employers to promote best practice through industry and welcome the HSE's "Good Health is Good Business" campaign.
  Thirty million working days are lost each year through work-related injuries and ill health—eight times more than are lost through strikes. The bill for workplace accidents and ill health in the United Kingdom totals £16 billion—equivalent to 15 per cent. of all those companies' profits. In the present system, the good employer, properly committed to high standards of health and safety, can be undercut by the bad. From my time last
  434
  year as shadow Transport Minister, I know of the cowboy trucking firms that push their drivers over the limit. One driver in Newark in Nottinghamshire was taped begging his boss for a rest break. He was refused that rest break and within minutes killed a young man on a moped not far from my constituency. Overwork and stress is a great killer and accident creator at work. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to tell us his latest opinion on the working time directive, which is to be judged by the European Court of Justice towards the end of this month, and whether, despite all the Government's delay and wriggling, he will undertake to abide by that ruling and introduce a maximum working week.
  Businesses in my constituency want to comply with the rules and regulations and be competitive on the basis of good workplace conditions and high employee morale, but they need more Government support. The health and safety record in some sectors of Nottingham industry is of real concern—not least in textiles, construction and printing. The Government have all but destroyed the mining industry in my county, but for that which is left, there were 18 per cent. fewer mines inspected last year than the year before and even fewer inspections are planned for the year ahead. The mines inspectorate has lost 18 of its 60 staff since April 1993, and there are now just 22 inspectors of mines to cover the whole of England, Wales and Scotland—when privatisation has created a host of new problems.
  Major injuries in the energy industry in the midlands have almost doubled over the past year, yet there is a constant problem of under-reporting of accidents. Union officials from the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers tell me that miners are pressured not to report accidents and are even offered prizes as incentives to keep health and safety records clean. Now, with assorted owners, each mine is considered separately, whereas before good practice in one mine was almost automatically transferred to others.
  It is not just the traditional local industries that need attention. Poor health and safety is a many-headed hydra. As industry changes, new health and safety problems arise. There has been a huge growth in part-time jobs and casual labour in Nottingham. Small firms employing fewer than 50 workers now account for 99 per cent. of all firms. New technology helps people to work from home, but instead of support from the Government we have seen cuts in resources exactly when our health and safety mechanisms need to be most responsive to changing demands.
  Fatal accidents in service industries in the midlands have doubled since last year. Greater Nottingham business link highlighted the fact that the small business community is particularly at risk, and that community is growing in Nottingham.
  Similarly, we must focus attention on working conditions for the self-employed. Most responsible employers provide health and safety training for employees; the self-employed do not. This year's Health and Safety Commission annual report showed that the regional fatality rate among self-employed workers was 50 per cent. higher than among employees.
  Awareness of repetitive strain injury is also increasing. The labour force survey puts self-reports of musculo-skeletal disorders at more than 500,000, which is by far the highest of any ill-health category. In

  435
  Nottingham, 132 calls have been made to the local voluntary RSI helpline so far this year, of which, sadly, 54 were from people who had been sacked or pressured to give their notice. Clearly, some employers in my area merely pay lip service to their health and safety obligations and threaten the livelihoods of RSI sufferers in their employment. Wendy Lawrence, secretary of the Nottingham RSI support group, said that managers told individual RSI sufferers that people like them made firms go bust, and refused requests for appropriate equipment. Only one prosecution this year under the display screen regulations hardly serves as a warning to that tiny minority of bad employers.
  In the future, we must act far more quickly to prohibit processes or products whose lethal potential has been clearly established. Without a strong lead from the Government, it often falls to local trade unionists to become the front-line health and safety troops. Statistics prove that a unionised workplace is a safer workplace, despite Government cuts in training grants for safety representatives. In my city, the GMB has created Safety Measures Ltd. to offer a health and safety consultancy to employers. Many unions spend a lot of time on health and safety locally and, sadly, picking up the pieces when health and safety has not been effective. Peter Crowe, district secretary of the National Union of Knitwear, Footwear and Apparel Trades, currently has 149 active claims for industrial injury. Bernard Rutter, branch secretary of the Graphical, Paper and Media Union in Nottingham, lists 80 active claims, despite massive under-reporting of accidents in the printing business. In 1995, Nick Wright, regional secretary of Unison, instructed solicitors in 699 separate cases of industrial accidents or diseases.
  Unseen by most of the population, Nottingham, probably like every other city, has an industrial injuries problem of epidemic proportions. Much depends on employers and employees, but the Government, too, have a role. They should introduce a charter of rights for people at work, giving employees greater protection against dangerous working conditions, including asbestos. They should give safety representatives elected by the work force improved rights, including a statutory right to recognition. They should introduce a new crime of corporate manslaughter to reduce the needless deaths that result from wilfully negligent employers. They should introduce an enforceable code of good practice, which would support sufferers of mental stress at work.
  While a woman can still lose the use of her arms at work or a man can come into contact with asbestos or deadly diseases, there will be no room for cosy complacency on health and safety, which we see all too often. For the sake of my constituents and those of hon. Members throughout the land, I call on the Government to take action in partnership with employers and employees. If they do not, they will soon give way to a Government who will.
  10.19 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I thought for a moment that we were to have an Adjournment debate about horses, but fortunately that did not happen.
  Returning to the theme of tonight's debate, I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on securing the debate and I welcome him to
  436
  his new responsibilities for health and safety. Unlike his predecessor, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), at least the hon. Gentleman is shadowing the correct Department. However, his newness shows and I do not agree with his approach. The country's health and safety results under this Government must be examined and the hon. Gentleman must put his statistics into perspective.
  Any accident or injury at work is a serious matter. In the worst cases, the consequences can be death or long-term disability with all the suffering that family, friends and colleagues then endure. In lesser, but still distressing, cases it can mean pain, poor health and perhaps loss of earnings. We must do anything that we can sensibly do to reduce the number of accidents and their impact.
  The hon. Gentleman talked about penalties, prosecutions and prohibition, but that is not the correct working approach, which is very different. I visited Nottingham last year to open the Health and Safety Executive's new area office for the north midlands. I wanted to see some of the HSE's work for myself, I wanted to see how effective the HSE was in Nottingham and, as a deregulation Minister, I was keen to meet people from Nottingham businesses in order to gauge the results of the working relationship between those businesses and the HSE.
  The local employers were well represented. The big household names of Nottingham were there—Boots, Courtaulds, Raleigh and Toyota—as were people from small firms. I was encouraged by how positive they were. They sell health and safety in a forward-looking manner and they hold the HSE in high regard. It was clear that the HSE is improving health and safety awareness, while making their lives simpler and easier. The strategy is working: it is reducing unnecessary burdens while improving health and safety. The first phase of the HSE's "Good Health is Good Business" campaign is under way and it has proved to be effective and appreciated.
  I also visited the McAlpine construction site at Her Majesty's prison in Sherwood. It is coming to grips effectively with the relatively new Construction (Design and Management) Regulations—a case of safety by forethought. The Nottingham area is full of examples of good health and safety practice and, as the hon. Gentleman settles into his shadow portfolio, I hope that he will realise that the Government's different, successful approach is the way forward.
  The Boots site at Beeston employs more than 3,500 people. The company takes a proactive approach to health and safety, which has led to a 28 per cent. reduction in reportable accidents over the past four years. Not content with that, Boots is moving forward and is participating in a major HSE study of accident causation and costs, with the aim of preventing accidents in future.
  Courtaulds Textiles, which has a plant in central Nottingham, has launched the seven health and safety principles programme which enjoys the backing of those at the very top of the company. All production managers attend a two-day training course and there is half-day training for all employees. Heightened awareness has brought an increase in accident reports, which has led to prevention and to a clear decline in the number of accidents in the first half of 1996. Investment in health and safety training pays off—that has been the HSE's approach for a number of years.

  437
  In Nottingham, October marked the launch of the second phase of the HSE's "Good Health is Good Business" campaign. It coincided with the European campaign, so it was good timing. The hon. Gentleman was perhaps a little too selective in his speech, but he must realise that the combination of the two campaigns is working very well in Nottingham. In addition, inspectors from the Nottingham office have launched regional inspection initiatives on asbestos operations, dermatitis in the engineering industry and on radon. A series of exhibitions and seminars—which I hope that the hon. Gentleman has attended—and media events have been held throughout the area in order to drive home the campaign message. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should listen to what is being said. Emphasis has also been given to increasing the safety awareness of young people in the area, with events at local colleges and a good health pack directed at young people in the agricultural industry, if the hon. Gentleman has any agriculture in his patch.
  We are talking about improving health and safety as a constant attitude so that it becomes second nature. As the hon. Gentleman has said, if proper attention is given to health and safety, business money will be saved. That is apart from all the safety considerations for individuals.
  Our approach is working. The Government, employers and employees are working together on health and safety, as our record shows. The record has improved every year. Since 1974, the fatal injury rate for all workers—both employees and the self-employed—has fallen substantially. It now stands at 1.1 per 100,000 workers. That is the lowest ever level on record for the second successive year. The total number of fatalities has fallen in 1995–96 to 338. That is 338 too many, but the number is more than 10 per cent. down on the previous year.
  The overall fatal injury rate for the self-employed has fallen again in 1995–96 to the record low of 1.6 per 100,000 workers. The hon. Gentleman should take his own statistics and put them into perspective. He will find that we are succeeding.
  The United Kingdom's health and safety record is among the best in the world, and better than most of our major European Union competitors. On a like-for-like basis, the fatal injury rate per 100,000 employees in the United Kingdom was 1.4. In Germany, it was 3.0. In France, it was 4.8. The United Kingdom was at a level of one, shall we say. In Germany, the rate was twice that. In France, it was three times that.
  438
  Let us take injuries causing absences of more than three days. In 1989, in Italy, there were over 4,000 such accidents reported per 100,000 employees. In Germany, the figure was 4,700. In the United Kingdom, the rate was less than half at 1,910.
  The United Kingdom's performance is due to a different, intelligent and balanced approach. We do not take the heavy-handed approach that is suggested by the Labour party. The HSE's approach has been to ensure that every fatal accident is investigated. Every major incident is investigated. Every high-hazard industrial activity will be visited by an inspector at least once a year. Every new business known to the HSE will be contacted within two months. Every complaint will be dealt with by an inspector.
  Investigations, inspections and visits are important but the full effectiveness of our health and safety strategy derives from the total package, and that includes getting rid of outdated and redundant legislation, which is a burden on industry. We laid before Parliament a further 16 pieces of legislation last week. We want a targeted, proportional enforcement regime. We want simple, sensible guidance to employers, employees and the self-employed, and guidance that is understood. We want guidance that is goal based, not rule based. We also want proportionate regulation that assesses the costs of enforcement and acknowledges that no system is entirely foolproof.
  The HSE inspectors are responsible for enforcing health and safety regulations in more than 650,000 business establishments. These range from oil rigs to mines, factories, farms and fairgrounds. There are more inspectors now than there were in 1979. There are now 1,443, with a further 30 being recruited. The inspectors work through co-operation, which is something that the hon. Gentleman does not understand. They advise and persuade. Only as a last resort is enforcement action appropriate.
  A strategy of targeting inspections on high-risk or poor-record businesses is more effective, costs less money and saves more lives than the hon. Gentleman's uninformed and unthinking procession of visits to all businesses. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that it is a case of new Labour, new regulations and poorer health and safety.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Aid Projects
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are taken by the Overseas Development Administration to ensure that all aid projects are assessed for their environmental sustainability. [739]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  All projects are subject to environmental assessment according to the guidelines and procedures set out in the manual of environmental appraisal. ODA has recently revised and updated the manual. It is accompanied by guidance on the major international environmental agreements and their implications for both aid donors and recipients. Copies of both documents have been placed in the Library of the House.

  UN World Hunger Conference
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals Her Majesty's Government intend to place before the UN world hunger conference to be held in Rome in November; and if he will make a statement. [483]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The Government's principal objective for the world food summit is to work for international consensus on the action needed to reduce hunger and malnutrition in the world. To help achieve this objective, we propose to present to the summit a paper on policy towards food security. In preparing this paper, we have consulted extensively among interested groups in the United Kingdom.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Mahmood Hussein Mattam
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received relating to the conviction for murder and subsequent hanging in Cardiff in 1952 of Mahmood Hussein Mattam; and if he will now refer the matter to the Court of Appeal. [777]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  On 10 October 1996, solicitors acting on behalf of Mr. Mattam's family submitted a substantial dossier in this case. My right hon. and learned Friend will decide as soon as possible whether any action on his part would be appropriate.

  Police Equipment
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the items of new equipment authorised by his Department for use by 20
  (a) the Metropolitan police and (b) other police forces in England and Wales in the last two years; how much training is required by his Department (i) initially and (ii) annually for each piece of equipment; and what assessment he has made of the impact of the introduction of each piece of equipment on the time available to police officers on active duty. [75]

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend gave his consent to the following in the Metropolitan police district, in accordance with the Metropolitan Police Town Clauses Act 1829:

  (i) on 23 November 1994, 24 in and 26 in straight batons;

  (ii) on 28 June 1995, expandable three-piece friction lock batons.

  In addition, between 1 March and 31 August 1996, Metropolitan police officers participated in operational trials of CS aerosol sprays with my right hon. and learned Friend's consent. His consent is not required to the introduction of police equipment in other forces.

  Training in the use of equipment is a matter for individual chief officers. An assessment was made of the effect of the introduction of expandable side-handled batons on working days lost by injury to police officers. No conclusions could be drawn because it coincided with a period in which there was a large fall in the number of officers on long-term sick leave.

  Omanga Mangwete
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost to his Department of the custody of Omanga Mangwete in the UK prior to his removal to Canada. [165]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The cost of detaining Mr. Mangwete in the United Kingdom prior to his removal was £21,521.17.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of asylum seekers whose application has been rejected but remain in Britain awaiting appeal. [669]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  As at 30 September 1996, an estimated 20,100 refused asylum seekers, excluding dependants, were pursuing appeals.

  Micrea Ilin
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost of the custody of Micrea Ilin prior to his release from prison; and what was the cost to his Department of their actions on his case. [164]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The cost of detaining Mr. Ilin was about £6,630. The cost to the Home Department of our actions in this case could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

ENVIRONMENT

  Construction Industry (Recycling)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in increasing the use of recycled material in the construction industry. [202]

  Mr. Clappison
  There is increasing interest in the use of recycled materials for construction in order to conserve primary aggregates. This has been further encouraged by the introduction of the landfill tax. Reliable data on the extent of usage of recycled materials are not presently available.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the administrative cost of implementation of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 by English local authorities. [668]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Information about such costs is not available centrally, but I would expect any administrative costs to local authorities of implementing the housing provisions of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 to have been offset by savings arising from the changes, introduced by the Act, to the duties owed by authorities to asylum seekers under the homelessness legislation.

  Planning Application (Wallsend)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will call in for determination planning application NT/0925/96 DM made to North Tyneside council for residential development at the Northern Electric sportsground, Wallsend. [782]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  If it is minded to approve this planning application, North Tyneside council will refer it to the Secretary of State for the Environment as a departure from the development plan, and he will then consider whether to call it in. I have asked the Government office for the north-east to write and let the hon. Member know his decision.

  Stockport Unitary Development Plan
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the inspectors' report into Stockport UDP to be published. [73]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The inspectors' report on objections to the Stockport unitary development plan is expected to be delivered to the council at the end of December this year. It will then be for the council to decide when to publish the report. I have asked the Planning Inspectorate's chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. Greenfield to Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, dated 25 October 1996:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment has asked me to reply to your question about the Inspector's report from the public inquiry into the Stockport Unitary Development Plan.
  The report is expected to be issued to the Council at the end of December. It will then be for the Council to decide when to publish it.

  Planning Appeal (Stockport)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects a decision to be taken into the appeal by Gladmen Homes to build a nursing home on land at Lisgard lane, Stockport. [74]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The provision of information on planning appeals is the responsibility of the Planning Inspectorate. In the absence of the inspectorate's chief executive, Mr. Chris Shepley, I have asked the deputy chief executive, Mr. James Greenfield, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. Greenfield to Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, dated 25 October 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question asking when a decision is expected on the planning appeal by Gladman Homes for the erection of a nursing home on land at Donelons Yard, Lingard Lane, Bredhury.
  The appeal has now been decided, and I enclose a copy of the inspector's decision letter.

  Footpaths
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to place a duty on local authorities to adopt footpaths. [783]

  Mr. Clappison
  We have no plans to do so.

  Liverpool Airport
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make a decision on proposals to expand Liverpool airport; and if he will make a statement. [493]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A decision will be taken as soon as possible on the planning applications made by Liverpool Airport plc for the phased development of Liverpool airport. These were called in for the Secretary of State's determination in June 1994 and a public local inquiry was held from 4 April 1995 to 30 June 1995. The report of the inquiry inspector, which was submitted on 25 July 1996, is being considered.

  It remains our intention, if feasible, to announce decisions simultaneously on the applications for the phased development of Liverpool airport and for a second runway at Manchester airport.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the net carbon dioxide emissions from Britain(a) in each year since 1990 and (b) in each year up to 2010. [154]

  Mr. Clappison
  Emissions of carbon dioxide, net of the increase in carbon stored in forests and wood products, for the UK are estimated to have been:

  Million tonnes CO2

  1990

  574

  1991

  579

  1992

  563

  1993

  549

  1994

  546

  23
  Projected emissions are subject to greater uncertainty. They are currently estimated to be:

  2000: 545

  2005: 588

  2010: 591

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the proportion of discarded(a) glass, (b) paper, (c) plastic, and (d) biodegradables which have been (i) recycled and (ii) composted in each of the past five years, the current year, and each of the next five. [156]

  Mr. Clappison
  It is not possible to provide information in the form requested. Information on plastic recycling and composting of biodegradables is not held centrally.

  The Department does obtain information from trade associations on the amounts of glass and paper recycled as a proportion of glass and paper consumption in the UK. Figures for the years 1989–1994 are given in the table.

  Glass and paper recycling as a proportion of the consumption of these materials in the UK

  Year

  Glass recycling (per cent.)

  Paper recycling per cent.)

  1989

  17

  28

  1990

  21

  32

  1991

  21

  34

  1992

  26

  34

  1993

  29

  32

  1994

  28

  33

  The Department has not made projections of these figures.

  Housing Rents
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average rent paid by(a) council tenants and (b) housing association and housing trust tenants in each year since 1990. [158]

  Mr. Clappison
  Average weekly rents for council and housing association tenants in England are set out in the table:

  (a) Council tenants1£

  (b) HA tenants2£

  1990

  23.74

  n/a

  1991

  27.29

  n/a

  1992

  30.57

  29.62

  1993

  33.62

  34.03

  1994

  35.68

  37.56

  1995

  38.31

  40.60

  1At 1 April.

  2At 31 March.

  Source:

  Housing subsidy claim forms (council rents), Housing Corporation HAR10/1 return (housing associations).

  Global Temperature Changes
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment from what sources he draws his evidence of global temperature changes; and on whom he relies for the evaluation of this information. [495]
  24
  Mr. Clappison
  The Hadley centre, Bracknell, complies global temperature data and analyses them for indications of change. The result of the Hadley centre's work are published in scientific journals and hence subject to peer review. These results, with the work of other investigators around the world, have been assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—IPCC—and reported in the IPCC's most recent report, the second assessment of climate change 1995.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Goods (Environmental Claims)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he intends to take following the publication of the National Consumer Council report on environmental claims on goods. [240]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department is currently working with the Department of the Environment to draw up, in consultation with industry and consumer interests, a code of practice for the making of environmental claims.

  Coal Imports
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the country of origin and tonnage of coal imports for 1995. [436]

  Mr. Page
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Coal imports for 1995

  Country of origin

  Thousand tonnes of coal

  Australia

  3,641

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  13

  Canada

  1,364

  Colombia

  2,687

  Czech Republic

  2

  Estonia

  59

  Germany

  131

  India

  9

  Indonesia

  65

  Irish Republic

  25

  Netherlands1

  104

  Norway

  2

  People's Republic of China

  77

  Poland

  1,274

  Republic of South Africa

  1,313

  Russia

  160

  Sweden

  10

  United States of America

  4,858

  Vietnam

  101

  Total

  15,896

  1Imports include extra-EU coal routed through the Netherlands.

  Source:

  Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 1996.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the tonnage of coal imports for each of the last 10 years. [437]
  25
  Mr. Page
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Coal Imports

  Year

  Thousand tonnes of coal

  1986

  10,554

  1987

  9,781

  1988

  11,685

  1989

  12,137

  1990

  14,783

  1991

  19,611

  1992

  20,339

  1993

  18,400

  1994

  15,041

  1995

  15,896

  Source:

  Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 1996.

  R. R. Donnelley (UK) Ltd.
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what(a) grants and (b) other assistance have been given by his Department to R. R. Donnelley (UK) Ltd. in the last five years. [176]

  Mr. Page
  There is no record of any assistance having been given by this Department to R. R. Donnelley's York plant within the past five years.

  However, R. R. Donnelley's Gateshead plant has received business support assistance through its local training and enterprise council. The total value of this assistance is approximately £21,000.

  Departmental Investigations
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his Department began its investigation into the activities and conduct of(a) Butte Mining, (b) Richmond Oil and Gas plc and (c) the Robertson Group; when the investigations were completed; what action was taken; and which Minister dealt with the matter. [785]

  Mr. Lang
  It is not my Department's practice to comment on the affairs of individual companies.

DEFENCE

  Porton Down
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the file with the classmark WO 32/20843 recorded at the Public Record Office relating to experiments at the chemical and biological defence establishment is currently retained by his Department; and if he will open it. [724]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Arrangements are being made to review WO 32/20843 to see whether release into the public domain is now possible. I will write to the hon. Member on completion of the review process.

  Beef Consumption
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if British beef is purchased by the armed forces for their own consumption in the United Kingdom. [198]
  26
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The procurement of food for the armed forces is contracted to the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes—NAAFI. My Department does not specify the source of origin from which the NAAFI should obtain beef—or any other meat—but expects it to seek the best market price for the product. There are no constraints on the choice of British meat products, which are considered equally with meat products sourced generally in the open market. The majority of our requirements are, however, for frozen beef which is not readily available from the British market and I understand that on cost grounds the majority of beef joints have been sourced from South America, predominantly Brazil and Uruguay, although a range of beef products including sirloin, foreribs, minced and diced beef are normally procured in the UK along with other meat and poultry produce.

  Mine Clearance (Former Yugoslavia)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of mine clearance and detection vehicles and equipment in service with British forces in operations under the NATO, UN and implementation force—IFOR—programmes in former Yugoslavia. [397]

  Mr. Soames
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Married Quarters Estate
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received opposing the sale of military married quarters to a Japanese-led consortium; what plans he has to review the sale; and if he will make a statement. [484]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department has received a number of letters expressing views on the future ownership of the married quarters estate. The sale is proceeding satisfactorily, with exchange of contracts having taken place on 24 September and completion scheduled for 5 November. A copy of my Department's press release announcing the exchange of contracts was placed in the Library of the House.

  Tornado Crash (Blackpool)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the nine F3 Tornados referred to in his answer of 16 October,Official Report, column 1094, had been refurbished by British Aerospace, Warton, Lancashire, by means of (a) fitting a new mid-section fuselage taken from an F2 Tornado and (b) making good directly the previously damaged fuselage mid-section. [786]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  All nine of the Tornado aircraft to which I referred in my answer of 16 October were refurbished by means of fitting centre fuselage sections taken from Tornado F2 aircraft held in store.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the same-day authorisation to fly the F3 Tornado that crashed at Blackpool on 28 September constituted the full normal manufacturers' certificate of airworthiness. [780]
  27
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The full and normal certification was provided by British Aerospace as contractor in respect of this aircraft, concurrently with the Ministry of Defence authorisation provided by my Department's principal quality assurance officer at British Aerospace, Warton, where the aircraft was being refurbished.

  Future Large Aircraft
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his German counterpart concerning the future large aircraft programme. [247]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  When I met State Secretary Simon on Tuesday 3 September, the future large aircraft programme was among the subjects we discussed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has not recently discussed the future large aircraft programme with his German counterpart.

  Operation Joint Endeavour
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the aims of Operation Joint Endeavour; what part will be played by British military forces; and if he will make a statement. [485]

  Mr. Soames
  Operation Joint Endeavour is the NATO-led implementation force—IFOR—operation in Bosnia. Its primary aim is to implement the military aspects of the Dayton peace agreement. The operation has been conspicuously successful and all the key military objectives have been achieved. Britain is making a major contribution to IFOR through our leadership and status as framework nation for headquarters Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps, which commands the land operation, our command of one of the three multinational divisions and a troop contribution which is second only to that of America.

  Departmental Headquarters Refurbishment
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans for refurbishing his Department's main building headquarters using the private finance initiative. [246]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Main building was constructed in the 1950s. Many of its key services are now in urgent need of replacement and the accommodation falls far short of meeting today's needs. To correct these deficiencies requires a major programme of work that will provide a modern working environment, maximum utilisation of space and flexibility for the future.

  The Department intends to examine private finance options for the redevelopment and subsequent operation of the building. In due course, we would expect to be inviting ideas for the scheme from potential private sector partners. I hope to be able to make an announcement on the way ahead within the next few weeks.

  Nicola Goode
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to complete his official investigation into the case of Nicola Goode, 2 Victoria heights, Dartmouth who suffered an injury on 2 February 1996 at RAF Halton; and will he make a statement. [257]
  28
  Mr. Soames
  I will shortly write to the hon. Member in respect of his constituent in this case.

SCOTLAND

  Andover Primary School, Brechin
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will announce a decision on the compulsory purchase order regarding land or the proposed replacement building for Andover primary school, Brechin; and when he received the application for this compulsory purchase order. [248]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  A decision on this order, which was submitted for confirmation in March 1995, will be made shortly.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  War Widows
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's policy in respect of the pensions of war widows whose husbands' deaths are assessed to be related to smoking while in prisoner of war camps during the second world war; and if he will make a statement. [498]

  Mr. Heald
  A war widow's pension may be awarded where the late husband's death was due to, or was substantially hastened by, any service in the armed forces. There is no automatic entitlement to a war widow's pension simply because the late husband was a war pensioner.

  The war pensions scheme has never been intended to compensate for the effects of a personal habit such as smoking. Policy on this has not changed. Over more than 40 years, that has been the general policy of successive Governments; it has applied to all those who served including those who were prisoners of war.

  The law does, however, provide for awards in respect of smoking-related conditions where there is a severely disabling mental condition—itself attributable to service and assessed for war pension purposes at a minimum of 50 per cent.—which rendered the individual incapable of exercising personal choice and prevented him from giving up the habit.

  Income Support
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) of those of adult working age and (b) pensioners are currently in receipt of income support; and if he will list separately the estimated number whose income is less than (i) £6,000 annually and (ii) £5,000 in each group. [223]
  29
  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table:

  Millions

  Number of income support claimants of adult working age

  4,080

  Number of pensioner income support claimants

  1,588

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry November 1995.

  Notes:

  1. Adult working age is between 16 and 60 years for females and up to 65 years for males.

  2. Sample size 5 per cent.

  3. Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  4. Numbers include all income support recipients of working age irrespective of their circumstances.

  State Pension
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what increase could be paid to recipients of a state pension if it had been consistently uprated in line with earnings since 1980; and what would be the gross cost of this in the current financial year and the cost net of taxation and losses of other benefit entitlement. [159]

  Mr. Heald
  If the basic state retirement pension had been increased in line with average earnings since 1980, the standard rate of basic pension would be increased by £19.10 a week. The gross cost of such an increase is estimated at £8.8 billion in 1996–97. After taking account of the effect on income-related benefits and taxation, the net cost is estimated at £5.5 billion.

  Sources:

  1. Estimates of gross costs provided by Government Actuary Department.

  2. Net costs estimated using standard offset ratios from the Policy Simulation Model 1996–97, which is based upon data from the family expenditure surveys 1991, 1992 and 1993.

  3. Estimates of changes to income tax revenue provided by the Inland Revenue, using a provisional projection of FES 1994–95 data to 1996–97.

  4. Average earnings index, all employees, taken from the new earnings survey for each year.

  Notes:

  1. All estimates are in 1996–97 prices, rounded to the nearest £100 million.

  2. This reply refers to increases in basic retirement pension only.

  Pensions
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many full-time employees are currently estimated to have no arrangements for pension purposes outside the state pension; and what percentage of the work force this amounts to. [155]

  Mr. Heald
  We estimate that in 1994 approximately 2.8 million full-time employees had no current additional pension arrangement other than the state earnings-related pension; this represents about 17 per cent. of all full-time employees.
  30
  Source:

  1994 general household survey and labour force surveys.

  Note:

  This information refers to current membership of schemes, it does not include employees who have preserved rights from previous membership of an occupational scheme.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of those claimants of incapacity benefit who failed the all work test were also refused unemployment benefit due to failing to meet the availability for work criteria. [224]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table:

  Number

  Number of claims for unemployment benefits by former incapacity benefit claimants.

  72,564

  Number disallowed unemployment benefits because not available for work or unreasonable restriction placed on availability for work.

  208

  Number disallowed unemployment benefits because not actively seeking work.

  40

  Source:

  Employment Service.

  Note:

  All data from 13 April 1995 to 30 September 1996.

  Child Support Agency
  Sir Roger Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what reports he has received recently concerning the performance of the Child Support Agency. [1095]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently received two reports, both of which are being placed in the Library today. These are the annual report for 1995–96 from the chief child support officer and the mid-year report of the Child Support Agency.

  The CSA's mid-year report shows that by the end of September maintenance totalling more than £183 million had been collected or arranged by the agency and that it was clearly on course to meet the target of £380 million to £400 million for the year. In September, 80 per cent. of assessments were correct to the nearest penny and 98 per cent. of payments received from absent parents were paid over to the parent with care within 10 working days. In addition, the report shows the agency's commitment to prompt enforcement action by issuing over 25,000 deductions from earnings orders and applying for over 1,000 liability orders against non-compliant absent parents.

  The CCSO's report for 1995–96 shows continued improvement over the standards of adjudication for the first two years of the agency's operation. The CCSO, who is independent of the CSA and Ministers, acknowledges the progress made and the dedication of agency staff at all levels towards securing better standards of adjudication. He also points out that the agency's assessment of accuracy and the assessment of his own monitors are now broadly in line.
  31
  Both reports clearly indicate that the CSA has turned the corner in terms of its performance over the last 18 months and that it continues to make very encouraging progress, with substantial improvements in many areas. We shall be looking to the agency to continue this much-needed improvement, meet its end-of year targets and deliver an ever-improving and more efficient service.

WALES

  BSE
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the impact of ESE on staffing levels in his Department as at 1 April, 1 October and prospectively for 1 April 1997. [778]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department continually keeps under review its staffing requirements for each area of business. Priorities have been established which will enable the BSE work to be taken forward.

  Cattle Farming (Assistance)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to assist farmers, unable to have their cattle culled as a result of the culling backlog, with the cost of winter feed; and if he will make a statement. [71]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Government have made a further £29 million available to assist beef farmers and are consulting the industry on how this can be most effectively allocated. The Government have committed a total of £2.5 billion to supporting the agriculture industry.

  Agricultural Holdings
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of agricultural holdings and the hectarage of agricultural land in each county in Wales in the year (i) 1994, (ii) 1995 and (iii) 1996. [772]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The information requested is
  shown in the following table. Data for 1996 are not yet available.

  1994

  1995

  County

  Hectares

  Holdings

  Hectares

  Holdings

  Clwyd

  197,581

  3,774

  194,384

  3,506

  Dyfed

  485,021

  11,137

  479,625

  10,580

  Gwent

  92,642

  2,181

  91,176

  2,053

  Gwynedd

  324,976

  4,813

  322,847

  4,490

  Mid Glamorgan

  57,158

  950

  57,398

  891

  Powys

  443,325

  5,679

  443,260

  5,286

  South Glamorgan

  23,832

  501

  23,566

  474

  West Glamorgan

  45,767

  875

  44,759

  796

  Wales

  1,670,301

  29,910

  1,657,013

  28,076

  Source:

  June agricultural census.

  Figures are for main holdings and include estimates for common rough grazing land.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what progress has been made in respect of the use of illegal drugs since the publication of "Tackling Drugs Together". [600]

  Mr. Newton
  Since there are as yet no data beyond 1995, the year in which "Tackling Drugs Together" was published, it is too early to make such an assessment. However, good progress has been made in carrying forward all elements in the strategy which the White Paper set out.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries have so far failed to sign the comprehensive test ban treaty; when he expects the ban to become international law; and if he will make a statement. [49O]

  Mr. David Davis
  The following countries had not signed the CTBT by 28 October:Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei, Burma, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Czech Republic, Dominica, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, The Gambia, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, India, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Korea (North), Laos, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Moldova, Nauru, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Rwanda, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Surinam, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Yugoslavia, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

  According to article XIV of the treaty, the CTBT will enter into force 180 days after the date of deposit of the instruments of ratification by the 44 states listed in annexe 2 of the treaty, but in no case earlier than two years after its opening for signature.

  Antarctic Treaty
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of Japan concerning ratification of the Antarctic treaty; and if he will make a statement. [671]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  I refer the hon. member to the answer that I gave him on 22 July,Official Report, columns 39–40, since when there has been further correspondence between British and Japanese officials on detailed technical issues relating to the environmental protocol and we have against urged Japan to ratify the protocol as soon as possible.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in discussions with fellow signatories to the Antarctic treaty on the establishment of a secretariat; and if he will make a statement. [672]
  33
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 22 July,Official Report, columns 39–40. There has been no recent discussion.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total budget spent in each of the last three years on(a) Britain's responsibility on Antarctica through the Antarctic treaty and (b) grant to the British Antarctic Survey. [225]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Our only financial responsibility in relation to the Antarctic treaty is contributions to the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. FCO contributions for the last three years were as follows:

  1993–94: £31,685

  1994–95: £31,932

  1995–96: £32,700

  The Natural Environment Research Council is responsible for funding the British Antarctic Survey. The council provided the following information on the NERC grant to the survey in each of the last three years:

  1993–94: £21,436,000

  1994–95: £24,321,000

  1995–96: £26,380,000

  Romania (Human Rights)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Romania concerning human rights; and if he will make a statement. [670]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We monitor closely the human rights situation in Romania, as we do in other countries. When appropriate, we raise concerns bilaterally or in company with our EU partners.

  Argentina
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list by date the discussions he has held with representatives of the Argentine Government since January 1991. [674]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary met his Argentine counterpart on the following dates:

  26 July 1995

  27 September 1995

  15 December 1995

  30 January 1996

  28 February 1996

  13 April 1996

  10 June 1996

  29 July 1996

  25 September 1996

  27 September 1996

  34
  His predecessor met the Argentine Foreign Minister on the following dates:

  10 December 1990

  24 April 1991

  26 September 1991

  23 February 1992

  24 February 1992

  22 September 1992

  8 January 1993

  30 March 1993

  1 November 1993

  3 March 1994

  10 May 1994

  5 October 1994

  19 April 1995

  8 June 1995

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what review of the Government's arms policy with regard to Argentina has taken place since January 1991; what factors underlay the review; what classes of equipment were released from embargo as a consequence of the review; what quantities of such equipment have been sold since January 1991; and what information was released to(a) Parliament and (b) industry by his Department in respect of the review. [677]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary's remarks in the House on 24 October 1996,Official Report, column 141.

  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear, there has been no relaxation of the embargo and no goods have consequently been released from embargo. However, there have been exceptions allowed under the embargo in specific cases. I also refer the hon. Member to the written answer given to the hon. member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 13 June 1996, Official Report, column 263.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with representatives of the Argentine Government since January 1991, in respect of relaxing the arms embargo. [675]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Argentine representatives have raised their desire to have the arms embargo relaxed on several occasions. I have nothing further to add to the remarks made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on 24 October,Official Report, column 141.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the British Government's policy on the export of arms and military equipment to Argentina. [676]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  I refer the hon. Member to the remarks made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on 24 October,Official Report, column 141.

  Helms-Burton Act
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United States ambassador in respect of the Helms-Burton Act; and if he will make a statement. [481]

  Mr. David Davis
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has discussed the Helms-Burton Act with the United States ambassador and the US Secretary of State, Warren Christopher.

  We consider that this legislation sets a dangerous and unwelcome precedent. It is against the spirit, if not the letter, of international trade law. While we agree with the US objective to promote democracy in Cuba, we disagree fundamentally on the means to achieve this. US sanctions against British companies are not the way forward. We have put firmly on record with the US Administration and Congress bilaterally, and also collectively with our EU partners, our views and our objections to the legislation. The EU has requested World Trade Organisation disputes panel to rule on the issue. Countermeasures are under consideration in Brussels. The Government are determined to do everything possible to protect our legitimate business interests and the law-based international trading system.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Drug Abuse Resistance Education
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) on what occasions she has visited the Nottinghamshire DARE programme; and if she will make a statement. [400]

  (2) what estimates she has made of the cost of ensuring all nine-year-olds undertook a 17-week DARE course on social skills. [401]

  Mrs. Gillan
  My right hon. Friend has not visited the Nottinghamshire drug abuse resistance educationDARE—programme, but officials of the Department maintain regular contact with DARE representatives and monitor its progress closely.

  No estimates of requiring the DARE programme to be implemented nationwide have been made. While we encourage inter-agency drug education initiatives, it is for individual schools to decide which approach best suits their needs and circumstances. DARE is one of a number of possible programmes.

  Down's Syndrome Children
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children with Down's syndrome are being educated(a) in mainstream schools and (b) in special schools in each local education authority; and if she will make a statement. [784]

  Mrs. Gillan
  This information is not collected centrally. Local education authorities are under a duty to educate children with special education needs in mainstream schools, provided this accords with parents' wishes and is compatible with the child receiving 36
  appropriate special educational provision, the provision of efficient education for other children and the efficient use of resources.

  Physical Education Teachers
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many physical education teachers are employed in local education authority schools; and what has been the percentage change since 1979. [502]

  Mr. Forth
  In 1992, there were 24,400 full-time teachers in maintained, including grant-maintained, secondary schools in England who were teaching at least one lesson of physical education—PE—a week. Comparable figures are not available for later years. This represents a decrease of 36 per cent. since 1984, the earliest year for which comparable figures are available.

  Most teachers in maintained primary schools teach some PE.

  Children (Employment)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the educational effects of(a) children in registered work and (b) children working illegally; and if she will make a statement. [174]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Employers must register any children they employ with the local education authority—LEA. If the LEA considers that such employment is affecting a child's fitness to obtain full benefit from his or her education, it is for the authority to prohibit or restrict the child's employment with that employer.

  The Government deplore any illegal employment of schoolchildren. The provisions of the legislation, which among other things forbid a child to work during school hours, or for more than one hour beforehand, are designed to avoid any adverse effect upon his or her education. They should be enforced rigorously.

  R. R. Donnelley (UK) Ltd.
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of Sate for Education and Employment what(a) grants and (b) other assistance have been given by her Department to R. R. Donnelley (UK) Ltd. in the past five years. [175]

  Mr. Paice
  R. R. Donnelley (UK) Ltd. has used recruitment services provided by the Employment Service and a variety of training and enterprise council services which will have been funded either wholly or in part by the DFEE. There is no record of any direct grant by the Department to R. R. Donnelley (UK) Ltd. in the last five years.

  Vocational Qualifications
  Mr Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have been awarded each vocational qualification. [781]

  Mr. Paice
  The number of national vocational qualifications, NVQs, Scottish vocational qualifications, SVQs, general national vocational qualifications, GNVQs,
  37
  general Scottish vocational qualifications, GSVQs, and other vocational qualifications awarded for the last three years are set out in the following table:

  Year

  NVQs/SVQs

  GNVQs/GSVQs

  Other VQs

  Total

  1992–93

  194,000

  —

  781,000

  975,000

  1993–94

  240,000

  19,000

  773,000

  1,032,000

  1994–95

  277,000

  48,000

  613,000

  938,000

  Infant School Class Sizes
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her estimate of the cost of reducing to a maximum of 30 all maintained infant school classes for pupils of five, six and seven years of age. [170]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department's statisticians estimate that it would have cost between £120 million and £250 million to reduce to a maximum of 30 pupils all single-teacher classes in years 1, 2, and 3 in January 1996. The exact cost will depend on the extent to which children in larger classes could be accommodated in existing smaller classes or grouped together in new classes. The estimated costs are for extra teachers only.

HEALTH

  Cervical Cancer Screening
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance he has issued as to the acceptance by NHS pathologists as adequate of cervical cancer screening test record cards that do not confirm that visual inspection has taken place; [457]

  (2) if he will place in the Library copies of the guidance he has issued about the adequacy and competence of cervical cancer screening tests; [393]

  Number of adequate smears examined by pathology laboratories in England 1990–91 to 1994–95

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Total adequate smears1(thousands)

  Percent of results requiring follows2

  Total adequate smears1(thousands)

  Percent of results requiring follows2

  Total adequate smears1(thousands)

  Percent of results requiring follows2

  Total adequate smears1(thousands)

  Percent of results requiring follows2

  Total adequate smears1(thousands)

  Percent of results requiring follows2

  England

  3949.2

  7.0

  4252.0

  7.1

  4055.0

  7.1

  4131.0

  7.9

  4150.2

  8.5

  Regional health authority

  Northern

  296.2

  6.3

  302.0

  5.7

  306.7

  6.2

  274.2

  6.5

  287.1

  8.2

  Yorkshire

  227.0

  6.2

  271.9

  5.4

  265.3

  4.8

  302.1

  6.4

  326.3

  7.3

  Trent

  419.2

  5.5

  418.2

  5.7

  398.6

  5.8

  300.9

  7.2

  416.0

  8.0

  East Anglia

  134.3

  5.5

  163.2

  5.6

  167.6

  5.7

  174.7

  6.3

  177.9

  8.1

  North West Thames

  236.0

  4.7

  321.7

  7.3

  292.7

  6.5

  434.7

  7.0

  302.7

  7.9

  North East Thames

  340.0

  9.4

  350.0

  8.9

  329.6

  6.4

  348.0

  7.2

  324.8

  7.9

  South East Thames

  261.4

  7.1

  299.8

  7.4

  299.7

  7.5

  286.0

  7.2

  300.5

  7.2

  South West Thames

  236.2

  6.3

  250.5

  6.1

  243.3

  6.1

  267.5

  7.7

  291.5

  8.3

  Wessex

  193.0

  5.4

  243.7

  6.4

  239.4

  6.3

  265.8

  8.8

  244.6

  9.2

  Oxford

  244.6

  11.9

  237.9

  8.3

  223.3

  7.4

  228.9

  7.0

  228.2

  8.2

  South Western

  254.2

  8.3

  306.6

  7.5

  222.4

  7.7

  233.1

  10.2

  239.8

  9.5

  West Midlands

  483.8

  6.8

  494.2

  7.9

  491.0

  8.4

  436.9

  8.5

  422.3

  8.6

  Mersey

  223.1

  8.0

  208.8

  8.0

  201.4

  8.0

  170.2

  8.1

  219.3

  8.4

  North Midlands

  400.2

  5.1

  383.4

  11.2

  373.9

  12.2

  407.9

  11.6

  369.5

  11.6

  Excludes smears found to be inadequate

  Includes all smears tested found to be positive or abnormal.

  The information is obtained from the central return KC61 which collects information about cervical smears examined by pathology laboratories. The date inlcude all cervical smears examined for whatever reason ie symptomatic as well as screening programme smears.

  38
  (3) what representations he has received as to the adequacy of cervical cancer screening tests where no visual inspection of the cervix has taken place. [494]

  Mr. Horam
  In October 1995, a working party of the Royal College of Pathologists, the British Society for Clinical Cytology and the national health service cervical screening programme produced guidelines entitled "Achievable Standards, Benchmarks for Reporting and Criteria for Evaluating Cervical Cytopathology". These guidelines were launched by the chief medical officer in March this year, together with two further sets of guidelines relating to cervical screening: "Quality Assurance Guidelines for the Cervical Screening Programme" and "Standards and Quality in Colposcopy", and issued to the NHS. No specific representations have been received as to the adequacy of cervical screening where no visual inspection has taken place. However, the importance of visual inspection is emphasised in the British Society for Clinical Cytology's training video and booklet for smear takers "Taking Cervical Smears", which was promulgated to the NHS under cover of EL(94)33. Copies of all guidance documents relating to cervical screening are available in the Library.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cervical cancer screening tests were carried out in each health authority area since 1990, indicating in each case the percentage of cases requiring follow-up. [501]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on cervical screening tests is collected from pathology laboratories and is not held at district health authority level. The number of adequate smears examined by pathology laboratories in England in the years 1990–91 to 1994–95 is shown by region in the table. Questions relating to cervical screening in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Hospital Information Support System
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to seek compensation in respect of the NHS HISS. [452]

  Mr. Horam
  There is no such thing as a national health service hospital information support system—HISS. In 1989, the NHS executive established a HISS initiative to test out the means of purchasing and implementing hospital-wide integrated computer systems. The 25 NHS trusts sponsored by this initiative demonstrated a number of options for achieving this goal. These were pilot projects and have provided the basis of lessons learned for the future. The National Audit Office report on the HISS initiative published on 17 April 1996 makes no suggestion of waste of money. On the contrary, it recommends further work by the NHS executive to increase the value for money already obtained.

  NHS Trusts (Bed Closures)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds in NHS trusts have been closed since 1 April with resource problems cited as the cause. [445]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available centrally. Information on the average daily number of available beds in each national health service trust is published annually in "Bed availability for England", copies of which are available in the Library. Data for the 1995–96 financial year will be available shortly.

  Long Term Care Report
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends publishing the Government's response to the Health Committee's report "Long Term Care: Future Provision and Funding", HC59 of Session 1995–96. [1082]

  Mr. Burns
  We have published the Government's response today. Copies are available in the Library.

  NHS Funding (Charities)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what account his Department takes of the quantity of funding received by the health service from charities in determining public expenditure in this area; [491]

  (2) to what extent Government financial policy on the NHS assumes a continued level of charitable contributions to keep the service functioning. [488]

  Mr. Horam
  None.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is Government policy to substitute NHS equipment facilities funding in the service with charitable donations. [489]

  Mr. Horam
  No.
  40
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will indicate the levels of money raised in the past three years via charitable donations to supplement funding of the NHS. [487]

  Mr. Horam
  The table shows the total income of funds held on trust by the national health service in England.

  £000s

  1992–93

  256,012

  1993–94

  245,032

  1994–95

  255,702

  Source:

  Summarised account for the trust funds held by regional and district health authorities, NHS trusts and special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals and special trustees.

  Note:

  Funds held on trust include both charitable and non-charitable funds.

  Nurses
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses were in NHS hospitals in April 1992; and how many are currently employed. [492]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health's non-medical work force census collects the number of hospital and community health services nursing and midwifery staff as at 30 September each year. Individual hospital units cannot be separately identified in the census, but up until September 1994 nursing and midwifery staff could be sub-divided between those working in hospitals and those working in the community on the basis of their area of work. Areas of work were determined by a combination of the pay scales nurses and midwives were paid on and their occupation codes. Data for September 1992 are available in the Library from the Department of Health's publications: "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics for England", 1995 edition. The sub-division of nursing and midwifery staff between hospital and community areas of work is not possible for the 1995 non-medical work force census—the latest available—and future censuses because of the introduction of new occupation codes.

  Head Lice (Organophosphates)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to prevent the use of organophosphates in the treatment of head lice among children. [76]

  Mr. Horam
  Malathion is the only organophosphate authorised for the treatment of head lice. There is no evidence to suggest that malathion is dangerous when used for this purpose. Like all marketed medicines, products containing malathion are continually monitored for safety.

  Computerised Tomography Scanners
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his Department's policy that a CT scanner is a necessary piece of equipment for a district general hospital. [486]
  41
  Mr. Horam
  It is not the Department's policy for every district general hospital to have a computerised tomography scanner as a necessary piece of equipment. It is for the purchasers of health care to ensure that they have access to those services necessary to meet the needs of their patients.

  Nurses' Pay
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what pay increases for(a) nursing and (b) ancillary grades has been agreed for the current financial year in the NHS; and what proportion of it has been funded by his Department. [167]

  Mr. Malone
  As recommended by the nursing pay review body, nurses on national terms of service received a 2 per cent. national increase from 1 April 1996, with local negotiations for further increases. Ancillary grade staff on national terms also received a 2 per cent. national increase, with local negotiations. For staff on national health service trust terms and conditions, pay increases are a matter for local negotiation. Pay costs are funded within overall NHS resources.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what data he collates concerning the pay increases for(a) nursing and (b) ancillary grades by each English NHS trust. [166]

  Mr. Malone
  Executive letter EL(96)63 sets out the information which is collected centrally from trusts about annual pay settlements reached for nursing and ancillary staff on national terms and conditions. Copies of EL(96)63 will be placed in the Library.

  Children (Employment)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with representatives of local government concerning the employment of children; and if he will make a statement. [172]

  Mr. Burns
  Officials are in regular contact with their counterparts in local government regarding the employment of children.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the employment of children in the United Kingdom. [173]

  Mr. Burns
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 21 February 1996,Official Report, columns 163–64.

  Child Care (Vetting)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the modus operandi of the list held in his Department of individuals deemed unsuitable to work with children; which other agencies have the right to consult that list in their vetting procedures; how frequently the list has been consulted in each of the last five years; and what consultations he has undertaken recently to extend its coverage and use. [779]

  Mr. Burns
  The operation of the consultancy service index, which is the list to which the hon. Member refers, is described in annexe C to circular LAC 93(17), copies of which have been placed in the Library. The service is 42
  currently subject to review and consultations have taken place with the Home Office, Department for Education and Employment and other interested bodies.

  Approximately 55,000 checks against the index are made each year.

  Housing (Refugees)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the housing of refugee families since August 1996 by English local authorities within the terms of the Children Act 1989. [667]

  Mr. Burns
  Special grant report No. 22 (HC 16) relating to the persons from abroad children's grant was laid before the House on the 23 October. The purpose of this grant is to compensate social services departments for the additional expenditure they incur under the Children Act as a consequence of changes in social security entitlement and local authorities' housing duties towards certain asylum seekers.

TRANSPORT

  North West Regional Railways
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to ensure the final version of the North West Regional Railways Ltd. passenger service requirement issued by the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising maintains the current timetable. [581]

  Mr. Watts
  No.

  Motor Car Commuting
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he plans to deter commuting by motor car. [570]

  Mr. Watts
  The Green Paper stresses the benefits of companies drawing up commuting plans to reduce car dependency. Improved rail services by private operators and better promotion of bus travel will encourage a switch to public transport.

  Helicopters
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to meet the Civil Aviation Authority to discuss helicopter use. [572]

  Sir George Young
  None.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date the decision was made not to pursue proposals for profit participation or revenue risk sharing with bidders for rail franchises. [573]

  Mr. Watts
  The decision not to pursue proposals for profit participation was taken prior to the publication of invitations to tender for the first three rail franchises in May 1995. The decision not to pursue revenue risk sharing was taken in October 1995, after the receipt of indicative bids for those three franchises.

  A2 (Bexley)
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the A2 road through the London borough of Bexley. [574]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have received representations about a number of issues on the A2 in Bexley.

  Scottish Air Traffic Control Centre
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects National Air Traffic Services to announce the successful bid for the building and operation of the new Scottish air traffic control centre; and if he will make a statement. [575]

  Sir George Young
  The original timetable for this project assumed an announcement in February 1997. I understand that, in the light of the current Civil Aviation Authority review of the two-centre strategy, a paper will be presented to the CAA board in November on the tenders for the new Scottish centre.

  Public Transport (Disabled Access)
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to support those agencies planning to provide travel training for the people with mobility impairments who might wish to transfer to forms of public transport recently made accessible. [576]

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to support those agencies planning to provide travel training for people with mobility impairments who might wish to transfer to forms of public transport recently made accessible; and if he will make a statement. [398]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department of Transport works closely with transport operators and with disability organisations on this and many other issues arising from the growing move towards fully accessible public transport.

  The importance of travel training will also be highlighted in guidance issued by the Department in parallel with regulations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 which will set standards to ensure that future public transport is accessible.

  A30
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress on upgrading the A30 across Goss moor. [577]

  Mr. Watts
  The main road programme includes a scheme to improve the A30 from Bodmin to Indian Queens across Goss moor. The scheme will be brought forward when funds allow.

  Fenchurch Street Rail Service
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received on the Fenchurch Street line service. [579]

  Mr. Watts
  I have received two letters this year.

  Cycling Safety
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve cycling safety. [571]

  Mr. Bowis
  Providing a safer environment for cyclists, as well as more convenient one, will be important for achieving national targets for increasing cycling set out in the national cycling strategy, which was launched in July. The Government will play their part towards achieving this: for example, through our education, publicity and research programmes; through advice to local authorities, and funding for their transport packages and local safety schemes; and through our involvement in the National Cycling Forum, the first meeting of which I am chairing next month.

  Vehicle Parts
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if German type approval of vehicle parts is sufficient basis for them to conform to British standards. [13]

  Mr. Bowis
  In Britain, most vehicle components are type approved in accordance with the appropriate European standards. Components approved to those standards in Germany are acceptable in Britain.

  Road Signs
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's policy on road signs announcing distances in miles/yards and kilometres/metres. [203]

  Mr. Watts
  The current Traffic Signs Regulations specify that all distances must be shown in miles and yards. I have no plans to change that.

  Watford Junction (Rail Incident)
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the scheduled departure time for Euston of the train which overshot Watford Junction station on Wednesday 10 July. [122]

  Mr. Watts
  The scheduled departure time from Euston was 08.00.

  Departmental Car Parking Spaces
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the cost of car parking spaces at his Department's building on the basis of equivalent central London charges. [769]

  Mr. Bowis
  There is provision for 23 car parking spaces in the Department's headquarters building, Great Minster house, which houses approximately 1,100 staff. On the basis of equivalent local commercial rates, these would cost some £69,000 per annum.

  Passenger Rail Services
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans he has to extend passenger rail services from Matlock to Buxton; and what finance he proposes to make available for this project; [162]
  45
  (2) what plans he has to re-introduce passenger traffic on the Bletchley to Bicester line; what assessment he has made of the quality of the track; and if he will make a statement; [160]

  (3) what plans he has to reintroduce passenger services on the Aylesbury to Bletchley to Bicester line; and if he will make a statement. [161]

  Mr. Watts
  None.

  Noise (Vehicle Sound Systems)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what are the operational needs of the police to enable them to combat excessive noise emitted from stereo systems in motor vehicles; [221]

  (2) what representations he has received from environmental and enforcement bodies (a) on the scale of the problem of excessive noise emitted from stereo systems in motor vehicles and (b) the most effective way for dealing with it; [222]

  (3) what existing powers and practices exist to enable environmental health officers to combat excessive noise emitted from stereo systems in motor vehicles. [220]

  Mr. Bowis
  Following the failure of a prosecution under regulation 97 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, which relates to excessive noise from vehicles, the Metropolitan police have suggested that the regulation be amended so as specifically to include noise from car accessories, such as stereo systems or radios. This would enable the police to continue to issue fixed penalty notices to offenders.

  In response, I have sought comments from bodies representing environmental, local authority, police and motoring interests to ascertain their views on the scale of the problem and the adequacy or otherwise of existing powers to deal with it. I am currently considering these comments.

  Local authority environmental health officers have powers under part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as amended by the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993 to deal with noise of all types from vehicles parked on premises and in the street. I understand that a number of local authorities have also recently brought successful prosecutions for noise from car stereos under the loudspeaker provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

  Concessionary Travel (London)
  Mr. Bendall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has had from users and service providers of the London concessionary fares and taxicard schemes regarding the proposals recommended in a review of the operation of those schemes carried out for the London committee on accessible transport; and if he will make it his policy that the present administration of these schemes will not be impaired. [496]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have received representations from the company which is contracted to provide the London taxicard scheme.

  These are matters for the London boroughs and my Department is not able to intervene.

  Passengers Charter
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the proportion and absolute number of rail journeys which failed to achieve the required passengers charter performance standards, with regard to reliability, for all routes monitored by the Central Rail Users Consultative Committee, for each year since 1993; [219]

  (2) if he will list the proportion and absolute number of rail journeys which failed to achieve the required passengers charter performance standards, with regard to punctuality, for all routes monitored by the Central Rail Users Consultative Committee, for each year since 1993. [218]

  Mr. Watts
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Information regarding the punctuality and reliability of train operating companies are provided in the British Railways Board annual report and accounts 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Humber Bridge
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to announce how much Humber bridge debt the Government will write off under the Humber Bridge (Debts) Act 1996. [568]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 8 July,Official Report, column 65. When the Secretary of State has received, and reached a decision on, the inspector's report into the recent tolls inquiry, he will consider proposals for an order under the Humber Bridge (Debts) Act 1996.

  London Underground
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to improve the London Underground network. [566]

  Mr. Bowis
  London Transport is investing over £1.1 billion in the current year. This is four times as much in real terms as was spent in 1979.

  With substantial support from Government, both through public funding and the private finance initiative, London Underground is undertaking a comprehensive programme of investment both in modernising its existing infrastructure and rolling stock and in constructing the Jubilee line extension.

  Consultants
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all consultants, outside individuals and organisations employed by his Department over the previous 12 months, the nature of their employment, the duration of their employment, and the total cost of their employment to his Department. [1052]

  Mr. Bowis
  I shall write to the hon. Member with details and place a copy in the Library.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will review the arrangements for the answering of parliamentary questions by Ministers. [601]

  Mr. Newton
  I have no plans to do so. The arrangements for the answering of parliamentary questions fall within the remit of the Procedure Committee.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the length of time devoted to questions to the House of Commons Commission; and if he will make a statement. [593]

  Mr. Newton
  The time devoted to questions to the Commission appears to me to be adequate, but I will of course look with care at any representations my hon. Friend may wish to make to me.

  Parliamentary Calender
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to review the parliamentary calendar. [602]

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 26 June, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Oral Questions
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will assess the advantages of moving oral questions to Ministers to the morning. [603]

  Mr. Newton
  No. The Select Committee on Sittings of the House considered this possibility and rejected it.

  Private Motions
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what proposals he has for enabling hon. Members to move private motions in the current Session. [604]

  Mr. Newton
  None.

  State Opening
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how much time he had to devote to preparing for the state opening of Parliament. [605]

  Mr. Newton
  Apart from work as chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Future Legislation, the amount of time required to change from one suit into another.

  Loyal Address Debates
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what consultations he has had to facilitate the choice of dates and subjects for debates on the Loyal Address. [607]
  48
  Mr. Newton
  The subjects for debate on the Loyal Address and the days on which they are debated are by tradition chosen by the main Opposition party. I refer the hon. Gentleman to page 234 of the 21st edition of Erskine May's "Parliamentary Practice."

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what progress has been made concerning the provision of creche facilities and nursery vouchers for hon. Members and their staff. [591]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I have nothing to add to the oral reply given by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), representing the House of Commons Commission, on 8 July,Official Report, columns 15–16.

  Catering Staff (Pay)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the right hon. member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on the pay of House of Commons catering staff. [594]

  Mr Beith
  Until this year, the pay rates for staff in the Refreshment Department—RD—catering grades were linked to the rates negotiated between the Treasury and the National Union of Civil and Public Servants, now Public Services, Tax and Commerce. With the introduction of "delegated pay", the Treasury no longer negotiates national pay agreements and the House now has direct responsibility for negotiating the pay rates of all staff, subject to the statutory requirement to keep the pay and conditions of service broadly in line with the civil service.

  A pay increase of 3 per cent. has been negotiated with the unions representing staff of the House in grade 8 and below, to take effect from 1 April 1996. An offer of a 4 per cent. increase in basic pay rates, with no change in the rates paid for overtime, has been put to the unions representing the RD catering grades. Bearing in mind the retention of the existing rates of pay for overtime, this pay offer is very close to the 3 per cent. increase already paid to other staff of the House and is broadly in line with this year's pay settlements in the civil service.

  Access (Constituents)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he will make a statement on the arrangements for constituents to lobby their hon. Members. [606]
  49
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I am satisfied with the usual arrangement whereby constituents lobby hon. Members in the Central Lobby. The well-established arrangements for more constituents than can be immediately accommodated in the Central Lobby to lobby hon. Members are set out in the leaflet "Mass Lobbies". I have asked the Serjeant at Arms to send a copy of the leaflet to my hon. Friend.

  Access (Wheelchair Users)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he will introduce arrangements to remove the requirement to be met by a parliamentary passholder in respect of wheelchair users who wish to attend meetings in Committee Rooms in the Palace of Westminster. [1012]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I have asked the Serjeant at Arms to look into the matter and to write to my hon. Friend.

  Thomas Paine
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will list the locations of pictures and other representations of Thomas Paine in the Palace of Westminster. [402]

  Sir Raymond Powell
  No pictures or representations of Thomas Paine are on display in the Palace. I understand that an engraving was purchased by the Works of Art Committee in March 1996 and is currently in store awaiting conservation prior to display.

  Parliamentary Works
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what is the estimated cost of building and decorating work carried out to the Palace of Westminster during the summer recess. [595]

  Sir Raymond Powell
  About £17 million-worth of work was carried out on the parliamentary estate during the summer recess.

  Mr. Bernard Jenkin
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what works have been completed in the parliamentary estate during the summer recess. [592]

  Sir Raymond Powell
  During the 12 weeks of the summer recess a large programme of works was undertaken on the parliamentary estate including installation of the parliamentary data and video network at Star Chamber Court and Norman Shaw North, the next phase of the Refreshment Department modernisation programme at Members' and Strangers' Cafeteria as well as automatic fire detection, new telephone wiring, new electrical wiring, lift modernisation including facilities for the disabled, lavatory refurbishment, essential maintenance such as heating modernisation and other minor works.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Beef Imports
  Sir Jim Lester
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what tonnage of beef has been imported since March 1996; and what were the figures for the comparable period in 1995. [197]

  Mr. Baldry
  Imports of beef' into the United Kingdom for the periods April to June 1995 and 1996, as recorded in the overseas trade statistics, are as follows:1995: 69,000 tonnes
  1996: 60,000 tonnes
  These figures are provisional.
  Branch C, Statistics (Commodities and Food) Division, Economics and Statistics Group.
  1Beef includes the following; beef carcase meat; bovine offal; and beef meat and bovine offal preparations.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many inspectors his Department sent to those countries importing beef into the United Kingdom to examine their farms and slaughterhouses in order to assess their compliance with EU regulations. [258]

  Mrs. Browning
  None. The import of beef into the United Kingdom is subject to harmonised Community rules. For intra-Community trade, responsibility for ensuring premises comply with those rules lies with the competent authority in the member state of origin. Responsibility for auditing member states' controls, and for inspecting red meat premises in third countries approved to export beef to the Community, currently rests with the Office of Veterinary and Phytosanitary Inspection and Control of the European Commission.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which countries outside the EU exported beef to the United Kingdom in each of the last three years; and in what quantities. [255]

  Mr. Baldry
  Imports of beef1 into the United Kingdom from countries outside the EU in each of the last three years, as recorded in the overseas trade statistics, are as follows:

  Thousands of tonnes

  Country

  1993

  19942

  19952

  Brazil

  58

  41

  45

  Argentina

  14

  15

  28

  Uruguay

  8

  8

  13

  Zimbabwe

  14

  9

  12

  Australia

  10

  9

  10

  Botswana

  7

  5

  7

  Namibia

  5

  5

  6

  New Zealand

  3

  3

  5

  Mauritius

  2

  5

  5

  USA

  2

  3

  4

  Other

  4

  2

  2

  1Beef includes the following; beef carcase meat; bovine offal; and beef meat and bovine offal preparations.

  21994 and 1995 data are provisional.

  Area Payments Scheme
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many agricultural holdings and what area of agricultural land in hectares came within the area payments scheme in each county in England in (i) 1995 and (ii) 1996; [776]
  51
  (2) if he will set out by county a breakdown of the 1994 arable area payments scheme. [774]

  Mr. Baldry
  The table gives the county breakdown of claims under the arable area payments scheme in 1994 and 1995. A single claim may cover more than one holding where the holdings form part of one business. Equivalent figures for 1996 are not yet available.

  1994

  1995

  Number of claims

  Area paid ha

  Number of claims

  Area paid ha

  Avon

  392

  16,243

  393

  16,134

  Bedfordshire

  593

  64,296

  589

  64,520

  Berkshire

  279

  38,493

  268

  40,633

  Buckinghamshire

  647

  55,651

  632

  58,001

  Cambridgeshire

  2,194

  199,681

  2,155

  198,446

  Cheshire

  991

  28,138

  938

  26,416

  Cleveland

  226

  16,092

  223

  15,986

  Cornwall

  1,688

  39,462

  1,697

  39,371

  Cumbria

  907

  14,951

  905

  15,801

  Derbyshire

  799

  32,892

  793

  32,921

  Devon

  2,637

  65,107

  2,668

  63,392

  Dorset

  726

  60,573

  715

  58,417

  Durham

  661

  41,941

  657

  43,648

  Essex

  1,539

  188,352

  1,530

  193,778

  Gloucestershire

  993

  84,569

  1,000

  84,558

  Greater London

  65

  4,637

  63

  4,734

  Greater Manchester

  145

  5,522

  143

  5,406

  Hampshire

  794

  115,020

  778

  117,954

  Hereford and Worcester

  2,015

  98,986

  1,982

  100,759

  Hertfordshire

  487

  68,991

  483

  71,255

  Humberside

  2,139

  204,332

  2,097

  209,743

  Isle of Wight

  126

  9,674

  126

  10,224

  Kent

  1,050

  113,942

  1,039

  117,870

  Lancashire

  488

  17,953

  484

  18,354

  Leicestershire

  1,133

  100,128

  1,109

  107,256

  Lincolnshire

  3,466

  342,318

  3,386

  356,061

  Merseyside

  190

  9,889

  171

  9,438

  Norfolk

  2,949

  232,519

  2,887

  235,074

  Northamptonshire

  916

  110,522

  910

  117,893

  Northumberland

  860

  90,473

  842

  95,863

  Nottinghamshire

  1,036

  92,580

  1,017

  93,776

  Oxfordshire

  912

  117,621

  914

  125,755

  Shropshire

  1,612

  85,486

  1,581

  86,321

  Somerset

  1,270

  50,673

  1,253

  48,087

  Staffordshire

  872

  48,438

  838

  49,251

  Suffolk

  2,081

  193,026

  2,087

  193,500

  Surrey

  216

  14,453

  207

  14,912

  East Sussex

  440

  30,259

  437

  30,443

  West Sussex

  493

  47,102

  492

  45,912

  Tyne and Wear

  118

  8,996

  112

  9,503

  Warwickshire

  910

  79,348

  877

  80,937

  West Midlands

  102

  5,557

  101

  5,585

  Wiltshire

  1,021

  121,196

  1,010

  118,515

  North Yorkshire

  3,266

  214,945

  3,196

  215,832

  South Yorkshire

  554

  43,424

  543

  44,275

  West Yorkshire

  393

  24,483

  380

  25,169

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to prevent the use of dangerous organophosphates in veterinary products. [77]

  Mrs. Browning
  No veterinary medicine is authorised unless it meets statutory criteria of safety, quality and efficacy. The Government are advised on this by the independent scientific Veterinary Products Committee, VPC. The suspected adverse reactions surveillance 52
  scheme monitors trends in adverse reactions, which are reported regularly to the VPC. The continued use of organophosphorus—OP—sheep dips is kept under review by the VPC. OP sheep dips are important in the control of serious, sometimes fatal, sheep diseases. The committee has advised that, on the basis of current scientific evidence, there is no reason to ban OP dips but that it is essential that they are used properly and in accordance with manufacturers' instructions.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to complete his review of the impact of organophosphate sheep dips on the health of farmers and farm workers. [78]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Veterinary Products Committee, which gives independent scientific advice to the Government on issues concerning veterinary medicines, has completed its most recent review of organophosphate sheep dips, and Ministers expect to receive advice in the near future. An announcement will be made as soon as possible thereafter.

  The Government-funded epidemiological research project to examine the possible long-term human health effects of organophosphate sheep dips commenced earlier this year and is expected to be completed by April 1999.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to monitor the investigation of Gulf war syndrome to establish lessons for the examination of the health side effects of exposure to organophosphate sheep dips among farmers and farm workers. [79]

  Mrs. Browning
  Officials of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate are in regular contact on this matter with the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health.

  EU Fishing Rights (West Africa)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what rights exist for EU countries to fish off the west African coast: which countries enjoy such rights; and what sums have been paid to African Governments by the EU in order to facilitate these concessions. [253]

  Mr. Baldry
  Details of the fisheries agreements between the European Community and west African countries are shown in the table.

  EU Fisheries Agreements with countries on the west coast of Africa

  Country

  Fishing opportunities

  Main EU beneficiaries

  Annual cost of agreement

  Angola

  Licences for five surface longliners and 19 freezer tuna seiners.

  Spain, France, Portugal

  13,000,000 ECU

  Opportunities for 6550 GRT1 per month of shrimp trawlers, 1900 GRT per month of demersal trawelers and 900 GRT per months of bottom set long liners with fixed gillnet.

  53

  EU Fisheries Agreements with countries on the west coast of Africa

  Country

  Fishing opportunities

  Main EU beneficiaries

  Annual cost of agreement

  Cape Verde

  Licences for 23 freezer tuna seiners, 17 tuna canners and surface longliners and three bottom long-liners. A quota of 4850 tonnes of tuna per annum is available.

  France, Italy, Portugal, Spain

  500,000 ECU

  Equatorial Guinea

  Licences for 47 freezer tuna seiners, two pole and line tuna vessels and four surface longliners. A quota of 2750 tonnes of tuna per annum is available.

  France, Italy, Portugal, Spain

  222,000 ECU

  Gambia

  Licences for 23 tuna freezer seiners and seven pole and line tuna vessels. Annual opportunities of 410 GRT for fresh fish trawlers, 2000 GRT for freezer trawlers fishing for shrimps and 750 GRT for freezer trawlers fishing for other species.

  France, Italy, Portugal, Spain

  466,667 ECU

  Guinea Bissau

  Licences for 26 freezer tuna seiners. 16 pole and line tuna vessels and surface longliner vessels. Monthly quotas of 8800 tonnes of shrimps and 4000 tonnes of fin fish and cephalapods are available.

  France, Italy, Portugal, Spain

  6,350,000 ECU

  Guinea Conakry

  Licences for 24 freezer tuna seiners, 10 pole and line tuna vessels and five surface longliners. Opportunities for 4200 GRT per month.

  France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain

  1,350,000 ECU

  Ivory Coast

  Licences for 46 tuna seiners and seven pole and line tuna vessels and surface longliners. A quota of 7500 tonnes of tuna per annum is available. Opportunities for 600 GRT per month of freezer trawlers fishing for demersal species.

  France, Italy, Portugal. Spain

  833,333 ECU

  54

  EU Fisheries Agreements with countries on the west coast of Africa

  Country

  Fishing opportunities

  Main EU beneficiaries

  Annual cost of agreement

  Mauritania

  Licences for 17 tuna canners and surface longliners, 40 freezer tuna seiners and 22 pelagic freezer trawlers. Monthly quotas of 5500 GRT of crustaceans, 8500 GRT of black hake, 9700 GRT of demersals, 300 GRT of crawfish and 7500 GRT of cephalapods.

  France, Italy, Portugal, Spain

  54,410,000 ECU

  Morocco

  Licences for 27 pole and line tuna vessels and five sponge catching vessels. Monthly opportunities for 30212 GRT cephalapods 11200 GRT shrimps, 11350 GRT longliners, 6100 GRT seiners, 1300 GRT pelagics, 1550 GRT artisanals and 3000 GRT black hake.

  Spain, Portugal

  125,000,000 ECU

  Senegal

  Licences for 11 tuna canners, 47 freezer tuna seiners and six surface longliners. Annual quotas of 1000 GRT ocean going and freezer trawlers and 5000 GRT shrimp freezer trawlers. Quotas for four month period of 2000 GRT for ocean going and freezer trawlers.

  France, Greece, Italy, Spain

  9,000,000 ECU

  SAO Tome E Principe

  Licences for 37 freezer tuna seiners, seven tuna canners and 25 surface longliners. A quota of 9,000 tonnes of tuna per annum is available.

  France, Spain, Portugal

  725,000 ECU

  1 Gross registered tonnes.

  Agricultural Land
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was(a) the number of agricultural holdings and (b) the hectarage of agricultural land in each county in England in (i) 1995 and (ii) 1996. [775]

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested for 1995 is set out in the table. Equivalent information is not yet available for 1996.
  55

  Number of holdings1

  Area2 ha

  Avon

  2,032

  81,383

  Bedfordshire

  1,174

  89,285

  Berkshire

  842

  71,456

  Buckinghamshire

  1,853

  123,870

  Cambridgeshire

  3,283

  281,529

  Cheshire

  4,180

  166,038

  Cleveland

  429

  27,616

  Cornwall

  6,679

  276,045

  Cumbria

  6,270

  461,830

  Derbyshire

  3,837

  185,206

  Devon

  11,513

  521,705

  Dorset

  2,949

  196,627

  Durham

  2,169

  156,081

  Essex

  3,554

  263,693

  Gloucestershire

  3,389

  204,613

  Greater London

  431

  13,819

  Greater Manchester

  1,454

  40,215

  Hampshire

  2,981

  226,024

  Hereford and Worcester

  6,531

  307,935

  Hertfordshire

  1,313

  103,265

  Humberside

  3,391

  284,561

  Isle of Wight

  487

  25,859

  Kent

  4,078

  246,643

  Lancashire

  5,307

  215,116

  Leicestershire

  2,888

  194,120

  Lincolnshire

  5,530

  51 9,807

  Merseyside

  454

  19,458

  Norfolk

  4,949

  428,769

  Northamptonshire

  2,014

  184,214

  Northumberland

  2,335

  382,370

  Nottinghamshire

  1,987

  149,672

  Oxfordshire

  2,077

  203,110

  Shropshire

  4,728

  283,205

  Somerset

  5,794

  272,248

  Staffordshire

  4,640

  195,244

  Suffolk

  3,443

  304,483

  Surrey

  1,696

  65,345

  East Sussex

  2,227

  112,718

  West Sussex

  2,225

  123,331

  Tyne and Wear

  271

  13,485

  Warwickshire

  2,403

  153,476

  West Midlands

  459

  15,014

  Wiltshire

  3,062

  266,171

  North Yorkshire

  8,420

  628,643

  South Yorkshire

  1,395

  84,259

  West Yorkshire

  2,989

  97,122

  1Main holdings only (account for some 99 per cent. of agricultural land).

  2Exluding common rought grazing.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made of(a) the advantages and (b) disadvantages of the United Kingdom not re-negotiating the common fisheries policy when it next falls for renewal. [254]

  Mr. Baldry
  It is for the Council of Ministers to decide before 31 December 2002 on any necessary changes to the common fisheries policy. The only realistic course for the United Kingdom is to continue to play a full role in negotiating improvements to the CFP in the run-up to its renewal.

  Thirty-month Scheme
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide advance payment to those farmers wishing to send their 30-month-old cattle to slaughter but who are unable to do so due to insufficient capacity at slaughterhouses and renderers. [259]

  Mr. Baldry
  We have no plans to do so. The weekly slaughter rate has been more than doubled, to over 50,000 animals, through the injection of an additional £16.6 million for extra cold storage and changes in rendering practice. As from 4 November, priority will be given to animals over 30 months old awaiting slaughter which have been registered with the Intervention Board under the registration system announced on 21 October.

  Beef Overproduction
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's estimate of the current extent of overproduction of beef in the United Kingdom. [252]

  Mr. Baldry
  The table gives figures for UK beef and veal production as a percentage of new supplies.

  Thousands of tonnes

  Home-fed production1

  Total new supply2

  Home fed production as a percentage of total new supply

  1993

  881

  885

  100

  1994

  943

  851

  111

  1995

  996

  890

  112

  1996 Q1

  226

  198

  114

  Q2

  139

  177

  79

  1Home-fed production includes the meat equivalent of live exports but excludes all animals slaughtered under the over-30-month scheme and the calf processing aid scheme.

  2Home-fed production plus imports minus exports.

  Branch D, Statistics (Commodities and Food) Division, Economics and Statistics Group.

  Sea Defences
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of(a) changes in sea levels around the coast of the United Kingdom over the next (i) five, (ii) 10 and (iii) 15 years, (b) the likely levels of flooding that could result and (c) the costs of improving sea defences to prevent that flooding. [153]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Ministry's current guidance to operating authorities recommends them to make allowances for sea level rise and predicted vertical land movements of between 4 mm and 6 mm a year when assessing the need for coastal defence measures.

  Virtually all land and property which would be at risk from sea level rise is dependent on existing defences for protection. Operating authorities are expected to consider potential increases in the risk of flooding at individual locations and all recent flood defence works take account of the predicted rise.

  The total cost of allowing for sea level change is not available.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle.
The Earl of Home The Earl of Home—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Schools: Daily Worship
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that the provision of the Education Act 1988 that there should be a daily act of worship in secondary schools is enforced.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Education Act 1988 requires pupils attending a maintained school to take part in a daily act of collective worship. It is the head teacher's duty to secure this. Ofsted inspections identify those schools failing to provide daily worship. Where appropriate, schools should show in their action plans how they will rectify matters. Parents and others may use the local complaints procedure with ultimate recourse to the Secretary of State.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, this is the first time that I have had the privilege of putting a Question to the noble Lord. I only wish he could provide an Answer that was not quite so lamentable. I have two points. First, of those children over 14 attending secondary schools—I gave the Minister brief notice of this question this morning as I wanted some figures—what proportion are attending worship in accordance with the law? Secondly, if they are not attending worship, how can schools justify total failure to enforce the law of the land?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry that this is the first opportunity that the noble Earl has had to ask me a Question. I have been around for a number of years and I am sure that there will be many more years during which the noble Earl will have the opportunity to ask me Questions. I hope that I can give him Answers that will satisfy him. I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving me notice of the supplementary question that he wished to put to me, but it is impossible to say precisely how many children over the age of 14 are not wholly or partly benefiting from collective worship as parents have a right to withdraw their children. However, it is clear that, whereas the majority of primary schools meet the requirement for a daily act of worship, only a minority of secondary schools do so. We are grateful that Ofsted inspections identify those that are not
104
meeting those requirements. It will then be a matter for the schools in their action plans to identify what they are doing to remedy the situation.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle: My Lords, will the Government assure the House that any programme or training they introduce for prospective head teachers will include a training element in collective worship and in the spiritual and moral development of pupils?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot give the right reverend Prelate that absolute assurance, but he has put the point very well indeed. I am sure it is one that we ought to take on board as we develop training programmes for head teachers. I think it would he right for the Teacher Training Agency to take that on board as regards the initial training of all other teachers.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, in the light of the Government's new found reluctance to legislate about knives until they can produce a perfect definition of a combat knife, can the Minister explain to the House how the Education Reform Act 1988 can be properly applied when it does not give a definition of an act of collective worship?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord's first point has anything to do with the Question on the Order Paper. However, the noble Lord will remember that the 1988 Act followed on from the 1944 Act, although it made a number of changes. The noble Lord will be well aware that a change to the law was agreed only after the widest possible consultation. The noble Lord may also remember that there was considerable debate on that particular issue particularly in this House and in another place. I am sure that it would be quite sufficient for the courts, should it be necessary, to define exactly what an act of collective worship is. However, I think most of us would be able to recognise one quite clearly if it was put in front of us.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the provision to which the Question refers had the support of all parties and no doubt still has the support of all parties? Will the Government now take steps to draw the attention, especially of head teachers, to this provision in the hope that it may be more frequently observed?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right to draw the attention of the House to the wide debate and the wide support that that change of law had back in 1988. I was not on this Bench at the time, but I am sure all of those who were in the House at the time can certainly remember just how extensive the debate was in 1988 and—dare I say it?—back in 1944 when the original Education Act 1944 was passed. I can tell my noble friend that we have absolutely no plans to change the position and I think there is insufficient evidence to justify change. However, I think he is right to point out that the measure is not being observed in a large number of schools. I am grateful that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has tabled this Question

105
which will allow a degree of publicity to remind schools of their duty under the law. As I made clear in my earlier Answer, I hope that Ofsted inspections will also make that perfectly clear.
Baroness David: My Lords, is there not the problem that sometimes there is not a room big enough to take the whole school for an act of collective worship? Sometimes there is a problem in finding the teachers to take it, particularly in sixth form colleges.
Lord Henley: My Lords, on the first point, I do not believe that that is a valid objection. It is possible under law to split the act of collective worship into a number of different acts of worship spread around the school in terms of both place and time.
On the second point, I understand that on some occasions there can be difficulties in finding a suitable person to take the act of collective worship. My advice would be that the school should go to the Standing Advisory Council for Religious Education (SACRE) to seek its advice and help in meeting what is, as we have heard this afternoon, a statutory requirement.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is easy for us to comment in this House about what goes on in schools but that head teachers are aware both of the challenge and the law? The best thing that this House can do is to encourage teachers because they are already under strain and pressure.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Viscount makes a valid point. That is why I suggested to the noble Baroness, Lady David, that there were avenues which schools could pursue such as taking advice from the local SACRE and others to gain help on these matters.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, on the last occasion this matter was discussed in your Lordships' House it was agreed by noble Lords that a collective act of worship should be Christian because we are predominantly Christian, but that all other faiths should have entitlement to their own act of worship? Is the Minister aware that since that debate took place nothing has been done, and that there is no sense of dedication in schools as regards any attempt to inculcate a religious belief in our children? I do not speak only of the Christian morality, but of all religions. I believe that we should encourage teachers. To what extent is the trade union movement in the education profession involved in obstruction?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not think that this is a matter for the teaching unions. However, I agree with my noble friend up to a point. I believe that a great deal has been done since 1988. Most important is the fact that schools are now inspected by Ofsted. Ofsted can draw to the attention of the school the fact that it is failing to meet a statutory requirement.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend take on board the point that where a head teacher
106
or his staff is disinclined from faith or conviction to conduct the service, local ministers or clergy can always be called in to help?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct. That is why I answered the noble Baroness, Lady David, in the way that I did.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that as regards children of parents who have no religious belief it is important not to seek to indoctrinate those children in a religious belief which their parents would find repugnant?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is always open to all parents to withdraw their children should they so wish.

Gibraltar: Brussels Agreement
2.46 p.m.
Lord Merrivale Lord Merrivale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ensure that Gibraltar can present its own separate interests in any process of dialogue between the United Kingdom and Spain under the Brussels Agreement.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, Gibraltar representatives should have the right to be present and to take a full and active part in such discussions, albeit as part of the UK delegation. There will inevitably be occasions when the Gibraltarian view may differ from that of the United Kingdom.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her Answer. However, if the Brussels Agreement is about the future status of Gibraltar, surely the people of that territory are entitled to an active involvement and participation in the talks, with a voice of their own, and not as a member of a British delegation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the people of Gibraltar have an active involvement in any discussions. It simply would not be sensible to have technical talks—for instance, on local issues affecting Gibraltar—without the experts from Gibraltar present. It is more a presentational than a real matter. We will always have Gibraltar experts there but, as my noble friend well knows, the Spanish do not want a separate delegation. The Gibraltar representatives are there as part of the UK delegation.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we very much agree with the position that she has just enunciated? It is a sensitive situation, of which I have experience, as she will recall. There was a difficulty over this issue when the European aviation package was being negotiated in 1986. Is it not better to

107
pursue the matter in the way that she has indicated, by quiet diplomacy, rather than engaging in megaphone diplomacy?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I think that the House knows that I believe in quiet diplomacy; it frequently achieves far more. Let me make absolutely clear that there is no question of the United Kingdom sidelining Gibraltar from any discussions. We have said—I repeat it again—that we very much hope that Peter Caruana, the Gibraltar Chief Minister, will attend Brussels meetings to put the Gibraltar point of view. If he cannot attend, the meeting will go ahead, but we believe that he should be there and he will have a full participative role in those meetings, as the noble Lord indicated that he should have.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the Government have said over and over again that there will be no change as regards Gibraltar without the consent of the people there?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a second Question of my noble friend. In the process of decolonisation, is it not fair and honourable that a territory—Gibraltar—should have its own separate voice to express its wishes? What steps are Her Majesty's Government taking for the United Nations Fourth Committee to adopt this requirement in a resolution? I understand that there is to be a resolution on this matter regarding Gibraltar. Are the Government seeking the support of some of our European Union partners on this issue?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend tries to elevate this issue way beyond what is reasonable. We are working away quietly, as I said to his noble friend. We are working with the people of Gibraltar, through their Chief Minister and their experts. Our commitment in the declaration of 1994 makes it absolutely clear that we will honour the wishes of the people of Gibraltar as set out in the preamble to the 1969 constitution. Trying to bring the United Nations into what is a European matter between the United Kingdom, which is still responsible for Gibraltar, and Spain would be to go right over the top.

EU: UK Right of Veto
2.50 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will publish the Franco-German proposals for a more flexible Union tabled during the week beginning 14th October which include a proposal for the abolition of the United Kingdom's
108
right of veto, and whether they will now reiterate their intention to retain that right in all circumstances and to refuse to consider it as negotiable.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, copies of the Franco-German paper on flexibility have been placed in the Library of the House. As was made clear in A Partnership of Nations, the Government will oppose extension of qualified majority voting.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply. In view of the fact that Her Majesty's Government wish to retain the right of veto and have indicated their willingness to pursue that aim, can we now be assured that they will act on their belief and, wherever necessary, exercise that right in the areas concerned, particularly those under Titles V and VI which concern foreign affairs and defence and home affairs? More particularly, since the French, the Germans, the Commission and a large part of the European Parliament want to abolish the UK abatement, will the Minister assure the House that she will resist that to the uttermost?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, not for the first time I can tell the noble Lord that we shall continue to have the UK abatement so long as there is a Conservative Government in office. He should be very mindful of that.
In relation to the very interesting subject of flexibility there are basic tenets. We have always said that flexibility must be agreeable to all and open to all. That means that flexibility must not undermine the single market. It also means that the obligations taken by a group which decides to go ahead of the others are entirely separate from and should not affect the acquis communautaire. It must also allow for permanent differentiation. When the noble Lord has read those words in Hansard and has thought about the matter, he will see that that means maintaining the veto.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, does the Minister really believe that the wisest way to encourage British influence with our partners in Europe is to adopt the posture suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, of continually vetoing almost everything?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: No, my Lords, I was extremely careful in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. The point is that the paper is for discussion. It is quite interesting to read. It deals with the three pillars of the European Union in different ways. It is still open to discussion, and there may be further papers. I have underlined the basic principles. Those like the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, who study these matters will see that they represent the sensible approach for this country to take.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Nevertheless, my Lords, would my noble friend not agree that the publication of these proposals does not give one enormous faith in the Government's claim that the debate in Europe is moving our way?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, that really is not either a relevant or a helpful comment. It is much better to know what is in the minds of one's partners in order to prepare to tackle the issue properly. I would far rather know what the French and the Germans are thinking. That enables us, as it does so many other nations in the European Union, firmly to express our opposition to an exclusive hard core. We know full well that many others will join us in that. Therefore it is a rather good idea to have the papers published.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister not concerned, as many of us are, that there is a very powerful axis developing between Germany and France which seeks to wrong foot and undermine the British Government's position on all these matters? Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will be strong enough and unwimpish, as they sometimes are, to stand up to that axis? Will she further give an assurance that under no circumstances will the British Government concede any further powers to any institution of the European Union, including the European Parliament and the European Commission?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord's points are very wide of the original Question. However, I assure him that the Government will stand firm on these matters and will do what is right for Britain. It is time that he asked his own Front Bench what they will do about these proposals.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Treaty of Rome was ideally designed for the six countries who were the original signatories and is quite unsuitable for 15 countries with 11 different languages and various different types of constitution? Should we not therefore welcome the apparent open-mindedness now being shown by France and Germany?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. What was designed for six cannot possibly work in the same way with 15, let alone with an enlarged European Union which we hope to see. It is right that there should be openness. There should be a debate. The Franco-German paper is welcome in another sense, too; namely, it is absolutely clear that flexibility should be open to all. That is exactly what has to happen with 15 nations; it would be the case to an even greater degree with a larger number.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the Foreign Office is completely au fait with the extent of the integration, formal and otherwise, of the policies of France and Germany which originated from the Elysée Treaty of 1963? Is she aware that they act in co-ordination before every Council meeting, that they have penetrated the whole European Commission machine and that these things are happening all the time?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am a good deal more aware than the noble Lord gives me credit for. I am also very much aware that the team in the Foreign Office and those representing the UK in Brussels
110
are extremely alive to all the discussions that are going on. The noble Lord should not think that just because the French and the Germans happen to chat and organise before certain meetings other nations within the European Union do not also do so. They are not the only ones who try to organise to ensure that their point of view prevails.

Motoring Offences: Police Cameras
2.58 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether evidence recorded by static police cameras can be used to bring charges against motorists using telephone handsets while driving on public roads.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, photographic evidence from police cameras could be used for bringing charges against motorists using telephone handsets, provided the proper evidential procedures were followed. As there is no specific offence of using a telephone while driving on public roads, the evidence would be used in charges of failure to have proper control of the vehicle or careless and inconsiderate driving.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that very clear Answer. As the cameras apparently provide accurate evidence of speeding, can they also be used to discourage any other offences where proof can be reliably recorded? If that is already happening, have the organisations representing the motoring public been consulted?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe the type of police camera to which my noble friend refers is the one dedicated to catching speeding offenders, namely the Gatso=type camera. That is type-approved and used specifically for that very purpose. There are a number of other types of camera, including closed circuit TV cameras and cameras within marked and unmarked police cars. Evidence from the marked and unmarked cars is already used for the prosecution of other offences, although that must be a decision for the police themselves.
Baroness Young: My Lords, will my noble friend, when considering this matter and the evidence from the police, bear in mind that there are many women who find having a car telephone a great security, particularly if they are required to drive in the evening or after dark?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very important point about the uses of mobile telephones and the security which they give to many people, particularly women, who drive alone in their cars. However, the priority must be to drive the car safely, and it would be for the police to use their discretion as to whether to take action if they felt a car was not being properly driven.

Education (Special Educational Needs) Bill [H.L.]
3 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to confer new rights on children with special educational needs and to make supplementary provision in relation to appeals to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal and from that tribunal to the High Court. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Science and Technology: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider science and technology and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee:

L. Craig of Radley,

L. Dainton,

L. Dixon-Smith,

L. Flowers,

L. Gregson,

L. Haskel,

B. Hogg,

L. Kirkwood,

L. Phillips of Ellesmere,

L. Porter of Luddenham,

L. Redesdale,

E. Selborne (Chairman),

L. Soulsby of Swaffham Prior,

L. Tombs,

L. Winston;

That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees and that the committee have power to appoint the chairmen of sub-committees;
That the committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purposes of serving on the committee or any sub-committee;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the committee and any sub-committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the committee and any sub-committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee or any sub-committee from time to time shall, if the committee thinks fit, be printed and delivered out;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the Science and Technology Committee or any sub-committee in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the committee; and
112
That the committee do meet on Wednesday 13th November at three o'clock.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Communities: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Community proposals, whether in draft or otherwise, to obtain all necessary information about them, and to make reports on those which, in the opinion of the committee, raise important questions of policy or principle, and on other questions to which the committee considers that the special attention of the House should be drawn;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the Committee:

L. Barnett,

L. Bridges,

L. Dahrendorf,

L. Dubs,

L. Geddes,

L. Gisborough,

L. Haslam,

B. Hilton of Eggardon,

L. Hoffmann,

L. Kingsland,

L. McConnell,

L. Marsh,

L. Middleton,

L. Reay,

L. Stoddart of Swindon,

L. Tordoff (Chairman),

L. Walpole,

B. Williams of Crosby,

L. Willoughby de Broke;

That the committee have power to appoint sub-committees and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters within the terms of reference of the committee; that the committee have power to appoint the chairmen of sub-committees, but that such sub-committees have power to appoint their own chairman for the purpose of particular inquiries; that two be the quorum of such sub-committees;
That the committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on a sub-committee;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the committee and any sub-committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the reports of the select committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

113
That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee or any sub-committee from time to time shall, if the committee thinks fit, be printed and delivered out;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the European Communities Committee or any sub-committee in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the committee; and
That the committee do meet on Tuesday 29th October at a quarter-past four o'clock.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Public Service: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the present condition and future development of the public service in Great Britain with particular regard to the effectiveness of recent and continuing changes and their impact on standards of conduct and service in the public interest;
That, for the purposes of the Select Committee, the public service shall be deemed to exclude local government, the National Health Service, schools and institutions of higher and further education, but to include all government departments, executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies and other organisations created by or working for the public service;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee on the Public Service:

L. Brabazon of Tara,

L. Croham,

L. Cuckney,

L. Gillmore of Thamesfield,

L. Harris of Greenwich,

L. Lane of Horsell,

L. Merlyn-Rees,

B. O'Cathain,

L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank,

B. Serota,

L. Slynn of Hadley (Chairman),

B. Turner of Camden;

That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee from time to time shall, if the committee thinks fit, be printed and delivered out;
That the minutes of evidence taken before the Public Service Committee in the last Session of Parliament be referred to the committee; and
114
That the committee do meet on Tuesday 29th October at a quarter-past four o'clock.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
3.3 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Wednesday last by Lord Gray of Contin—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament".
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is an honour to open this debate on the gracious Speech. It is always a most important debate. I shall touch on some of our most important foreign policy concerns, including development. My noble friend Lord Howe will concentrate on defence and security policy.
The extensive network of British High Commissions and Embassies across the world and their crucial work are an investment for the future. Our investment in development is equally important. Our economic, educational and political partnerships are key in securing greater prosperity, stability and peace across the wider world. All this is in Britain's interests.
First, I want to talk about two issues of immediate concern. Let me begin with the tragic worsening situation in the whole Great Lakes region. Through our permanent membership of the UN Security Council and the European Union, Britain continues to be closely involved in the search for a solution. These are very complex problems which, despite all efforts, will continue to horrify us until the countries themselves will the peace to happen.
Events this weekend have further increased the need for an urgent but lasting solution. Every day we are in close contact with the non-governmental organisations, international organisations and regional governments. Britain has already spent more than £130 million in the region, but we are ready to assist further, both to help the vulnerable and to find a lasting solution. I will say more of this on Thursday when the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has a most timely Question down on the Order Paper.
All Members of your Lordships' House will also share my deep concern at the deterioration of events in Israel and the Occupied Territories. Hope born of the peace process since the handshake on the White House lawn in 1993 is in peril. The renewed fear of conflict, the dangerous propensity to provocation and retaliation and the vicious influence of extremism are all too clear. Despite all this, the prospect of lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians must not be allowed to dim.

115
We are all deeply aware that it takes years to build hope and peace yet only days to disrupt them. Peace must encompass the needs of both sides, for a one-sided peace will not last.
Today's humanitarian situation in the West Bank and Gaza gives particular cause for concern. The repeated and prolonged closures of the Occupied Territories cause extreme daily hardship for ordinary Palestinian people. That makes the Palestinian people more than usually dependent on help from outside donors to maintain survival, let alone begin to build a decent standard of living. The current difficulties that the United Nations Refugee Welfare Association and other aid organisations are experiencing in delivering help in Gaza and the West Bank have to end. Aid personnel are being subjected to long delays at border crossings and checkpoints. I am compelled to ask what good reason there is for repeatedly holding up vital staff and convoys of food and medical supplies; what good reason there is for severely delaying the journey of ambulances carrying sick people, whether Palestinians or non-Palestinians, to hospital.
Britain is a major bilateral and EU donor to the Palestinians. We call upon Israel urgently to ease the passage of aid personnel, food, medical supplies and development assistance in the Occupied Territories. This call is not a new one. Our concerns have been repeatedly raised with Israel. It is in the interests of all those who want to see peace in the Middle East, the Occupied Territories and Israel that this call is heeded now.
My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will travel to Israel shortly. He will emphasise that the peace process must continue. The commitments entered into by the PLO and the Government of Israel must be respected. Redeployment from Hebron, required under the interim agreement some months ago, must take place quickly. That will be only the first necessary step in rebuilding Palestinian and international confidence in Israel's commitment to the peace process. Further redeployment from the West Bank, as detailed in the interim agreement, and the resumption of final status talks, as required under the declaration of principles, is also necessary, very soon. Without such movement, the risk of further confrontation will surely deepen.
Nor must we forget the Golan. It is not constructive merely for the Israelis to say that they are ready to negotiate with Syria without preconditions. Peace and security are likely to be achieved on Israel's northern borders only if the problems of the Golan and South Lebanon are solved on the basis of "land for peace" and if Resolutions 242, 338 and 425 are respected.
Now let me touch briefly on a number of issues which are crucial to our future security and prosperity elsewhere in the world. In December, we expect NATO Foreign Ministers to announce a summit in spring or early summer of 1997. This will be the time when a number of countries will be invited to begin negotiations to accede to NATO.
Britain is fully committed to NATO's enlargement. The alliance has provided the foundation of western Europe's post-war prosperity and security. It is right that this should be extended to the new democracies in the
116
east. We aim to have those first new members of NATO with us at the table when NATO celebrates its 50th anniversary in 1999.
Enlargement of NATO must not mean a reduction of security for those not invited or the creation of new dividing lines in Europe. Britain is thus committed to NATO's parallel work—to broaden and deepen the military and political dimensions of Partnership for Peace. This enhanced Partnership for Peace must become an integral part of the security architecture of Europe.
In the European Union too, the United Kingdom has long been the foremost advocate of enlargement to the East. It is the most important task for the European Union in coming years. We look forward to accession negotiations starting with the best prepared candidates six months after the intergovernmental conference ends. Our task is to create conditions for the central Europeans to join the European Union at the earliest date. This means that the CAP and structural funds must be reformed if enlargement is to be successful. Britain will continue to champion vigorously the cause of the central Europeans through practical actions such as improving market access for agricultural products and our continued assistance through the know how funds (some £86.5 million last year).
The Florence European Council called for the intergovernmental conference to conclude in mid-1997. The Prime Minister is looking forward to substantial discussion of suggested treaty changes at the December European Council. Our White Paper, Partnership of Nations, has highlighted the changes we seek for which there is considerable support. Where change is against the UK interest, we shall continue to oppose it, whether or not we are in a minority. This IGC is essentially internal housekeeping. It must clear the way for the far more significant challenges of enlargement and competitiveness, where we continue our efforts to reduce the regulatory burdens of single market legislation and to press for further progress in the liberalisation of world trade through the WTO.
Earlier I mentioned the global spread of our foreign policy. There are a number of areas where our interests are directly at stake.
In Iraq, Saddam remains a threat to the Iraqi people and to the security of the region. This threat was vividly demonstrated recently by the Iraqi attack on Irbil, which represented a clear flouting of Security Council Resolution 688. The British objective in northern Iraq is the peace and well-being of the people living there. We have been speaking with the leaders of both PUK and KDP about how to achieve that. We are pleased that they have now agreed to a ceasefire, which appears to be holding. We shall continue to urge both parties to exercise restraint and work at peace. But we also give fair warning that further Iraqi military intervention would be a serious and unjustifiable escalation of the situation.
The need to keep up the pressure on Iraq remains. Iraq must comply with all the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. It is far from doing so. Iraq's programme of weapons of mass destruction is of great

117
concern. The UN Special Commission has compiled a catalogue of Iraqi deception, obstruction and lies. There is little doubt that Saddam retains the ambition to develop weapons of mass destruction and dominate the region.
It is no pleasure to observe the suffering of the Iraqi people prolonged by Baghdad's policies. The attack on Irbil forced the UN to delay the implementation of Security Council Resolution 986 (Food for Oil). Iraq is further delaying its implementation by reopening points already agreed in May this year. We can only regret Iraq's intransigence in blocking this avenue to improving the well-being of the Iraqi people.
In early December the United Kingdom will host in London a conference to map out the priorities for peace implementation in Bosnia next year. We shall pull together the promises of continued international involvement linked to firm commitments and undertakings by the parties for 1997. We shall take decisions on the various strands of the international civilian effort, including the economic reconstruction of Bosnia, human rights and other humanitarian issues, such as the condition of refugees.
The political framework being developed for the London conference will also inform work under way at NATO on the security needs of Bosnia in 1997. IFOR has been an outstanding success, both in its mission in Bosnia and in bringing NATO together with partners from central and eastern Europe and beyond. IFOR deserves credit not only for its miliary mission, but also for the widespread support it has provided to the civilian effort, in particular to the elections on 14th September. The NATO military authorities are now looking at the options for 1997. A decision will be taken next month on how best to plan for a successor to IFOR, building on its success, with all major NATO allies contributing. But the fundamental principle remains that Bosnians must take on more and more of the responsibility for their own affairs. We shall help them to do so, but it has to come.
I now turn to Nigeria. The suspension of Nigeria from the Commonwealth by Heads of Government in Auckland in November 1995 was a difficult and unprecedented decision. So far, the Commonwealth is the only international organisation to have taken that step. The suspension responded to serious violations in Nigeria of the principles set out in the Harare Commonwealth Declaration of 1991, culminating in the shocking execution of Saro-Wiwa and his associates after a flawed judicial process.
At the same meeting in Auckland, Heads of Government created the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) which comprises Foreign Ministers of Canada, Ghana, Jamaica, Malaysia, New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom and Zimbabwe. CMAG's mandate is to recommend how to deal with persistent violations of the Harare Principles in Nigeria, The Gambia and Sierra Leone. I am pleased to report that since then Sierra Leone has returned to democratic government. It still has problems but it is now democratic and working at its problems. CMAG's work with Nigeria and The Gambia has to continue.
118
CMAG left the Nigerians in no doubt that it expected firm actions, including the immediate review of the cases of all prisoners held without charge, the release of the alleged coup plotters and of Chief Abiola, the presumed winner of the 1993 presidential elections.
Since my right honourable friend Malcolm Rifkind and I met a Nigerian delegation in June with our CMAG partners there has been only slow progress. CMAG will soon visit Nigeria as part of the continuing process of dialogue and assessment. CMAG has made it clear to the Nigerians whom it wishes to see during the visit to complete its assessment of Nigeria's commitment to the Harare Principles. If the Nigerians restrict CMAG Ministers' access during the visit, the group will reflect that in its assessment and draw the appropriate conclusions, including measures. We shall use the visit to press once again for the release of political prisoners and for a review of prison conditions.
Britain will continue to play an active role in the work of CMAG as part of our wider efforts to encourage greater respect for human rights and a return to democracy in Nigeria and elsewhere.
I turn to Hong Kong. Hong Kong remains one of our highest foreign policy priorities. With the transition now in sight, we are into the final, critical phase. There has been useful progress this year with the Chinese, particularly last month's meeting in New York between the Foreign Secretary and Qian Qichen, following which agreement was announced on the handover ceremony.
But the success of the transition after 30th June next year depends on developments over the next few months, including a number of important decisions to be taken by China. Britain is committed to ensuring a successful transition and will remain committed to a stable, democratic and prosperous Hong Kong.
The United Kingdom has been a major contributor to the UN peacekeeping operations for much of the 1990s, in keeping with the P5 membership. For much of 1995 the United Kingdom has been the largest troop contributor to UN peacekeeping operations, mainly in the former Yugoslavia. In Cyprus, the United Kingdom has provided forces since the beginning of the UN operation in 1964. In Angola and Rwanda, British logistic batallions laid the groundwork for incoming UN operations, helping ensure that subsequent troop contingents were able to deploy rapidly and efficiently. There have been valuable contributions too to UN peacekeeping in Kuwait, Georgia, Cambodia and the Western Sahara.
British troops have been praised widely and are respected for their professionalism and dedication while working under often difficult circumstances and earning them a warm reception from local populations. They have rebuilt schools, maintained roads and provided much needed medical care in Bosnia, Rwanda and Angola. In Bosnia they are working jointly with ODA on a highly acclaimed programme of infrastructure repairs. The blend of ODA money and guidance with the troops' "can-do" attitude and enthusiasm is restoring the fabric of life. Villages are seeing a gradual return to normality, with water, gas and electricity available once again.

119
I turn now to development. Development assistance is not just about helping people in poorer countries to achieve a better quality of life. It is also about investing in our own future. Global peace and stability, a healthy common environment and combating illegal drugs are in all our interests.
The prime responsibility for development must always rest with developing countries themselves. We want to see a new partnership between the developed and developing world. The G7 Summit set out the framework for that partnership, addressing trade, development and debt and the environment. Our development programme aims to create the conditions necessary for profitable trade and sustained long-term investment. But donors must ensure that their assistance is properly targeted and effectively managed.
We work hard at all we do. Our purpose is to improve the quality of life for people in poorer countries by contributing to sustainable development and reducing poverty and suffering. But we also have responsibilities and, with the rest of the developed world, we must face up to those responsibilities. We must pursue sound macro-economic policies and work towards more open markets for capital and trade. The private sector will drive economic growth in developing countries and trade is one of the most effective engines for development. Britain is the third largest source of private capital to the developing world.
Private investment flows for 1995 are estimated to be £7.4 thousand million. Our development assistance must help developing countries to attract those flows of investment. But that alone is not enough. The poorest countries which do not attract private flows will still need concessional assistance. Britain will continue to play a decisive role in moving forward international discussions on debt. The World Bank and the IMF have been asked to begin implementation of the Highly Indebted Poor Countries Debt Initiative before the end of this year. That initiative, based on proposals put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, aims to reduce the debts of highly indebted poor countries to a sustainable level. The initiative will give the poorest, most indebted countries their first real chance to escape from the shackles of their debt burdens.
I look forward to the contributions of so many Members of your Lordships' House. In the short time available and with many speakers to come 1 can only touch on a few of the vast array of issues of importance to Britain. But underpinning all the issues is the continuing drive to give the best value for money possible in all the work done by our diplomatic and development staff. Their work is an invaluable investment for Britain now and for decades to come. Through our policies outlined in the gracious Speech we will make sure that that continues.
3.24 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, this is the fourth year in succession that I have opened the foreign affairs and defence debate on the Queen's Speech for the Opposition. I hope that it will be the last time for some years that I do so on behalf of the Opposition. The
120
election can be no more than seven months away and I anticipate, with the evidence of the polls to support me, that we on this side of the House will be introducing this debate next year and the party opposite will be responding to it. I hope that the Minister will enjoy the change, if it happens. I wish her well in the new experience that awaits her.
In the last of such debates before an election it is appropriate to give some indication of where the Labour Party stands on some of the crucial issues that face us in foreign affairs and that I shall try to do. In that context I shall say something about our international economic relations which I take to be a central part of our relations with other countries. Before doing so, I want to pick up on a number of references made to specific parts of the world in the Address—parts of the world that are giving us cause for concern or could do so in the coming year.
The Labour Party supports the Government in their efforts to achieve a successful transfer of sovereignty to Hong Kong in the summer of next year, and I want to say a little mere about that than the Minister did. We also endorse what is said in the Address about the need to preserve the way of life of the people of Hong Kong and the need to promote the territory's continued stability and prosperity founded on a high degree of autonomy and the rule of law. While it is possible to be optimistic about the future of Hong Kong—China will surely not be so foolish as to jeopardise business confidence there by initiating political changes that go back on earlier agreements—there are some worrying unresolved problems.
The future of Hong Kong's ethnic minorities is not secure. It is clear that they will not enjoy the same rights as the ethnic Chinese majority when Hong Kong reverts to China. They will not be able to become Chinese nationals because of the race-based nature of Chinese national law arid only Chinese nationals will be eligible for certain political offices under the Basic Law in the post-1997 constitution.
China's record on human rights, as I am sure we all agree, is poor. It is not a signatory to the UN covenants on civil and political rights and on economic social and cultural rights whereas Hong Kong has been covered by those covenants since Britain ratified them 20 years ago. Since the Join': Declaration made absolutely clear that they should continue to be in force after 1997—that is embodied in the Basic Law—arrangements now need to be made for Hong Kong to report direct to the UN human rights committees. That is a minimum safeguard which should be provided for the people of Hong Kong. I raised the matter when we last debated Hong Kong in this House and I would be grateful if the Minister can say whether any progress has been made.
There are other anxieties in relation to the timetable for the new elections to replace the Provisional Council after 1997 and about how the Provisional Council and LegCo are going to work between now and next July. It must be hoped that difficult and unsettling conflicts do not occur. Given some of the uncertainties it is vital to preserve the neutrality of the civil service. Without it morale in Hong Kong would be lowered and the whole transition could be at risk. The appointment of the first

121
post-1997 chief executive has still to be announced by the Chinese Government. I understand that the identity of that person is likely to be known before the end of November. He or she must have the right experience and skills to maintain confidence and help ensure a smooth transition.
This time last year when we debated the Queen's Speech we hoped that the terrible conflict in Rwanda and Burundi had come to an end. Sadly, instability in the region has continued and ethnic conflict has now spread into neighbouring Zaire, with a looming threat of more atrocities and ethnic cleansing. Half a million Rwandan and Burundian refugees are reported today to have abandoned their camps in eastern Zaire and are now on the move, many of them without access to either food or water. More refugees are being created every day within Zaire. The problems for the UN and its staff on the ground in trying to stop more suffering on a vast scale are enormous. The fighting in eastern Zaire means that the UNHCR has had to start evacuating its humanitarian staff from the region. Since the Prime Minister of Zaire was in London last week, perhaps the Minister can say something about the outcome of those talks as well as telling the House what the UK Government and the international community are doing to avert further disaster there.
The Labour Party welcomes the visit of the President of Israel to the UK next February and hopes that it will provide an opportunity to discuss ways of making progress in the peace process. Like the Minister, we cannot hide our dismay about the way things have turned for the worse since the election of Mr. Netanyahu in Israel. After so much optimism last year, it is terribly disheartening to see the hardening of positions and the confrontational approach adopted by the Israeli right-wing beginning to destroy the progress made. We support the position that M. Chirac took on the renewed building of Jewish settlements on the West Bank when he visited Israel last week. Nor do we believe it right to recognise Israel's claim to sovereignty in East Jerusalem. As the Minister indicated, the sealing off of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, barring Palestinians from their jobs in Israel, can only create great discontent and fears for their livelihoods among the Palestinian population. The changes made by the new Israeli Government in negotiations over the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Hebron and their attempt to extend the area of Israeli control and to retain the right of pursuit into Palestinian areas have also unreasonably damaged progress. The withdrawal from Hebron was agreed by the previous government and is now three months overdue. The breakdown of the latest talks is deeply disappointing.
The great majority of Israelis, I am sure, want to see the spirit of Oslo maintained and further progress made towards peace. Many will be justifiably concerned by the way their new government have handled negotiations with the Palestinians. They also recognise that peace and security can be achieved only with a just settlement for the Palestinians. I believe from what the Minister has said that this view is endorsed not just by the Labour Party but also by the Government. It is
122
something on which the Minister and I can agree, but I hope that the Government will ask the United States to do more to persuade Mr. Netanyahu of its importance.
Looking round the world, as one civil war ends another seems to flare up. In Afghanistan we have seen in recent weeks the frightening spectacle of Islamic fundamentalists establishing themselves in the country's ruined capital and imposing brutal new laws in the name of religion that are an affront, in particular to the civilised treatment of women. In Bosnia there now seems some hope of long-term peace even if what has been achieved can hardly be described as reconciliation between the formerly warring parties. Like the Government, we on this side of the House support the Dayton Agreement and hope to see full compliance with what was agreed.
As the Minister said, the role of NATO in implementing the peace has been successful and I should like to record our gratitude to the British troops who have played such an important part in the exercise. I have raised before the question of IFOR's failure to arrest Mr. Karadzic and I make no excuses in raising it again. Mr. Karadzic is wanted as a war criminal. Until he is arrested and tried for the atrocities of which he is accused, there is a risk that the genuine reconciliation we all want to see in Bosnia will be unattainable. Moreover, if atrocities go unpunished in Europe, what hope is there that in other parts of the world where civil wars take place those who order genocidal killing will hold back?
We on these Benches are glad to see in the Address that support for the UN remains a priority. If that is the case, can the Minister tell the House why the Government have not announced that the UK will be rejoining UNESCO? Their failure to do so hardly ranks as support for the UN. The Government want a more effective, efficient and responsive UN. UNESCO has worked successfully to meet those goals. It is hypocritical of the Government that they refuse to recognise the achievement and announce that the UK will become a member again.
Reform of the United Nations as a whole is now very much on the agenda. The Labour Party strongly supports the Secretary General's efforts to tackle not just the reform of the secretariat, over which he has some control, but also the improvement of intergovernmental structures on the economic and social side of the UN and of arrangements for financing the UN and of co-ordination within the UN system as a whole. We regret the unjustified criticism of Mr. Boutros Ghali by the United States' Government and its ambassador to the UN. Perhaps the Minister, in summing up, will say where the UK Government stand on his reappointment. We must in this context never forget that it is the member states of the UN who determine how and whether it is reformed. With the exception of the secretariat, they decide, not the Secretary General. They have the powers to see through the reforms he has proposed, including much-needed changes to the Security Council. They must do so in order to preserve the vital role of the UN in furthering global interests

123
against the narrower and often self-seeking interests of nation states. Without a strong UN the world would be a far worse place than it is today.
Turning to the international economy in the global world we now occupy, the UK must be outward looking. If we are not, our economy will be bypassed and our ability to bargain for the best deal for Britain will be undermined by coalitions between other nations which have formed closer partnerships. Membership of the world community also carries with it responsibilities as well as rights. We reject as cynical and shortsighted the approach to foreign policy that regards it only as a matter of realpolitik. Of course foreign policy must have the objective of advancing national interests. It is, however, in our national interest to be respected abroad. If we apply double standards to the values we demand of ourselves, compared with the treatment we are prepared to condone for the citizens of other countries, we only bring our nation into contempt. That is one of the reasons why we attach so much importance to overseas aid and deplore the Government's relentless cuts to the programme. The fact that 80 per cent. of the world's population live in developing countries highlights the enormous untapped potential that can be raised by a balanced programme of development aid and trade. In that respect I agree with the Minister. My noble friend Lord Judd will say more about this later.
We must work for economic as well as political stability around the world. Britain can, and should, play a leading part in efforts to create a stable international macro-economic climate. To achieve this, Labour wants to see more effective co-operation on monetary and fiscal policy in the G7 to encourage compatible national economic strategies and promote growth and jobs. If we are returned next year, we shall try to ensure more effective regulation and supervision of the currency and financial markets so that we can reap the benefits of developments in financial instruments without destabilising world capital markets. We shall encourage reform of the IMF so that it can identify problems before they develop into speculative crises. An unstable international environment, characterised by exchange rate volatility, makes returns on investment far less certain. It deters companies from the long-term planning needed to develop new products and new markets. In turn it damages investment in both capital and skills, a situation which Britain, more than anyone else, can ill afford.
It is vital for the UK economy that the European Union as a whole prospers. For that reason I cannot over stress the need to work with our European partners rather than against them. We export nearly as much to Germany alone as to the whole of NAFTA and twice as much to Denmark as to China. Does the Minister agree that it is partly because we are part of the single market that Britain wins millions of pounds of inward investment each year, a simple fact which the Eurosceptic members of the Cabinet and their friends in the Conservative Party fail to understand? It is therefore essential that, whether or not we decide to join EMU, if EMU goes ahead it too is a success. British industry and finance must also be ready for EMU. It is worrying to read reports that British industry is ill prepared,
124
particularly in data processing. It is, however, hardly surprising, given the total failure on the part of the Government to take the lead on that preparation.
I was in Brussels a couple of weeks ago. I was struck by the terribly low standing of the British Government among our European partners and in the Commission. The Minister mentioned the IGC. The common view in Brussels is that no progress can be made on the IGC until after the British election. So other member states now reluctantly accept that it may have to be delayed. The handling of the BSE crisis has heightened the disdain with which we are now regarded. Our influence in Europe, which ought to be as great as that of France and Germany, has fallen to an all-time low. Is it not a disastrous position to be left in?
Let me make it clear: a Labour Government next year will restore our position in Europe. Unlike the Conservatives, we shall not put party interests before those of the country. We shall abandon the destructive and negative stance taken on so many European matters by this Government and in so doing make the fight for British interests within Europe a successful one rather than the failure that it now is. And, yes, we shall sign up to the social chapter and endorse what some of the biggest and best employers in Britain are already doing to promote good relations with their employees.
The Queen's Speech says that the Government will promote policies designed to increase the Union's economic well-being. Unfortunately, any policies promoted by this Government do not stand much chance of getting any where in Europe. A Labour Government will change this so that the soured atmosphere that now exists between Britain and our European partners vanishes. We look forward next July to being part of the troika and to Britain's presidency of the Union in the first six months of 1998. We look forward to working for the eventual accession of the countries of central and eastern Europe to the Union.
I have not been able to cover the enlargement of NATO, nor other defence and security matters. I will leave that to my noble friend. I want only to record the relief we feel that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty has now been agreed. This is a treaty Labour pressed for—for many years—long before the Government conceded its importance. We look forward to its ratification. But, as my noble friend will indicate later, there are still unresolved problems. It is only the first step towards the non-nuclear world we in the Labour Party want to see. I look forward very much to hearing the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, on the subject.
A successful international infrastructure can develop only in a healthy and stable international community, one where nations recognise that the rights they gain from agreement and co-operation also give them the responsibility to play a part in the promotion of stability, prosperity and partnership around the world. That is why a commitment to the success of the United Nations and to a properly targeted and resourced aid and development programme is inseparable from a commitment to a strong and prosperous international economy. We need a government that can give

125
leadership to Britain and that can focus their mind on the future—and our future—in a global world. We intend to provide such a government.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will want to thank the Minister for the way in which she introduced the debate and covered such a number of subjects. She said that this is always an important debate on the gracious Speech. That is no doubt true, but I have always found it an unsatisfactory debate because so many different problems have to be covered. That is why I always feel pity and sympathy for the Minister who has to wind up. For my part, I hope to deal briefly with three specific topics and not to cover the world. My noble friends beside me will deal with the important issues of human rights and development aid, which the Minister covered, and my noble friend Lord Mayhew will deal with disarmament and NATO when he winds up.
The first specific matter that I want to raise with the Minister is the future of the BBC World Service. In a similar debate to this in another place the Foreign Secretary said that one of the basic pillars of British foreign policy lay in what he called,
"promotion of the extraordinary asset that we have in the English language".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/10/96; col. 139.]
The cuts that the Government are presently imposing on the BBC World Service and, incidentally, on the British Council, are a curious way of caring for that asset. I begin by pressing on the Government the hope that they can be persuaded to reverse those cuts in the forthcoming Budget. In today's turbulent post-war world, the BBC World Service has in many ways a different role from in the past—and an even more important role. The BBC World Service is a very important weapon in terms of Britain's influence. It is also a most economical weapon. It represents good value for money when compared with sophisticated modern armaments. In parenthesis, I should declare an interest in the BBC World Service as a member of my family works for it.
The structure of the World Service has recently been under threat from some ill thought out management proposals which, as your Lordships will remember, aroused the outrage of your Lordships' House before the Summer Recess. I believe that we contributed to the welcome initiative that the Foreign Secretary took in establishing a working party of independent members to consider such matters. The working party has now produced its report in which there are a series of assurances about the future. Among the most significant is the aim of continued co-location under the same roof for the English language and the vernacular services and the plan that one member of the board of governors should be designated the duty of looking after the interests of the World Service.
However, perhaps the most important decision taken by the working party will be to monitor, and to report back in due course on, the way in which those
126
safeguards are implemented. Some of us—including members of all parties in your Lordships' House—will be watching vigilantly and awaiting that report.
The ending of the cold war, with its bi-polar balance of nuclear terror as the basis of world peace, has produced an immense change in the world scene. In the debate in another place the Foreign Secretary remarked very vividly that during the cold war no single NATO or Warsaw Pact soldier lost his life in European conflict—contrast that with the slaughter that took place in Bosnia and which has been taking place in Chechnya and elsewhere. That was a vivid illustration of the way in which the world scene has changed. Globally, it is now a multi-polar world, with a single superpower, the United States.
Against that background I do not believe that the various international organisations that together make up this somewhat vague entity of an international community that media commentators are often keen to talk about rather simplistically and glibly—whether it is NATO, the international economic organisations or the United Nations—have fully adapted themselves to the challenges of this new situation. Of those organisations I believe that the most important is the United Nations. I was very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, referred to it in some detail. I wish to say a word about what seems to me to be the central issue there. In doing so I am conscious of the absence from this Bench of Lord Gladwyn. He was here on the last occasion when the United Nations were debated. I confess that I spoke using his advice to a very large degree. He gave outstanding service to this Bench of your Lordships' House over a number of years. His death is a very great loss to us.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: In a world with a single super power, the essence of making the United Nations more effective as the central international organisation of the international community is that the United States should be right at the heart of the United Nations. When the Minister replies I hope that he will be able to tell us the latest position as regards the US vendetta, in many ways, against the present Secretary-General of the UN, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who has given very distinguished service. However, I put that as a second matter to getting the future of the United Nations right.
I consider the heart of that matter as being able to ensure that the United States, as the single super power left in the world community, conducts its responsibilities in that respect from the heart of the UN, so that when it has to take a lead, as it is very often bound to do in world peacekeeping operations, it should do so within the resolutions and under the authority of the United Nations. The starting point for that is for the US Congress to meet the American arrears for the US organisation. A corollary of that is that the United Nations should then undertake a much more radical programme of reform than has been faced up to until now. I believe that there is a need to shape a more effective peacekeeping organisation with its own staff

127
college developing both preventive and enforcement techniques. That is needed in order to do the world's duty by the very many dedicated relief workers, peacekeepers and development aid people who risk their lives going to the trouble spots of the world. They deserve to have behind them a much leaner and more incisive peacekeeping and humanitarian body at the United Nations. I hope that some of the staff problems and extravagances of the United Nations can be dealt with very radically indeed.
The international community will also become a more effective entity if the countries of the European Union are able to act more cohesively together both at the UN and elsewhere. The countries of western Europe, which are at the heart of the European Union, have a great deal of experience of international diplomacy. They also have historic links with their former overseas empires, which are of great importance in terms of dealing with the problems there.
That brings me to the biggest single divisive issue of British foreign policy. I am glad that the noble Baroness dealt with it in the final part of her speech because it is also the final part of mine. She said that by the time of the next debate on the Address the general election will have taken place. The government that emerges will immediately face fateful choices in their relationship with the European Union. I believe that the timetable is now very well known. The British Government take on the presidency of the European Union for the first half of 1998. The decision as to whether the British Government will exercise the Maastricht opt-out has to be taken by the end of 1997. In the meantime there has to be legislation about the creation of an independent central bank. The moment for deciding whether the United Kingdom meets the convergence criteria comes during the period of the British presidency.
I hope that the Government Front Bench will not feel offended—perhaps they may feel a little relieved—if I say that I am going to give up trying to persuade them that Britain should be among the first wave of member states joining the single currency. I am prepared to devote my main remarks to seek to persuade the alternative government—we heard a little from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone—that that government should take Britain in the first wave. Judging from the headlines I read in the newspapers today arising from the remarks of one of the leading members of the alternative government, we are entitled to some further reassurance on this matter.
As regards the Conservative Party, I admire the courage and clarity with which some members of the Government, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I do not wish to embarrass the noble Baroness who opened the debate in any way—have kept the Government's options open. From the point of view of British interests that has been extremely important.
What the British electorate need to take on board is that if the Conservatives were to win a further term of office they would be incapable of making a choice on the most important issue of British foreign policy without tearing themselves apart. In their own interests and in the British general interests as well, they need a
128
long period of reflection in opposition to seek reconciliation of positions which are at present irreconcilable. Fortunately, that is an opportunity they are likely to enjoy within the next few months.
However, as regards Europe, the new government will face a deplorable legacy of distrust of Britain. From the first hopeful days when the present Prime Minister spoke differently from his predecessor of putting Britain at the heart of Europe, Britain's capital of goodwill has been steadily run down. There has been a negativism about their approach, which has shown up in the sterile conference so far of the IGC. There has been the sad saga of the serial vetoes over BSE, with the Government going back on their promises as regards the Florence agreement. That was claimed to be the way of lifting the ban on British beef.
It is against that background that the new government—if the Labour Party wins the election—will need to face the situation. Apart from the recent record of the present Government, I must say to the Labour Party that it must bear in mind the historic view of Britain through continental eyes. From the days of Winston Churchill's Zurich speech, it has been the habit of opposition parties of all kinds in this country to engage in very promising European rhetoric about unity when in opposition and then to fudge the issue very greatly when they gain office. I beg that that does not happen if there is a change of government in the forthcoming general election.
In view of the timetable I have just described, the wisest course for the British opposition parties is the course that this party will follow; namely, to make it absolutely clear to the electorate before the general election that if Britain is in a position to conform to the convergence criteria to become a member of the first wave joining the single currency, we should seek to do so. Nothing would do more to restore Britain's reputation in the rest of Europe and serve the best interests of the British people if that kind of clear commitment were given in the next Queen's Speech.
4 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, as this is the last opportunity that I shall have to address your Lordships' House before I retire, I should like to express gratitude for the enjoyment I have had in taking part in the business of this Chamber and for the courtesy that has been shown to Members of this Bench.
I welcome the broad-based and wide-ranging speech of the noble Baroness at the beginning of this debate and rejoice with her—indeed, with all Members of this House—that in the gracious Speech it is said that Her Majesty's Government will continue to support the United Nations. There is an awesome view of the 21st century, of regional wars in which atrocities are committed which may cause some to say that they make Hitler appear mild and where people are forced to stand by and do little about it. Unless there is a strong United Nations I believe that that will be a fairly accurate description of the situation. The United Nations, like any other institution, must adapt and reform if it is to be fit for the tasks of the new century.

129
I share with the noble Baroness the hope and prayer that the peace process in the Middle East will not be delayed and will go forward; similarly, in sub-Saharan Africa. I also hope that positive strides will be made in achieving peace in the former Yugoslavia. I am delighted that the Worcestershire Regiment has played such a large part in rebuilding schools and, like all the services of today, has a very large humanitarian role that it will undoubtedly perform.
I wish to reflect for a moment on the success of overseas aid—for some time I was chairman of the Church of England Development Affairs Committee—for example, the mortality rate for young children has been halved; the number of people with access to clean water has been doubled; smallpox has largely been eliminated; deaths from bitter diseases such as polio and measles have been sharply reduced; and literacy and attendance at primary schools have been significantly increased. I also express gratitude for the work done by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in seeking to reduce the debts of the poorer nations. I wonder whether there will be an opportunity at the millennium to cancel those debts, because it is unlikely that they will ever be paid.
We owe a great deal to a long line of Ministers who have worked to maintain the contribution of this country to overseas aid and development, but none has surpassed the labours and courage of the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. However, she would be the first to agree that there are no grounds for complacency. One billion people (one in five of the world's population) still live in absolute poverty. Of those, 500 million are chronically malnourished. Another 2.9 billion do not have access to safe sanitation. The number of refugees worldwide has risen ninefold in the past 30 years to 27 million. It is important to realise the way in which absolute poverty causes migrants to roam the face of the earth, their cattle overgrazing as they go, in search of food and employment.
There is a direct link between the poverty of some nations and the growing affluence of others. It causes immigration and asylum problems and kindred challenges. Undoubtedly, in the 21st century fundamentalists, zealots and terrorists will feed on the outrage of the disadvantaged whom they claim to represent. It is not in our best interests to be inactive and inert in the face of so-called third world poverty. A mean and curmudgeonly attitude will not be in our best interests. I repeat a phrase that I have quoted before from the late Archbishop Temple:
"Self-interest so often dictates that which justice demands".
That being so, it is regrettable that the real value of aid has probably been reduced by between 5 and 6 per cent. in the past four years. Aid is always the first casualty when governments seek economies. Noble Lords have been talking about which government will be in power next time this subject is debated. Let not any government cause aid to be the first casualty when seeking to make ends meet.
The value of our aid relative to national wealth has fallen significantly. I am informed that many official donors are similarly reducing their expenditure on
130
overseas aid. Furthermore, I understand that the proportion of aid given to sub-Saharan Africa is minute compared with that given to other nations. One should regard that as regrettable and impolitic. Recently, my friend the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said:
"I have seen repeatedly on my travels throughout the Anglican Communion what a vital contribution the British aid programme makes in developing countries".
It works. Let us not grow weary of well doing. This is not the time to reduce the United Kingdom's commitment to overseas aid, not least because surely we all seek a foreign policy which in its expansiveness creates a coherent world at peace with itself. We should be peacemakers, not just peacekeepers or peace-guarders. In the face of our much reduced Armed Forces, is there not a double need to be proactive in those matters which will make for peace? If swords are to be beaten into ploughshares, let the ploughshares get moving.
All of this indicates a massive need for development education if the citizens of tomorrow's world are to understand the human, social and moral ecology of their times. I refer to that interrelatedness and interdependence envisaged by Brandt and Brundtland more than a decade ago. If human eco-systems are to be effective, much firmer policies must be hammered out by wealthy nations to control the sale of arms to irresponsible and ruthless governments. There are aspects of the arms trade which are as reprehensible as drug-pushing and drug-peddling.
Perhaps on this occasion I may speak more generally as I bring my speech to an end. Nowadays not infrequently reference is made to young people. The wish is expressed that they may grow in responsibility and participation in national and international life. I believe, as we all do, that they are every bit as adventurous and concerned for this one world as any of their forebears. However, they need a vision of hope for a better world in which our priorities are clearly stated and how we spend our affluence is clearly delineated. They do not want a world in which those who are affluent have only one concern, and that is to become more affluent. They need a vision of hope—a vision of a world at peace based on justice.
If we can put the whole of the contents of the Encyclopedia Britannica on one silicon chip and convey the whole contents of the Bodleian Library in 44 seconds flat, we have no business to have a world so divided between the poor and the rich as we have today.
Can we not, with our European partners, play a part in global affairs, not with guns but with ideas, with moral and spiritual initiatives? We who are European have a common faith, a common culture and to a certain extent a common experience of democratic institutions. The young do not want to see us like characters in a Chekhov play discussing insoluble problems. They want from government, of whichever colour, a proactive, expansive foreign policy which gives a vision of hope and purpose which will appeal to their own very best instincts.
4.10 p.m.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, I have to begin with three confessions. The first is that I shall not be following the theme which the right reverend Prelate so eloquently addressed. It is sad, if I understand him correctly, that this is the last time that he will be addressing your Lordships' House. My second confession is that owing to a very longstanding commitment I shall not be here for the latter part of the debate and for the wind-up speech by my noble friend the Minister. My third confession is to a longstanding, albeit amateur, interest in Eastern Europe, above all in Russia. That originated in the dark ages perhaps when I was a very junior diplomat and an equally junior member of the British delegation to the Council of Foreign Ministers in Moscow in 1947—a mission led by that great man, Ernest Bevin.
However, it is not of Russia, for all its importance, that I wish to speak this afternoon, but rather of a country (Ukraine) which was an integral part of the Soviet Union until its independence in 1991, nearly five years ago.
Ukraine is a country which I was lucky enough to visit this summer. I was invited, for some unknown reason, to preside over an international conference on the future of the Ukrainian sugar industry. My only qualification, apart from having known a bit about sugar in the remote past, was that I knew nothing about the Ukrainian sugar industry and therefore that my chairmanship of the meeting was bound to be impartial.
I can only say that Ukraine has made a deep impression on me. I have in mind its long history: the fact that the foundations of Russian Christianity were laid in Ukraine. I have in mind its sufferings—the man-made famines of 1932 and 1933 in the Ukraine and its neighbours, with their death toll of some 7 million people, and the ghastly consequences of the German invasion in 1941. I have in mind, too, its rather long historical connection with this country, symbolised by the fact that a Grand Prince of Kiev was married to Gytha, as I am sure all your Lordships know, the daughter of our very own King Harold who was killed at the Battle of Hastings in, I think it was, 1066, and symbolised also by the active involvement of British entrepreneurs in Ukraine in its late 19th century industrialisation. Its capital, by the Dnieper River, despite the ravages of the Russian civil war in which it changed hands 15 times in two years and the damage inflicted upon it in two world wars, is still in my view an incomparably beautiful city. It is right that Kiev should be twinned with another most beautiful city; namely, Edinburgh.
With all that in mind, it is odd to me that that country—the second in size and the fifth in population in Europe—with its 51 million people, its educated (it is educated) workforce, its energy industry potential, its considerable agricultural and industrial wealth—all that in addition to its crucial geographical and historical position vis-à-vis Russia—seems to qualify as one of those faraway countries about which we know and hear very little. I can understand why that was so in the early days of Ukrainian independence. In those early years,
132
Chernobyl and our desire that Ukraine should become a non-nuclear power dominated the West's preoccupation with the Ukraine.
There was considerable uncertainty about Ukraine and its future—what sort of country it and its rulers desired it to be. However, since the election of President Kuchma in 1994 things have changed. True, progress has been slow. True, the president still meets a good deal of opposition in the Rada—the Ukrainian Lower House. Certainly, Ukraine lags way behind its neighbour Russia in structural and economic reform and in privatisation. Yet certainly there is now a quite new sense of purpose in the Ukraine under President Kuchma. Inflation is now under control. The new currency is holding its value. The slowdown of the economy is slowing significantly and with it foreign interest in a very substantial potential market is growing.
Given the potential of that major European country, I hope that we can look forward to a strengthening of our bilateral links with it. It is good that there has been a plentiful exchange of high-level visits, with President Kuchma and his former prime minister visiting the UK and with short visits by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and two notable visits by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, both in his capacity as Defence Minister and more recently as Foreign Secretary. It is good that the Lord Mayor of London paid a successful visit to Ukraine this summer, and that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales will be visiting Ukraine shortly (next week in fact) and that, apart from other clothing, he will be wearing the mantle of his Business Leaders Forum.
It is good that the Know How Fund, with an annual contribution of some £9 million per year, is constructively active in Ukraine. It is good that the British Council is now active there, with four major centres. It is good, too, that the Foreign Office's Chevening Scholarship Scheme is open to the Ukraine. I can think of no better long-term investment, although I should like to see the number doubled or trebled. It is good also that co-operation on the military level is so positive, with UK experience available for training and defence restructuring—a co-operation symbolised in a joint exercise á trios this summer in Poland with Polish, Ukrainian and British participation. Finally, it is good that Ukraine is a member of IFOR, and that a Ukrainian battalion has played its part in the British sector in Bosnia.
All that is fine. Yet, all that said, I am concerned that in trade our bilateral relationship with this major European power is far weaker than it should be. True, there is a growing interest of British companies in the service sector. True, British exports to Ukraine increased by some 30 per cent. in the first half of this year. However, they amount still to only a little more than our exports to small but progressive Slovenia. They rank far behind the exports of some of our major European partners.
It is a sad and curious fact that only a handful of major British companies in the agricultural and industrial sector have shown a real interest in Ukraine's potential. My noble friend Lord Selsdon is a notable

133
exception. Given that rather disappointing background, I hope that we can maintain the rhythm of high-level visits both ways, including a visit by a senior DTI Minister and visits by British trade missions—visits rather sadly lacking at present. Above all, given the potential of this market, I hope that those concerned will look again at the provision of adequate export credit for Ukraine; a provision, as is all too often the case, where we lag behind our trade competitors.
In conclusion, I do not wish to dwell on our bilateral relationship—although that relationship is important—but rather on the wider European and international aspect of our relationship with Ukraine. In a noteworthy speech in Kiev last year, the Foreign Secretary remarked:
"Ukraine's size and strategic position make it one of Europe's pivots. Ukraine is crucial to our joint work. If structures can be devised to ensure prosperity and security here, we will have established arrangements which will work for Europe as a whole".
I could not agree more strongly. It is good, therefore, that Ukraine is now firmly looking westwards. It was the first former Soviet country to sign a Partnership for Peace agreement with NATO. As agreed, since May there have been no nuclear warheads on Ukrainian soil. Furthermore, Ukraine was the first former Soviet country to sign a partnership and co-operation agreement with the European Union and it is good that since then an interim agreement with the European Union to widen trade links has also been signed. Ukraine is now a member of the Council of Europe.
All that is for the good. Ukraine now qualifies for substantial assistance from the Group of 7, from the IMF, from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and, of course, from the European Union. All that is fine as far as it goes. However, I am convinced that far more important in the long term for Ukraine—and of course the same applies to the other countries of Eastern Europe, including very much Russia—is access to the international markets of the world and not least to the countries of the European Union. I very much hope that in reply my noble friend the Minister will be able to assure us that securing and ensuring that access will remain a major British priority. It is on that matter that, in the last resort, we in the West will, above all, be judged. This will be not only in our economic interest but also in the interest of European security.
I have to confess that I am not really quite so happy about some of the current political signals, and specifically the implications of early NATO enlargement. I talk about a subject on which I am not an expert but I shall give my views. In my view, the last thing that we want to do is to provide ammunition to those in Russia or elsewhere who would like to turn the clock back to the days of the Cold War. I know that perhaps I am speaking to the converted when I say that it is vitally important for us to get this right. We must reach the right agreements in the Partnership for Peace with Russia, with Ukraine and with other countries not now perhaps seen as early candidates for NATO membership. We must reach agreements which contain real benefits to all parties; agreements which attract
134
rather than repel; agreements which do not preclude eventual incorporation; and agreements which do not purport to cast relationships in concrete for all time.
I believe that that is particularly relevant to Ukraine, the country which I have made the theme of my remarks today. It cannot afford to be a NATO front line on Russia's border. Equally, a decision that Ukraine's position is so difficult that it must preclude membership could leave that major European country in a new Russian sphere of influence. I believe that Ukrainian independence matters to all of us. I conclude that that is best assured by concentrating on doing all we can to consolidate this major country's economic strength, in particular through her incorporation in the international economic community. That should go in parallel with and perhaps in front of moves on the security front, and certainly not after such moves.
It used to be said that Ukraine was the touchstone of Russia's acceptance of the end of the empire. I believe that still to be true. I also believe that Ukrainian independence and prosperity are a measure of our determination to help to create a lasting and peaceful new intra-European matrix of relationships and that as such they merit our very particular attention.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, I intend to limit my remarks to two issues of foreign affairs and defence which are closely linked and to what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. They are the elimination of nuclear weapons and the enlargement of NATO.
During the past year I have been a member of the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, established by the previous Australian Government but given the continued support of their successor. Our mandate was to,
"develop ideas and proposals for a concrete and realistic programme to achieve a world totally free of nuclear weapons".
We presented our report to the Australian Prime Minister on 14th August and his Government published it on that day. His foreign minister stated that we had carried out our mandate successfully and that our report was realistic, practical and constructive. He presented it to the UN General Assembly on 30th September.
In our report we listed the many reasons why it is urgent that a major effort should be made now for a real, genuine and unequivocal commitment by the declared nuclear weapon states to the target of total elimination and for them to demonstrate that by a number of steps which we listed. Why is it urgent? First, the destructiveness of nuclear weapons is so great, and their use so catastrophic, that they have no military utility against a comparably equipped opponent other than the belief that they deter such an opponent from using his nuclear weapons. Therefore, their elimination would remove that justification for their retention. Their use against a non-nuclear opponent is politically and morally indefensible, as history has shown.
Secondly, it is urgent because the indefinite deployment of the weapons carries a high risk of their ultimate use intentionally, by accident or by inadvertence. We are lucky that since 1945 no nuclear

135
weapon has been exploded, except in tests, either intentionally or by accident. But there were occasions when the world came close to it, notably in the Cuban crisis. Furthermore, there have been some 100 accidents involving US Air Force aircraft carrying nuclear weapons which could have had disastrous consequences but, fortunately, did not. We owe that good fortune to the fact that nuclear weapons have been held only by nations with strong and efficient governmental machinery and access to the latest technology. Today, with the break-up of the Soviet Union and the actual and potential proliferation of nuclear weapons to states, or even possibly to groups within states which could not be so described, the risk of intentional or accidental use is higher. So long as nuclear weapons exist, and certainly if their possession proliferates, that risk will not only continue but will probably increase.
Thirdly, it is urgent because the possession of such weapons by some states stimulates other nations to acquire them or to want to acquire them, reducing the security of all. Far from contributing to stability, as the Government always claim, it has the opposite effect. We devoted a chapter of our report to rebutting the arguments of those who argue for the permanent retention of nuclear weapons. They argue that they have prevented and will continue to prevent war between the major powers; that they protect the credibility of security assurances to allies; that they deter the use of other weapons of so-called mass destruction; that they confer political status and influence; that they provide effective defence at lower cost; that they can defeat large-scale conventional aggression by regional powers; that agreement on elimination could never be reached, and that in any case an agreement could not be verified to an acceptable degree of certainty. Those are the arguments they use.
We believe that we have provided effective refutation of all those arguments, either by exposing their basic invalidity or by showing that, whatever may have been the case in the past, in present and future circumstances the desired outcome could be achieved without nuclear weapons. We devoted a considerable proportion of our report to a description of what a verification system would have to cover and an annex to the legal backing it would need. We did not attempt to produce a blueprint for such a system. If the United States and Russia cannot be persuaded to make the commitment we seek, a blueprint invented by others is irrelevant. If they do make the commitment they themselves must devise the methods, including verification, by which, stage by stage, they reduce from their present levels to zero. Any system that satisfies them should also satisfy the other declared states, the threshold and potential threshold states and the non-nuclear weapons states. The last must never be forgotten.
We accepted that no verification system could be 100 per cent. effective, but if sufficient effort was put behind it we reckoned it could be about 85 per cent. effective. Whether or not that is acceptable is a political judgment to be taken at the time you are nearing zero. It is not an excuse for not trying to start the process. What we must do is compare the risks between the present and a possible future situation where there are a
136
large number of weapons in existence and the possibility of proliferation and lack of control and one where there has been a progressive and verified reduction to zero and the political or military advantage of retaining or attempting to develop a few weapons is doubtful. There can surely be no doubt that the latter would involve less risk and would mean a safer world for us all.
The commission was not a body of airy-fairy academics or pious pacifists. It included a former defence secretary of the United States and a former commander-in-chief of its Strategic Command, a former prime minister of France, the Russian professor who was Mr. Gorbachev's science adviser and who now heads the East-West Space Centre in the United States, a former prime minister of Brazil, and experts in nuclear affairs or arms control from China, Japan, Sweden, Egypt and Sri Lanka. A very valuable member with practical experience was the Swedish diplomat, Rolf Ekeus, who heads UNSCOM, the United Nations mission investigating Iraq's mass destruction weapon programme. The members from this country were Robert O'Neill, professor of the history of war at Oxford, the former director of the International Institute of Strategic Studies, Professor Joseph Rotblat, who worked on the original atom bombs and who has since devoted his life to getting rid of them, and myself.
The report of that very varied group was unanimous and without any form of qualification. We did not call for any nation to disarm unilaterally. We believe strongly that because there is at present no major source of tension between the great powers the opportunity exists, which may not last long if it is not seized, to make a new and clear choice to enable the world to conduct its affairs without nuclear weapons. We gave no time scale because we realised that unless Russia and the United States can be persuaded genuinely to drive together towards that target it will never be achieved at all. However, if they can be persuaded, and if they put anything like die effort into it which they have expended on building up and maintaining their nuclear arsenals, matters could move much more quickly than most people imagine possible. We have listed a number of steps which, if they made such a commitment, they and all other nuclear weapon states could take without any prejudice to their security. Those steps would demonstrate their commitment and also make the world safer. They include such measures as taking weapons systems off alert status and removing warheads from delivery systems.
This brings me to the enlargement of NATO. Fears of what that means to her is one of the main reasons why Russia is hesitating over the ratification of START II and progress towards START III. The Russian military now use the same arguments for retaining nuclear weapons that NATO formerly used for developing and maintaining them—that they face superior conventional forces, from Europe to the Far East, to counter-balance which they need nuclear weapons. There is little hope of persuading Russia to make a commitment to total elimination so long as those fears persist. They are not unreasonable fears given the devotion to nuclear weapons of NATO's

137
American-dominated military organisation combined with the uncompromising and unqualified terms of Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty.
That is not the only reason why I believe that enlargement of NATO, in its present pattern, would be a grave mistake. It would encourage new members to model their armed forces on the American design which would inevitably pose a potential threat to their neighbours. They need to be persuaded to adopt an entirely different approach which would pose no such threat. For several years, in this House and elsewhere, I have expounded my views and have proposed an alternative. I will not trespass further on the time of the House by repeating them, but recent correspondence in The Times on the subject revealed that I am not alone in holding those views. The Times itself, in its second leader on 30th September, described NATO's policy on enlargement as one of "historic irresponsibility".
On these issues of nuclear weapons and NATO enlargement, it needs a major effort of intellect and political will for the foreign and defence establishments, both political and official, to escape from the grooves into which they have become comfortably and complacently stuck. The Canberra commission has signposted the intellectual escape route. If it is dismissed as too difficult, future generations will condemn us for not even making the effort to rid the world of these horrible weapons.
I hope—I have to be optimistic—that the Government or at least their successors, of whatever political colour, will study the Canberra commission report seriously and do their best to persuade the United States and Russia to make a reality of the commitment that they and Her Majesty's Government made, in signing the non-proliferation treaty, to total elimination of nuclear weapons, and to take the measures to demonstrate that which we recommended.
Lord Annan: My Lords, before the noble and gallant Lord sits down, and speaking as I do as an "airy-fairy academic", would he not agree that he can see no possibility of this country using nuclear bombs in any circumstances? It could only do so in agreement with the United States, and if that is so why do we not leave it to the United States at least for the immediate future? We would therefore give the lead in exactly the course that he has been advocating.
Lord Carver: My Lords, the noble Lord says exactly what I have been saying for about the last 30 years.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I wish to focus on three areas where there has been positive development since the House sat previously. The three areas are anti-personnel landmines, tied aid and debt. The issue of landmines has been debated frequently in this place. However, often discussion has led to stalemate as no real progress ever seems to have been made. Real progress was made, however, at the beginning of this month at the Ottawa Conference. The ultimate goal of that conference was a total ban on the use, sale,
138
stockpiling and production of anti-personnel landmines. The Canadian Government who hosted the conference should be congratulated on the leading role they played at the conference. I find that hardly surprising as there is a Liberal government in Canada.
However, the British Government seem to have done everything in their power to delay the progress made at Ottawa. Indeed the position of the United Kingdom has not moved an inch since April 1996, and hardly at all since the international community began to deal with the landmines problem. The United Kingdom now runs the risk of becoming virtually isolated within the Ottawa process, just as it was during the United Nations negotiations. The added risk now is that the UK might be disregarded. The Ottawa Conference has begun a parallel fast-track initiative towards a total ban in December 1997. Should the UK not meet those criteria, it will be left far behind. For those of us who find these weapons morally repugnant, that has to be unacceptable. The United Kingdom should be the first country to react to Canada's challenge and declare a total unilateral ban on the production, stockpiling, export, trade, transfer and use of all anti-personnel mines, and should be the first to support Canada, positively and actively in the process of drawing up and discussing the new treaty, and should pledge now to sign the treaty in December 1997.
I wish to refer the Minister to a matter which I know has caused a great deal of concern recently; namely, an article in the Independent on Sunday of 20th October which alleged that a British company, Londesborough, is suspected of exporting anti-personnel mines. I know that the Government are initiating an investigation into those allegations, but will the Minister assure us that the Government will publish their findings?
I now turn to the second issue of tied aid. The Overseas Development Administration has recently published a review of the United Kingdom's aid-tying policy . The review was funded by the ODA and comprised three studies, the results of which were extremely interesting but came as no surprise to those of us who have been attempting to untie all aid. It is suggested that it would be marginally beneficial to the United Kingdom economy bilaterally to untie all aid. However, a far more significant effect would be achieved if all aid was untied unilaterally. I believe it would be extremely difficult to convince other countries within the European Union to undertake that as they stand to gain less from the untying of aid than we do. However, it would be helpful if we could make a stand and take the lead in untying all aid. The report recommended that the untying of aid would be beneficial to the United Kingdom economy and would be especially beneficial in reducing the cost of administration for the ODA. It is extremely gratifying that the Government have undertaken that survey and I hope that they will act upon its results.
The third issue I wish to discuss is that of debt. It would be wrong not to support the stance taken recently by the Chancellor in taking a lead on debt negotiations. He should be supported in his efforts and in all the work he has done on that matter. However, concluding negotiations is one thing, but as the Trinidad terms have

139
shown, the devil can often be in the detail. We support the Chancellor in any further moves he makes to bring about a solution to the debt crisis which affects so much of the world, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out.
I wish to finish on a positive note. Recently I was in Estonia which also has a government comprising a main element of Liberals. When I returned to this country I was interested to discover that the know-how fund is stopping its funding to Estonia not for any negative reasons but because Estonia is not seen as being in need of that funding in the future. That is the whole point of aid. We saw nightmare images on the television at lunchtime as regards the destabilisation of the Great Lakes region. That leaves one with the impression that aid is almost hopeless. However, I refer to the case of Botswana which is not mentioned in the press. For many years Botswana was a recipient of aid but for the first time this year it is considering contributing to funds.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, my sole reason for wishing to intervene in the debate on the gracious Speech today is to say something in support of the recent attempts to establish a permanent international criminal court of justice and to urge my noble friend the Minister to support those attempts in the context of her work in the United Nations. However, before I say something about that, I should say that I was struck—as I believe were my noble friend Lord Jellicoe and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver—by the strength with which the Minister made a commitment to the expansion of NATO to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. I support that commitment; but it has to be realised that the 20th century is littered with security commitments that have not been met—most recently, I am sad to say, in relation to the sovereign state of Bosnia.
There is no doubt that if we make a commitment to extend NATO to those countries, they will believe it; and the consequences of our not delivering, in circumstances where the treaty obliges us to deliver, will be catastrophic for them. If we are to make that commitment, therefore, we must mean it. But do we mean it? We are a democratic country. To what extent are we to debate this issue before we enter into a commitment? This is a serious abrogation of national sovereignty—some might say it is more serious than the abrogation of national sovereignty that is involved in the commitment to a single currency. I do not much like referenda; I find them a rather unattractive continental import. I have supported the Prime Minister's commitment to a referendum on the single currency, despite my doubts. But is this not a matter that at least merits the same serious treatment as that of a single currency; and would that not include, in the context of our commitment to a single currency, a referendum if we were to expand NATO? I make those remarks not to embarrass the Minister but simply to underline the seriousness of what she has said in this afternoon's debate; and the seriousness for us as a nation which is every bit as grave as any financial commitments we might give in the context of the European Community.
140
My remarks on the permanent international court of justice are not in any way original. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, in the 1940s, following the adoption by the United Nations of the international convention on genocide, which declared it a crime to seek to destroy or to destroy an ethnic or religious group, made an important contribution to the attempt to incorporate the Nuremberg principles into an international Treaty and have them administered in the form of a permanent international court of criminal justice. Alas, that came to nothing following the development of the Cold War. However, in 1989 Trinidad and Tobago again proposed the establishment of a permanent international criminal court of justice. As in 1948, the United Nations tasked the International Law Commission, which is a subsidiary agency of the United Nations, to draft an appropriate protocol. It had completed its work by 1994. The matter has been further considered on two occasions by a specially constituted preparatory group which is now due to deliver its final report.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give this initiative their utmost and total support. There are great matters of detail to be resolved. What crimes should be included in the convention? Should it be limited to war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide; or should it be extended to other offences such as international drug trafficking? Who should be allowed to initiate cases in the court? There are some suggestions that the United States Government are thinking in terms of limiting the right of initiative to the Security Council. I think that that would be a mistake. One of the great successes of tie international criminal court established to deal with war crimes in the former territories of Yugoslavia has been the independence with which Judge Goldstone has been exercising his mandate and the success that he has had in pursuing investigations in a professional and thorough way, and bringing issues to indictment. I hope that any protocol on the international criminal court of justice would follow the model established by the Yugoslav court.
The most difficult issue to confront is this: once one indicts, how does one get hold of the accused? That was not a problem in Nuremberg; but it is proving a problem in Bosnia, and it will prove an even more challenging problem if the court's jurisdiction extends worldwide. I have no simple solution beyond the fact that once an individual is indicted by the court there should be an obligation on every single system of municipal law in the world to pursue that person if he does not give himself up voluntarily, and, if necessary, have him declared an outlaw. Beyond that, I do not pretend to have any easy solutions today to that most difficult problem.
All I ask is that Her Majesty's Government support the initiative and pursue it with the utmost vigour and determination. If evil men know that they will be called to account personally for their evil acts it will constitute a great deterrent. Why should the biggest criminals in the world get away with it? I can envisage no moral reason for allowing that situation to continue. The best example that we can set for the establishment of this

141
new court is now to do our best to apprehend those indicted in the context of the former states of Yugoslavia and bring them to justice in The Hague.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I should have liked to follow some of the threads which have been so importantly drawn in the debate—the Middle East peace process, the future of the BBC's World Service, the future of the United Nations, and so on. However, I cannot let this occasion pass without commenting on the important speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. As he knows, I have always had a great admiration for the noble and gallant Lord both as a distinguished soldier and as a writer on military matters. However, there is one subject upon which I have always disagreed with him and I feel that I must express again that difference of opinion today.
The noble and gallant Lord was kind enough to send me an early copy of the report of the Canberra Commission. He urged me to take it seriously; indeed, he reminded me that when I first entered the political world in the 1960s it was to take a part in international negotiations on arms control and disarmament. I must tell the noble and gallant Lord and your Lordships' House that I do indeed take this report very seriously. I go further and say that I regard it with some alarm. In some respects I believe that it has some dangerous implications. I make that judgment on the basis of an experience in arms control and disarmament of which the noble and gallant Lord was kind enough to remind me. The history of disarmament negotiations for the past 30 years and more is a witness to the very real dangers that can arise from over-optimistic approaches to the problems of nuclear weapons. I wish to use the short time at my disposal this evening to caution against the enthusiastic and uncritical endorsement of what I regard as a utopian concept of a nuclear weapons free world.
It seems to me that the report of the Canberra Commission—I have studied it carefully—advances many of the arguments which have been familiar over the years through the activities of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and other so-called peace movements. I need hardly say that I do not suggest for one moment that the approach of the noble and gallant Lord is in any way comparable with this. His motivations are different. Indeed, it is true that the report of the Canberra Commission to which he has contributed to a large extent has a degree of intellectual rigour which is lacking in the somewhat simple-minded approach of the peace movements and single issue campaigns for nuclear disarmament. However, I make a point which I hope that the noble and gallant Lord will accept: that the dangers are the same whether those arguments are advanced by distinguished military and political figures of the status and distinction that he has mentioned this evening, or by Monsignor Bruce Kent or the ladies of Greenham Common.
Let me begin by saying that the report of the Canberra Commission strikes me as being, and I hope that I do not exaggerate, a classic example of a logical fallacy. It starts with a vintage example of the assumption of the
142
basis, the term used in logic to denote the mistake of founding a conclusion on a basis that needs to be proved as much as the conclusion itself. For example, the report begins with an Executive Summary, and on its first page there appears the following statement which was echoed by the noble and gallant Lord this evening:
"Nuclear weapons have long been understood to be too destructive and non-discriminatory to secure discrete objectives on the battlefield".
That is an argument. It may be a widely held view but it is by no means universally held. It has certainly not been proved and it does not therefore provide a sufficient basis from which to construct a convincing and logical argument. The report continues:
"The only apparent military utility that remains for nuclear weapons is deterring their use by others".
Again that is an argument. It is an opinion sincerely held by some people but strongly contested by others, including me. It is, for example, arguable that the possession of nuclear weapons, despite what the Canberra Commission may say, may be a deterrent against use by others, not only of nuclear weapons but of other weapons of mass destruction such as chemical and biological agents. It may even be—I say it with respect to the noble and gallant Lord; no one has yet proved it although some will suspect it to be true—a deterrent against the aggressive use of manifestly superior conventional forces.
Yet the report goes on to argue from what I regard as somewhat unproven and debatable assumptions that as the only purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter their use by others that purpose would disappear altogether if nuclear weapons were eliminated. That sounds very simple, very clear and almost incontrovertible. But even if we ignore the logical fallacy that lies behind it which I have already pointed out, the conclusion is still unsafe. The value of possessing nuclear weapons would disappear only if they were eliminated and—a qualification that was missed by the Canberra Commission—we could be certain that their elimination was permanent and irreversible. That can never be. The genie cannot be forced back into the bottle. It is not possible to disinvent nuclear weapons or the method of making them. We cannot consign them to some historical oubliette and at the same time erase permanently the knowledge of how to make them. Therefore, we have to address ourselves, as the Canberra Commission did, to the central problem of verification of any agreement of this kind.
The Canberra Report concedes on several occasions that the elimination of nuclear weapons will not be possible without the development of adequate verification. Yet there is no evidence in the report to suggest that adequate verification is either technically or politically possible. In my view the Canberra Commission asks for a very considerable leap of faith when it suggests that,
"a political judgment will be needed on whether the levels of assurances possible from the verification regime are sufficient".
The difficulties of verifying any treaties, but especially nuclear treaties, are well known to anybody who has been involved in the problems of nuclear testing or nuclear arms control. One important problem

143
is that because of the secrecy that has always surrounded the whole subject throughout the nuclear weapons age, it is virtually impossible to know what stockpiles of nuclear weapons and fissile material now exist in the countries that have either an overt or a clandestine nuclear weapons capability. It hardly needs me to point out that if the starting-point for the elimination of nuclear weapons is unknown it will never be possible to be 100 per cent. certain when they have been eliminated.
Another problem concerns the difficulty of locating and identifying modern nuclear weapons which, in many cases now, are small and very easily concealed. The fissile material cores, especially if their manufacture has involved the radioactive isotope tritium, are even easier to conceal than the bombs themselves. Indeed, the Canberra Report reaches a very significant conclusion; namely that,
"even with a highly intrusive verification regime, detection of a well-shielded weapons/fissile material cache would be difficult with today's technology".
With that I wholeheartedly agree. The risk of what is known in the jargon as "breakout" would therefore be enormous in the scenario outlined by the noble and gallant Lord. In this context the conclusion of the Canberra Report is that,
"some risk will have to be accepted if the wider benefits of a nuclear-free world are to he realised".
That must surely rank as one of the most startling understatements of the whole of the nuclear debate. The risks would not be marginal; they would be appalling.
Before I conclude, I should like to make a brief reference to the approach of the Canberra Commission to the moral issue involved in nuclear strategy. In arguing the case for a nuclear weapon-free world, the commission makes the following statement:
"Use of the weapons against a non-nuclear weapon opponent is politically and morally indefensible".
The noble and gallant Lord repeated that point in his speech. I regard that as a dubious, unsupported proposition. It begs important questions which have exercised the minds of moral philosophers and theologians ever since the nuclear weapon was invented. Most of us are familiar with the standards of proportionality which are an essential element in the Christian doctrine of the just war. According to that doctrine the use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear adversary would be widely considered to be immoral and indefensible. On the other hand there is a powerful body of opinion among Christian authorities, which I have taken the opportunity to test, that the possession of nuclear weapons as a deterrent is governed by a concept known as "conditional intent" which leads one to conclude that, while the use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear adversary would be immoral and indefensible, the threat to use them is not, especially when that threat is used to deter a potential aggressor.
There is no time today to examine that complicated argument any further. I mention it only to illustrate the dangers of simple and optimistic propositions about the use of armed force in general and specifically the possession or use of nuclear weapons.
144
In conclusion, I do not believe that the permanent elimination of all nuclear weapons is a realistic possibility given, as I said, that the knowledge of how to make them is widespread and there can never be any guarantee that, in the future, some malevolent or mentally disturbed dictator might not choose to ignore or defy any international agreement which might exist.
Even if it were possible and practical to eliminate nuclear weapons is entirely, I remain to be convinced that it would be desirable short of universal general and complete disarmament under international control—a goal which is as far off today as it was when I first made a speech on this subject in 1962. With the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—not only nuclear but chemical and microbiological—and the ability to deliver them by ballistic missile, which is in the hands of a great number of countries today in the Middle East and Far East, the possession of nuclear weapons remains a powerful deterrent against the use of other forms of weapons of mass destruction. Whatever the Canberra Commission in its wisdom may say, they remain a powerful deterrent against the possible use of overwhelming conventional force in a nuclear-free world. It may be true to say that there would be a reluctance to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear enemy, but no potential aggressor could ever be certain of that. As everyone who has been involved in the strategic argument knows, it is the very uncertainty of the deterrent posture which is the strongest element of deterrence.
There seems now to be the emergence of a new phase of anti-nuclear campaigning which should be a matter for some concern. In this context I ask the Minister, in replying, to say what verification safeguards will be put in place to ensure the integrity of the comprehensive test ban treaty. As the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said recently in Geneva, this treaty represents a genuine sacrifice for the United Kingdom as it limits our ability to develop new weapons or modernise our existing stocks. Personally, I doubt whether that is a price worth paying. Even if it is, the comprehensive test ban treaty will certainly need the highest standards of verification. I hope that Her Majesty's Government can reassure the House on that point.
The Government's stated policy on the nuclear weapons issue is to maintain a minimal nuclear force consistent with national security requirements and the UK's commitment to NATO. I hope that that position is unchanged and that the Government will demand a much more rigorous analysis of this complicated issue before following the noble and gallant Lord, the Canberra Commission and others down what I regard as a dangerous and uncharted road.
Lord Carver: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he answer one quite simple question? If nuclear weapons are so very important to defence, why should not everybody have them?
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, there is an argument in the proliferation debate that possession of nuclear weapons by some countries encourages other people to

145
possess them, as indeed it has done. As we now know, there are probably three or four other nuclear powers and a number of near-nuclear powers other than the five admitted nuclear powers who are permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations. My practical argument is that nuclear weapons exist; some people have them; and those who have them should think very carefully before getting rid of them.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the fallacious nature of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was exemplified by his last words: we keep them and you do not have them. That is not a permanent position which can be sustained. It is not reasonable to expect that a certain number of nations will have a weapon which they apparently regard as something that they cannot do without, while it is assumed that everything will become unstable if other nations were to enjoy the stability that comes from having nuclear weapons. This only has to be examined to see that it is sheer nonsense.
Another point that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, makes is that the nuclear weapon cannot be disinvented. Neither can anything else be disinvented. Biological weapons cannot be disinvented; chemical weapons cannot be disinvented. But that does not prevent us from prohibiting their use; it does not prevent us from having a convention to outlaw these weapons. We could do exactly the same with nuclear weapons, with equally beneficial results, if we had the guts to do so.
I think I have already made it clear on which side I stand in this argument, if your Lordships did not already know, but there is one further point I wish to touch on before I leave the matter. I think noble Lords will all agree with me that we heard a remarkable speech from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. I believe that we will wish to think about it and perhaps have a copy of the report to which he referred. I have an address from which copies can be obtained and I propose to read it out so that it can be included in Hansard. It is the World Court Project UK. Its chairman, Commander Robert Green, is an ex-nuclear submarine commander who, like many military people who have been in close contact with nuclear weapons, wants nothing to do with them again. His address is 2 Chiswick House, High Street, Twyford, Berkshire RG10 9AG.
There has been much talk recently about the moral standards of our country but none at all about the greatest loss of all. The nation does not want to know about it; certainly the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, does not want to know about it; political leaders act as if it does not exist; the gracious Speech always ignores it. In all the years which have passed since the end of the last war no government have ever asked the monarch to say something like this: "My Government are gravely concerned that the rules of war which have for so many years protected non-combatants were totally breached by both sides during World War II. It is the view of the Government that it is essential that these rules shall be reinstated and that the United Nations shall be charged with the duties and means of verification and
146
enforcement. My Government believe that all weapons of mass destruction are immoral and that there must be an international agreement that they shall be destroyed and that an agency shall be created with powers to ensure that weapons which threaten our very survival shall be prohibited".
Most people today are not aware that at the beginning of World War II international law existed—it still exists—and was obeyed until the Nazis broke it by bombing, first, Rotterdam and then Coventry. We responded and broke it ourselves by blockbusting, where the target was not only buildings but also the non-combatants inhabiting those buildings. At the beginning of the war Britain observed the international law. Until 1941, if British bombers could not find their exact military target they were ordered to drop their bombs in the sea rather than drop them with the chance that they might accidentally kill non-combatants. We kept it up for a while, but we lost it completely after we went into blockbusting by burning women and children to death in Dresden.
In 1941 when I was commissioned in the Royal Air Force I was given a little booklet called What Acts of War Are Justifiable? It was written by the celebrated authority on international law, Professor Goodhart, and was one of a series called Oxford Pamphlets on World Affairs distributed in the forces by the Army Bureau of Current Affairs. Goodhart began by pointing out that the distinction between combatant and civilian had been firmly drawn in the 19th century and that it was still effective international law. The allies, he said, must keep civilians sacrosanct. Nothing that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has said has touched on the subject. The problem about nuclear weapons is that they inevitably kill civilians wholesale; they inevitably kill non-combatants. They are the greatest killer of non-combatants that has ever been invented. Thus they are totally hostile to what Goodhart regarded as the greatest invention of international law, which is the separation of combatants from non-combatants. We finished up with the hell of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
If a prime minister or potential prime minister today says that he will continue to harbour this means of killing thousands of non-combatants and will be ready to authorise the use of this ultimate weapon of mass destruction, what will he do? As I understand it, the leaders of the major political parties are now in the same boat. They have all said that they will be barbarians, as Goodhart described people who kill non-combatants. They will keep Trident and be ready to authorise its use. Is relatively minor killing wrong and to be stopped while major killing is all right for a sane Christian to add to his list of possible actions? Can he then sleep? If he can, he has decided in his heart that he will never be able to do what he says he will do. The Prime Minister and his potential successor would not hurt a single child, but they have both committed themselves to an action which means, among other horrors, that they would perhaps be setting fire to 10,000 babies. Would either of them really do that or might we just as well have marzipan as a nuclear missile in our submarines?

147
The problem with the mass destruction of human beings is that the larger it gets, the more incredible it becomes, until it ceases to touch us. I was in India en route to join RAF Operations Unit No. 6 in Burma when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. We did not know what had been done, but there were rumours. I have always remembered a corporal saying to me, "You know what I think, sir? I think they have now saved our lives at the cost of our children's". That was perception for you, was it not? He said that back in 1945 and it stuck in my mind.
But it was not until I spoke to some damaged survivors from Hiroshima a few years ago that I was truly hit in the heart. It happened again quite recently when I was supplied with some detailed information about the Hiroshima casualties. The total death roll, including deaths since, was estimated at 150,000. That is impressive in one way, is it not? But it did not hit me quite so hard as some of the details which I came across. One can say that the people who dropped those bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not know what they were doing. They could not have guessed, could they, for example, that of the 277 first-year girls at the Hiroshima Municipal Girls' High School not one survived? However, at the Third Primary School—again, a girls' school—where there were 139 children, 68 survived and 71 died of burns. That is more lethal than a handgun, is it not?
But the prime minister who gives the order today or tomorrow cannot plead ignorance. He knows that he is ordering wholesale death far beyond Hiroshima. Will he do it? Since he is not a criminal lunatic, I beg leave to doubt it. Almost immediately, the situation would be beyond political control. Communications would be among the first things to go. Would any prime minister authorise Armageddon? Possibly. But the first casualty in modern war has to be the amputation of the imagination. If you were to permit yourself to know what you were doing, you could not possibly do it. Hence, World War II was the triumph of the euphemism: "wizard prang" and all that.
Similarly, if a prime minister authorising the use of Trident thought for one moment of the thousands of eyes to be blown out of a thousand heads or even gave a thought to what happens when a single child is set on fire, he could not lift the telephone to give the order, could he? I hope that the present Prime Minister—still less the potential one, who recently declared that he would—could bring himself, in practice and in effect, to choose to risk that terrible end to the human experiment. Instead, they should pledge themselves to take a leading part in discussions with other nuclear powers and propose a date to start the countdown to a nuclear-free world, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, suggested.
If I had a vote, I should, as usual, certainly vote Labour. Both Labour policies and personnel seem to me—it is not surprising, I suppose—to be superior to those offered by the present administration, except in respect of my present subject, in which the Opposition apparently seek to match themselves with and to be as blind on this issue as the Government. Nevertheless, I confess that sometimes I ask myself what happened to
148
all those in the Shadow Cabinet and Government who shared my passion for nuclear disarmament and my horror at the prospect of nuclear war. Have they all changed their minds? Have they been subjected to mass lobotomy? No. We must reject the ultimate immorality of nuclear weapons. We must do it.
I too have a dream. In fact I have two dreams. One is that at the first meeting of the Cabinet of the new Labour Government the Prime Minister will say, "First of all, I must tell you that during the election campaign I have come to the conclusion that we must take nuclear disarmament urgently and seriously", and they all agree. The alternative is that the Cabinet collectively tells him.
In conclusion, I recall towards the end of the war in Europe a song of brief popularity which went:
"I'm going to pt lit up when the lights go up in London".
If we do not get rid of the bomb, it will get rid of us and those lights of London will go out, never to come on again.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, in our debates in this House on foreign affairs over the past few years we have had extensive discussions on European policy. I have some hesitation in returning to this topic again, particularly after the elegant and fascinating nuclear exchanges between my noble friends, but I feel it is necessary to do so, partly because I have been greatly concerned by the changes which have taken place in this country in public opinion in recent months but also because there can be no other single issue of greater importance to the Government. Evidently, they themselves have difficulty in maintaining a common position while their party is clearly divided into separate factions on the same question. Similar differences are to be seen elsewhere in Parliament and the country at large. Therefore, I hope that I may be forgiven for referring to the subject again.
I should make it clear that I do not disagree very much with the Government's position, although I believe that their commitment to a future referendum on the single currency may turn out to be unwise. I can think of few issues less suited to such a form of public consultation. But what concerns me greatly is the effect on the evolution of the rest of Europe of non-participation by Britain in EMU. It is on that topic that I shall speak particularly this afternoon. I propose to do so by examining briefly the attitude of the other member states. Instead of looking at the situation as it appears from London looking outward towards Europe, I shall attempt to look at it the other way round. I believe that it can be quite an instructive way of examining the question.
French public opinion is probably the least surprised and the least worried about the effect of our current activities. France has always believed, with some reason, that the British wanted a free trade zone rather than a more ambitious political structure in Europe. It sees the latest twist in our policy as a reversion towards a long held aim. Of course, it is impossible to achieve now what we failed to create in the 1950s and 1960s, unless we accept the French alternative for a two-tier

149
Community in which the rules and most important decisions are taken by an inner group, clearly led by France and Germany, with the outer group accepting the consequences, both financial and otherwise. France may well feel that the apparent evolution in our government thinking now opens the door to that line of policy as a real possibility, which it would of course welcome as being of significant benefit to it.
The situation in Germany is much more complex and is also undergoing considerable change just at present. The Federal Republic in the past was a staunch and steady supporter of our entry into the original Community of six. It believed that our pragmatism, our attachment to free trade and our wider political interests would be of benefit to the Community as a whole. On many international subjects—in fact, I think on most international matters—London and Bonn had very close, perhaps identical, views and we steadily supported the reunification of Germany.
I served in Germany in the 1950s in Bonn and Berlin, and the sense of growing partnership and mutual trust between Britain and Germany at that time was palpable. It was however seriously damaged when the British Government of the day failed to give early and full-hearted support to the peace reunification of Germany, which occurred so suddenly in 1990. Since then Germany has been puzzled by British attitudes to Europe.
The Germans are justly proud of the democratic republic created in the past 45 years, believing, among other things, that they have found a good balance between the authority of the national government in Bonn and that of the regions—the Länder—established by the Basic Law in 1948. The state is formally described as "die Bundersrepublik"—the Federal Republic—thus using the very word "Bund" which is employed to describe the intended European Union. By contrast, the British hate the word "Federal", which we see as meaning an over-centralised superstate. So there is a fundamental difference between the British and Germans, since we interpret the key word "Bund" or "federation" in exactly the opposite senses. To the German speaker, "Bund" means decentralisation on their model.
The other great attachment in the German mind so important to them is to their currency. It was the solidity of the deutschmark and the excellent performance of the German economy, carefully nurtured by the Bundesbank, which so attracted the East Germans in 1990. The achievement is the pride of every German citizen, who has an instinctive worry that a European monetary authority would be open to devious political pressures and less immune to such influence than the Bundesbank has been. There are also concerns that the strict financial criteria for membership will be massaged for political reasons, to the disadvantage of the deutschmark. Also, it will not be easy for Germany itself to meet some of the criteria, given the heavy burden still imposed by financing the modernisation of the East German economy. There are therefore apprehensions in Germany that economic and monetary union will not work to their advantage.
150
The chief external pressure on Germany comes from France. In this country we do not find it difficult to understand why France, after the disasters she has suffered since 1870, should regard the closest possible accord with Germany as the chief element in her foreign policy. I believe that the Germans understand that also, and that they will be willing to pay heavily in the future, as in the past, to maintain the close understanding and collaboration with France which has developed steadily since the Elysee Treaty was signed in 1963. But, as I have described, there are worries about the price to be paid. That issue should be manageable, but one cannot be sure.
I believe that many Germans would regret a decision by this country to opt out of the EMU; they would value our continuing partnership, not least as members of the European Monetary Institute. It is relevant that the reputation and international standing of the Bank of England remains strong, indeed somewhat stronger than the past record of our own economy and currency justifies.
But I believe also that many Germans are puzzled and concerned by the change of British public opinion on European affairs, which to their way of thinking is quite incomprehensible. Indeed, we are in danger of becoming, in German eyes, unreliable—one of the worst adjectives in the German political lexikon.
The Italian attitude is quite different and also interesting, as Italy desperately needs to be a member of EMU for a variety of reasons. The discipline of membership appears to offer the only route to a restoration of financial stability, while the EU's political institutions have a strong attraction for Italians, who contemplate the constitutional and political mess in their country after the collapse of communism and the revelations of tangentopoli. What matters to them is that EMU should happen quickly and that they become members of it at the earliest possible date. It is hard to see that happening without a major change in the attitude to public finance in Italy, but also without a major massage of the criteria to help Italian requirements, such is the inherited burden of the public debt in that country. But Italy will not be pleased if the British are a cause of delay in the launch of EMU.
I suggest also that there will be much interest, and some anxiety, in the smaller states which are members of the European Union should we decide to delay our entry into the EMU, or, still more so, if we turn away from it. I was impressed recently by a series of conversations with a former Ambassador of Denmark, an experienced and reliable person and a long-term friend of this country, who told me of the attention being paid in Copenhagen to recent developments in London. Denmark, as many will know, guards her parliamentary sovereignty more jealously than any other member state, including Britain, and opinion on European affairs is keenly divided there. The same may be true, but perhaps to a lesser extent, in Sweden; and I have noticed press reports that Austrian opinion is disappointed by the economic results to date of her membership of the EU and the stringency which may be required in Austria to meet the Maastricht criteria.

151
I do not propose to continue longer with this Cook's Tour, having already spoken for long enough. But we would do well to contemplate the effect of any British decision to turn away from Europe. France may see some advantage in that, but the general impression on the Continent would be of dismay and anxiety about the result for the other European countries. The EU would probably divide into "ins" and "outs", something which would alter drastically the evolution of political Europe in our generation. Some people here may not be unduly concerned by that. But we could not readily avoid the criticism that, by pursuing her own interests, perfidious Albion had deliberately divided Europe, reverting to the outmoded imperial maxim of divide and rule. We may think such comments unfair, even grotesque, but we should be prepared for them.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I warmly welcome the strong commitment in the gracious Speech to a successful and smooth transition in Hong Kong in June next year. I was encouraged to hear from my noble friend Lady Chalker of the recent constructive meeting in New York between my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and his Chinese opposite number.
Your Lordships debated Hong Kong a few months ago in this Chamber and I do not propose to cover the ground that was so ably dealt with on that occasion. I should like to concentrate on one specific matter which is a purely British responsibility and which has not yet been satisfactorily resolved. I refer to the question of the non-Chinese ethnic minority in Hong Kong—a rather cumbersome term—because those people are British subjects, but British subjects without British citizenship.
When Hong Kong reverts to China on 1st July 1997 the non-Chinese ethnic minorities—some 4,000 to 5,000 individuals, mostly of Indian descent—will be left in an invidious position. They and their descendants risk becoming stateless. They have a strong claim to be granted a full British passport before the handover to China because they came to Hong Kong when it was British and many of them are second or third generation Hong Kong residents. Those people had full British passports and the rights that those British passports gave them. Those rights were removed in the amendments made to the Immigration Act 1962 and subsequent amendments which left them in a defenceless state.
Unlike other Hong Kong residents, those people will not be eligible to hold the new Hong Kong SAR passports. Chinese nationality is based on ethnicity and non-Chinese will therefore not qualify for those passports. The British National (Overseas) passports which those people hold is little more than a travel document. It gives no right of abode anywhere at all. The minorities' right of abode in Hong Kong is written into the 1984 Joint Declaration between Britain and China, not into the BN(O) passport. After 1997, the BN(O) passport's credibility will depend on the state of Anglo-Chinese relationships. It very much looks to me as though the credibility of a British travel document will depend on how China decides to regard it.
152
The handover of Hong Kong to China is a unique event. Hong Kong will not become independent, but will become part of China. Thus, unlike previous holders of British Dependent Territory passports, the Hong Kong ethnic minority will not have the option to take up passports of a new independent state. Therefore, giving passports to these 5,000 or so individuals can in no way be considered a precedent, which I gather is one of the reasons why the Home Office is playing such a dead bat to this question. It is not an immigration issue. It is about treating fairly British subjects in Hong Kong.
This ethnic minority's appeal for full British nationality and passports has been supported by the House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, by the present Governor of Hong Kong, by the Hong Kong Legislative Council and by all participants in the debate on the House of Lords Motion on this subject in July 1993, as well as by two very distinguished former governors of Hong Kong, the noble Lords, Lord MacLehose and Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, and by a former Minister with responsibility for Hong Kong, my noble friend Lord Glenarthur. So it is true to say that it has strong cross-party support.
It is true that this minority was given assurances by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister during his visit to Hong Kong in March this year that if they come under undue pressure to leave Hong Kong they will be given the right of abode or the right of entry into and settlement in this country. I do not believe that is quite good enough. It really is not. The view from Hong Kong on what constitutes pressure will be very different from the view from Westminster.
The entire populations of two other British dependent territories—namely, the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar—have been offered full British citizenship. If we are under an obligation to allow 100,000 citizens of Macao who have been given Portuguese nationality to settle in this country because of our membership of the European Union, surely we can do no less for these few thousand people in Hong Kong to whom we owe a duty of care.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, will agree that another matter has been left unsettled in the negotiations between Britain and China on Hong Kong. I refer to the question of whether or not the Chinese feel themselves bound by the reporting obligations in the international covenant on civil and political rights, a matter which has been taken up with us by a number of activists in Hong Kong and about which they feel deeply concerned. Since Ministers are always telling us that they raise human rights questions with other governments at every opportunity, and since on Saturday the Chinese vice-premier, Mr. Li Lanqing, is coming to Britain for a week's visit, that gives the Government an opportunity to express our concerns on this issue and to attempt to get a reply out of them—with fewer than nine months still to go before the handover.
There are other issues which I hope Ministers will raise with the vice-premier. There are the individual cases in China itself of the detention of dissidents. There

153
is the case of Liu Xiaobo, who was arrested on 8th October by the Beijing Public Security Bureau and, without judicial process of any kind, sent to a labour camp for three years on account of criticisms that he had made of Jiang Zemin. There is the detention of Wang Dan, arrested on 21st May 1995 and held incommunicado ever since, after he signed a petition calling for tolerance and the release of political prisoners. The Writers in Prison Committee of International PEN has nine pages on China in its current list of cases.
Ministers might also ask Mr. Li whether the authorities in Beijing are considering any changes in their own law in the direction of greater freedom of expression and whether they would at least co-operate with the UN rapporteur on freedom of expression, Mr. Abid Hussain, who at the time of writing his reports in March 1996 had still received no replies from the Chinese to the cases he had taken up with them. I hope Ministers will also raise the question of Tibet. The Dalai Lama has offered discussions on the status of the so-called autonomous region within the framework of Chinese sovereignty but the leadership in Beijing has continued to pretend that he is demanding total separation. Could we ask Mr. Li to confirm Deng Xiaoping's assurance that,
"anything except independence can be discussed and resolved",
and, if so, to modify the aggressive response which was made to the latest offer of talks by His Holiness?
The enormous number of human rights issues which come to our attention, not least via the BBC World Service, whose pre-eminence has been threatened not by the foreign dictators it so effectively opposes, but by Mr. John Birt, as my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth has already mentioned, means that we need to look for new ways of dealing with these problems in Parliament. We are not well equipped to do it. I have suggested on occasion that this House should have a Select Committee on human rights. The suggestion was not particularly well received by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, but I think it bears consideration. Some of the issues that have been mentioned this afternoon would lend themselves ideally to the work of such a Select Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, mentioned the possibility of an international criminal court and several of your Lordships dealt with the work of the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. That tribunal ruled, in the case of Tadic, that war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the course of an internal armed conflict were justiciable. Since almost all the armed conflicts in the world today are domestic, this opens up the possibility that in other countries where soldiers have murdered or raped civilians, for instance, they could be brought to trial in third countries.
This development was reinforced in the land-mines agreement in Geneva, which my noble friend Lord Redesdale mentioned, which, although not going as far as many people wanted, did make it a criminal offence of universal jurisdiction to use these weapons in a
154
non-international conflict. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell the House whether the Government will commit themselves to extending the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 to reflect these advances in international law. It would also be useful to know whether the Labour Party will do so when they come into office next year, as forecast by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone.
If the war crimes tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda are to act as deterrents to others who may commit similar crimes in the future, I agree with the noble Baroness that much greater determination has to be shown in apprehending those already charged—Karadzic and Mladic in particular. Your Lordships will have noted the remarks of Judge Antonio Cassese last week which amounted almost to an ultimatum that if the two principal accused are not arrested he will ask the Security Council to close down the tribunal, which he said was becoming an "exercise in hypocrisy". If the commander of IFOR advises that he could not do it with the forces at his disposal, then let him be given whatever additional troops he thinks are necessary. Judge Goldstone said last April that he was given 24 investigators for Rwanda, and that if he had 124 it would still be inadequate. What thought is being given to the establishment of an investigative agency to serve the international criminal court if it comes into being? Should not the planning of such an agency be proceeding in parallel with the drafting of the court's statutes. What progress is being made in these tasks, and are they being hindered by the financial stringency besetting the United Nations as a whole?
This financial crisis definitely hampers the work of the UN Centre for Human Rights. The working group on arbitrary detention was considering a visit to Bahrain but has had to defer the project because of lack of money. The International Red Cross was also meant to be going there in October, according to the Minister, Mr. Jeremy Hanley, who was in Bahrain earlier this year, but it says that it has not yet received an invitation.
One would like to know what other UN centre work has had to be postponed or cancelled and whether our own Government are pressing for improvements in the funding arrangements. It appears that over the years there has been a steady growth in the demands made on the special rapporteurs on thematic issues and on the working groups and also in the number of country rapporteurs, without a corresponding increase in the centre's budget. The figures are, however, not readily available. I hope that we shall use our influence to see that the budgets are prepared on a basis that identifies the funding of particular elements within the special procedures section of the UN Centre for Human Rights.
I now turn to the OSCE, whose human dimension review conference is about to convene in Vienna. The UK will be playing the lead role there on the question of freedom of expression and we will be drawing attention to countries whose actions have given cause for concern, including Turkey. It is a fact that Turkey has by far the worst record of any country in OSCE, not only on freedom of expression, but on torture, extra-judicial executions, arbitrary detention, forcible displacements and other human rights violations.

155
That is not the only reason for highlighting the case of Turkey when there are so many other deplorable human rights situations in the OSCE region. What makes Turkey unique is that the internal arms struggle, which has led to the forcible displacement of 3 million people and the destruction of 3,000 villages as well as large areas in the bigger towns such as Sirnak, Lice, Cizre and Yuksekova, have escaped the attention of the OSCE conflict resolution mechanisms; that the oppression of the Kurds in the south east, which is the cause of the armed struggle, is not within the terms of reference of the High Commissioner for National Minorities, nor is it dealt with as a gross violation of the Copenhagen Declaration; that literally hundreds of cases arising from breaches of the European Convention are now winding their way through the European Commission and Court; that hundreds of writers and journalists are being tried before the state security courts in Turkey for their articles and books.
Confronted with this mass of evidence and the knowledge that Turkey's policy on the Kurds is made by the National Security Council—a body which is dominated by the military and not by the elected government—Foreign Office Ministers still say that Necmettin Erbakan, the new Prime Minister, should be given time to implement human rights undertakings, which are no different from those made by his predecessors, Mesut Yilmaz and Tansu Ciller. They say that they have no plans to raise Turkey's non-compliance with the OSCE's code of conduct on politico-military aspects of security at Vienna although this agreement, which requires participating states to use the minimum degree of force in internal security operations and to avoid causing harm to civilians and their property, is one of the few means of calling the Turkish military to account in a semi-public forum.
Turkey's interests are inextricably linked to those of her neighbours, Syria, Iraq and Iran, rather than to Europe, as they are generally seen. That is not because of fraternal bonds between Islamic neighbours as Mr. Erbakan would have it, but through the necessity of road and rail links and the need to collaborate with their neighbours in developing oil and' water resources. The oil pipeline to be developed between Iran and Turkey is an example of how local commercial imperatives contradict the American policy of dual containment. We will also see Turkey joining in the pressure to implement Security Council Resolution 986, which the Minister mentioned in her introductory remarks. It allows Saddam to sell 1 billion dollars' worth of oil every 90 days without the guarantees of equitable distribution and international monitoring specified by the UN.
The so-called "safe haven" of northern Iraq, supposed to confer western protection of the Iraqi Kurds against the oppression of Saddam Hussein, has been exposed as a total sham. It never provided the people with any security against their own warlords, and particularly Massoud Barzani, whose act of treachery in opening the gates of Kurdistan to the man who tried to exterminate the Kurds in the infamous "Anfal" of 1988 seems not to have been envisaged by the United States or the
156
Europeans. Supported by Iraqi tanks, he now controls Arbil, but without them he would be swept aside by the wrath of his own people.
In the latest fighting the KDP had 15 Katyusha rocket launchers, 40 armoured personnel carriers, several 130 and 155 mm artillery pieces, all given by Saddam after the initial fighting. So when the Minister says that firm action will be taken against Saddam if he intervenes again in the conflict in northern Iraq, she has a little explaining to do about why this second initiative by Saddam to help his allies in the conflict there attracted so little attention from the West.
As regards Resolution 986, how are international agencies going to operate in this precarious and unstable situation? How will monitors be able to work not only in the Kurdish region but in the south of Iraq, parts of which have been totally closed to foreigners for years?
Perhaps I may turn briefly to Iran. For the first time Foreign Office Ministers have argued that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the regime is engaged in planning and instigating the murder of opponents abroad. Witness C in the Mykonos trial in Berlin has given new information about the involvement of President Rafsanjani and Foreign Minister Velayati in planning these crimes, as did President Bani-Sadr in his recent evidence to the Mykonos trial. That says nothing about the Interior Minister, Ali Fallahian, for whom a warrant has been issued by the German court.
The US excuses Iran of being the instigator and paymaster of international terrorism. I suggest that it would be prudent if Europe faced this reality as well by using every gram of economic and political leverage we possess to promote change from within towards ending the mullahs' oligarchy and the promotion of pluralism in that country.
Perhaps I may conclude with a word about the Commonwealth and, following the Minister's remarks, about the activities in West Africa to try to bring Nigeria, Sierra Leone and The Gambia back towards democracy and human rights. I join with her in congratulating the people of Sierra Leone on the successful elections and the restoration of a form of peace, although fighting still continues on such a wide scale that we cannot say that the problem has been solved.
The achievement of the Commonwealth is to use the Harare Declaration as a yardstick against which to assess the compliance of members with a set of human rights and principles. In particular we are looking at the cases of Nigeria and The Gambia in terms of the work of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group and how we can assess the progress they are making towards meeting those objectives.
In The Gambia and Nigeria the Commonwealth has been decisively rebuffed so far. The Gambia has followed the Ghanaian pattern of stage-managed elections to confer spurious legitimacy on the military government. Nigeria is following its time-honoured path of evasion and procrastination. The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group has merely exposed the reluctance of the international community to take any measures that would really hurt the regime in Nigeria.

157
Finally, in the case of Cameroon, which is also a matter for scrutiny by the Commonwealth, there are local, regional and presidential elections scheduled next year and already there are allegations of irregularities in the preparation of the new register. That is a matter in which the Commonwealth Secretariat has yet to show any interest.
I commend the work of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group as at least a step in the direction of securing compliance with the Harare Declaration. I wish it well in its work and I hope that the Government will continue to give their full support to that initiative.
5.57 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, this summer has served to illustrate the complex and dangerous world in which we live: Israeli intransigence towards the peace talks necessitating stark choice between peace or continued enmity; Kurd in-fighting; ethnic war possibly to encompass all central Africa; uncertainty in the Kremlin and long-term anxiety in the Chinese seas are all examples.
But it is to two equally important, yet until recently comparatively unreported issues, that I wish to turn. First, I refer to the civil war in Afghanistan and, secondly, I wish to consider the effectiveness of current United States policy towards the state of Colombia and British interests in the light of that policy. I was in Afghanistan last month and met the contesting factional leaders together with the United Nations special envoy, Norbert Holl, to whom we should give unconditional support for without it he will fail. I have also recently returned from Colombia.
The Afghan question is complex. The country is in a desperate state. Arguably, the situation is now more dangerous than ever, with long-term regional implications. Afghanistan is currently two-thirds in the hands of Pakistani-trained purist Islamic students, known as the Taliban, with the northern remainder effectively controlled by General Dostum, an ethnic Uzbek. The speed of the Taliban's military advance into Kabul took the people of Afghanistan and the world community completely by surprise. Kabul is currently being defended from the combined forces of General Dostum and Commander Masoud, the military leader of the ousted central government. General Dostum's proposals to demilitarise Kabul—already 60 per cent. totally destroyed—were rejected by the Taliban.
It is possible that a stalemate has been reached and it is therefore impossible to predict an outcome with any certainty. Although there have been longstanding exchanges of delegations between all opposing sides, I see little chance of conciliation. They are ideologically poles apart. I quizzed the Taliban leadership and General Dostum at some length about this. The Taliban are enforcing their own version of strict Islamic codes: closing girls' schools; restricting the movement and rights of women; and imposing harsh punishments, including executions and amputations. Not surprisingly, peace and order are restored quickly once an area has
158
been overtaken. General Dostum's agenda is for peace, retaining control in his provinces, recognising rights for women and deploring Islamic extremism. While wishing for a united Afghanistan, he considers that it would be difficult to have a central government and feels that a federal system is the only workable option. All sides consider that the deposed President Rabbani is an obstacle to peace.
Peace in Afghanistan would benefit not only the people of Afghanistan, but would be in the interests of the majority of neighbouring states and the broader world community. A Western concern should be the increased regional instability associated with the spread of Islamic extremism. The right reverend Prelate, who is not in his place, touched on such matters, but I should like to draw his attention to the importance of understanding the difference between extremism and fundamentalism. I suspect that the right reverend Prelate was referring to extremism.
Russia is attempting to resurrect a military presence in Central Asia once again on the pretext of regional security. That is certainly against the wishes of the newly independent states and is, I believe, against the interests of the West. Additionally, the West wishes to exploit the vast oil and gas reserves of Central Asia. Equally important, however, is that while the distribution route to the warm-weather port of Karachi remains closed, the development and economic growth of the central Asian republics is severely restricted. The only practical route is through Afghanistan. All that is yet another element of Kipling's Great Game.
The question is how to engineer peace. Other than outright military victory, only the people of Afghanistan, in my view, can achieve a settlement. Much is made of external influences. There is clearly an essential role for the neighbouring states and the world community—but only one, however, and that is to encourage the Afghans to a conference of national reconciliation—that and no more. There will never be peace while neighbouring states jockey to have their respective interests factored in. Those arrangements must, however, be chaired by the United Nations as a neutral observer. Ex-King Zahir Shah, currently in exile in Rome, stands ready to return as a figurehead, if that is the general will. His only wish is to bring peace and constitutional order. His name was raised in a number of different quarters and possibly his time has come.
A realistic proposal is to establish an inter-Afghan meeting, a Loya Jirgha, between influential individuals and groups with a view to forming a provisional broad-based government. The main task would be to work out a new constitution and electoral laws. Once achieved, it will be essential that two issues be included in the settlement: the safe return of refugees and the protection of women's rights. I believe that this House should send a clear signal that Western governments will not tolerate abuse of women's rights. Additionally, the large opium production and the revenues generated from that will have to be addressed. The latter will give the West long-term problems.
Afghanistan is a beautiful country, with fine people. It is a nation that has known little other than conflict and, with it, has inherited 10 million unexploded

159
landmines throughout its cities and farmlands. Let us all pray that peace will come—and soon. I have one question for the Minister. What is the approach of the ODA in relation to humanitarian aid given the rapidly changing circumstances in Afghanistan?
And so to Colombia. Recent killings in the southern coca-growing regions have highlighted the essential need for world sensitivity to what is an international social menace. Countries caught up in the drugs scourge, whether it he at the production, distribution or consumption stages, all suffer. What is not generally known in Europe is that Colombia is being castigated by the United States, placing it in a category of pariah states, for not doing more to curtail the export of drugs. On 1st March, the United States Government decertified Colombia, which rightly feels that that is a kick below the belt. Certification is a unilateral annual review procedure under which the United States Government decide which of the producing or transit countries have co-operated fully in the fight against drugs. That policy against Colombia, instigated by the same Jesse Helms of Helms-Burton fame, has three mandatory effects: all aid except anti-drug is automatically stopped; Eximbank guarantees are no longer issued for transactions, and the United States will vote against loan requests by Colombia to the World Bank and the Inter-American Bank—in other words, yet more misery for the majority of law-abiding citizens.
It has to be said that the United Kingdom shares similar concerns and objectives to those of the United States, but we differ in approach. I believe that our policy of active and genuine co-operation in the drugs field is effective and is likely to yield the best practical results. That policy also helps to keep Colombian drugs out of the United Kingdom.
I am satisfied, however, as indeed is the American ambassador in Bogota, that many positive steps are being taken by the Colombian authorities. The anti-narcotic police can be singled out for their effectiveness and bravery, yet they are required to carry out their work with scant resources and a shortage of equipment and facilities. I have visited the coca-growing regions on patrol, landing by helicopter to flush out narco-guerillas who intimidate and manipulate peasant farmers. I have been briefed about the supply of essential chemicals for production that come principally from Europe and the United States.
I have spoken to bankers about money-laundering in the face of a singular lack of action by Western governments. I have seen how ineffective is the United States as the principal consuming nation in deterring domestic abuse. Yet, in the fight against drugs in Colombia 20,000 have lost their lives, including judges, members of the police force, journalists and innocent citizens. It has spent 14 times more than the amount allocated by the international community via the United Nations for combating illicit drugs.
Although Colombia has to address certain issues, the war against drugs must be a team effort, with every country, particularly the rich developed nations, working together in a constructive way. President Samper-Pizano has defended accusations by proposing
160
in the United Nations a number of positive measures as to how the world community should combat drugs. I believe that those proposals deserve international consideration.
I regret that many governments pay only lip service to measures for purely domestic political expediency. The anti-narcotic police singled out the United Kingdom as being particularly effective in areas such as intelligence co-operation and other matters. The reality is that the eradication of coca plantations is only part of the solution. Crop substitution and ensuring distribution mechanisms in domestic or international markets, combined with a formula that ensures a fair constant price to farmers, is equally part of that solution.
In the light of what I have explained to your Lordships, the Colombian authorities, who historically are dependent on relations with the United States, have taken the decision to diversify future relations and focus on the European Union and the United Kingdom in particular. I believe that one indication of that relationship is the fact that the Colombian Ambassador to London, who also holds the post of vice president, continues to serve in this country. For example, United Kingdom exports to Colombia have increased by 50 per cent. over the past 12 months.
In conclusion, I believe that for economic, political, military and intelligence co-operation the United Kingdom should recognise a close ally and rise to the challenge.
6.13 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, in 1979 many of your Lordships who are in the House today received letters from me regarding the BBC World Service. Those letters were part of a campaign at a very sensitive time to stop the Government's plan to cut £4 million off its £40 million budget. For many reasons that would have been a disaster. We won our campaign and the Government abandoned the cut. That happened thanks to the support of many of your Lordships hut, most of all, to the courage of my noble friend Lord Carrington, the then Foreign Secretary. I suppose that that marked the start of my involvement in politics. I tell your Lordships this because, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, has said, once again the BBC World Service is, alas, under threat. This time it is due for a £10 million cut. Taking into account inflation and the operating consequentials of the PFI, this adds up to nearly £20 million.
We have heard many speeches in this House lauding the unbiased high standard of the BBC World Service. We know the influence that it enjoys worldwide and the respect in which it is held. It is acknowledged internationally as the best broadcasting system in the world. It is one of the prides of Britain and one of our best ambassadors. Yet it is threatened once again. Surely we cannot allow these cuts to happen.
In the present climate I should perhaps declare an interest. Like many others, I listen to the BBC World Service every right wherever I am. Some may call us insomniacs. It is a sad condition when one cannot sleep except when it is time to get up and one keeps innocent

161
sheep jumping over a fence all night. Luckily, the BBC World Service comes to the rescue. Last night, I heard the results of the first round of the Bulgarian presidential elections held yesterday. That reminded me of the time when I went to canvass in that country in the first free election after the fall of the Berlin Wall. On discovering that I came from Britain, people came up to me not simply to speak but to thank me for the BBC World Service which was their lifeline.
As H.L. Menken said:
"Most people want security in this world, not liberty".
When it was not jammed, the BBC World Service gave people who were able to listen security, as they knew that the information that they received was sound and fair, but it also gave them the strength with which they eventually gained their liberty.
In the gracious Speech we heard that the Government would further reduce the share of the national income taken by the public sector. That is surely right, provided it is not part of the agreed grant-in-aid of the BBC World Service. The BBC World Service is funded by a parliamentary grant-in-aid through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office but remains managerially and editorially responsible to the Director General and Board of Governors of the BBC. Many of your Lordships will know the figures. However, for those who do not, I remind them that the World Service—our flagship abroad—was started in 1932. It reaches 140 million listeners a week and is heard in 42 different languages. It would be a tragedy if we were to broadcast only to countries which for the moment we felt needed the security of hearing the unbiased truth. It is just as vital to broadcast to those countries that today we feel may no longer need that security. Who knows what will happen tomorrow in this ever-changing world?
There are rumours that the Finnish service may be cut as that country is now part of the European Union. But 32 per cent. of the people of Finland listen to the World Service which is still the principal provider of international news. As we look around the world today without the cold war, it may seem to many to be a safer place. Sadly, I am less certain. As we have heard in two eloquent speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and my noble friend Lord Kingsland, Russia has changed dramatically since Stalin and Gorbachev but the situation is as fragile today as at any time in its turbulent history.
Africa, the Middle East and Afghanistan are examples. I could mention many other places where we would wish for more peaceful and stable situations and where people long for security. In the encouraging and inspiring speech of my noble friend Lady Chalker we heard about the importance of stability, which is in Britain's interest, as is the future security and prosperity of all the countries of the world. We cannot deny that the BBC plays a crucial part in this equation. The World Service has always played an important role worldwide because of its credibility and globality.
162
Mrs. Thatcher (as she was in the 1970s) so rightly said:
"There are two great challenges of our time—the moral and political challenge, and the economic challenge".
I believe that these challenges aptly apply to our external services. I hope that my noble friend Lord Howe will be able to provide an assurance that he will press the Chancellor on this subject. The BBC World Service must continue to be fully funded, and remain the BBC World Service.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly about an issue which is not only central to our European policy but which should be high up in our thoughts on our role on the world stage; that is, our trilateral relationship with Germany and France.
The importance of nursing and improving our relations with either bilaterally is too obvious to be stressed, but I believe that the axis Paris-Bonn is an axiom of European politics. A forum where all three can meet and consult overtly and regularly is urgently needed. It is needed irrespective of whether or when we join a single currency or opt in or out of this or that component of Maastricht. For there is hardly a single international issue which does not affect our three countries jointly and where our resources and experiences could not complement and enhance the triangle. If the European Union is to be enlarged, such a forum would be even more essential—a forum for consultation and constant monitoring and not a European directorate or executive committee. If France and Germany were able to forge a solid, complementary link, Britain for her part would bring to the table her permanent membership of the Security Council, her nuclear status and her staunch Atlanticism, which, while it might mildly disquiet the French, must reassure the Germans.
In that context, President Clinton's commitment to NATO enlargement implies continued American involvement and should allay fears of isolationism and an American retreat from European crises. But there are, alas, serious obstacles to a close, trilateral understanding—obstacles which are not only of a substantive political kind but also largely of a psychological kind, and some of them are of our own creation. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, initiated a debate on Anglo-German relations a few months ago, where forthright voices criticised the harsh and shrill anti-German tone pervading the European debate in this country, ranging from tabloids through broadsheets, from the Back Benches right up to the Front Bench of the Government.
Eurosceptic extremists continue to use language not heard since the Second World War, exuding bile and bias, distorting argument and, if it were not so serious, I would say farcically demonising the head of a German Government, who more than any of his predecessors distanced himself from the idea of a centralised superstate or the loss of cultural and indeed political identity of the member states of the European Union.

163
Yet it was Chancellor Kohl and Germany which were the butt of the attacks in all the speeches of the much advertised Referendum Party conference in Brighton. All the ills of the Union were blamed on Germany; its very creation was said to have been a German plot. The names of Jean Monnet and Robert Schumann were never mentioned. With its populist speeches and bizarre historical analogies it represented a nadir of political discussion and may, as such, earn a footnote in British political history. But I think that some of the rankling misgivings among ourselves about France and Germany could still be allayed. I was much impressed by the trenchant and lucid analysis by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, of the differing conceptions in Britain and Germany of the nature of federalism—differences which are both semantic and deeply philosophical. That is just one example.
If the European debate were to be put on to the right rails, and if the British Government and their successors were to face the challenging opportunity and the duty to raise the quality of the European debate, that could help a great deal, and the British public deserves it.
To try to harmonise the perceptions of enlightened national interest among the three European neighbours does not mean to surrender distinctive preferences or abandon initiatives, but serious consultation could avoid dangerous aberrations. We could learn a good deal from Franco-German relations. They have, of course, occasional turbulences and there is an underlying wariness, but there are mechanisms for constant discussions and exchanges and frequent realignments of policy.
Though public discussion is now centering around the ERM and the Euro, I find thorough discussion of European attitudes to crisis areas, such as the Middle East, most important and as it is a worrying situation. That is why I believe that President Chirac's visit to that troubled region was neither happy nor helpful. I do not question the fact that, like his predecessor, President Mitterrand, he wanted to help the peace process along and raise Europe's profile, but, unlike his predecessor, he exchanged the role of umpire for that of partisan. He arrived with a rolled European umbrella which when unfurled turned into a French parasol. He stiffened, in consequence, intransigence on both sides. He gave little comfort to the moderate Israeli camp, yet warmed the heart of President Assad, whose dour negativism contributed decisively to the Israeli election result, and he had a crumb of comfort for Saddam Hussein.
But, above all, the main perception of the visit, as it has been seen by most people in the Middle East and elsewhere, has been a clear attempt to undermine the role of the United States as the chief mediator in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Sir Leon Brittan's statement distancing Europe from President Chirac's anti-American sallies were timely, as I think also were the remarks of the right honourable gentleman the Foreign Secretary.
The thesis that the American mandate should be diluted sent dangerous signals yet further afield. Why should not Russia accept with alacrity the idea that America must not be allowed to play a pre-eminent
164
role? Enter Mr. Primakov, a lifelong ally of President Saddam Hussein and supporter of President Assad, from the Andropov and Brezhnev days. Before we know it, we might well be back at the power poker game in the Middle East of the late 1960s and early 1970s.
We all know that peace-making is a delicate affair. In the Arab-Israeli conflict, Europe has a legitimate claim to be consulted, but it must be done discreetly, even-handedly, and compassionately. The Germans have an impeccable record: they are dispensing financial and technical aid in Gaza and the West Bank efficiently and yet keep a low profile; they have been helpful with prisoner exchange and the search for missing persons. Europe must play an important part—and indeed Russia and Japan might have much to contribute—during the later phases of negotiations, but only the United States can effect breakthroughs; and therefore an erosion of American influence or reputation in the region is a serious threat to the prospects of peace. In that region, as indeed anywhere else in our troubled world, Britain, France and Germany, working together trilaterally and harmoniously, could facilitate real progress and build enduring bridges.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I realise that there are many still to speak. I shall therefore try to keep my speech relatively short. I wish to support the World Service, which means it already has the support of three speakers. I believe that my noble friend Lord Howe will deal with the subject in his reply.
The Treasury always thinks up tame ideas for new Ministers. When I arrived at the Admiralty the budget was being discussed. I was quickly told that we could save a great deal of money if we got rid of the Gurkhas. I said, "But the Gurkhas are the people we need to fight terrorism." If we had enough Gurkhas in Ireland, I believe that terrorism would disappear very quickly. The Treasury tries it on everyone who arrives there. People are always told, "Get rid of the Gurkhas." Anyone who has any sense or who has any knowledge of the Gurkhas and how they operate says, "Don't get rid of them. They are the one group of people whom we need above all else for this sort of terrorist war we are now coping with".
We should not cut the budget allocation to the World Service. I can think of places in the BBC where there could be cuts. Do we really need local radio when it is duplicated by commercial stations? I lived at Newbury at one time and listened to two stations. The BBC had something like 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. of the listeners; the other had something like 10 per cent. Why try to cover the whole of the waterfront when one has specialisation?
I query also whether the BBC has a surplus of staff, even today. I know that several thousand jobs have been axed but judging from the credit titles one sees there is room for manoeuvre and economy. I am cynical too about the digital expansion. I wonder whether the BBC is right in believing that 50 television channels will be taken up by the populace. Television sets used to need

165
replacing every three years; now they are very good. I wonder whether millions of people will spend money unnecessarily buying black boxes to put on top of them.
The document published by the BBC and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office runs to some 16 pages and patience is needed to read it. However, it appears to be along the right lines. It contains many assurances that, "We will do this, that and the other". But we need to keep a check. Such undertakings are easy to give but sometimes that is the last one hears of them. We must carefully monitor the situation.
Perhaps I may give an example. One keeps cuttings because they can come in useful. I found one relating to Mrs. Bottomley answering a Question in the other place. She said:
"He will know that the introduction of the Broadcasting Standards Council, which combines the strengths of its two predecessor bodies, is intended to ensure that with the greater freedoms that come out of the digital revolution there will also be an enhanced sense of responsibility in the interests of audiences and the public".
The punchline is:
"I am determined that the BSC's work will be strengthened. There will be a requirement to keep a note of the steps that programme makers take as a result of complaints that have been upheld".— [Official Report, Commons, 18/12/95; col. 1210]
We have just had a long Summer Recess. That is the time to read the complaints bulletin. Each copy takes a great deal of reading. It is published each month. There are those who say that approximately 40 per cent. of the public's complaints are upheld. If that is so they are not printed in this document. Sometimes there are a host of complaints; sometimes there are only one or two. According to a recent bulletin, out of 92 complaints eight were upheld. That is ridiculous. Why do we have a so-called strengthened regulatory authority if that is the success that is achieved?
For some time I have been pressing for a new code in order that we do not have the bullying of Ministers and shadow Ministers by people at the BBC, particularly those on the "Today" programme. The interviewer, talking about BSE, repeatedly said, "Answer the question". I believe that he said it eight times, but the Minister said, "I must first get the scientific report from the Minister of Agriculture". The codes to which I refer laid down strict conditions and were called producers' guidelines. I have met producers who ask, "What is that code?". The person who ran the organisation said, "They are just guidelines. They are voluntary. You don't have to obey them."
When one takes a job with the Ministry of Defence one has to sign the Official Secrets Act. Why should not those who broadcast to millions and who have considerable influence on the public in this country sign a document stating that they have read, marked, learnt and inwardly digested the material in the producers' codes? Why are they not compulsory for all those who have such influence?
I am told that the codes have been drafted and redrafted and that they will appear on 11th November. The new Agreement and Charter came into effect on 1st May—a significant day for Members opposite—and therefore there has been no compulsory code for five
166
months. It is surprising that we should have done away with the old code without working out what producers should produce in the interim. That depends on the governors. We in this House were somewhat sceptical about whether the governors would have the power, influence or determination to rule the 20,000 people who work for the BBC. Certainly those at the top end have a high opinion of their ability and what they are worth in terms of the money they draw in expenses and salaries. I wonder whether the governors will have the guts, courage and firmness of purpose to carry out the recommendation of this House and the other place concerning impartiality. The Select Committee strongly emphasised impartiality. Most of the recommendations were set aside by the Government, possibly with a little nudging from the BBC and its staff.
We wish the governors well, and we wish them firmness of purpose. But we do not want secrecy. The one flaw in the World Service drama is the fact that it was kept completely secret not only from the governors but from those in command of the various sections of the BBC. Amazingly, the information did not leak out. Normally, such information "comes into our possession", it being a secret document presumably from the Cabinet. One always wonders whether such a document is genuine or whether someone has been persuaded to release information.
We wish the governors well. We wish them firmness of purpose and dedication to the principle which has long been spoken of in this House and another place. We know that they comprise strong people and that they set good and high standards. I wish that those were a little more universal. I support the report from the FCO and the BBC but I believe that the assurances need monitoring carefully. We must also monitor the financial control in that powerful corporation.
6.38 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I wish to concentrate my few remarks on women and overseas aid. I decided to speak on this subject because it is just over a year since I had the privilege to attend the fourth UN World Conference on Women held in Beijing. I led the delegation from the Council of Europe and so represented the 39 member countries. A further reason for speaking tonight is that I wish to put on record the continuing plight of women.
At that world conference 189 governments subscribed either wholly or partially to the Beijing Declaration and the 345 clauses of the Platform of Action. The UK Government made no reservations. The aim of the conference was to set out the strategies for the future in the years up to and beyond the year 2000. Those strategies were drawn from the UN conferences and summits held during the previous decade and all were designed to improve the lives of women throughout the world, but primarily in the developing countries. I am anxious to assess progress.
In making my comments I wish to make it clear that I welcome the Minister's support on gender issues. The Minister's speech to the Beijing Conference recognised women's right to freedom of choice not only as regards

167
sexual and reproductive health but also work, education, politics and the management of household resources and expenditure. In that speech the Minister committed the UK Government to the centrality of women to the aid programme when she said:
"If improvements in women's lives are to be seen, governments and non-governmental organisations must give priority to tackling the problems of women within their regions. The UK aid programme is ready to help; Making Aid Work for Women".
It may be that the role of women in developing countries is not seen to have the same level of importance as some of the weightier issues that we have been considering this afternoon. I would therefore wish to remind the House of some of the current facts. The Human Development Report 1995—the United Nations Development Programme—documented these in great detail. This annual publication analyses the performance of each country in the world, measured not just by traditional measures of economic growth but by what the economic growth is doing for people, for human development.
The report demonstrates that the causes of growing impoverishment in the poorest countries in the world are the same as the causes of growing inequality within the richest countries. The result is that poverty grows, illiteracy spreads and children die of preventable illnesses. The stark fact is—and I quote:
"that in no society today do women enjoy the same opportunities as men".
Adult women suffer more than men from malnutrition. For example, of adults suffering from iron deficiency anaemia, 458 million are women and 238 million are men. Of the world's 900 million illiterate people, women outnumber men by two to one. Girls constitute the majority of the 130 million children who are without access to primary school. Because in some developing regions population has grown faster than women's education has expanded, the number of women who are illiterate has actually increased. Of the estimated 1.5 billion people living in poverty, more than 70 per cent. are female and in the last two decades the number of rural women living in absolute poverty rose by nearly 50 per cent. Globally, women's participation in the labour force has risen by only 3.5 percentage points in the past 20 years, to 39.5 per cent. in 1990. That compares with the participation rate for men of 58 per cent. Similarly, women's wages are on average considerably lower than men's.
So, one year later, how has aid worked for women? How much progress has been made by the United Kingdom aid programme in promoting gender equality? I await with interest to hear the strategy that has been adopted post-Beijing, together with the results of the consultation with a wide range of experts, NGOs and parliamentarians. In the meantime and, I hope, in a constructive spirit, I would like to ask a number of questions. I appreciate of course that, given my failure to give notice of these questions, they may not be replied to today, but I hope that they will be replied to in the future.
I would like to ask if there has been any increase in the level of aid specifically for projects designed to address the needs of women and, if so, at what level and
168
how that extra funding has been used. As the United Kingdom Government committed themselves in Beijing to a policy of mainstreaming a gender perspective into all policies and programmes, what is the strategy for integrating the gender perspective into all aid activities? Further, are there any specific initiatives to enhance women's empowerment as a key area? I appreciate that women's empowerment has been a key element in many speeches made by the noble Baroness, and not least in her speech to the overseas development group at the end of 1995. Finally, if there are positive answers to these questions, how is the progress being monitored?
The European Union has a key role to play, as a large and increasing proportion of our overseas aid is distributed through the European Union's aid and development co-operation programmes. Consequently, the European Union's Development Council resolution on gender equality, which received positive support from the United Kingdom Government, should make a material difference to programmes for women in mainstreaming and targeting activities to reduce the gender gap, which must be an integral part of all aid activities. I believe that to help to implement that resolution, the ODA is proposing seconding to the European Union a social development or population adviser. Appreciating the present complex organisational structure of European Union development assistance, is it possible for such a secondment to be truly effective without there first being some streamlining of the European Union structure? In this context I would be interested to learn how many United Kingdom advisers have been seconded in the last two years to the European Union. Were they effective and how was their effectiveness measured?
I acknowledge the commitment of the ODA to putting more effort into programmes to reduce poverty and the suffering of the poor, for better primary health care and primary education. However, again I need some answers. What criterion will be used for measuring improvements in education quality? Will it be based on a simple reduction in illiteracy among women? What are the targets for reducing the level of maternal mortality? Is the: target set in Cairo of a reduction to half its 1990 level by the year 2000, and half again by the year 2015, realistic and obtainable?
As I have said, I do not question the commitment of the ODA but, as my noble friend Lady Blackstone said, we must start to reverse the relentless cuts in United Kingdom aid spending, and dramatically shift resources towards targeted programmes to help the poorest people in the poorest countries. I appreciate that aid is not a complete strategy for reducing poverty but any increase would be fundamental in helping the 1.5 billion people who live in poverty. I would again remind your Lordships that 70 per cent. of these are women. It would help to reduce tie number of people who die each year of poverty or poverty-related causes, which is estimated at between 13 million and 18 million people: mostly children. That represents 1,700 people per hour and in fact, if we think about it, during the time we have been debating this subject 6,000 people will have died of poverty. It will help the billion people who live in households too poor to obtain the food necessary for

169
normal work. It will help in developing more programmes on preventive health, on providing clean water, on family planning and reproductive healthcare: programmes which take account of the enormous contribution that women make.
We must never ignore that contribution. Many of the structural causes of poverty cannot be tackled without recognising and addressing gender inequalities. The participation of women in decision making is crucial, particularly in determining country aid strategies. We must put the rights, needs and interests of women at the heart of aid and economic reforms. We must also continue to audit all aid programmes for their impact on women, children, the poor and the environment. I should like to end by quoting from the 1995 United Nations Development Programme report:
"Investing in women's capabilities and empowering them to exercise their choices is not only valuable in itself but is also the surest way to contribute to economic growth and overall development".
6.48 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, the fascinating speech just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, would have been music to the ears of the great author Laurens van der Post, who for many years has been petitioning for the improved plight of women in Africa.
Her Majesty's Speech committed the Government to their continued contribution to the maintenance of international peace and stability and the maintenance of a substantial aid programme to help improve the quality of life in poorer countries, thereby contributing to sustainable development and the reduction of poverty and suffering.
In my few remarks today I should like to focus on a subject which has not been raised so far but which has always been raised in previous foreign affairs debates: that is, the current situation of South Africa. The historic state visit here earlier this year of President Nelson Mandela was without doubt an unqualified success. Certainly his address from Westminster Hall, which many of your Lordships attended, will be a lasting memory for all of us.
There is no doubt that Nelson Mandela has achieved the political miracle in South Africa, not just by succeeding in bringing back democracy to his country and his peoples, but also in his success in managing to promote a culture of reconciliation among all the peoples of South Africa. However, this slogan of the South African miracle is true but also beguiling. It is true because the transfer of political power was unexpectedly smooth, but it is also beguiling because it drew attention away from the country's immense economic challenges. Many fear that if the economic challenges are not met and if economic policy is not transformed, the world will forget about the political miracle and before long will see South Africa as a failed economy.
It is no secret that the expectations of the emancipated have been extremely high and that there has been slow progress in meeting those needs. There were high hopes
170
that the reconstruction and development programme would provide jobs, houses and education. The reality has been that the RDP has been slow and erratic. Social and economic improvements particularly for the majority of the black peoples must be visible and must be sustained. Researches estimate that 65 per cent. of those unemployed in South Africa are under the age of 30 and that fewer than 5 per cent. of about 450,000 school leavers every year are able to find jobs after completing their schooling in the formal sector. However, I am pleased to say that up to 25 per cent. of that number find employment in the informal sector. Many commentators believe that the high unemployment rates among the youth of South Africa are the major source of the crime problems in the country. Many have lost faith in the ability of both the Government and the police to curb crime, with the result that vigilante forces such as PAGAD (People against Gangsterism and Drugs) have taken the law into their own hands in Cape Town.
During President Mandela's recent visit here, I was interviewed by a major radio station and asked whether the president's successful visit would lead to a,
"tidal wave of inward investment into South Africa".
In the few minutes before I was on air I could not help but listen to what was being discussed. Almost all the news revolved around car hijackings, murders and organised crime. I could not help saying that while I believed that the opportunities for inward investment in South Africa were enormous, a number of preconditions, such as a committed drive to curb violence and create economic certainty, were essential before there could be any sustained inward investment.
The Economist of 12th October has a picture of Nelson Mandela on the front cover. It aptly summarised the three new anxieties that stand out in South Africa as lawlessness, unemployment and political accountability. A number of outspoken comments from politicians and trade union leaders there have also scared off not just potential inward investors but have also led to a brain drain which the country can sorely afford. Nicky Oppenheimer, deputy chairman of the Anglo-American group, De Beers, said,
"in an economic world without boundaries, politicians can no longer afford the luxury of different voices for different audiences, different strokes for different folks".
Many believe that without new industries and jobs South Africa's historic prosperity might slide into a permanent third world status. With crime statistics at an all time high and with the rand having collapsed over 25 per cent. against the dollar this year, there is a desperate need for a calm yet firm resolve. There is a wide and strong consensus among all South Africans that the time for decisive action is now. I still remain optimistic that the current impasse and deterioration in South Africa can be resolved. It has been no small order for the ANC to take over the reins from the Nationalist Party and to endeavour to address the many demands placed on it. I have been particularly impressed by the calibre of the new Cabinet ministers and their openness in seeking advice and assistance from foreign governments. I firmly believe that the low ebb of confidence in South Africa is a transitional phase and

171
that the Government have the resolve and also the ability to restore confidence. However, that will require full co-operation between government, the private sector and civil servants.
One of the major challenges facing the ANC will be to deliver an improvement in education and training. There is no doubt that one of the major reasons for the dilemma in the job market in South Africa is the inferior education that was given to the blacks during the apartheid years of the previous government; the so-called "lost generation". While unskilled black labour is cheap but unproductive, skilled labour is scarce and extremely expensive. Many parents have become disillusioned with the education system, claiming that it is only of an academic nature and that it does not provide any entrepreneurial or technological skills to give students more opportunities in the job market. In Gauteng—which was formerly known as the Transvaal—only one school offers both entrepreneurial and technical skills. A number of British charities, such as the SAN Foundation—of which I am a trustee—have sought to assist the South African Government in addressing these needs.
However, Her Majesty's Government have played a full role in promoting political and economic prosperity in South Africa. Apart from the many government initiatives, the work of the many NGOs that have effectively been operating there for many years needs to be commended. I wholeheartedly endorse the accolades of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester—I am sorry that he has made his last speech in your Lordships' House—for the tireless work of the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, who is not in the Chamber at present, in seeking a peaceful resolution to conflicts in many of the trouble spots around the world. I particularly commend her successes in South and southern Africa.
Earlier this year I initiated a debate in your Lordships' House calling attention to political and economic development in southern Africa. There is no doubt that southern Africa has undergone a form of metamorphosis over the past 10 years, propelled in part by the fall of communism and the end of the Cold War, but also by the final ending of minority rule in South Africa. Southern Africa appears to be more united and resolute than ever in confronting the problems it must solve in the region. However, there are obviously a number of hiccups. The spectre of the renewed civil war in Angola, and an upsurge of ethnic violence in Burundi and Rwanda—that has been mentioned by many noble Lords this evening—have heightened the need for regional security in southern Africa. There have been recent calls for the establishment of a 10,000 strong African crisis reaction force. Much of the backing for that initiative would come from the United States, with Britain, Canada, Ireland and Belgium all offering their financial support too. Clearly peace and stability are essential for social and economic development in southern Africa.
In conclusion, the political miracle of South Africa must be complemented with a socio-economic miracle not just for South Africa but also for southern Africa. My hope is that Her Majesty's Government will continue with their commitment to meet that end.
7 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, it is generally believed that the purpose of this debate is to discuss Her Majesty's gracious Speech. I shall, therefore, begin with a quotation from it. It sets out Her Majesty's Government's attitude towards Europe as,
"an outward-looking, economically liberal and flexible Union based on a partnership of nations".
That, I believe would and does command the entire support of the Conservative Party and, I would think, of many of no party.
I would at one time have thought that it might also have commanded the support of Her Majesty's Opposition. But I had not then heard the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who seems to have been converted by her visit to Brussels to a stance of welcoming a much tighter and closer form of European integration. Indeed, at one moment I wondered whether she was going to make a sideways move in the House and find herself on the Liberal Democrat Benches, where that stance is common and accepted. But things go on at present between the Opposition parties as the public opinion polls begin to call into question the optimism that the noble Baroness showed about her access to office. But perhaps I am being unduly cynical. What was characteristic of the noble Baroness's speech was not so much political calculation as that customary innocence of hers about the realities of international politics which is delightful to listen to and which makes me glad that we shall see her in her place on the Opposition Front Bench for many years to come—more years perhaps than I have left to live.
Let me take one example of that innocence. She referred to the mission of President Chirac to the Middle East. As the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, pointed out in his rapid transit through the House earlier, that visit was an almost unparalleled disaster. But the important point is that the noble Baroness does not seem to see that what President Chirac was interested in was not ameliorating the plight of the Palestinians, with which we must all have sympathy, but simply trying to reassert a longstanding wish on the part of France to be the dominant country in Syria and the Lebanon. If the noble Baroness had studied the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the origins of the Crimean War or any of the other material which is essential to understanding the situation in the Middle East and the policy of France, she might have taken a different line.
However, I use that only as an example. The main point surely about Europe—it is becoming increasingly evident—is that it is not only Britain which has a Government who put their national interest first but that that is equally true of all European governments, and of the larger ones in particular. I suspect that when the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, found Britain unpopular in Brussels, it was not among the inhabitants of the European Continent but among the commissioners and the officials of the institutions of Europe—the so-called European Union—who by their actions and policies have done more to damage good relations between the countries of Europe than any other single set of persons. I speak as a Europhile, although I have no doubt that the noble Baroness thinks of me as

173
a Eurosceptic. But it is, after all, good relations with all the countries of Europe which concern us. There was a particularly interesting contribution earlier in the debate about Ukraine.
What is happening? We see the desperate desire of the important countries in central Europe, recently freed, to our applause, from the thralls of Soviet-imposed communism, to have the advantages of belonging to Western Europe and to have their economies embraced by Western Europe. What do they face? They face the protectionism of German, French and Italian agriculture putting up absurd barriers to trade in the products which they can produce more cheaply; therefore violating the whole notion that the European Union as it now stands is for the benefit of Europe as a whole.
I believe that there is also a great error—it comes up in speeches in your Lordships' House and in other places—in talking of Europe meaning the governments at present in power in the European countries and the Civil Service elites, or sometimes the industrial elites with which they are aligned. But we see almost daily that from the point of view of the peoples of these countries the European Union, whatever its appeal may have been in earlier years, no longer commands respect. The German people as a whole quite understandably reject the idea of monetary union which is said to be the indissoluble part of the next stage of European integration. No doubt the French Government are so far committed to that prospect. But the French people, witnessing mounting unemployment, and the social unrest that comes from unemployment, through trying to meet the so-called Maastricht criteria are of a different opinion.
As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, the Italian Government, incapable of running their own affairs, wish to put them in the hands of Brussels. There is no evidence that the Italian people who once fought for a united and independent Italy take the same view. In other words, Britain has revealed herself to be honest about something over which other countries are now beginning to be honest.
The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, lives in a world so remote from the one that I recognise that I find our debates across the Floor rather difficult. Let me take one example. He raised the notion—it has been raised in this House many times—that the words "Blind" and "federation" mean different things to the Germans and the British. That is nonsense. The Germans understand the logic of federal government in the way in which the British, the Americans and others who have experienced federal forms of government, or have imposed them on others, understand it. The difference is not in understanding what a federal system is; the difference comes from the point at which one starts. The Germans, having started from a century of highly centralised government, culminating in the tragedy of Nazism, naturally welcomed a federal system because to some extent it reversed the centralising elements of that century. But for countries which have been independent, to enter a federal system means sacrificing that role for an approach with which they have no automatic sympathy. It may well be that the Liberal Democrats
174
really do welcome the idea of this Parliament being no more or less important than the state assembly of Schleswig-Holstein. However, I doubt whether even they would go to the country on that platform.
I am sorry. I have bored the House with this subject before, but it is a serious matter. The logic of the whole movement towards European integration piloted by the Franco-German alliance has been towards a federal system. Indeed, it is extraordinary that people argue about the single currency from any other point of view. As any economist of repute will agree, you cannot have an area which has a single currency and does not have a government who are in the last resort responsible for maintaining the value of that currency and ensuring its free circulation. But you also cannot have a system with a single currency, such as that of the United States of America, without mobility of labour of a very considerable kind in order that the different impact of a particular monetary or fiscal policy on different parts of the country can be met. Also, and perhaps even more importantly, there must be a taxation system which enables people to move resources to the weaker or poorer parts of that conglomeration. It is done in the United States—
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I think the difference between us is rather less than he makes out. The point that I sought to make was that in the German experience that country's federal system has worked very satisfactorily. The Germans give a certain word to that. They are therefore inclined to feel that when the same word is used in connection with a wider European construction, that must have some good points too. We have not had that experience, so we approach it from a different angle and therefore have this misconception. I am not sure that the noble Lord is saying anything different from what I said.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I believe I am. The Germans might say, "Look, we do frightfully well under a federal system; why don't you have one United Kingdom? Why don't you have Scotland, Wales, Mercia and Northumbria like the German Länder? It's a much better way than having a centralised government". It would be a piece of advice which we might or might not take. But they do not say that. They are saying that the United Kingdom as a whole must have the same experience and the same position as a German Land, and that is a very, very different matter.
It might work, let us say, three or four centuries from now. Economic and cultural intercourse between the states of Europe may develop such links across the borders that all feel themselves to be Europeans, as all Americans feel themselves to be Americans. But at the moment the idea that the Danes are willing to be taxed to support the social services in Greece is rather far-fetched. It is essential now that this subject be properly debated. One of the great difficulties is that, while in this House we have a chance to discuss it once or twice a year, there has never been an issue of such importance to the future of this country that has been so little debated in public. That is perhaps because the

175
arguments have been whirling round inside political parties. But until the debate becomes public and until people appreciate what it is they are being asked to do, it is an extraordinary void in our concept of parliamentary democracy that we should think that the matter can be decided by the CBI or any other non-elected bodies which claim to hold views on this all-important subject.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he accept that while I do not particularly mind being patronised by him and told that my position is one of an innocent, I do rather dislike being misrepresented? Will he accept that my only reference to M. Chirac was to say that we on this side of the House support the stance he took in relation to the building of further Jewish settlements on the West Bank? I made no comments about his motivation, nor about any European initiative in the Middle East and whether it would work. The position I took was the position of the Labour Party. It is one that is also taken by the Government which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, from time to time supports.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I am very deeply affected by the thought that I could have intentionally misrepresented the noble Baroness. I can only say that the trouble with these debates is that even when they are not time-limited we feel that there is a time limit. My point is that, had it not been the intention of France to re-establish its position in reference to Syria and Lebanon, the question of Jewish settlements on the West Bank, important though it is, would not have figured much in M. Chirac's pronouncements.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I rise with some hesitation to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, since much of what I first learnt about British foreign policy—learnt, I hope, as well as I could—was from the then Professor Beloff at Oxford. I also learnt much about federalism from the then Professor Beloff, who was at the time chairman of the Liberal Party's "machinery of government" panel. As I recall, he was in favour of a federal structure for Britain. I still look forward to a time when Scotland may have as strong a position as Schleswig-Holstein in a federal European Union. I indeed look forward to the time when a partnership of nations may apply as much to a United Kingdom of several nations as the British, or English, Government that we now have wishes to apply to the European Union itself.
I wish, however, to follow the noble Lord's suggestion that the exam question set was that we should discuss the Queen's Speech. I shall confine myself to several of the statements made therein. I wish to discuss in particular the commitment to the enlargement of NATO and of the European Union.
I noted with some hesitation that the implied commitment to the enlargement of NATO seemed to be stronger and more definite than the statement that Her Majesty's Government,
"will work towards the opening of accession negotiations [to the European Union] with countries of Central and Eastern Europe".
176
That prospect is not very distant. Potentially we are talking about new members joining NATO in April 1999 on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Atlantic Treaty—that is, in two-and-a-half years' time. We may conceivably be talking of the first new members joining the European Union by the year 2000, or certainly by 2001. Four years from now, 2001, is the most likely eventuality. That represents a fundamental process in the transformation of Europe. It is not just a set of minor arrangements. It is about the reunification of Europe and therefore also about Europe's transformation. The process should therefore be one of the most important priorities of British foreign policy and one about which the Government should be making a major effort to inform and educate the public. I regret that fewer British Ministers have been travelling round the applicant countries in the last 12 months than have those of our partner countries. I recall that some years ago the British Prime Minister invested time and effort symbolising the importance of Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and elsewhere. I wish that the Government would, within the next few months, return to emphasising to its own domestic public how important this is.
The two processes must be seen together, not as an American-led process of NATO enlargement and a German-led process of EU enlargement, with Britain following the Americans loyally and faithfully and the Germans reluctantly. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that the significance of NATO enlargement in terms of adding to Britain's military commitment is such that the Government should explain fully to the public what the intention is. I agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, that enlargement must also involve the transformation of NATO, not simply the extension of the alliance in its current form to include Poland and one or two other states. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that the largest risk is to those countries like Ukraine which are likely to be left outside.
I read the reports of the Bergen NATO ministerial meeting with some puzzlement. It seemed to me that the US Secretary of Defense acted remarkably unilaterally not only in his dealings with the Russians but also in his announcement to the representatives of the Baltic states as to why they were not to be considered as members, at least not within the foreseeable future. I was relieved to see in the article in The Times last week by the Secretary of State for Defence that he sees more than one round of NATO enlargement. The fear of other east European states is that Poland will come in with one or two others and that will be all. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that it is indeed the commitment of this Government that NATO enlargement will not stop with the first two or three to enter.
I was also relieved to see in the Secretary of State's article a strong commitment to partnership with Russia. If the enlargement of NATO is to involve at the same time a negotiation of partnership with Russia of the sort which Bill Perry was talking about, perhaps involving a treaty, then we are indeed talking about the transformation of NATO. We need to talk about the way in which NATO and the OSCE combine together in the

177
future. We should perhaps ask the Government for some further explanation of how they see the security organisations operating in a future organised Europe.
However, I see the enlargement of the European Union as much more fundamental, important and difficult. It is clear that the Baltic states will come into the European Union. As we advance towards the first enlargement, it is important that we think about how we can take into account the more difficult states which are unlikely to join immediately. It would be extremely easy to leave Romania and Bulgaria outside. Many of us would happily leave them outside for a very long time. Albania, Slovakia and Croatia also create real problems for us all. But, if we are talking about the future security and prosperity of Europe as a whole, then we need a concerted policy towards all of them. That is not something which Britain can do alone. It is something which any British Government must work out in the closest possible concert with its partners—Germany, France, Italy and other countries.
The second point I wish to raise is what seems to me to be the illusions in the Queen's Speech about Britain's role in Europe. It suggests that what Britain wants to see is an outward-looking, economically liberal and flexible union based on a partnership of nations, implying that the continental countries are inward looking, economically protectionist, corporatist and deeply inflexible. As it happens, the European Union has in the last two or three years been edging much more firmly towards economically liberal policies and further away from corporatism. I welcome that. It seems to me to be something which a British Government ought at the very least to acknowledge. I regret that one still hears portrayed in Conservative circles the image of a corporatist Europe versus an Asian/US model of free trade, as I remember the Prime Minister saying not long ago. The idea that the United States and the east Asian economies somehow represent the same model of free trade is something I have great difficulty in grasping—as much difficulty as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has in grasping the concept of federalism for the United Kingdom.
We are a European country and our economy has rather more European aspects than perhaps the Government are prepared to accept. The Government are in favour of a flexible Europe. "Flexibility" is a deeply ambiguous word and, as the Government are discovering, a double-edged sword of a word. The British Government are in favour of a Europe which is flexible just so long as it does not exclude Britain from any of the things we do not want it to be flexible about. The word is being increasingly applied by other governments to a strategy in which the purpose of a flexible Europe will be precisely to exclude those awkward British.
I am sorry to have to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that the reputation of Britain on the continent, not just within the European institutions but within other governments and other capitals, is currently low. British influence in the European Union is sinking and British Ministers are becoming less effective, sadly,
178
in some cases, even cordially disliked, just as the European Union is moving towards preferred British approaches to economic policy.
My wife spoke at a conference in The Hague some weeks ago on the triangular relationship between Britain, the Netherlands and Germany. One of the guiding lights of the Conservative Right spoke alongside her. After this man had finished speaking, one of the most distinguished experts on Dutch policy, much respected throughout the Netherlands, said to my wife, "Did he set out deliberately to be rude to all of us or is he slightly mad?" If British Ministers and others leave that impression on their continental colleagues, then they are not serving Britain's national interests. I make that comment very soberly and strongly. I am conscious that it is a strong criticism to make of one's Government, but Ministers have to recognise that that is the impression that is sometimes given.
The next paragraph of the speech says:
"My Government … will continue to work for transatlantic free trade".
I have spent time professionally in the last three years working on the question of transatlantic free trade. I should declare an interest. I was for some time employed as the research director for the Transatlantic Policy Network. I became increasingly convinced, as many of us did, that the idea of transatlantic free trade as a transatlantic free trade area, much beloved of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, is a will o' the wisp. One slips very easily into the idea that somehow we white industrial nations have closer relations with each other than we have with the Asian industrial nations. At the same time the United States is investing immense effort in developing the Asia-Pacific Economic Council. Indeed, American economic interests are as strongly engaged in relations with China, Japan and ASEAN as they are in relations with us. It is very important to keep the United States economically and politically engaged with Europe, but we should not invest time and effort pursuing the idea that there is somehow an alternative to closer involvement in Europe. The three most important countries for British foreign policy have for the last 100 years been Germany, France and the United States. They remain Germany, France and the United States, and we should ensure that we cultivate good relations with all three, not attempt to favour one at the expense of the others.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I welcome the turn that the debate has taken and in particular the speeches about Britain's membership of the European Union and the hope that we shall eventually be able to establish a partnership of nations therein. As my noble friend Lord Beloff pointed out a few moments ago, the matter is seldom debated. If it is debated, it tends to be in 500 well chosen words straight from the shoulder in a newspaper such as the Sun or the Daily Mirror. We have very few chances in Parliament, the broadsheet press or the tabloids to discuss this most crucial of matters for our country. It is good that we have a moment to do so this evening in your Lordships' House.

179
The Government are to be congratulated on the efforts they are making to try to build that partnership. But I am afraid that they have been swimming manfully against a rising tide of europhobia, which in some cases has reached the level of a hatred of foreigners and in particular a dislike of Germany. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, a few moments ago and in a debate not so long ago in your Lordships' House. It used to be the French but now it seems that the Germans have taken the honoured place of the people we most like to dislike. The question of Germany is again and again to be seen on our television screens and in the media, and is discussed by various Members of another place and in your Lordships' House.
I imagine that it is very difficult for the Government to try to face that question soberly when every few weeks they see yet another explosion of anti-German feeling. I have in mind, for instance, the recent football competition which was seen by the Daily Mirror in terms of a blitzkrieg; and references to Huns and Krauts are commonplace in the tabloid press. It was seen in the recent controversy about British beef and those responsible for the crisis about British beef. The blame was laid fairly and squarely at the door of Germany, as though Germany was the first country to have banned British beef. As I am sure your Lordships know full well, British beef was banned in the United States and Canada some years ago. If it were not for the European Union we should be very hard pressed to sell any beef at all beyond our shores. The question of compensation would also be a very difficult one to try to resolve.
The question of a single currency is very important and that, too, is hardly debated, except in terms of "Are the Germans trying to abolish Her Majesty the Queen?" or "Are they trying to do what they failed to do in 1945—take over our Parliament with their tanks?" That is the message that one sees again and again in the Daily Express or indeed in the broadsheet newspapers. If my noble friend Lord Beloff wants to see this matter debated more responsibly or carefully, I hope in all honesty that he will talk to some of his friends in the broadsheet media so that a fair range of arguments can be discussed, particularly on the question of a single currency.
Like most of the British public I am simply unable to make up my mind yet as to whether we should have a single currency and whether or not it is in Britain's interest to have it. Will being inside a single currency add to the influence that Britain wields over our own economy or will it detract from it? Some say one thing and some say another. Instinctively, most British people feel that we shall lose a measure of our own economic sovereignty, but I am not sure that that is the overbearing argument on this very complicated economic point.
How important is it for us to have control over our interest rates? In the past we have used control over our interest rates to devalue the pound. We all remember that a few years ago £1 was worth 12 deutschmarks. It is now worth little more than 2 deutschmarks. We have used the "weapon" of devaluation—if that is the right word for it—in order to keep our export industries alive. But will we always need in future to be able to devalue
180
our currency or will we be able to find some other way of exporting, manufacturing and making profits? How far will it compensate us for loss of monetary sovereignty to be dealing in a serious currency, a currency with solid value rather than—I am sorry to say—the pound sterling (or at least the pound sterling as it has been in the past)? Will it give us more or less, if we go in? I have yet to see this matter properly debated in layman's terms.
Would the establishment of a single currency based on the deutschmark make Germany more powerful? It seems that there are many people in Germany who feel that the opposite is the case, if the words of my noble friend Lord Beloff are anything to go by. He said that there is now a widespread point of view in Germany against a single currency. If that is the case, Chancellor Kohl will have to answer for it the next time that he seeks re-election.
I know that there are those who believe that the establishment of a single currency based on the deutschmark would tie down Germany, as the Lilliputians tied down Gulliver, making it less likely that Germany would ever again set off on some central or east European adventure into their traditional economic space. That is seen as the political argument for a single currency. Many Germans I know share that argument. They cannot stop their inward-looking concern over their recent history. But, so much of what we read and see in Britain about this question is put in simple terms of World War II, of good against evil, of them against us and of Hitler somehow managing to rise from the grave and occupy the House of Commons. Virtually all the press, with the exception of perhaps the Independent, Guardian and Evening Standard, as well as one or two specialist bodies, share that point of view and proclaim it vociferously throughout the land.
In recent days there have been serious additions to that particular paranoia from which we seem to suffer. The famous 1990 Chequers seminar on Germany has again reared its head and been given a lot of press exposure. It is shocking to think of a seminar—I am not sure whether or not the record of the seminar was accurate, and there is a separate debate on that matter—which seemed to discuss the question of whether the German people are inclined by their nature and racial characteristics to be bullies and paranoiacs. So far as I could see, that was the gist of the report and the feeling of one or two of the people who participated in that seminar. We read that the paper was circulated to Ministers.
A recent book by Dr. George Urban described the phenomenon in great detail. It was approved by the then Prime Minister and I suppose that to some extent it became government policy. I should be very grateful if my noble friend the Minister—I am sorry that I did not give him notice of this matter—could say something or write to me about this point and tell me whether the result of that seminar, the draft report, remains government policy or was ever government policy. It happened when Germany was in the throes of unification and at a very sensitive time.

181
I am afraid that we have to take on board the fact that all the press reports in which Germany is taken to pieces are repeated and translated into German and many other foreign languages. They make a very loud noise throughout the world. The echoes of our generalisations on such matters reverberate throughout the world and may cause us great harm in our relations with other EU countries. Some of us saw a few days ago how the Referendum Party went to extreme lengths to show its distaste for the German Chancellor. Outbreaks of hissing and booing when Chancellor Kohl's image was flashed on the screen reminded me of nothing less than a hate session from George Orwell's 1984.
I believe that this debate is valid; but the campaign of insults on questions of single currency and others is not. We do ourselves no good by insulting our partners in the European Union or the heads of government of countries like Germany. By referring to the Second World War in terms of triumphalism we do no service to those who helped us to win that war so that democracy could triumph. It is all recycled in the German press.
I suggest that it is very un-Churchillian to take that attitude. He believed in magnanimity and was one of the first who wanted to bring Germany into the community of civilised nations as soon as possible after the war was over. Such an insulting tone, if used against any other race, would be a matter for referral and possible police prosecutions. I say that in no way to conceal or diminish one's outrage at the gruesome behaviour of the German people 50 or so years ago, but it makes no sense to see this matter in terms of racial stereotypes.
There is much that we have to proclaim about our good relations with Germany today. We are the two largest contributors to the EC budget. We have an interest in seeing sound accounting and our contributions to the budget kept within reasonable bounds. For that we need good relations with Germany. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Kingsland will confirm the fact that in the European Parliament, when we were looking for allies on any specific point, it was to our German friends among the Christian Democrats that we looked and often we found that we had interests in common.
Germany is our greatest export partner; 13.2 per cent. of our exports go there—a full point higher than our export percentage to the United States—with France coming in third at around 10 per cent. Large numbers of British working people work in Germany and Germany is the most important political force vis-à-vis our relations with the Russian Federation. In short, I believe that we have achieved an end to the hatred associated with the Second World War that used to be so powerful between us; that should have been laid to rest last summer when we celebrated Victory in Europe Day together with Chancellor Kohl, and he and his country should now be our friends.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Gillmore of Thamesfield: My Lords, of necessity the gracious Speech touched on only a few of
182
the challenges and opportunities facing British foreign policy and diplomacy in the next two or three years. The agenda is of course far wider, as a number of stimulating and thoughtful contributions to the debate in your Lordships' House this evening so vividly demonstrated.
I should like to focus on one specific aspect of British diplomacy, if only because, for all its importance, it is rarely mentioned; for example, it has not been mentioned by any noble Lord this evening. That is odd, on the face of it, because it is the largest single activity of British missions overseas. I refer to the commercial and economic challenges—above all, the opportunities—which lie ahead and to the Government's decisions on the resources they deploy in the pursuit of our interests.
The assertion that the United Kingdom is and should remain a nation with global interests has often been greeted with titters of sarcasm by those who see in that statement a form of pretentiousness on the part of a small clique of foreign policy experts and practitioners who live, so the allegation runs, irrevocably in the past and who have not caught up with a changed world in which British power and influence are vastly diminished. They are quite wrong. First, they confuse power with interest; secondly, it is they who have not kept pace with change. To demonstrate that that is the case I pray in aid not theory, prejudice or surmise, but facts—stubborn, but I hope not too indigestible.
In 1995 the UK's visible exports amounted to £152.6 billion—an increase of 13.5 per cent. over 1994. For service exports the figure was £45 billion, which is 9 per cent. more than the year before. We export more per capita than either the United States or Japan, and exports account for a quarter of our gross domestic product—more than for any of our major competitors. In the past 15 years the volume of our manufactured exports has grown faster than those of France, Germany or Japan.
The United Kingdom invests across the globe. In 1995 the stock of British overseas investment was 319 billion US dollars—second only to that of the United States itself, more than half as much again as France and over 35 per cent. more than Germany. That outward investment, if we include bank lending, brought returns in 1995 of £93 billion. In the other direction no less than 40 per cent. of North American and Asian investment in the European Union comes to the United Kingdom. As the Minister said earlier, in the last financial year alone inward investment was £7.4 billion and created 48,000 jobs.
In 1995 the British financial services sector earned £20.3 billion. The London foreign exchange market is the largest in the world with a daily turnover of 464 billion US dollars, which is more than New York and Tokyo combined. There are more foreign banks in London than in any other city in the world and the London Stock Exchange handles a greater turnover of foreign equities than all other financial centres in the world combined.
I apologise for boring your Lordships with facts. My purpose is simply to demonstrate that even if our global political and security interests, great as they are, are left

183
to one side; even if we ignore all the other critically important issues on the foreign policy agenda—our role in Europe, the management of a volatile and unstable Soviet Union, how to bring the countries of central and eastern Europe back into the family of western nations, the future of the Balkans, the Middle East and Hong Kong, aid to the poorer countries of the Third World, together with all the privileges and responsibilities which derive from our permanent seat in the Security Council, all of which have been mentioned by your Lordships—the United Kingdom is a power with global economic, financial and commercial interests. It is surely right, then, to ask how we prosecute and defend those interests.
The front line is in our 220 overseas missions in 188 countries. Thirty five per cent. of the staff in those missions are devoted to helping British businessmen develop their overseas activities, the largest single overseas diplomatic activity. In 19 key locations posts seek out potential inward investors. How successful are they'? The figures I have already quoted speak for themselves. But it is worth noting a report by the National Audit Office in April of this year which showed for example, that in South East Asia support from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry helped stimulate exports worth almost 80 times the cost of those services; and a recent survey of 150 leading companies revealed that 80 per cent. used the assistance provided by missions overseas and that 57 per cent. confirmed that they had won business as a direct result of that help.
So far, my Lords, so good. But there is an altogether gloomier side to this picture. The cloth of our diplomatic effort—I note that the Minister described this as our investment for the future—is stretched precious thin. In places it is downright threadbare. In spite of the heavy cuts in the staffing of some of our larger missions, 108 of those posts—almost half—have four or fewer UK based staff, 22 have only one and 21 have none at all. Meanwhile, unavoidable demand-led work grows at a rapid pace. Consular work is expected to rise by 28 per cent. over the next few years and the demand for visas by 35 per cent.
But of far greater significance than any of those factors are the cuts imposed on the diplomatic vote at the last PES settlement. The total Foreign Office budget, including the BBC World Service and the British Council—which together account for around £258 million—is about £1.2 billion. That is about 0.4 per cent. of total public expenditure. In November last year in the Chancellor's Budget that vote was cut by £82.5 million for each of the three survey years. In other words, before the end of the century expenditure on our diplomatic vote is, under the Government's present proposals, to be reduced by one-fifth; and this in order to achieve yearly savings which I calculate roughly to correspond to what we spend every two working hours on social services. I understand that the closure of overseas posts has so far been avoided, but that will not be the case if the cuts imposed in 1995 are maintained; and still less will it apply if there are to be further reductions this year.
184
The stark fact is that we face the prospect of becoming a nation with global interests without the means to prosecute or defend them. I find it impossible to believe that any other country in a situation similar to ours would choose to act in this way. It is notoriously difficult to obtain accurate comparisons with our chief analogues and competitors. But in round terms, even before the cuts I have described, France was spending about 100 per cent. more on its diplomatic effort than the United Kingdom and Germany more than 50 per cent.
I trust that it is not simply because of my previous professional association that I find this state of affairs—this contradiction between our interests and our willingness to recognise them and act accordingly—so profoundly depressing. And I am absolutely certain that it is not out of some romantic nostalgia for the past that I insist that the United Kingdom is a country with global interests and that a large part of our wealth and fortune, as well as our levels of employment, depend upon our ability—and, above all, on our will—to fight for them. No institution is perfect; none of our systems is infallible. But in recent years our performance as a world economic actor should be a source not of complacency certainly but of a modicum—just a modicum—of modest pride. I fear, though, that unless something is done to reverse the present trend we shall deprive ourselves of the weapons we need.
I hope, therefore, that on the issues I have raised the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will be able to give your Lordships some reassurance. I confess that, for my part, I look forward to his response but with some anxiety.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, all three Front Bench opening speakers today emphasised the importance of our relationship with the European Union. So it is not surprising to find the Government's policy towards Europe set out in paragraph 4 of the gracious Speech, immediately after the welcome paragraphs which refer to the defence of the realm itself. That paragraph reads as follows:
"In the European Union, my Government will work for an outcome to the Intergovernmental Conference which supports an outward-looking, economically liberal and flexible Union based on a partnership of nations. They will promote policies designed to improve the Union's competitiveness and economic well-being. They will work towards the opening of accession negotiations with countries of Central and Eastern Europe".
These are indeed laudable and honourable ambitions, but I fear that the Government have little chance of achieving any of them. Let us take the first sentence, which suggests that the present IGC might agree to amend the Treaty of Rome so that the Europe it has created might become,
"an outward-looking, economically liberal and flexible Union based on a partnership of nations".
I should perhaps remind any of your Lordships who have not yet indulged themselves in the pleasure of actually reading the treaty that amendments to it require unanimity among its signatories. So, to start with, we would have to get the unanimous agreement of all the other signatories to support a union based on a

185
"partnership of nations". But that is not what the majority of our partners wants, which is instead reflected precisely in the wording of the treaty which we have so unfortunately signed. Article A of the Treaty on European Union, which was signed at Maastricht, clearly states that the purpose of the treaty is to create,
"an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe".
Now I know that I may be accused of semantics here and that "an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe" simply means more "inter-railing", more student exchanges—even more cocktail parties in Brussels and around the capitals of Europe. There are those who pretend that this vital phrase does not mean our governments getting together in ever closer political union. The trouble is that most of the other signatories are aiming at precisely that closer political union. If my noble friend the Minister thinks I am wrong, would he care to ask the other countries for their interpretation of Article A of the treaty; better still, would the Government table an amendment to the treaty at the IGC taking out the words "ever closer union among the peoples of Europe" and inserting instead the words "partnership of nations"?
Lord Bethell: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me? I am sure that he knows that that vital phrase is included in the preamble to the Treaty of Rome and that our Government signed it in 1972, as did all the other governments. There is nothing new about it.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I never suggested that there was anything wrong with that. If my noble friend bears with me, he will find that I am indeed coming to the text of the treaty itself. I quite agree with what he says. However, it is Article A of the Treaty of European Union, which is sometimes referred to as the Maastricht Treaty.
The rest of the first sentence of paragraph 4 of the gracious Speech and the whole of its second sentence look just as difficult to achieve. The Community's determination to go ahead with its social policy and with its plans for monetary union clearly demonstrates to all but the most starry-eyed Europhile that it has no intention of becoming outward looking, economically liberal or flexible. Nor does it have any chance of improving its competitiveness and economic well-being under these policies.
To support these statements I pray in aid the Government's excellent attitude to and their opt-out from the Community's social policy. I pray in aid the landmark publication of my right honourable friend Mr. Heathcoat-Amory at the end of July, A Single European Currency: Why the United Kingdom Must Say"No". As far as I know, no one in government or elsewhere has put forward any reasoned or detailed disagreement with Mr. Heathcoat-Amory's pamphlet, which shows forcefully why the UK must refuse ever to join the proposed single currency and also why we should do so now. My right honourable friend writes with all the authority of a former Minister for Europe and, until his
186
resignation, the Minister in the Treasury responsible for following our negotiations on EMU. So I submit that this is not a publication which can just be ignored.
I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Bethell has actually read the publication. If he has not, I shall be happy to give him a free copy and I hope that it might inform his views on the single currency. I shall of course put a copy in the Library in case any other noble Lord would like to read it.
I come then to the last sentence of paragraph 4 of the gracious Speech which foresees enlargement of the Community by including countries in Central and Eastern Europe. On 15th October your Lordships debated the excellent report from the Select Committee on the Community's enlargement and the common agricultural policy. There was general agreement that enlargement cannot take place on anything like existing treaty terms without reform of the crazy and ruinous common agricultural policy. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Chalker stressed that again this afternoon.
However, in our debate several of your Lordships confirmed the widespread resistance to such reform from the other signatories. The Government believe that the necessary reform of the CAP could be achieved by a qualified majority vote rather than by the unanimity which will be required for the treaty changes to which I alluded earlier. In my brief intervention on 15th October (at cols. 1631–32 of the Official Report) I set out how the qualified voting majority system works under the treaty. I asked my noble friend the Minister to agree that it made reform of the common agricultural policy, and therefore enlargement of the Community, well nigh impossible. My noble friend did not answer the point then and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who followed me in the debate, was good enough to say that he had not been able to understand it. Since I was unlucky enough not to receive an answer to the same question in our debate on the IGC on 15th April, I fear that I must repeat the question again.
Under the Treaty of Rome there are at present 87 qualified majority votes among the 15 member nations. Sixty-two are required to carry a motion and 26 to block one. The United Kingdom has only 10 votes. The principal paymasters of the CAP are Germany with 10 votes, Denmark with four votes and ourselves with 10 votes, which makes 24 votes in the hands of those who pay the piper. There appear to be 54 votes in the hands of recipient countries under the CAP, which must explain some of their reluctance to reform it. But Germany, although a paymaster, is also surprisingly against reform. As far as I can understand, that leaves only Denmark and ourselves as enthusiastic reformers, with all of 14 votes between us, which is a long way short of the 62 votes required to carry reform. Indeed, as many as 64 out of a possible 87 votes appear likely to be ranged against reform, which is why I keep putting to my noble friends on the Front Bench that reform of the common agricultural policy and the enlargement of the Community which it might make possible at best look unlikely.
As I have put this point several times to my noble friends on the Front Bench, I should be very grateful for an answer today, or at least some time later in writing.

187
My noble friend may be able to go some way towards agreeing with me, in which case he may say that the difficulty over the reform of the common agricultural policy and enlargement suggests that new members of the Community should be admitted on varying terms under the doctrine of "variable geometry", as it is known, so wisely espoused by the Government. But here again, alas, we come up against exactly the same difficulty: a large majority of the signatories to the Treaty of Rome are federalists and so do not agree with variable geometry either.
Before I leave the question of enlargement, there is one other question that I have been putting to the Government for some time without receiving an answer. It is whether in their view any enlargement of the Community is likely to increase the power of the centre—that is, of the Commission, the Court and the parliament—towards member nations or whether it is likely, as I believe the Government originally hoped, to diminish that power. The Eurocrats in Brussels clearly hope for an increase in their powers, which they claim will be made necessary by all the extra languages and different legal systems which will have to be absorbed. I wonder whether the Government have given any thought to what is actually likely to happen. Again, of course, one fears that the United Kingdom will be more or less alone if it wishes to see enlargement leading to any reduction in the power of the Commission or the Court. But I hope that my noble friend can set my mind at rest.
Before leaving the detail of the gracious Speech as it affects our relationship with the European Community, I would very much like to welcome paragraph 5 in which the Government say that they will continue to pursue the global liberalisation of trade. Indeed, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the World Trade Organisation are steadily making the Treaty of Rome and the single market redundant from a commercial point of view. The WTO aims to have removed tariff barriers entirely by the year 2020, and already some 44 per cent. of all goods which are traded in Europe do so at a tariff rate of zero. Average tariffs on the rest now stand at some 3.5 per cent.
But the treaty still retains its original political intention, which is an ever-closer union between the peoples of Europe. It is here that the real controversy starts, because a growing number of people in this country are beginning to see that the United Kingdom might do better to leave the treaty altogether. Among all the controversy which surrounds this suggestion I single out three contentions which those of us who wish to withdraw have to face. The first two go something like this: our inward investment only comes to us because we are members of the Union; our European partners would victimise us out of existence if we left the treaty. I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, took this position quite strongly in her opening remarks today.
Since we last debated the European issue generally two publications have emerged which refute both these contentions. The first was written in April by Messrs. Burkitt, Bainbridge and Whyman, who are respected academics at Bradford University. It is entitled There is
188
an Alternative (to our membership of Europe). The second was published earlier this month by the Institute of Economic Affairs under the title Better off out? I shall put copies of both publications in your Lordships' Library also. As far as I know, no one has taken serious issue with the detail of their findings or with their general conclusions. These are that most of our inward investment comes to us because of our good labour relations, low inflation and low tax rate, because we speak English and, yes of course, because we have access to the single market. But they see no reason why we should not retain amicable access to that market if we withdraw from the treaty itself. Since we trade in deficit with Europe, we could easily negotiate a position such as that enjoyed by Switzerland, which still exports more per capita to the Community than we do, even leaving out her banking side. In short, both publications lead one to conclude that we might be rather better off economically outside the Treaty of Rome.
That brings me finally to the most important contention of all. That is that blood may flow again in Europe if Chancellor Kohl is not able to achieve his dream of a federal superstate. I am sure that Chancellor Kohl is in good faith when he says things like,
"European integration is in reality a question of war and peace in the 21st century",
as he did at the University of Louvain on 2nd February this year. I regret that my noble friend Lord Bethell has left the Chamber because I wish to share everything he said about the anti-German feeling which appears to erupt in various broadsheets, which I do not make a habit of reading.
Herr Kohl's spokesman, Herr Karl Lamers, has been even more precise. He said:
"Never again must there he a destabilising vacuum of power in Central Europe. If European integration were not to progress, Germany might be called upon, or tempted by its own security constraints, to try and effect the stabilisation on its own and in the traditional way".
Those of us who wish to leave the Treaty of Rome do not share Herr Kohl's and Herr Lamers' apparent lack of faith in their own people. I note also that younger Germans of my generation and younger do not seem to share it either. We fear that what they are trying to build is more likely to lead to the Balkanisation of Europe than the Europe of nation states, the "partnership of nations", so wisely favoured by Her Majesty's Government. After all, when did a truly democratic country, such as the modern Germany, last cause a war? I wish that Herr Kohl would reflect on that question, but it seems that he and his European friends are in much too much of a hurry to do so. So, I believe that eventually we shall have to let them go ahead without us, perhaps in some form of union less drastic and dangerous than the one that they now contemplate. Then, not for the first time, Britain will have saved herself by her exertions and, let us hope, Europe by her example.
8.10 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, on the whole this has been an outward-looking debate, but I wonder whether in our obsession with sovereignty inside the EU

189
we have become too Euro-centric. Like others, I want to see the strengthening of our economic partnership and greater political co-operation, especially in foreign affairs, with the minimum loss of national identity. I am also pleased to see develop a new form of Ostpolitik, if not enlargement or association, which will shake up the common agricultural policy and loosen the grip of central bureaucracy.
However, I am mainly concerned about the gap between fortress Europe and the rest of the world, especially those Commonwealth countries with which we share common experiences. I believe that there is a reawakening of interest in the UK of the potential of our bilateral aid and trade overseas. We have just heard the noble Lord, Lord Gillmore of Thamesfield, speak on that in enthusiastic terms. To that end I am pleased to know of Her Majesty's forthcoming visits to Pakistan and India. Such visits will undoubtedly bring further mutual understanding. Trade with India is already flourishing, thanks largely to Indian deregulation, and with the vast potential market there I hope to see a renewed commitment to our varied aid programme.
There is always a nice mixture of altruism and single-minded ambition in Britain's foreign policy motives. It is an ambiguity of which we have accused the French since before the Napoleonic wars but which we rarely admit in ourselves. It stems from our colonial history, but continues in many new disguises. We would like to turn our present aid beneficiaries into our future trading partners. We would like to use our diplomatic skills to further our economic advantage. We would, of course, like to sustain our English language and our culture overseas.
But whatever our economic motives, aid is also a responsibility. As one of the developed nations—we heard from the Minister that we have the third largest source of private capital—we have an obligation to the weakest populations in those other countries. Pakistan, India and Nigeria, for all their wealth, are still among the lowest 48 on the UN's human development index. They join poorer countries on the list such as Tanzania, which is suffering from the Great Lakes disaster at the moment, the Sudan, Nepal, and Uganda, still recovering from its old crises, with which we still have strong ties, and countries in considerable distress like Afghanistan about which we heard earlier and which is now almost the lowest on the scale.
I welcome the ODA's renewed emphasis on the poorest groups, but I wonder whether the Treasury—now allowing less than 0.3 per cent., the lowest-ever proportion of our national income and that at a time when we have commitments to eastern Europe—has really grasped the importance of overseas development within our foreign policy. The Chancellor's initiatives on debt, which have even won him admiration from the aid agencies—not short-lived, I hope—show that there is a glimmer of hope on the issue.
I wonder also whether we have appreciated the vast human resources displayed by our aid agencies, voluntary organisations and churches which, incidentally, form a significant constituency in this country as well as overseas. Have we recognised that
190
they, too, are our representatives abroad and agents of a new kind of human foreign policy? Have we evaluated their role alongside the United Nations and conventional armed forces in international security? Occasionally we read of the plight of an individual aid worker in Somalia or Rwanda, but there are thousands of expatriate staff and their co-workers who are seeking to improve conditions overseas. We do not give their work nearly enough recognition in public life, however hard the ODA is helping to promote them. I congratulate the ODA on its openness towards those organisations and on its willingness to consult them. Through a small charity working in Afghanistan, I have come to see that co-operation first hand and I hope that it continues through the present crisis.
Social development is now an accepted office in embassies and provides valuable links with the voluntary sector on issues such as poverty and human rights. That is another reason for supporting the Foreign Office and the diplomatic community. But the non-governmental organisations have a wider agenda than aid and one which goes beyond the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and affects other departments also.
Recently 10 such organisations issued a powerful joint manifesto on development and the environment. I should like briefly to mention a few of the key issues with which they are concerned. They coincide with the wider framework of development to which the Minister referred. They would like an expanded, better targeted, more visible aid programme which reaches beyond aid to social and economic development. They would like the acceleration of debt relief programmes through the new World Bank and IMF initiatives, with particular reference to the poorest and most indebted countries, such as Uganda, to which the Government are already committed. They would like more shared understanding of the effectiveness and long-term advantages of aid, based on evaluations of successful, sustainable programmes which help the poor and protect the environment. They would like greater awareness by the public and consumers of the origin of food and the many other imported goods now in supermarkets to remind trading companies of their responsibilities to the producers of those goods. They would like UK legislation which will help to end sex tourism, commercial exploitation of child labour, and other abuses of the UN conventions on the rights of the child, on slavery and on the rights of indigenous peoples.
In conclusion, I hope that the Government will stand firm on the principle of gender equality, which has already been mentioned and which is now being challenged by the Taliban, among others, in the name of Islam. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the Government will support United Nations agencies in continuing wherever possible to give women's rights and education the highest priority against that difficult background. I know that the views held on that and many other issues by the development agencies have helped both to reflect changing public opinion and to shape and influence the development of our foreign policy, and I am sure that they will continue to do so.
8.18 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, today's debate gives me an opportunity to tell the House about a visit to Germany which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, Professor Antony Flew, Dr. Dennis O'Keeffe, Mr. David Rosser Owen and I returned from on 2nd October. The reason for our visit was to take evidence from witnesses who represent religious and ethnic minorities in that country. In the space of a week we met people from 17 different groups.
We think of Germany as a modern, progressive industrialised and democratic country. Indeed, it is all of those things, but by the end of the week we had the feeling that behind all that was another reality. As I recount some of what we discovered, the House may come to understand why we came to feel that Germany, in parallel with all its great achievements, is moving perceptibly in the direction of becoming a highly conformist, theocratic state.
Apart from the Turks, Kurds and a group called VPM, which has a philosophy of education and socio-ethics, all of the other groups interviewed were solely religious. The Turks and Kurds have religious as well as ethnic affiliations which can complicate their international and inter-community relationships in Germany. For example, in Britain we take for granted that if someone is born here he or she is automatically British. In Germany that is not the case.
One oddity brought to our attention by the witness from the Centre for Turkish Studies was that university applicants of Turkish origin had to attend an office at the university which was different from that used by German students. I was not sure whether that separation applied only to Turks or to all non-Germans. In any case, it applied mainly to Turks because they were Germany's largest minority. All of the members of the committee were already aware in general terms of the difficulties faced by Turks and Kurds. However, they were astounded by reports received from representatives of smaller religious groups, including new Christian denominations and religious movements.
The first group on which I touch briefly is the Charismatic Christian Church in Cologne. We took evidence from Pastor Terry Jones and co-Pastor Charles Robinson. That active Charismatic Christian Church has been administering to people in Cologne for many years. Over the weekend it has an attendance of about 1,200 people. That church reported an intense media campaign to discredit it, coupled with an attempt to remove its tax-exempt status. The most disturbing matter described was the attempt to reduce the charitable status. The Church received a de-registration order which stated that it did not contribute to the cultural, religious, social or spiritual value of German society. That appeared to the committee to be a rather arrogant position to adopt in respect of someone else's religion. It certainly goes beyond the limits of state neutrality in matters of religion. Pastor Jones and his colleagues are now engaged in a court battle to reverse the decision.
The VPM is a group that consists mainly of professionals such as teachers, lawyers, theologians, doctors, psychologists, people from other callings and
192
parents interested in the psychology of education. That is a secular pressure group which is perhaps comparable with the British Campaign for Real Education, with which it has close links. It has been swept up by a network of sekte priests and sekte commissioners, largely because its stand against drugs runs counter to the views of powerful proponents of drug legalisation. It has been viciously attacked in the media as a sekte. In summary, its opponents have stigmatised VPM by the label of sekte and the authorities, media and public appear to have accepted that.
The committee also spoke to Herr Ignatz Bubis, chairman of the National Council for Jews. He told us that there had been an increase in the number of attacks on Jewish property and the desecration of Jewish cemeteries. He also clarified the difference in the meaning of two German words. I do not attack Germany. I want to see an improvement in the situation. He said that one had to listen carefully to the language used and there were graduations of dislike. The word auslander literally means a foreigner. For example, that term is applied to the British, Swiss and French. Non-whites are Fremde or strangers. Presumably, this means that the non-white minorities in Britain would count as Fremde even though they were mainly British citizens by right of birth.
Next, I deal with the situation in which the Church of Scientology finds itself in Germany. That seems to be the most frequently attacked group, perhaps because it is also the biggest. The attention devoted by the German state and certain officials to eradicate scientology (in the words of one CDU Young Union official) is extensively documented. The placing of Scientology in the cross-hairs was commented upon by the witnesses from the Unification Church and Sri Chinmoy. It was suggested to us by witnesses from those groups that the state and churches targeted Scientology as a prelude to, and an excuse for, the destruction of religious freedom for all religious and philosophical minorities in Germany. We were presented with a detailed and well researched briefing which included a sampling of incidents of discrimination. That briefing provided 60 examples.
We also received a copy of the application form to become a member of the Christian Democrat Party. There were two pre-conditions for membership. One was common to all such application forms known to the committee and my colleagues. It stated that the applicant was not a member of any other political party. The other was a declaration that the applicant was not a Scientologist. We were informed that all other major political parties took the same line; in other words, a German scientologist may not participate in the democratic process as a member of any of the main political parties.
Next, the followers of Sri Chinmoy express devotion to their leader's quest for peace in the world by organising concerts, marathons and other athletic events. Almost all of these facilities are within the gift of local authorities. They recounted instances where concert venues and sporting facilities are closed to them for no apparent reason. On one occasion they organised a marathon run only to find that they were not allowed to

193
use the showers. The City Council of Cologne has decided that no public rooms are to be let to Sri Chinmoy groups.
Another group whom we met and interviewed was Orden Fiat Lux, a Christian healing group. Enormous efforts were being made to close it down. There is also a resurgence of cultural discrimination, which echoes German history. In the late 1990s attacks on artists who are members of an unfavoured sekte appear to be gathering pace. The technique employed is a refinement and intensification of the procedure in Germany known by the English word "outing" which is applied to professionals in any field, as the witnesses have clearly showed. In addition to the artists we interviewed, we were given documentation which described quite unacceptable discrimination. Reports in the media about two recent situations highlight the absurdity. In August 1996, as the release date of the Tom Cruise Film "Mission Impossible" approached, a spokesman of the Youth Union of the CDU issued a statement urging Germans to boycott the film because Tom Cruise was a Scientologist. The same fate was supposed to be meted out to John Travolta's film "Phenomenon".
We decided to try to find out from where this discrimination was coming. We concluded that there were several interconnected and mutually reinforcing sources of discriminatory attacks on the groups we interviewed. These can be distinguished as follows. Within the political and administrative structure there is a network of sekte commissioners, known in German as sektebeauftragter. Their task is similar to a network of religious sekte commissioners, to which I will turn later.
It was also reported to us that approximately 20 per cent. of elected German politicians were trained priests or pastors. There is a very close interconnection between church and state. From the evidence given, it appeared that the German state was spending millions of deutschmarks every year on anti-sekte personnel, propaganda and related actions. Some estimates are as high as 100 million deutschmarks.
Another example of direct discrimination by government is the state of Schleswig-Holstein. The state parliament has recently amended its data protection law to create a document centre containing information about individuals connected to sekten. That law is a specimen of selective legislation which strips away the fundamental privacy rights of members of groups labelled as "sekte" by excluding them from the data protection safeguards enjoyed by all other German citizens.
The Lutheran and Catholic Churches have a network of 140 sekt priests and pastors throughout Germany. Their function is to disseminate unproven, negative generalised propaganda about any group they choose to categorise as a sekt. In fact Pastor Terry Jones of the Christian Church of Cologne told us that the Lutheran and Catholic Churches categorise any group of which they disapprove—almost any group that is not Lutheran or Catholic—as a sekt to be closed down or disposed of.
We were astonished at the millions of deutschmarks and the thousands of man hours being poured into the campaign against minority religions. Our inescapable
194
conclusion was that significant elements within the state and church apparatus have been brought to bear on these minority religions in an attempt to destroy them, but nowhere in our report do we suggest that events will inevitably follow a similar pattern to that of the 1930s. That would be unthinkable and quite impossible. However, there are unquestionably comparisons that can be drawn regarding the persecution of minorities, and those are of considerable concern to us.
I have gone some way towards introducing our report to the House. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news when there is already so much bad news in the world. It is, I believe, a great strength of our House that we have such a diversity of preoccupations. The committee's report will be launched officially at a press conference tomorrow morning. It will be widely distributed thereafter. I shall of course send it to the Minister who so ably introduced the debate and to those noble Lords who were kind enough to wish us well on our mission. I hope that this will be the beginning of a focus on this aspect of political and social life in Germany which will bear fruit by changing the situation that I have described.
8.32 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, it is always an honour to speak in your Lordships' debate on the gracious Speech, and although you might not think to look at me that I resemble a very small minnow in this august pond, it is nevertheless a perfectly apt simile. Although it appears that there are sharks about waiting to eat me up, I continue to have confidence that they may not have the opportunity to do so. Furthermore, I do not believe in any of the derogatory remarks which were made earlier about Great Britain, because they are simply not true. In its own way, our country is as good and as great as she has ever been.
It is, I think, significant that the gracious Speech begins with two vital aspects:
"National security continues to be of the highest importance".
and the emphasis on the importance and enlargement of NATO.
I should like to speak briefly, and indeed will do so, on these two points. I would just like to mention en passant that the War Widows Association of Great Britain, which exists to pick up the pieces left by wars, celebrates its 25th anniversary this year, and I would like on its behalf to thank my noble friends Lord Cranborne, Lord Henley, Lord Astor, Lord Howe and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish for all their help and encouragement to these ladies during the years which I have been associated with them. They have all been so kind.
National security must always be of prime, indeed, vital importance to any nation which wishes to continue to exist. Our security lies in the safe hands of our three services. I think that all your Lordships would agree that we have the best Armed Forces in the world, and although, unlike many of your Lordships, I am unable to speak from personal experience of the services, I have family connections and have also been fortunate enough under the auspices of the all-party Parliamentary

195
Defence Study Group to visit and meet many of our servicemen and women, both serving in this country and abroad. We have all, as I know my noble friend the Minister, Lord Howe, will confirm when he winds up, been overwhelmed by the splendid calibre, unselfishness and downright decency of our British forces.
But even the best apples will fall off a tree if you shake it long enough and hard enough. Our forces have been buffeted by the winds—or should I say "options"—of change and successive White Papers so that there are now far fewer of them than there should be to maintain our defence commitments. Those that are left are in danger of being demoralised by the continuous uncertainty. The latest gale has come from the sale of married quarters. We shall have to see—though in 25 years many of us may not be able to—whether the many guarantees which have been written into the sale terms will hold. We should always have a tree-planting mentality, and we should be planting oak trees, not Christmas trees. My plea is that we should let the winds of change die down and give our Armed Forces a decent period of stability.
Many of our Defence Study Group have gone to SHAPE today, are going to NATO tomorrow, and will return with more up-to-date information for our next defence debate. I much enjoyed our visit to High Wycombe in April with Air Marshall Sir Richard Johns and his European team, one of whom was French, which was encouraging. It was good to see such an important NATO establishment on British soil, having come from Norway and seen the Norwegians, like the splendid sports they are, bearing up well, with the change.
We discussed the possibility of Sweden joining NATO, and on my two visits to that country this summer I gained the impression that this was very much nearer, despite their historic neutrality. The three Baltic states still have a large Russian population and have other difficulties with old atomic installations. I cannot speak on Hungary or the Czech Republic. However, we had discussions with the Polish parliamentarians who visited the IPU this summer, and I was impressed by their anxiety to qualify both for the EU and for NATO membership. My youngest son has recently been working in a bank in Warsaw and his impression of Poland confirmed my own of the Poles that we had met. However, I think much must depend on what happens in Russia during the next 12 months. Our historic links across the Atlantic with our American allies have helped above all to make NATO the strong force for peace that it is. In these still uncertain times, it is reassuring to know that there is a strong force in place which can preserve our peace.
8.38 p.m.
The Marquess of Tweeddale: My Lords, I propose to speak briefly on one subject; that is, Bosnia. I regret to say that I cannot share very much of the optimism, muted though it perhaps is, which the Government seem to possess concerning the chances for peace following the Dayton agreement. Whatever the agreement says on the subject, many of the hundreds of thousands of refugees will not in fact be able to return home. Let us just look at the situation in Mostar, for example—a city
196
which is split along ethnic lines but which is part of the Moslem-Croat Federation. What is worse still, the Serb part of the Dayton entity—Republika Srepska—is almost certain sooner or later to secede and to merge with Serbia proper.
That eventuality may not be envisaged by the agreement, but I fear that it is there, between the lines, as it were. That development will benefit not only the Bosnian Serbs; it will make Serbia, which—whatever the politically correct talk of warring "parties"—stoked up the Bosnian conflict up and ran the Bosnian Serb war effort, a winner. I ask myself whether it will be a satisfied winner in the long term. I have my doubts. Unlike Bosnia, whose history and boundaries have been surprisingly stable, Serbia has been on the move for the better part of two centuries.
The Bosnian Moslems are the losers here and have a perfectly justified grievance which will not go away. Earlier the Minister urged,
"the Bosnians to take more and more responsibility for their affairs".
That exhortation comes strangely from a spokesman of a government who, by keeping the arms embargo in place for three years of the war, prevented the legitimate Moslem-led Bosnian Government from doing that very thing. I am afraid the result has been the kind of one-sided peace which, speaking in the Israeli context, the Minister said will not last.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, at this time of night it is almost easier to look backwards than forwards. Indeed, as one gets older it is easier to look backwards and more difficult to look forwards. I shall begin by looking backwards and wondering whether we have sectional interests in the world which revolve around the word "tribalism".
The time has come to nail one's colours to the mast and I stand before your Lordships today as a Goidel, like my noble friend Lord Lyell. As your Lordships will know, the Goidels were one of the earliest tribes in this country. The Bretons, who inhabited Cornwall, Wales and even parts of Aquitaine, Bordeaux and Brittany, were second, but it was really the Celts of Scotland and Ireland who made the world and developed the British interest.
Many of your Lordships may have come from other tribes; from those of the south east or northern Europe who crossed the Channel and developed. But those of us from poorer nations were forced to think of two things: migration and immigration. Your Lordships may find it strange that I should begin a debate on foreign policy and defence with those two words. The history of our nation has depended on importing people of calibre and quality with new technology and new investment, while at the same time exporting those from the poorer parts of our country or domain to develop and pursue our interests abroad.
It would be reasonable to say that, internationally, the British are more powerful in appearance than in reality. As we divide the world into the component parts of Europe, which we were told was to be the home market

197
but which has suddenly become foreign parts, and as we look back at the history of our trade and development we realise that the United Kingdom has and will always have a world-wide role. It has nothing to do with the Channel nor our geographic location; it has something to do with our past.
If we review our assets and liabilities we will conclude that we are, internationally, perhaps the most successful nation in relation to our size. Our assets were mentioned by the Minister tonight. We are the third largest investor of private-sector capital in the third world. We control the second position in terms of capital investment worldwide. We are the largest dealer in foreign exchange, which makes one wonder whether the concern about entering the EMU is real or perceived. We have attracted more foreign investment than any other single country in the EU.
We have a remarkably stable government. Perhaps the weakness is that both Houses of Parliament sit too long and that there has been too much immigration from the other place and not enough migration in that direction from your Lordships' House. Those of us from ancient Goidel tribes who suffer from the concern of the hereditary principle know that never having a vote yet having to pay taxation—no taxation without representation—makes one realise that democracy does not exist here at home.
What is the point of a debate such as this? In 1974 my noble friend Lady Macleod and I had the privilege of responding to the Queen's Speech. I had to say that the linchpin of our defence policy was NATO. The linchpin of our defence policy is still NATO. But we seem to have moved ahead and seek to defend other people from each other rather than defending ourselves. We have no concern about the defence of the realm.
What is our foreign policy? No one has asked that question tonight. I once asked those in the Foreign Office what was our foreign policy. They asked, "Where, my dear chap?". I named a particular country and they said, "We always have a policy when we need one. We have several alternative policies and when a policy is needed we can bring forward the right one, but there is no such thing as a general foreign policy". My noble friend nods her head but we might look back and ask, who had a foreign policy and why?
Initially, foreign policy was always determined by the private sector. I speak not of Livingstone, Rhodes or Brazza, who I always thought was Italian rather than French, or even of King Leopold. They all went out into the world to gain, but they recognised that they had to do good and to get rid of slavery. Having listened to your Lordships today I know that the belief is that we should do good for other people as part of our duty in life. However, most people have forgotten what we should do in order to do good for ourselves. If we confine our interests to the European Union, which we do not, we shall be limited by the economic strength of those countries. We have a deficit in manufactures with Germany of £6 billion a year, even though it is our largest trading partner, but I believe that one should trade with people at a profit. There should be a balance of payment in one's favour rather than against one.
198
Our competitors in the European Union—every nation is a competitor—have ideas and foreign policies of their own. I suggest that Germany's foreign policy is not actually a foreign policy but a policy directly related to its nearest neighbours. In general and for one reason or another, Germany has not sought to pursue a worldwide economic policy. On the other hand, France changes a little with governments and uses lovely Gallic expressions of, "On the one hand", "On the other hand", and "Somewhere in the middle is the right idea but we are never sure where the middle will be". France is looking for her own international developments.
We should have our own free, independent foreign policy while at the same time supporting international agencies with aid. If 50 per cent. of all our aid goes to multilateral agencies and the amount of spend which comes back to this country is not so great, there are two solutions. We can change that policy or increase the level of aid. I prefer the second alternative. Equally, if we are concerned about our own political and economic future we must acknowledge that the world is not necessarily our oyster but that we are a free bird which may fly as far and as wide as it wishes.
As we move forward we are using the terrible modern word "collectivism". I recall some of my Ukrainian friends recently pointing out that I was a lackey of socialist bureaucracy; that I had no idea of how to get things done; that for money I relied entirely on governments and international agencies; and that there was no initiative. At the same time, this nation's greatest service has been to roll back the frontiers of collectivism.
I do not like the word "privatisation", but I shall pay lip-service to it. Privatisation has done so much to introduce freedom and to encourage investment and development. Whether one uses the term BOT or PFI, historically the private sector built the roads and the railways and developed the mines and the ports. Here we stand today with the greatest collection of capital in the world and the greatest foreign exchange dealings. Probably—dare I say it?—we are the most trusted nation and the one which within the European Union has the greatest political and foreign policy power should we wish to or know how to use it.
The Government are there to serve the people. The problem is that there are not enough Goidels or those of the Bretonic origin who go out into the world, either to the West or to the East to pursue and develop British interests because it pays them so to do. We have become a little inward looking but at the same time we have made our country the most attractive in the world for non-British people to live in. The low level of taxation for foreigners has attracted new investment. Ours is a great country in which to live.
There are moments of faint amusement, and I suppose the most anti-Germanic statement made today in the press was the decision of the Inland Revenue to tax the German footballers on their profits from the recent football challenges, which I think was unfair, but perhaps in order. The Government have done a lot. They do not really need a foreign policy. I do not believe that

199
there is a need to do anything other than to react and to pursue our relationships, which we have done very actively.
Like my noble friend Lord Beloff, I find that there is a two-tier system. The private sector on the Continent of Europe does not necessarily follow the views of government. There is no problem in the relationships between those who trade, those who buy and those who sell. There is a great understanding, but ultimately there are different cults and different opinions in our blood. We have a good opportunity ahead of us. I would not like it to be squandered by collectivism and too much bureaucracy.
8.51 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am fascinated by the speculations of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, but I would like to be rather more specific. I am glad that the gracious Speech mentioned the search for a durable peace in the Middle East. I wish to concentrate on one part of that region, namely Israel and its immediate neighbours. At the end of last August a large group of Jews, Christians and Moslems from Israel, Palestine and some other countries met in Greece at Thessaloniki. After five days they issued a message of concern and encouragement from which I should like to quote:
"Creating a climate favourable to negotiations is the common responsibility of Israelis and Palestinians. Both parties need to build trust by faithfully implementing past agreements and by NOT predetermining future negotiations by changing the situation on the ground. The collective closure of Jerusalem endangers prospects for peace. We are pained when people are denied access to places of worship, employment, education and health care. We urge the Israeli Government not to confiscate land, expand settlements, demolish Palestinian houses or revoke the residency rights of Palestinians from Jerusalem. Jerusalem is called to be a city of peace, but there is no peace now. Confidence-building requires that Palestinian institutions in Jerusalem and elsewhere be maintained".
The message concluded by proposing the widest possible peace education. Nobody will quarrel with that. It urged the Government of Israel and the Palestinian National Authority to regain momentum towards peace in accordance with United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338, the Oslo agreements of 1993 and subsequent agreements. I quote again:
"Joint action in the name of our Abrahamic heritage is essential to turn principles into reality … so that our peoples may enjoy their natural and human rights as God meant it to be."
The point of this rather long quotation is that it shows how, in spite of atrocities, hatred and fears, reasonable people from the three great religions centred on Jerusalem, many of whom had come together in Switzerland only three years ago, can meet and agree. They identified the key issues. Their approach was a problem-solving one which, if more widely adopted, can only lead to net gains for all concerned. I pray that their example may become contagious, together with that of another mixed body known as IPCRI, or the Israel-Palestine Centre for Research and Information. I have met with this body in both Jerusalem and London. It has always rejected violence and can draw on a wealth of expertise—political, civil service, military and academic—from both entities. It has already produced agreed documents on such difficult
200
issues as the equitable division of water supplies or the future of Jerusalem. I believe that we should support all such bridge-building work.
I want next to mention places of pilgrimage. Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Hebron, and certain places in Galilee attract several million visitors each year. The United Nations has accepted that there should be unrestricted access to the holy places of the three great monotheistic religions. Such access, of course, must be unarmed and be in a spirit of pilgrimage. That principle is at present contravened because Israel, as the occupying military power, does not allow free access to Jerusalem for residents of Gaza and the West Bank. The principle has also been breached almost since partition in 1948 as regards bona fide Jewish access to the Temple Mount. There is a worldwide interest in upholding the principle of unrestricted access, which in turn will confer huge economic benefits from tourism to both Israel and the Palestinian authority. To implement this principle may well require a degree of supra-national organisation and control. This is not a matter, in my view, which should be postponed until after all other negotiations have been completed.
I turn now to the wider context. Peace agreements have already been reached between Israel and Egypt and between Israel and Jordan. That is greatly to be welcomed. In the first case, vast areas of land and several settlements were given up in return for a comprehensive agreement. The second case has already led to the beginning of the rational sharing of the waters of the Yarmuk and Jordan rivers. It is now possible to post a letter or to make a telephone call from Amman to Tel Aviv. However, we cannot be satisfied with partial success and I trust that the Egyptian and Jordanian Governments will use all their influence, diplomacy and persuasion to assist the Government of Israel to negotiate and reach agreement with the Palestinian authority, and then with Syria and the Lebanon.
Greater responsibility still lies with Western Europe and the European Union in particular. Nowhere is a common foreign policy more urgently needed. It is not enough merely to urge the parties to resume talks. It should be made clear that failure to honour the Oslo and subsequent agreements will carry penalties. Agreements on Israeli access to European Union markets could be revoked. Spare parts and military supplies could be stopped. Compliance with Oslo, which in itself reflected much earlier United Nations resolutions, includes the release of Palestinian detainees, freedom of movement between Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem and the withdrawal of the Israeli army from Hebron and other parts of the West Bank.
I therefore have to ask Her Majesty's Government: will they take the lead in the European Union to ensure that there is real action and not just correct, pious words? Will they take risks and be prepared, if necessary, for sacrifices in the interests of peace which will benefit all, both in the Middle East and in Western Europe? The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, did not, I fear, go quite as far as I would have liked in her opening speech and I hope that I can persuade the noble Earl who will reply to be even more positive.

201
Security is mutual. Without peace there can be little security. Everyone remains at the mercy of the bomb and the bullet. Co-existence requires the creation of a common frontier which is mutually and internationally recognised. Peace therefore calls for a Palestinian state, perhaps not tomorrow or immediately but in due course, and not just a series of bantustans divided by Israeli occupied corridors. I emphasise that such a new state need not be a threatening one. It would have only one seaport and no international airport. It would have no army and a large, and I am sorry to say, impoverished population. It is nevertheless the key to peace with honour and mutual respect.
The first stage of such a peace will be two fully functioning states in Israel and Palestine capable of addressing all local needs, including those of the large Palestinian minority within the state of Israel. The next step might then lie with the Jewish and Palestinian diasporas scattered throughout the world who together might join forces with United Nations agencies and other donors to remedy the bad living conditions of those Palestinians who happen to be in Lebanon and certain adjoining countries.
9 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, not only for the constructive views he put forward but also for his personal participation in what sounded like a thoroughly positive peace initiative. He spoke also of the Israeli participation in the initiative he describes. It is always extremely important and helpful to remember that some of the best supporters of the peace process are Israelis, and that there is a large number of them. Half the voters in the recent Israeli election voted for Mr. Peres and the peace process. A large number of those who voted for Mr. Netanyahu voted for him because he promised to continue the peace process; a promise which, tragically, he has since failed to live up to.
It would be most unfair to identify the Israeli people with the comparatively small number of racial and religious fanatics who, unfortunately, are the mainstay of the present Israeli Government. What the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said was fully in line with the statements on Palestine made by the Minister and by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. Indeed at times this afternoon there seemed to be developing an unusual consensus on the subject of Palestine, interrupted a little by two brave dissenting voices, that of the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who spoke unkindly about the growing European involvement in the peace process. They spoke especially disparagingly about President Chirac. This increased involvement is taking place, and predictably it is opposed by the government of Israel and warmly supported throughout the Arab world, specifically by President Assad, President Arafat, President Mubarak and King Hussein. I was surprised to read the statement reported to have been made by Mr. Rifkind in Thursday's Guardian that:
"No-one in the region wants Europe to get into some competition with the U.S. for influence".
202
He also said that no one in the region wants the European involvement. But that could hardly be further from the truth. It would be truer to say that everyone in the Middle East wanted Europe to do this except for the Israeli Government.
It seems to me that the consequences can be positive. Of course it is objected that Europe is not united on what needs to be done about Palestine. On the other hand, earlier this month European Ministers issued a unanimous statement of three pages attributing the outbreak of violence to the failure of Israel to fulfil its obligations under the Oslo Agreement. They urged Israel to withdraw its troops from Hebron, to release political prisoners, to lift the ban on Palestinian workers entering Israel, to shut the tunnel entrance near the Temple Mount and to cease prejudicing Palestinian rights in Jerusalem. The statement was unanimous.
It can be objected of course that Europe has fewer cards to play on Israel than the United States. It is certainly true to say that Israel is even more dependent on the United States financially, diplomatically and militarily than on Europe. The Americans have more power than the Europeans to pressurise Israel. They have power to pressurise Israel if they want to, but they never want to—that is the point—and they do not. It is true that 40 years ago President Eisenhower instructed the Israelis to obey the Security Council and withdraw their invading troops from Sinai. They obeyed. However, to my knowledge not since then has any American president come near to showing the same willingness to exercise pressure over Israel, not even when—as over Hebron today—Israel is breaking an agreement signed by the United States. As I believe everyone knows, and as events constantly confirm, Israel is the friend and ally of the United States. The freedom of action of United States governments in the Middle East is strictly limited by the Israeli lobby in Washington. Few people wish to discuss this frankly, but it is an essential feature and everyone knows it.
I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, was present now. I am sure that, like me, he has spoken to Israeli congressmen and senators about the media and financial pressures put on them in relation to Palestine. He knows of that. It is an anomaly that the United States should monopolise peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. They have done so for decades and it has not worked. Significantly, the only successful intervention in Arab-Israeli relations, the Oslo Agreements, was masterminded by Europeans, with the Americans deliberately kept at a distance.
In that field a couple of unofficial Norwegians proved more successful than half-a-dozen American Secretaries of State. There is hope still of saving the Oslo Agreements. It is to be hoped that the British Government and other European governments—after all, they provide 80 per cent. of international aid for the Palestinian authority and have considerable influence with the Palestinians, which is very relevant—took a higher profile and made a bigger contribution to peace in Palestine.
Another topical subject raised in the debate was that of the elimination of nuclear weapons. It led to a memorable debate between the noble and gallant Lord,

203
Lord Carver, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. We have to recognise that the desirability and legality of the possession of nuclear weapons is increasingly under challenge at this time, in part because of such reports as the Canberra Report and in part because of a recent judgment of the International Court of Justice.
I thought that the most persuasive parts of the Canberra Report were those dealing with nuclear disarmament rather than those dealing with nuclear weapons elimination. The report concedes that at best verification can only be 85 per cent. reliable. It is hard to persuade the United States or the Russians to get rid of their last 100 nuclear weapons when verification is only 85 per cent. reliable. I should not like to attempt the task myself. I wonder whether one would succeed in persuading Israel to abandon its nuclear weapons when weapons of mass destruction are accumulating in the countries hostile to it in the Middle East, or in persuading India and Pakistan, which, to their shame, have refused to sign the comprehensive test ban treaty. With verification at 85 per cent., I wonder whether one would succeed in persuading those countries to abandon nuclear weapons altogether.
I thought that the case for disarmament put forward in the Canberra Report was very strong indeed. I am sorry that there has been so little discussion of the matter, not only in this debate but in Parliament generally and in the media. How many people know that 158 members of the United Nations voted for the comprehensive test ban treaty and three opposed, including India and Pakistan? But that was a tremendous achievement. Before the Recess I raised the question of trying to appease the Indian Government by taking nuclear disarmament along with signature to the treaty. I have to concede to the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, that, on reflection and in the light of subsequent events, I think she was right and I was wrong. The treaty has been signed, and that is a great advance.
When the Minister replies, perhaps he will respond to these questions. Where do we go from here? What action are the Government taking in relation to bringing the treaty to fulfilment? What other plans do they have to pursue the kind of disarmament and confidence-building measures that are outlined most persuasively in the Canberra Report?
A third major subject raised in the debate is the expansion of NATO. I have to confess to serious concern about the Government's approach. Mr. Portillo is to be commended for thinking hard about the matter and for setting out his ideas quite clearly, both in the debate last week in the Commons and in the columns of The Times.
My anxiety stems from the different priority that he and the Government are giving to NATO's relations with the countries of Eastern Europe and its relations with Russia. From every point of view, NATO's relations with Russia should come first. That must be so. It is the only country which in the future is a potential threat, a country that is divided, uncertain, unpredictable, suspicious, weakened and yet with a
204
strategic nuclear deterrent which is wholly unimpaired. Our first priority must be to improve relations and establish trust.
I am worried that the Government and Mr. Portillo speak most precisely and energetically about NATO's relations with Eastern Europe but only vaguely about NATO's relations with Russia. Mr. Portillo naturally does not raise the question of Russian membership of NATO. Joint command of Russian and Western nuclear and conventional weapons is too remote to be usefully discussed. The best he says is that he will consult with the Russians; and he puts forward plans for co-operation on a number of sensible sounding confidence-building measures. But the rest is vague in the extreme. He wrote in The Times:
"We need to work with Russia on the architecture of our new security. No one can describe exactly what the building will look like when finished. And for the moment even Russian defence ministers have other things on their mind".
Let us compare that with the precision and speed with which Mr. Portillo outlines proposals for extending NATO membership to the Eastern European countries. He writes:
"At a summit next year, decisions will be taken to invite a number of countries to begin accession negotiations. I hope NATO will be able to welcome the first new members in 1999, its 50th anniversary".
The assumption seems to be that this headlong rush to embrace the countries of Eastern Europe will not seriously damage NATO's relations with Russia, which should be the first priority. Mr. Portillo gives no reason why that should be possible. All the evidence shows exactly the opposite. All the evidence is that it will have a disastrous effect on NATO's relations with Russia. The Russian Foreign Minister, Mr. Primakov, said:
"Russia will never accept NATO enlargement, not because it has any right of veto but because it will not tolerate the worsening geopolitical situation and will stand by its interests".
The leaders of Ukraine and Belarus have condemned the concept of NATO's expansion in far less moderate terms than that. We were all interested in the remarks about Ukraine made by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. He hinted that the Ukrainians would be upset. Their leaders have said quite firmly that it is something they will not tolerate.
We are dealing here with the leaders. But what about the opposition in those countries: the extremists, the nationalists, the Communists? When American troops appear on the frontiers of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, and the Germans, and perhaps the Poles, with or without nuclear weapons, what are we to predict about reactions in those countries? It will be a godsend to the extremists against the democratic forces. It will be a godsend to the extreme nationalists and extreme Communists. It will be a great blow to the tender plant of democracy in those countries.
What will happen to the Baltic states? Obviously they cannot become members. We cannot put the shield of Article 5 of NATO over countries with huge Russian minorities, countries we have no possibility of defending in any case. They are therefore isolated and the presence

205
of NATO forces on the Russia frontiers will greatly increase the urge of the Russians to exert more authority over the Baltic states.
What will we gain from all this? The Baltic states are only one example of the difficulty of knowing where to draw the line. Hungary joins, but what about Romania? The Czech Republic joins, but what about Slovakia? We risk a great deal of trouble. We are likely to exacerbate the old disputes between some of these countries. The decision-making capacity of NATO will in any case be muddled up by the increase in numbers and it may also have to compete with vigorous internal disputes between the new members.
Who will pay for this expansion? The extra defence commitments will call for extra resources, more resources than those contributed by the new members.
In conclusion, I do not say that the expansion of NATO is wrong in principle. I say that we must put our relations with Russia first. I hope that the Government will note the anxieties expressed during this debate and will agree that further thought and discussion are needed before action is taken as envisaged by Mr. Portillo.
9.23 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I must first declare an interest. I have for much of my life worked—and still work—both professionally and voluntarily in the spheres of international, developmental, humanitarian and security affairs.
This has been a wide-ranging, informed and, I think we would all agree, at times powerful debate. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester bade us a memorable farewell. We shall miss him. I believe we could do with a great deal more of his direct candour in our debates.
At times I thought that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, was going to hijack the entire debate with his powerful intervention. I recalled, as he was speaking, that it was my privilege to be a junior defence Minister when he was Chief of Defence Staff. As I said to him informally earlier today, they were very special occasions when I was allowed to sit in at discussions about strategy which he led. The Canberra Report is worth reading. I commend it to those who have not yet been able to study it. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, demonstrated in his very direct way that there is not unanimity in response to the report. I hope that on some occasion we can have a fuller debate and examine its significance more profoundly.
I listened with some interest to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff—I always do—and to the noble Lords, Lord Weidenfeld, and Lord Pearson of Rannoch. There is one question I should like to put to them at this stage. It seems to me arguable that there is considerable statesmanship, wisdom and courage in German political leadership because the German leadership of the day is determined to lock a powerful Germany into a European Community. The question we have to ask ourselves is: what will be the long-term price should, for example, a young, nationalistic German politician at some time
206
come onto the stage if our only response to that statesmanship is to spurn the imagination at present being shown?
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, took us a little further in the debate today. I was intrigued. He argued that in perhaps a few hundred years' time the situation may have changed. People in Europe may have come to see their mutual interests and how the things that hold them together across frontiers are more important than the things that divide them. At that stage things which might not be appropriate now would become appropriate. I put this to the noble Lord. Why, with all his powers of debate—we all enjoy his powers of debate—does he not lead in the process of transforming public opinion instead of remaining a prisoner of existing prejudice?
I listened with some pleasure to what the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and others said about the BBC overseas service. All I can say is, "Well said". We on this side of the House totally applaud such sentiments. To undermine one of the hallmarks of Britain at its best and an institution which has won goodwill for Britain right across the world and to introduce divided career loyalties among staff who in the past have guaranteed its success by their undivided commitment to that service is madness.
I must say how much I enjoyed the thoughts of my noble friend Lady Gould. We have not heard from her for some time but her speech was worth waiting for. What she had to say about the importance of women in the international community needed to be said. The power of womanhood in international society could represent a tremendous force for progress. It is sad and worrying that at the moment we see the danger signals that instead of advancing we may be being encouraged to retreat.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, knows better than most that I want only to sing a duet whenever he speaks. I find myself so much at one with his sentiments.
Many of the contributions deserve detailed follow-up but I hope that I shall be forgiven if I concentrate on themes which struck me as the debate proceeded. We live together in a tightly knit, if frequently fraught, world community. It is difficult to think of a significant social issue which will confront our children and grandchildren that can be successfully handled within the context of our nation state or indeed of the European Union alone. The economy, finance, trade, the environment, pollution, global warming, climate, rising sea levels, conflict, refugees, migration, terrorism, the arms trade, food security, health, drug trafficking and crime—the list is formidable. All demand effective and urgent international co-operation and relevant global strategies.
We have been repeatedly reminded that this is the last gracious Speech before the general election. In that election the British people will almost certainly elect a government to take us into the next millennium. Would that the gracious Speech had reflected the vision, the insight, the statesmanship and the courage to face up to the century ahead! I fear that it totally failed to do so in its preoccupation with the short-term game of political tactics. I fear that it will be come to be seen as a historic

207
opportunity missed, one more occasion when politics became still further demeaned by yet another betrayal of future generations.
I am deeply saddened and not a little fearful when I look at decent and imaginative Members of the Front Bench opposite trapped in a morass of popularism, repeatedly entangled with the sinister forces of xenophobia and nationalism within the ranks of their own party. It is not edifying and it does not augur well for democracy. The key to successful democracy is surely creative tension between, on the one hand, yes, accountability; but on the other, strong, firm leadership. Where is that leadership in government today?
Next month the World Food Summit will take place in Rome against the backcloth of one of the most beautiful and magnificent cities in the world. But the real backdrop to that summit is the appalling deprivation to which so many people in the world are still subjected. More than 800 million do not have enough to eat, while half a billion are chronically malnourished. That is despite more than enough food in the world to feed everybody—perhaps one-and-a-half times as much as is required. I hope therefore that the United Kingdom will take a lead in examining the rules of world food trade as well as its volume.
The Uruguay Round forced governments in developing countries to liberalise their agricultural markets but at the same time failed to deal with direct and indirect subsidies paid to northern producers and designed to gain market share. Far from a level playing field, that often presents farmers in the developing world with an impossible mountain to scale. For example, how can the 500,000 corn producers of Mindanao in the Philippines who earn less than 100 dollars a year relish a playing field which pits them in direct competition with US producers who enjoy subsidies 100 times greater than their income? What in fact happens is the destruction of local markets and a vicious circle of declining local production and growing dependence on imports.
In December Ministers will gather for a meeting of the World Trade Organisation in Singapore. The WTO has a vital role to play in opening up world trade, but we must never overlook the social dangers. I hope therefore that in Singapore the United Kingdom will give a lead on the issues of child and forced labour and the denial of the right to free association. The World Trade Organisation badly needs a social convention dealing with those matters. While we must be careful not to use such a convention as our own protectionism by the back-door, it could help to prevent irresponsible companies from travelling the world in search of ever lower social and environmental standards—a practice which compounds the deprivation of other parts of the world, frequently wrecks the environment and also threatens British workers.
More than 1,000 million people still miserably cling to life on less than one dollar a day, 1.75 billion have no access to safe water and more than 35,000 children die every day of every year in painfully distressing circumstances from preventable diseases. In an age of unprecedented wealth, of the most incredibly
208
sophisticated technology, how can we continue to condone that? How can we condone millions more going prematurely to their graves, never having begun to fulfil their potential? That is why the Overseas Development Administration is so essential and why it should have the authority and status of a fully-fledged department of state. The ODA should be there to ensure that the values which ought to be central to our own national life are applied in meeting our responsibilities as members of the global community as well.
Well-targeted development assistance works. I have seen it working often for myself. To provide it is our moral duty. But as so often with sound morality, it is in our enlightened self-interest as well. As the Minister said, it creates markets and investment opportunities; it reduces the breeding grounds of conflict; it tackles at source many of the problems which stem from poverty; and it is altogether more cost-effective than vast expensive relief and reconstruction operations when preventable disaster happens. But quality matters greatly. Why, despite the solemn commitments at the Social Summit in Copenhagen, are we making such slow progress—still little more than half-way toward the target of 20 per cent. of our development assistance for basic needs? Why still so small a proportion of our total aid budget for basic education and health in the poorest countries? Why so much aid to countries which spend so extensively on the purchase of arms, not least from Britain? What of the questionable commercial culture chipping away at the developmental integrity of aid programmes and perhaps inevitably leading to episodes like Pergau? Why, too, no lead on the untying of aid when, extraordinarily, the ODA's own studies have concluded that to give such a lead would be in the UK's interests no less than in the interests of the third world? And what of human rights? How much real significance is in fact given to them in determining aid programmes?
As has already been remarked, with so much of our aid programme now going through multilateral channels, not least the European Union, the need to throw British weight into constantly striving for quality and cost-effectiveness in these programmes cannot be overstated. There is a great deal to be said for multilateralism, but it must be effective. Too often, we have to face it, it is not. It has been distressing to see Britain's commitment to aid declining; down from 0.51 per cent. of our gross national product—our national wealth—in 1979 to just 0.29 per cent. and falling in 1996. And this amidst government claims of economic recovery and strength.
The Minister likes to refer to private investment. But private investment, although vital, seldom targets the poorest. And whatever the Minister may say, it is sad that we now stand at only 14th out of 21 in the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD league table in terms of the proportion of our national wealth we devote to aid. Surely, as one of the only five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, we ought, as indeed should the other four, to put our commitment and our example where we want our status and influence to be. The decline must be halted and reversed. We shall be delighted if that

209
happens in the Budget next month. But if it does not, we on these Benches will reverse the trend when we come to office.
In all this sorry saga there has been one ray of light. The Chancellor deserves the appreciation of us all for the part he has played in achieving international agreement on the alleviation of third world debt. Debt was crucifying some of the poorest countries. What has now been agreed at the International financial institutions will potentially make a powerful contribution to the fight against world poverty. But we shall need to be vigilant. The opportunity could all too easily be frittered away. Everything possible must now be done to ensure that the benefits are effectively targeted on poverty reductions.
The role of the international financial institutions has not always been so helpful. It is no coincidence that the IMF reforms and the consequent deterioration in living standards preceded the genocide in Rwanda. Coming on the heels of the collapse in the world price of coffee, the IMF strategy for change in Rwanda showed a disturbing lack of sensitivity to the tensions and dangers of that country. Prior to the genocide, Western nations showed crass indifference to the tensions of the region, and when civil war erupted and then turned into genocide, Western reaction, to our eternal shame, was studious disengagement while half a million people perished. Over two years later we still remain politically disengaged despite the fact that in the Rwandese refugee camps, in Burundi and now in Eastern Zaire we are witnessing bloodletting and intimidation on a truly dreadful scale. In Central Africa emergency aid has been the substitute for a meaningful political policy. The result is chaos and the sickening danger of the worst and most evil chapter yet to come, with violent human catastrophe overtaking the region as a whole.
Humanitarian action, and when necessary military action, can be part of political action. But as we saw so clearly in Somalia, they can never be a substitute for it. What is needed now, and fast, is a political analysis of the Great Lakes region as a whole and a political strategy for working towards viable stability. We look to the Minister to give us that lead.
Again and again we are seeing that conflicts and their consequences are inherently difficult and exorbitantly expensive to resolve when they have become violent. It really is essential that we make conflict prevention and proactive diplomacy priorities. I am amazed that Ministers of Finance across the world are not insisting on this. We need to equip the international community with the means of identifying potential conflicts before they erupt in violence and we need to follow up that early warning with preventive action. Both the United Nations and the European Union, in its moves towards a more successful common, foreign and security policy, have central parts to play. The Government should be pursuing this within the Intergovernmental Conference on the European Union. An ability to develop this critical work should be high on the list of relevant criteria by which the choice of the strongest possible next Secretary-General of the United Nations is made.
210
It is almost a cliché to say that the challenges which face us today are totally different from those of the cold war. Yet there is little evidence that that has been grasped by the Government as they have implemented draconian Treasury-driven cuts in our military capability. The defence budget has fallen by 27 per cent. in real terms between 1986 and 1996. As a result, Britain now has a dangerous mismatch between commitments and resources. In addition to ensuring the security of our islands and dependent territories, our Armed Services are being repeatedly faced with challenging new missions as UN peace-keepers and supporters of humanitarian operations, which are tasks in which they have excelled.
Globally, we are faced with changes in the balance of power which will see vastly increased significance for East Asia. Already military spending in East Asia as a whole is equal to that of NATO Europe. At the same time there is the deep and profound crisis in Russia and the former Soviet Union. So far, we have all been pretty lucky, but how long will it last? How do we relate the Russian trauma to the expansion of NATO? How do we avoid provoking what we want to avoid?
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, are right to be concerned. NATO expansion must at all costs obviously be carefully considered in the context of the need for confidence-building and peace-building in the wider theatre, especially with Russia. The objective must be to bring Russia into the international community and not to exclude her with God knows what consequences. Meanwhile, there is clearly room to continue developing welcome flexibility within NATO as it stands by emphasising the role of the Western European Union, not least in humanitarian and peace-keeping tasks. The growing importance of the OSCE is also significant for Europe's wider stability. It deserves more United Kingdom encouragement.
Against all that I argue that it is inexcusable that, with all the momentous shifts in the global context, there has been no comprehensive review of the world situation and what it means for our Armed Services. Such a review is an imperative. We on these Benches are pledged to undertake it when we come to office. We owe it to the dedicated men and women of our Armed Services and to all who support them, not least in the defence industry. They all badly need to be able to look ahead with confidence to what is expected of them.
The review will obviously have to encompass the vital role of arms control, disarmament and security policy. For now I shall just endorse what my noble friend Lady Blackstone has already said—how much we welcome the Government's commitment in the gracious Speech to ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and to negotiations on the convention to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other explosive purposes.
However, we are sorry that the Government did not go on to include among their objectives a freeze on the numbers of nuclear warheads, with no more on Trident than on Polaris; a negotiated multilateral no-first-use agreement among nuclear weapon states, strengthened

211
security assurances to non-nuclear weapon states; more assistance to the countries of the former Soviet Union with the dismantling of their nuclear weapons and with the improvement of safety standards at their nuclear bases and civil nuclear power stations; the effective implementation of the chemical weapons convention; a strengthening of the biological and toxic weapons convention; a European code of conduct to ensure that conventional arms exports from the European Union are not to be used for aggressive purposes, for internal repression or to be purchased at the expense of meeting the basic social needs of the populations of the importing countries and reinforcing the United Nations conventional arms register. We believe all these to be priorities.
In conclusion, the Scott Report underlined the need for greater accountability and transparency in the conduct of arms exports. Parliament must never again be kept in the dark about the destination of British-manufactured military equipment. Unrestrained arms sales can too easily threaten regional security, undermine the goals and achievements of overseas development policy and even, as Saddam has demonstrated, threaten our own security.
Reflecting on our debate today, it is clear to me that we can no longer settle for a purely military approach to security. Security must be seen in a mature and comprehensive perspective. Defence policy and overseas development policy, for example, should not be separate endeavours, each to be pursued in isolation; they should be complementary, reflecting our determination to ensure that we live up to our responsibilities in the 21st century both to the world community as a whole and, by doing that well, to our own children and grandchildren.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he tell the House whether, assuming that we arrive in office, the new Labour Government would follow the exact example of the existing regime in retaining Trident and in being ready to use it in certain circumstances?
Lord Judd: My Lords, our policy is absolutely and categorically clear. We shall retain Trident. We shall have no more warheads than on Polaris. We shall embark seriously on comprehensive nuclear and general disarmament policies and as soon as it becomes relevant and practical to do so, we shall make Trident part of that policy.
9.46 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, it is a privilege for me to close this foreign affairs and defence debate on the gracious Speech. The past few hours have provided us with a most interesting and thought-provoking session. We have covered a lot of ground. Indeed, we have covered so much ground that I feel bound to deliver my usual prefatory remarks with more than usual emphasis. If I do not manage to answer all the points or questions raised by noble Lords, I apologise in advance and, to the extent that I do not
212
manage to do so, either I or my noble friend Lady Chalker will write separately on the specific issues where appropriate.
As today's debate has illustrated, defence and foreign affairs are more closely linked than ever before. The strategic threat to Western Europe has gone. But in its place have appeared a series of more localised threats based on instability, unrest and ethnic and regional tension.
In such a climate the promotion of international peace and stability serves the interests not only of countries like the United Kingdom but the international community as a whole. Our Armed Forces are being used more than ever before to promote our national interests overseas and their professionalism and integrity have made them respected wherever they operate around the globe.
My noble friend Lady Chalker has already referred to the situation in Bosnia and to the priorities for peace implementation. I begin by focusing briefly on the military operations there. British troops are in the fourth year of operations in the former Yugoslavia. They have performed admirably, both as part of UNPROFOR and, since December 1995, as part of the NATO-led implementation force, IFOR. IFOR has been a great success. It has achieved the military aims laid out in the Dayton Peace Agreement. The cessation of hostilities has been maintained. The forces of the former warring factions have been separated; and they and their weapons have been returned to barracks and cantonment sites. Their movement is controlled by IFOR, and IFOR has responded robustly to any non-compliance. IFOR is helping to bring peace and stability to the Bosnian people. It is a credit to NATO and a source of pride for all troop contributors.
Noble Lords are well aware of the UK's substantial involvement. We initially committed over 11,500 troops, with a further 3,000 Royal Navy and Royal Air Force personnel based offshore and in Italy. We currently have around 9,000 troops on the ground and 500 service personnel offshore and in Italy. We remain the second largest IFOR contributor.
The headquarters of the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps—a multi-national, but largely British-manned, headquarters—has led the overall land operation under the command of General Sir Michael Walker. This has been a powerful demonstration of NATO's effectiveness in the alliance's first ever land operation. The ARRC headquarters has been in Bosnia for almost a year and will shortly begin its handover to the NATO LANDCENT headquarters as part of the IFOR drawdown. I should like to congratulate General Walker and all his staff on their outstanding achievements.
The United Kingdom also leads the multinational division in the south-west sector of Bosnia. That division has firmly established itself on both sides of the inter-entity boundary line and has ensured strict compliance with the military provisions of Dayton. The division has worked closely and successfully with the Overseas Development Administration. Since April it has undertaken over 210 ODA projects costing

213
£5.7 million to rebuild the infrastructure of the area. Such visible and tangible benefits have shown the people of Bosnia the advantages of peace. My noble friend Lady Chalker will be visiting Bosnia next week. IFOR will complete its mission in December but the international effort in Bosnia will continue. As the noble Marquess, Lord Tweeddale, stressed, the primary focus must be the continuing civil operation. Reconciliation and co-operation between the parties is the key to peace. Foreign military forces cannot remain indefinitely in Bosnia. This difficult political problem does not have a military solution.
There has been much speculation about what might follow IFOR. I will not add to that speculation here other than to note what my right honourable friend the Defence Secretary said recently in another place. If there were to be an international force in Bosnia in 1997 we would expect it to be NATO-led like IFOR. That is why NATO has set in train contingency planning by NATO military authorities. It makes no assumptions about the final outcome, which will allow us to keep options open for later political decisions. Equally, I am sure noble Lords would agree that if there were to be such a force this country should play its part alongside its allies.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, spoke about war criminals in the former Yugoslavia. The United Kingdom strongly supports the international criminal tribunal. We have always stressed the importance of bringing to justice those responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law in the former Yugoslavia. The United Kingdom has provided evidence, personnel and financial support for its work. NATO and IFOR are similarly assisting the tribunal's activities, for instance by helping to protect the sites of suspected mass graves until the tribunal is able to investigate them. My noble friend will write to the noble Lord on some of the other matters in this area that he raised. In particular the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked about Radovan Karadzic. All IFOR troops, including those from the United Kingdom, have explicit orders to detain Karadzic if the opportunity arises. They have a remit to transfer him to the international tribunal in The Hague to face trial. IFOR patrols maintain a wide presence throughout Bosnia and carry out checks on vehicles and individuals. Karadzic and the other indicted persons are therefore at a heightened risk of arrest.
I should like to touch on the point raised by my noble friend Lord Kingsland about an international criminal court. The Government support the establishment of an international criminal court to try certain of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community. Our support for the establishment of such a court is dependent, among other things, on it being a court of last resort in cases where states are unable or unwilling to act. We also feel that a court should be established only if it is generally accepted by the international community.
One of the major themes of today's debate has been proliferation and arms control. Like every other aspect of international relations, these subjects have undergone a change. Together, they are a fundamental element in stability and security both in Europe and wider afield.
214
We are working to develop them further. Last year saw full implementation of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (or CFE) Treaty. With the wider confidence and security-building measures of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, it provides unparalleled military transparency.
There has been progress in other areas. The Chemical Weapons Convention will soon enter into force. We look forward to its early ratification by the United States and Russia. We are working to develop effective verification provisions for the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (or NPT) is the backbone of efforts to reduce and limit the spread of nuclear weapons. Only six states have not yet joined. In the spring we signed the protocols to the Treaties of Raratonga and Pelindaba on nuclear weapon free zones in the South Pacific and Africa. Last month as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, reminded us, the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly adopted the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Some 130 states have already signed. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that we continue to work to further the process of nuclear non-proliferation and reductions in nuclear weapons.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, asked how the CTBT will be verified. There is provision in the treaty for an international monitoring system consisting of monitoring stations around the world, linked to a data centre which will be situated in Vienna. There is also provision for on-site inspections, if they are necessary, though we should have preferred a stronger regime. We are confident that that verification regime should provide an effective deterrent against further testing.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked about UK ratification. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made it clear on 11th September that it is our firm intention to ratify but legislation will be required for that. So unfortunately I am not in a position to give a date at this juncture.
We have noted the conclusions of the Canberra Commission to which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, referred. He was kind enough to send me a copy of that report, for which I was grateful. The House will have listened to his speech with care. We remain committed to the pursuit of:
"negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to…nuclear disarmament".
My right honourable friend Mr. Hurd, then Foreign Secretary, said in May 1995 that we would be prepared to join in negotiations on the reduction of nuclear weapons in a world in which US and Russian nuclear weapons were numbered in hundreds rather than thousands. More generally, let me say to the gallant and noble Lord and to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, whose consistency of purpose I greatly respect, nuclear disarmament cannot realistically be pursued independently of the broader security context; and we and NATO judge that nuclear deterrence continues to play an essential role in maintaining peace and stability in Europe.

215
On the issue of disarmament, I believe that the arguments deployed so cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, deserve the closest attention. It is worth reminding ourselves of the simple fact that nuclear deterrence has prevented major conflict in Europe for over 50 years.
Arms control and non-proliferation are complemented by international export control arrangements. Those in support of the Chemical Weapons Convention and Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention are harmonised through the Australia Group.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, referred, in particular, to anti-personnel mines. We continue to work towards our goal of a total worldwide ban on anti-personnel mines and are working hard in all the relevant fora to achieve it. If such a ban can be agreed, we will give up our anti-personnel land mine capability and will destroy our stocks accordingly. But unilateral renunciation by the UK would not achieve the reduction of dangers to civilians that we seek. We need to balance the humanitarian concern posed by the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel land mines with a continuing military requirement. If we can convince major producers, exporters and users to ban those weapons then the UK is willing to join that consensus. We will also ban them if suitable alternatives can be found.
The noble Lord referred to an allegation about a particular UK company (Londesborough Security Equipment). My honourable friend Mr. Davis replied to that allegation on 27th October in a letter in the Independent on Sunday in which he said:
"Any company seeking to export such land mines would need to apply for an export licence. We have received no such application from the company in your article. We have made clear what our response to such an application would be. We would refuse it".
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, trenchantly expressed his views on NATO enlargement. Equally trenchant was the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. Earlier today my noble friend Lady Chalker touched on the enlargement of NATO and its relationships with the countries to the east, in particular Russia. Perhaps I may emphasise what my noble friend said. Britain is fully committed to NATO enlargement and to extending to the new democracies in the East the security and stability that membership of the alliance has helped to secure for the West. I note the concerns that that will unsettle Russia and the Ukraine and the disappointed candidates. Those concerns are well taken. That is why the allies have long recognised that NATO's policy will need to go beyond the question of which countries are admitted and when. Such countries will be few—at least in the short term. For the others—the majority of the 27 non-NATO nations that now belong to NATO's Partnership for Peace—there will need in parallel to be an enhancement of the partnership and there will need to be a more meaningful relationship with Russia and Ukraine.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that NATO's relationship with Russia is a vital element of the future security architecture of Europe, to pick up my right honourable friend's expression. We do not expect the Russians to welcome enlargement of NATO, but I think that the Russian Defence Minister, General
216
Radionov, was surprised to find how open were the allies to the idea of co-operation when he met them in Bergen last month. We can still do more to exploit the opportunities for joint work with Russia offered by Partnership for Peace. Bosnia has shown what can be achieved. We might plan together for future joint military missions. We should make it the norm for the alliance to consult Russia on changes in which it could have an interest. There is scope for discussing together co-operation on countering terrorism, drugs trafficking, organised crime and weapons proliferation. If enough of substance emerges from that co-operation the relationship between Russia and NATO could be formalised in a charter. That could be accompanied by a revised CFE treaty to meet the new strategic realities in Europe.
Implicit in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, was a question about which countries would be invited to join. That question has not yet been decided. As he well knows, a number of countries are enthusiastic candidates for membership. The guiding principle is that the alliance should be strengthened by enlargement. Next year will not be the end of the story. NATO has taken in new members a number of times in its history and will doubtless continue to do so in the future.
My noble friend Lord Kingsland asked how Parliament would be consulted during the enlargement process. Parliament will be informed as appropriate of the negotiations on enlargement. It will be for the government of the day to decide on the modalities. NATO has not yet decided on the precise sequence or content of the process of accession for new members but the enlargement study states that there will be a protocol of accession which will have to be accepted by all allies before entry comes into force. In accordance with established procedures, we would lay that protocol before the House for 21 days before accepting it.
Our Armed Forces and the enlargement of NATO are not, of course, the only means of promoting Britain's interests and influence abroad. My noble friends Lady Rawlings and Lord Orr-Ewing and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, spoke powerfully about the BBC World Service. As they will be aware, the FCO and the BBC World Service Working Group have agreed a series of 20 measures designed to ensure the continued protection of the World Service's interests and the maintenance of the special character, ethos, style and quality of World Service broadcasts. That is encouraging. We shall, however, be keeping a close watch on implementation. The working group will reconvene in autumn 1997 to ensure that the new measures agreed are functioning satisfactorily and producing the desired results. Meanwhile, my noble friend Lady Chalker recently met an all-party group from your Lordships' House to discuss the World Service. I know that she has made clear her wish to be consulted on any proposals which may affect the World Service in the future.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester devoted a good part of his final and compelling speech to overseas aid. I found myself in agreement with much

217
of what he said. He and your Lordships will understand that I cannot pre-empt decisions by my right honourable friend the Chancellor in his forthcoming Budget.
Let me, however, remind your Lordships that in 1994-95 about three-quarters of United Kingdom bilateral assistance went to the poorest developing countries—well above average for all donors. Eight out of 10 of the biggest recipients were poor countries in Africa and Asia; a substantial proportion of the bilateral programme is devoted to meeting the basic needs of the poorest communities, as well as block grants to NGOs. In 1994–95 about £130 million was spent in this area. If emergency aid is included in the equation, the figure rises to £303 million—almost one-third of the bilateral programme.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned in particular sub-Saharan Africa. Forty-three per cent. of our bilateral aid (over £386 million in 1994–95) went to countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The poorest countries of sub-Saharan Africa will continue to require very substantial amounts of development assistance. These countries have been and will continue to be a high priority for British help. Many have embarked upon structural adjustment and policy reform programmes, which take time to bear fruit. Their external funding needs are substantial in order to reconstruct their economies and provide for better living standards.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate that desperate poverty is still a problem in many parts of the world. Aid is not the only means of reducing poverty, however. Trade, investment, debt relief and so on must also play a part. I was grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for his perceptive remarks on that score. An important new target has been agreed by all donors this year of reducing by half, by the year 2015, the proportion of people living in extreme poverty. Britain is committed to this target, in partnership with the developing world. Let me say from these Benches how much we shall miss the contributions of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester to our debates. Like the noble Lord, Lord Judd, we wish him well in his retirement.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, spoke about tied aid. I shall not attempt to answer all the points that he made, but the benefits to the United Kingdom from the unilateral untying would be negligible. The benefits of multilateral untying would be much greater. What we must work for is international commitment by all countries to untie aid. The noble Lord went on to speak about debt, a subject which was also mentioned by other noble Lords. The British Government have taken the lead in pressing for a resolution to the debt problem of the poorest and most indebted countries. We were pleased to report that at the recent annual meetings of the World Bank and the IMF Ministers agreed the highly indebted poor countries' debt initiative based on proposals put forward by my right honourable friend the Chancellor for reducing the debts of these countries to a sustainable level.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, asked a number of detailed questions about the position of women in regard to development aid, education and the matter of United Kingdom advisers in the European Commission.
218
I cannot answer all her questions now for reasons that she will understand, but I can say that the Government's national report on our response to the Beijing Programme of Action will be published next month. This will show that the percentage of bilateral aid designed to address the needs of women has increased to more than 20 per cent. in 1995-96 from 16 per cent. the year before. The United Kingdom is at the forefront of European Union and OECD work to take these issues further. In this work we are laying particular emphasis on increasing women's literacy. There are a number of ways of assessing progress in that, and I am sure that my noble friend Lady Chalker will wish to inform the House as appropriate when the time comes.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, dwelt on the vexed question of the United Nations' finances. Let me just say very briefly to the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government believe that member states should pay their dues to the United Nations promptly, in full and without conditions. We will continue to press the European Union financial reform proposals, including the reform of the scale of United Nations assessments, based on the principle of capacity to pay, in order to solve the financial difficulties of the United Nations. However, I would not disguise from him that the situation is still serious. As at 30th September, amounts owing to the United Nations totalled 2.7 billion US dollars and of this the United States owed some 1.6 billion US dollars. We welcome the recent approval by Congress of US appropriations to the UN for 1996, but that will still leave a shortfall in US contributions to the United Nations and its agencies.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, suggested that UN human rights activity was circumscribed by lack of funds. Human rights are a recognised priority for the United Nations but funding provided for United Nations human rights work is nonetheless inadequate. We shall continue to push for more of the regular budget's existing resources to be allocated to human rights.
I noted with great interest the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gillmore of Thamesfield. He will understand that at this particularly sensitive juncture of public expenditure planning there is a natural limit to what I can say in response to him. However, there was much in his speech with which I can wholeheartedly agree, not least his emphasis on the United Kingdom's global interests and the excellent work performed around the world by our ambassadors and embassy officials in promoting British exports.
I turn briefly to some of the parts of the world to which noble Lords have referred. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe spoke knowledgeably and persuasively about the Ukraine. The House will be grateful for all that he said. Her Majesty's Government are committed to helping an independent, prosperous and democratic Ukraine play a full part in Europe, including in European security arrangements. The United Kingdom is assisting with political and economic reform bilaterally through high level contacts and our £20 million know-how fund allocation, as well as through action in the European Union and other multilateral fora such as EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development). The World Bank and

219
IMF will also assist. My noble friend mentioned the need to maintain high level visits to the Ukraine. As he said, as a demonstration of the United Kingdom's support, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is to visit the Ukraine on 4th and 5th November.
My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, spoke with some emphasis of the future of Hong Kong, and in particular of the ethnic minorities there. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced in Hong Kong that we would guarantee to members of that community admission and settlement in Britain in the unlikely event that they should come under pressure to leave Hong Kong after the transfer of sovereignty. That guarantee reinforces the Government's existing commitment to that group and will remove any doubts that might exist about whether they would be admitted to Britain. That group whose families have been in Hong Kong for many generations want to remain in Hong Kong. I believe that our reassurance will give them the confidence that they need to stay there.
The noble Baroness also asked about the outcome of talks with the Prime Minister of Zaire. My noble friend Lady Chalker and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary met the Zairian Prime Minister Kengo during his visit to London on 22nd October. They discussed the recent escalation of the conflict in eastern Zaire. They encouraged him to remain in close contact with all the regional leaders and to do all he can to diffuse tension with Rwanda and among different ethnic groups in eastern Zaire.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to OSCE and the human rights situation in Turkey. Let me simply say that Turkey as an OSCE participating state is bound by several undertakings on human rights. There will be an opportunity at the forthcoming OSCE review meeting in Vienna between 4th and 22nd November to draw attention to countries whose actions have given cause for concern, and Turkey is one of those.
A number of your Lordships have devoted considerable attention to Europe ranging from my noble friend Lord Pearson with his customary counsel of caution to the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, who spoke powerfully about our relations with France and Germany, and my noble friend Lord Bethell who made some telling points about a tendency in some quarters towards unhelpful and inflammatory Europhobia. My noble friend Lord Beloff and my noble friend Lord Bethell presented some contrasting aspects of the debate on the merits of the single European currency. I also listened with much interest to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, whose experience in these matters is manifest.
In the time available to me I cannot hope to do justice to these important issues. My noble friend Lady Chalker will wish to write to noble Lords wherever that is appropriate, but I wish to reassure my noble friend Lord Bethell that the Chequers seminar plays absolutely no part in influencing our policy towards Germany which remains—as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, rightly
220
observed—one of our most important and closest partners. However, time is now against me and although I had some comments to make about European enlargement, out of deference to the House's wishes at this late hour I shall forgo that part of my speech.
The major part of our debate today has centred on foreign affairs. I have referred to many of the themes raised. I hope that the House will allow me to close by reverting to the debate's other main theme: that of defence. There are three aspects of our policy that I wish to highlight. First, our Armed Forces are undertaking as wide a range of activities as ever before; and their ability to undertake high-intensity operations has not been diminished by their involvement in lower-intensity operations, including peacekeeping and humanitarian aid missions.
Secondly, we have successfully adapted our defence policies and force structures to take account of the new strategic setting. Our investment in mobility, flexibility and rapid reaction has given us forces better able to respond effectively to any challenges that may arise.
Finally, we attach great importance to the continuing drive to achieve value for money for defence. Our efficiency programmes and efforts to concentrate resources on the front line have produced savings that we have been able to plough back into enhancing our military capability.
Our Armed Forces are committed to the protection of this country and the promotion of our national interests. For our part, let there be no doubt, Her Majesty's Government are committed to our Armed Forces.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly until tomorrow.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill
The Bill, having been brought from the Commons on Friday last and printed pursuant to Standing Order 48, was, pursuant to the order of 16th October, deemed to have been read a first and second time and to have been reported from the Select Committee with amendments. The Bill was printed as amended pursuant to Standing Order 48 and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

Bodmin Moor Commons Bill [H.L.]
Pursuant to resolution of 24th July, Bill read a first time, passed through all its remaining stages pro forma and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past ten o'clock.

  Overseas Development Administration
  Overseas Development Administration
  Croatia and the Council of Europe
  Croatia and the Council of Europe
  Challenger 2 Development Programme
  Challenger 2 Development Programme
  Reserve Forces Act 1996: Secondary Legislation
  Reserve Forces Act 1996: Secondary Legislation
  Sex Offenders: Responses to Consultation Paper
  Sex Offenders: Responses to Consultation Paper
  "Protecting the Public": Responses to White Paper
  "Protecting the Public": Responses to White Paper
  Fine Defaulters and Low Level Offenders: Consultation Paper
  Fine Defaulters and Low Level Offenders: Consultation Paper
  Mentally Disordered Offenders: Consultation Paper
  Mentally Disordered Offenders: Consultation Paper
  Long-Term Care: Response to Select Committee Report
  Long-Term Care: Response to Select Committee Report