Sitting of 28 October 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
For the county constituency of Winchester, in the room of Mark Oaten Esquire, whose election on 1 May 1997 has been declared to be void.—[Mr. Tyler.]
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Single Currency
    Mr. Hawkins: What is Her Majesty's Government's policy on joining the arrangements for a single currency on 1 January 1999. [12111]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): As the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in his statement yesterday, British membership of a single currency in 1999 could not meet the five economic tests that the Government have set out. The Government will therefore be notifying our European partners that we shall not seek membership of the single currency on 1 January 1999.
    Mr. Hawkins: Will the Foreign Secretary now answer the question that the Chancellor of the Exchequer so obviously ducked yesterday: will the Government be applying for European funding to propagandise for our joining the euro?
    Mr. Cook: I am happy to say that we shall not be making any such application. It is a decision for the British people. As we assured the House yesterday, if and when the Government should take a decision to join the single currency, we shall put the matter to a referendum of the British people, who will have the final veto, as is their right.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House what proposals he has and what pressure he intends to put on the European Union to ensure that any central bank is democratically controlled and is accountable to an elected body somewhere, rather than its being an unelected organisation dictating economic policies to member states?
    Mr. Cook: My colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday made it clear that it is, and long has
    690
    been, our policy to press for a strengthening of ECOFIN so that it can set broad economic parameters and strategy within which the central bank would operate. That remains our position, and we shall continue to work for it.
    Mr. Howard: Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that it was not the Government's intention to join the exchange rate mechanism. How do the Government square that with the exchange rate mechanism requirements of the Maastricht treaty?
    Mr. Cook: I am happy to confirm what the Chancellor said yesterday, which is that we have no intention of joining the exchange rate mechanism. As he himself said, there have been many changes to that exchange rate mechanism since the Maastricht treaty. What will be required of us, should and when we ever wish to join the single currency, is evidence of currency stability. That can be perfectly well arranged without membership of the ERM.
    Mr. Howard: Will then the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the effect of that answer is that the pound will shadow the euro for at least two years before any date of entry to EMU?
    Mr. Cook: No, I can confirm no such thing. We have made it perfectly plain that we do not intend to join the ERM. We have also made it perfectly plain, if and when it appears to be in Britain?s economic interest, that we will join. I am bound to say that I thought that that would have been welcomed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. In the past three months, his party has gone through three different policies on the euro—
    Mr. Howard: Answer the question.
    Mr. Cook: I have answered the question. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's party began by ruling the euro out for several decades; it then ruled it out for one decade, and now it rules it out for the foreseeable future. It is a matter of relief to the country that the Conservatives will be in opposition for several decades to sort out their policy.
    Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am pleased that the Government will not apply to join the exchange rate mechanism? After what happened on 16 September 1992, that would be like a dog returning to its vomit.
    Mr. Cook: I think that my hon. Friend will wish me to clarify to the House that it was not our vomit, but that of the Conservatives. He puts his finger on one of the reasons why we are in office and they are out of office.

    Indonesia
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with the ASEAN group of nations with particular reference to Indonesia. [12112]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): We have good relations with ASEAN countries. My right hon. Friend the Foreign

    691
    Secretary's visit in August to four ASEAN countries, including Indonesia, underlined the importance that we attach to the region.
    Mr. Winterton: Does the Minister accept that Indonesia, which is the fourth largest country in the world by population, is a powerful member of the ASEAN group and an important trade outlet for the United Kingdom? Does he not believe that we should treat Indonesia as well as we treat the People's Republic of China—a country where democracy is non-existent and which has a desperately bad human rights record?
    Mr. Fatchett: We have good and constructive relations with Indonesia. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met President Suharto and Foreign Minister Alatas during his visit. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman saw the press statements on the outcome of those meetings and will be impressed by the commitment on both sides to the continuing commercial relationship.
    Mr. Sheerman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his successful recent visit to Indonesia. May I press the Minister a little further on what progress was made on agreements to encourage proper trading relationships with Indonesia? Will Indonesia become a burgeoning market for this country, apart from in certain sensitive materials?
    Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend recognises the importance of Indonesia as a commercial market. We seek to keep that market open and we will do all that we can to ensure that British goods and services are available at commercial prices in Indonesia. We look forward with great confidence to developing our position in that market.
    Dr. Tonge: Will the Secretary of State explain why, given his avowed intention not to trade with countries that have bad human rights records, another 11 arms contracts with Indonesia were signed during the summer recess?
    Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Lady is misinformed about the Government's policy. We have a series of objectives. Human rights is one, but many others come into play. We have judged each of the contracts to which the hon. Lady refers against the criteria that we have published and we shall continue to make decisions on any contract against those criteria. We are able to do that openly, which the previous Administration were not.

    Middle East Peace Process
    Mr. Burden: If he will make a statement on his assessment of progress in the middle east peace process. [12113]
    Mr. Robin Cook: The Government share the widespread concern at the lack of progress in the middle east peace process. I spoke with the United States Secretary of State before and after her recent visit to the region. I very much welcome the fact that it has produced a resumption of dialogue, which will have our full support.
    Mr. Burden: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. We all want success in the middle east peace
    692
    process. Does he share my concern at statements made this week by the Israeli Prime Minister that illegal settlement building will continue? Will he tell the House how the Government can assist in persuading Israel that it, along with other parties, should take time out from unilateral actions? That should include illegal settlement building in east Jerusalem and elsewhere.
    Mr. Cook: We have fully endorsed the demand by Madeleine Albright for the Israeli Government to take time out from settlement building in the occupied territories. It is extremely important, if we are to make progress at the negotiating table, that the process should not be undermined by provocative acts on the ground. What is required is an outcome that offers a permanent peace on the basis of security for the Israeli people and justice for the Palestinian people.
    Mr. Soames: What is the nature of the representations that the Foreign Secretary has made to the Government of Israel following the attempted assassination of a Palestinian citizen in Jordan? Does he agree that that is the most astonishing and wicked act? Will he tell the Government of Israel that the British Government cannot share their ambitions in this respect and that they wish to see them begin to make progress in the peace talks, not merely act in a duplicitous manner?
    Mr. Cook: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that we have registered our condemnation in Jerusalem and in Tel Aviv. The Government fully condemn terrorist acts. We are anxious to ensure that terrorism is halted, but we believe that one does not halt terrorism by adopting the tactics of the terrorist.
    Dr. Starkey: The Minister will be aware that I recently visited the west bank and Gaza to see for myself the effects on the ground of the Israeli policy of internal closures. Those policies have resulted in Gaza being shut off for, on average, one day in three over the past three years. They have resulted in 65 per cent. unemployment and in Palestinians suffering from less freedom of movement than was the case before the Oslo agreement was signed, which has obviously had a detrimental effect on Palestinian public opinion. Can the Minister assure me that he is taking action to make representations to the Israeli Government, either directly or through the European Union, to get them to stop the unproductive policy of internal closures?
    Mr. Cook: I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that one of the positive effects of Madeleine Albright's visit was a sharp reduction in the Israeli Government's closure programme. I fully endorse my hon. Friend's general points. The closure process has resulted in a sharp increase in unemployment and a loss of economic trade throughout the Palestinian entity. It is important that the Israeli Government should take on board the fact that they are unlikely to succeed in the peace process if the Palestinian people find that, throughout the peace process, their standard of living goes down rather than up.

    European Union Enlargement
    Mr. Pickthall: If he will make a statement on the enlargement of the European Union. [12115]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): Enlargement is a central objective for the United Kingdom and the European Union. It will enhance security and prosperity in Europe, and is strongly in the national interest. We look forward to EU decisions, in December, on the early opening of enlargement negotiations. Reform of key policies is essential if enlargement is to be successful.
    Mr. Pickthall: Does my hon. Friend agree that, desirable though enlargement is, it is incompatible with the common agricultural policy in its present form? How does he see substantial reform of the CAP meshing with the movement towards enlargement, which most of us wish to see?
    Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there is a need for reform of the common agricultural policy. That need would be there even if enlargement of the European Union were not under consideration. The fact that enlargement is a top priority for the British presidency of the EU means that we shall give top priority in the negotiations in Luxembourg in December to seeking reform of the agricultural system in order to bring prices more in line with world prices.
    Mr. Tyrie: Will the Government give a commitment that they will protect Britain's rebate from the European Community budget in those negotiations? Will they further make a commitment that, in those negotiations, they will press for reform of the complete European Community budget to bring about a sharp reduction in the unacceptably large contribution that we now make to the European Community?
    Mr. Henderson: The answer to the first question in yes; we will protect the abatement. The answer to the second question is that we are firm in the belief that the Edinburgh criteria on the future size of the aggregate budget—1.27 per cent. of gross national product—should be a sticking point. During negotiations with our European partners, we have realised that there is increasing consensus behind that position.
    Mr. David Heath: Given that the Minister has agreed that common agricultural policy reform, along with structural reform and many other essential reforms, must precede any enlargement of the European Union, what measures did the Government take at Amsterdam to ensure that progress was made on those issues? How soon shall we see progress during the British presidency?
    Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman knows that some of those issues were covered in Amsterdam. The main forum for discussion will be the Luxembourg summit in December. Last weekend at Mondorf, I discussed those issues, among others, with other European Union Foreign Ministers. Achieving a way forward on structural funds, the budget, agricultural policy and enlargement are top priorities in our negotiations.
    Ann Clwyd: The Government have been critical of Turkey and its human rights record. Can my hon. Friend assure us that there will be no further support for Turkey while it continues to violate the rights of Kurds living in
    694
    Turkey and to bomb the Kurds in northern Iraq, as has occurred almost daily since 13 October? What representations have been made to stop that bombing?
    Mr. Henderson: I visited Turkey three weeks ago and raised those issues with the Turkish Government. I made it clear that, while Britain believes that there is a strong case for Turkey to be included in the European conference because of its important geo-political situation and other reasons, it cannot be without condition. Turkey must improve democracy, and that involves a change of attitude to the Kurdish community, progress on human rights and economic reform. All those points were made to the Turkish Government as well as specific representations in respect of the recent incidents to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Streeter: Do the Government now regret not pushing the agenda for enlargement more energetically at Amsterdam? Does the Minister regret pushing for deepening rather than widening the EU? Will he clarify his Government's policy? Is it their policy to press the European Commission to open its arms more widely to other central and eastern European states and not just to the five plus one? Will he clarify that matter?
    Mr. Henderson: I am extremely surprised that the hon. Gentleman should refer to the Government making an impact on the negotiations at Amsterdam. His Government could not even find a dialogue with the other European Union countries, never mind have any influence on them. He is the last hon. Member I would have expected to raise that question. In relation to the 10 countries plus Cyprus seeking membership of the European Union, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we support the European Commission proposals that negotiations should begin with five countries plus Cyprus, but other understandings on the way forward for the other five countries should be an important focus of the negotiations at Luxembourg.

    Entry Clearance (Islamabad)
    Fiona Mactaggart: On what dates during 1997 the computer system at Islamabad has failed to operate properly; and how applicants for entry clearance have been informed of the consequences for their applications of problems caused by computer failures. [12116]
    Mr. Fatchett: During 1997, the computer system at Islamabad has failed to operate properly between 2 and 20 May and between 16 June and 13 July. Applicants for entry clearance were informed of the consequences for applications by means of advertisements placed in the national newspapers. Where interviews were imminent but had to be postponed, applicants were informed by letter. A new system was installed in September and is working well.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I thank the Minister for that reply and congratulate him on the fact that a new system has been installed. Frankly, it was desperately needed. Many of my constituents have suffered as a result of the delays caused by the breakdown of the previous system. It occurs to me that, since the installation of the new system, there has been a reduction in the number of applications and

    695
    fewer people have been able to visit their relatives here. Given the difficulties that people have faced and the fact that Islamabad is the largest visa-issuing post for Britain, does the Minister have any proposals to make the process easier?
    Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the situation that we inherited in Islamabad was far from satisfactory. I am delighted to say that we have taken immediate action in respect of the information technology. We have additional good news in that there are five new entry clearance posts, which we expect to be filled by next January. That should facilitate the process and ensure that individuals get a proper deal.
    Mr. Swayne: Oh joy, joy!
    Mr. Fatchett: If the hon. Gentleman feels that people should not be given justice just because they come from Pakistan, that shows how out of touch he and his party are. To finish the litany of good news, my colleague Baroness Symons now has two additional posts in her private office to ensure that correspondence from hon. Members is dealt with more quickly.

    Kashmir
    Mr. Pike: What recent discussions the Government have had with representatives of the Indian and Pakistan Governments on the issue of Kashmir. [12117]
    Mr. Robin Cook: I discussed Kashmir with senior political figures during the recent visit to Pakistan and India. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also had the opportunity to meet the Prime Ministers of both countries at the weekend. Britain continues to be willing to help, but any offer of help must be acceptable to both countries.
    Mr. Pike: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he recognises that there is considerable international concern about the on-going conflict in Kashmir between India and Pakistan, in which more than 1,000 people have been killed in the past 12 months? During recent months, there has been renewed shelling over the line of control. Will he make it clear that it is the Government's policy to give full support to the bilateral talks between India and Pakistan, with the hope that that leads to a conclusion of the conflict, while recognising that Pakistan and India have more to gain than anybody else from the solution to the problem?
    Mr. Cook: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The two countries have a lot to gain from bilateral discussion, particularly by an improvement in trade, which is at present only 1 per cent. of their two gross domestic products. We warmly welcome the fact that the Prime Minister of India has initiated such a bilateral dialogue and we were glad that we were able at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting to ensure that both of them had the opportunity to have a further bilateral dialogue, which I understand went well.
    Dr. Fox: Who authorised Government spin doctors to try to blacken the name of our high commissioner in India, David Gore-Booth? It is surely correct to blame not
    696
    the servants but the masters for the failures of foreign policy. When will amateur hour at the Foreign Office come to an end?
    Mr. Cook: No spin doctor and no official at the Foreign Office has uttered any hostile word to David Gore-Booth, who behaved—[Interruption.] I am happy to assure the House that that is exactly so. I have seen no reference in any British newspaper to any suggestion that any British spin doctor, official, news briefer—whatever one chooses to call them—has uttered a word of hostility to David Gore-Booth. On the contrary, I have myself said that he conducted himself with great dignity in sometimes very difficult circumstances.
    Mr. Terry Davis: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that, in deciding the future of Kashmir, the most important people are the Kashmiri people themselves?
    Mr. Cook: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that although the solution is primarily for both countries to find, that solution, if it is to be permanent and acceptable, must be acceptable to all the peoples of Kashmir: Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist.
    Mr. Faber: Can the right hon. Gentleman clear up the confusion that he caused on "Today" two weeks ago when he said that the state visit to India had been an unqualified success, but that it was all the fault of the previous Government for arranging it at the wrong time?
    Mr. Cook: I shall happily repeat to the hon. Gentleman that I think that it would have been better to be able to look forward to the next 50 years rather than backwards to the past 50 years. I am happy that he has noticed that the state visit was an unqualified success.
    Mr. Faber: That is what you said.
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman used my own words. Her Majesty was greeted with immense warmth by the people of India and our trade exhibition was an outstanding success. It would be helpful if Opposition Members recognised the contribution that Her Majesty has made to Anglo-Indian relations rather than running it down.
    Mr. Galloway: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, far from being a failure, his policy on Kashmir has millions of friends in this country and around the world who have been greatly cheered by his courage in standing up for an ethical foreign policy on behalf of a people who have been oppressed for the best part of the past 50 years by a Government—India—who have failed to implement the United Nations resolutions calling for self-determination for the people of that occupied territory? Has he had the chance to see the United States State Department report, which has described the line of control between India and Pakistan in Kashmir as the most dangerous flashpoint in international relations today—both sides of course having nuclear potential?
    Mr. Cook: I am well aware of the report to which my hon. Friend refers. He is right to make the point that the

    697
    issue is of legitimate interest because both countries have near, perhaps undeclared, nuclear capacity. The issue will remain at the front of many minds.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Following the Foreign Secretary's notorious visit to Pakistan and India, would not the best way to solve the Kashmir problem be a period of quiet reflection by the British Government? Does not the difficult problem of Kashmir demonstrate that it would be dangerous for the British Government to act as an arbiter?
    Mr. Cook: As I understand it, I am accused of having said that Britain would be willing to help to find a just solution. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister whom he supported in the previous Government said last April:
    "we are prepared to help in the search for a solution".—[Official Report, 23 April 1996; Vol. 276, c. 192.]
    It is pure humbug to suggest that such an offer is statesmanship when made by a Tory Prime Minister, but lack of tact when made by a Labour Foreign Secretary.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Barnes: If he will make a statement on progress towards meeting the Dayton accords with respect to Bosnia. [12118]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): We are making excellent progress with the tougher approach to peace implementation that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary agreed with his steering board colleagues at Sintra in May, but much more remains to be done and we shall be keeping the pressure up until it is. I shall make that clear to all three parties when I visit Bosnia this week.
    Mr. Barnes: Are not the Bosnian Serbs driving a coach and horses through the Dayton accord by refusing to hand over indicted war criminals to the court in The Hague? Is it not essential that the criminals should be handed over, if lasting peace is to be achieved in Yugoslavia and if refugees are to be returned to the areas that they came from?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend raises a real question. The Bosnian Serbs should learn the clear lesson given by the Bosnian Croats when Kordic and the other nine Bosnian Croats went to The Hague to face the charges against them. We expect the same from all indictees, whether Bosnian Serbs or Bosnian Croats. On the question of the return of refugees, my hon. Friend will be glad to know that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has a programme to return 100,000 refugees this year. Already, 83,000 have returned and the programme is on course. That is good news. Progress has been made and will continue to be made.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister said that he was keeping pressure on the three parties concerned. Does he agree that he might also need to keep pressure on the Americans, who hosted the Dayton accord, because there
    698
    seems to be a growing lobby in that country for withdrawing to an offshore commitment, instead of a hands-on commitment in Bosnia?
    Mr. Lloyd: Let me place on record that we work closely with the Americans and all our allies in Bosnia. Progress is being made. For example, the problems caused by corruption have seen Mrs. Plavsic break with the Pale crowd, including Karadzic and his cronies, in her anti-corruption drive. We have seen the seizure by the Stabilisation Force of the transmitters in Pale, which stopped the transmission of the daily messages of hate. Transmissions will be stopped until we get an agreement from the Bosnian Serbs in Pale that messages of hate are a thing of the past. We have seen an effort by our troops in Prijedor in arresting indictees, which gives a signal to all indictees that we expect to see them at The Hague. We shall see them at The Hague. Progress is being made, because all the allies are working together in the Dayton framework.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Hanson: What plans he has to meet the UN envoy to Cyprus to discuss the outcome of recent initiatives by the UN. [12119]
    Mr. Waterson: What progress has been made in the talks about the future of Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [12123]
    Mr. Doug Henderson: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no present plans to meet Mr. Cordovez, whom I met on 18 August. The Foreign Secretary discussed prospects for Cyprus with the United Nations Secretary-General in September, and assured him we would remain actively supportive of his efforts on Cyprus.
    Negotiations took place in July and August under the auspices of the UN between the leaders of the two communities in Cyprus. Those talks produced no definitive results, but the United Kingdom welcomes the intention of the UN to resume talks in early 1998.
    Mr. Hanson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he assure the House that the British Government, in any future negotiations, will ensure that the sovereignty of Cyprus continues and that United Nations resolutions are maintained? Will he also give especial emphasis to the issue of missing persons when Cyprus is discussed again? I welcome the Government's efforts in helping to move the process along.
    Mr. Henderson: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and I can give him the assurance that he seeks on the question of the sovereignty of Cyprus. We believe that the negotiators should consider the issue of missing persons as part of their agenda and I hope that they can reach a solution that is acceptable to all involved.
    Mr. Waterson: Does the Minister agree with the recent motion passed by the European Parliament which criticised—yet again—the attitude of the leader of the northern Cypriot regime, Mr. Denktas, to the negotiations? Is it not the case that, in these negotiations

    699
    and on many occasions before, the belligerence and lack of co-operation of Mr. Denktas have prevented progress from being made?
    Mr. Henderson: I hope that all the people of Cyprus recognise that the world is different from the one in which the current divisions were drawn up, many years ago. All those who can bring some intelligence to the process of resolving the difficulties must do what they can. During my recent visit to Turkey, I asked the Turkish Government to put any pressure they could on Mr. Denktas and his colleagues to be positive, and the same message has gone to our friends in the southern part of Cyprus.
    Mr. Evans: Not only do we have a special relationship with Cyprus, but we have a special responsibility for it and its people. Will the Minister ensure that the talks on the accession of Cyprus to the EU will not exacerbate the problems? Will he ensure also that the sensitivities of the people living north and south of the green line are taken on board?
    Mr. Henderson: The EU's decision to open talks with Cyprus on its accession to the Union is, as the hon. Gentleman will know, a prior commitment accepted by the Government when we took office. It is one which we welcome and will honour. Every effort must be made by all parties to solve the difficulties in the communities, as that will allow accession to take place successfully.

    Indonesia
    Mr. Ian Bruce: What assessment he has made of the foreign policy factors leading to the sale of Hawk jets to the Indonesian Government. [12120]
    Mr. Fatchett: None. Any future application to export licensable defence equipment will be considered against the new criteria that we announced on 28 July.
    Mr. Bruce: I am sorry that the Minister has not got to grips with this matter. The decision to sell Hawk jets was made by the previous Labour Government two or three years after the takeover of East Timor. The House and the country would like to know why the Government, who are looking at ethical issues in arms sales, believe that we should not sell Land Rovers to Indonesia some 22 years after the takeover of East Timor, whereas the previous Labour Government sold jets to Indonesia a couple of years after that country—some say because they were urged to do so by the American and British Governments at the time—took over East Timor. It is a confusing issue. May we have some clarification?
    Mr. Fatchett: I am rather confused by the hon. Gentleman's question. Is he urging the Government to stop the sale of Hawks? If so, he should look at all the faces around him and consider the commercial interests represented by his hon. Friends. We have published clear guidelines for the sale of defence equipment and we will judge every export licence against those criteria. We will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman and other Conservatives who, when in government, armed Saddam
    700
    Hussein and cost this country £750 million of taxpayers' money. The Conservatives have no right to talk on these issues—their record is appalling.
    Dr. Palmer: Is my hon. Friend aware of the widespread support, not just among Labour supporters, for the new approach to foreign policy, and in particular the Government?s willingness to look again at the sale of Hawk jets, which concerns a great many people who feel that they will be used to support oppression in the area claimed by Indonesia?
    Mr. Fatchett: I welcome my hon. Friend's warm support for our foreign policy and, in particular, for the arms criteria which we published in July. He may also be interested to know that Jose Ramos Horta, the East Timorean, made a clear statement in Mozambique 10 days or so ago, in which he also expressed strong support for the ethical foreign policy of the Labour Government in the United Kingdom and for our approach to exports and defence sales.
    Mr. Blunt: Is not the truth that, considering the licences for arms sales to Indonesia that were disallowed by the previous Government and the licensing of Hawks under the present Government, foreign policy is neither more nor less ethical than it was before 1 May? The only victim of the soundbite diplomacy of the past six months has been the British national interest, as we learn that Malaysia has signed a £1 billion contract for patrol ships with a German company, when Vosper Thornycroft thought that it was in pole position, and that Turkey says in effect that we will be disbarred from a $7.5 billion export market. British jobs and the national interest are bearing the burden of soundbite politics.
    Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman has made his argument very clear: he would sell to anyone, anywhere, at any time, and would take no account of the regime and have no regard for human rights. We know where that policy leads: it led to the arming of Saddam Hussein and to the loss of taxpayers' money. It is time that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues understood the failures of the previous Government and recognised the new Government's positive policies.

    Lockerbie
    Mr. Dalyell: If he will make a statement about his meeting with the Lord Advocate in September on the issues arising out of new information on Lockerbie and Libyan sanctions. [12121]
    Mr. Robin Cook: I met my noble Friend the Lord Advocate on 4 September. His view remains that the available evidence supports the case against the two accused Libyans, and that there is no evidence of the involvement of nationals of any other country in the Lockerbie bombing. I fully accept that assessment.
    It is for the Libyan authorities to fulfil their clear duty to surrender the two men accused of that act of mass murder to stand trial in Scotland. I am today inviting the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Arab League and the Organisation of African Unity to send a delegation

    701
    to Scotland, to show them the judicial system there and to discuss arrangements for a trial in Scotland with international observers.
    Mr. Dalyell: Since one of the reasons given by the Foreign Secretary for objecting to a trial on Lockerbie in The Hague is that the Americans might refuse to submit evidence that they held to a court outside Scotland or the United States, can we reflect on why the Americans should do that? Is there a suggestion that the Americans might be unwilling, after nine years, to give information to the Dumfries and Galloway police?
    Mr. Cook: We have had full co-operation throughout from the United States authorities and they have shared fully with the investigating powers all the evidence available to them. It would not be possible, however, to mount a prosecution without the co-operation of the US authorities, who hold part of the evidence. Most of those killed on the Pan Am jet were Americans, and the majority of their relatives do not want a trial to take place outside Scotland or the United States.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As the interest of those who lost their relatives in the dreadful disaster is that a trial should take place and the guilty parties be identified and punished, is the Foreign Secretary really saying that there are no circumstances in which he will consider a trial outside Scotland, especially as the Libyans have already said that they would willingly surrender the two accused to an independent party—perhaps Egypt—if the trial were held in any third country?
    Mr. Cook: If I may correct the hon. Gentleman, what happened at Lockerbie was not a disaster; it was murder. No one in the House should forget that. I find it strange that it should be argued that a trial by Scots judges under Scots law in another country would be fair, but a trial by Scots judges under Scots law in Scotland would not. We have nothing to be defensive about concerning the impartiality of our courts, and I shall be proud to display that when I meet the delegation.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's announcement of the invitations that he has extended. Is the assertion that no fair trial can be obtained in Scotland not only unfounded but unnecessarily provocative? If the test of fairness of a judicial system is transparency, does not the Scottish system stand comparison with many others, including the Libyan system? May not fairness be established by the presence of independent observers at every stage of the legal process?
    Mr. Cook: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes some fair points about the nature of the Scottish legal system. It is, after all, the legal system to which we subject our citizens. I see no reason why there should be a separate system for those from Libya, but I understood that other countries may not be so persuaded. That is why I have made in good faith the offer that we are willing to discuss any reservations that other countries may have, confident in the knowledge that we can put them right. We would welcome monitors and observers from them at a trial so that justice could not only be done but be seen internationally to be done.
    Mr. Godman: It is almost nine years since that terrible night when Pan Am flight 103 fell out of the sky. As one
    702
    who has all along argued that those deemed guilty of that terrible crime should stand trial in the High Court in Edinburgh and not in America, may I offer my sincere compliments to my right hon. Friend for arguing the case that such a trial should take place in Edinburgh?
    Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support.

    Employment Charter
    Mr. Walter: What assessment he has made of the impact on United Kingdom job creation of the United Kingdom's adoption of the employment chapter in the Amsterdam treaty. [12122]
    Mr. Doug Henderson: The employment chapter provides a mechanism for the exchange of best practice, for ensuring that employment is taken into consideration in all the Community's activities and for agreeing guidelines to be taken into account in national employment policies. It will have an impact on job creation when member states have identified policies for promoting employability, competitiveness and labour markets responsive to economic change.
    Mr. Walter: I am still not clear from that answer how many extra jobs will be created in the United Kingdom as a result of this chapter; nor is it clear what the cost of the incentive measures talked of in the treaty will be or what the impact will be on the Community budget and on the United Kingdom taxpayer.
    Mr. Henderson: Of course there are no guarantees on anything in life, but the important thing about job creation is ensuring that Government policies are consistent and helpful to those who are creating jobs in the private sector. That is why our position in Amsterdam was to give every assistance to policies that would improve training and competitiveness. The inclusion of the employment chapter in the treaty gives hope for the future, not only for Britain but for other European countries.
    Mr. Gapes: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the European Union stands not simply for a free market but for social and employment aspects that affect millions of people throughout our continent? For that reason, many hon. Members are delighted that there is now an employment chapter in the European Union.
    Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can reassure him that the treaty concluded at Amsterdam gave priority both to giving protection to work people throughout the European Union, which I believe is consistent with any definition of a civilised society, and to the creation of jobs, which is primarily linked to competitiveness and getting British and other workers throughout Europe adapted to the skills that will be required to take on world markets.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does the hon. Gentleman think that there is any connection between the fact that Britain has the lowest unemployment rate in Europe—

    703
    and falling—and the opt-out from the social chapter so successfully negotiated by the former Prime Minister and so casually thrown away by the Minister?s party?
    Mr. Henderson: No.
    Mr. Davidson: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the reasons why so many Conservative Members lost their jobs at the last general election was their opposition to Britain signing up to the employment chapter? There is no future for the European Community on the basis of low wages and poor conditions. I and many other Labour Members welcome the Government's commitment to ensuring that employment will in future be at the heart of what we do in Europe.
    Mr. Henderson: There is a great temptation to agree with my hon. Friend, but Conservative Members, who sat on the Government Benches before the general election, were well on their way to redundancy long before that treaty was concluded.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Are not the processes of ever-closer union via economic and monetary union inimical to job creation and sustainment? Do not Britain's large contributions to the European Union—in effect, more every year, especially to the cohesion fund and the structural fund—destroy jobs in this country by providing subsidies to competitor nations in the European Union? Should we not set our face against such job-destructive policies?
    Mr. Henderson: There is a temptation among Conservative Members to believe that the big argument in economic policy is between Britain and the other European Union nations: the big argument is about how Britain and other EU countries can modify and change their economies and their employment practices to take on a challenge world wide. I do not believe that the conditions that were agreed in Amsterdam in any way detract from that important objective.

    China
    Ms Corston: If he will make a statement on Britain's relations with China. [12124]
    Mr. Fatchett: We wish to establish a new, more constructive phase in our relationship with China, following the successful transfer of sovereignty in Hong Kong. When they met in New York in September, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and his Chinese opposite number agreed that we should aim to work together on a whole range of bilateral and global issues.
    Ms Corston: Can my hon. Friend say how the Government intend to apply their welcome ethical foreign policy to China? Does he agree that, although we must be firm on human rights, the most effective way of improving human rights in China is to improve and strengthen all kinds of contact between our two countries, including economic ties?
    Mr. Fatchett: We are keen to take the opportunity that has been presented by the successful handover of Hong Kong. We will engage with China on a range of issues.

    704
    Trade and the commercial side will be part of that, but we shall never underestimate the importance of human rights in the dialogue between the United Kingdom and China. I am pleased to say to my hon. Friend that we are making progress in that respect. We have just had the first working-level meeting between our officials and Chinese officials on some of the issues. We can see good signs of progress. We hope to see that as part of the new relationship.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Has the hon. Gentleman given further thought to how we in the House can best monitor developments in Hong Kong?
    Mr. Fatchett: The way in which we do that is, of course, a matter for the House, not for Foreign Office Ministers. We have a number of opportunities. The hon. Gentleman is successful at raising the question of Hong Kong whenever the opportunity arises. There are Question Times, there will be debates on Hong Kong and an annual report will be published by the Foreign Office on the work of the Joint Liaison Group; so there will be many opportunities in the House, as well as meetings of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. The House will have a continuing interest in Hong Kong. That is right, because Britain has a continuing responsibility under the Sino-British agreement.
    Mr. Tipping: In his discussions with the Chinese Government, will the Minister look closely at claims that the Chinese are making about global warming? They are clear that they need to make pledges and commitments. It is important that there is growth in China, but at the same time will my hon. Friend closely examine China's environmental credentials?
    Mr. Fatchett: It is pleasing to see that the Chinese Government are tackling the issue of global warming. It is important that the developed countries take a lead. We shall not make progress if the rich hide behind their affluence and put the responsibility for global warming on the developing countries. We need a relationship between the developed and developing countries, and China will play an important part in that.

    European Court of Justice
    Mr. Swayne: If he will make a statement about the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice regarding third pillar issues. [12125]
    Mr. Doug Henderson: European Court of Justice jurisdiction in the third pillar is conferred on a case-by-case basis in respect of certain conventions. When the Amsterdam treaty comes into force, the ECJ's jurisdiction within the third pillar will be extended, but will remain limited. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. What is happening on the Front Bench below the Gangway?
    Mr. Canavan: It is not us.
    Madam Speaker: I did not recognise you, Dennis.
    Mr. Canavan: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
    Mr. Swayne: May I refer the Minister to article F.2 of the European treaty on European Union and the decision

    705
    taken at Amsterdam to amend article L of the Maastricht treaty, which makes article F.2 fully justiciable by the European Court of Justice? Was it really Her Majesty's Government's intention that criminal law passed in this House would be subject to the jurisdiction of unelected judges in Brussels?
    Mr. Henderson: I know that the hon. Gentleman has spent a lot of time reading the Amsterdam treaty, but he has failed to understand that there are only limited extensions of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Asylum and immigration, on which Britain has a distinct policy on asylum and immigration—items which have been moved into pillar 1—are justiciable in other European Union countries. Pillar 3 contains minor adjustments to the previous position. The hon. Gentleman will know that, under the Maastricht treaty which the Conservatives signed when they were in government, the European Court of Justice has the capacity to become involved in the arbitration of conventions agreed under pillar 3.

    EU Budget
    Mr. Evans: What discussions about the increase in the United Kingdom contribution to the EU budget took place at the Amsterdam summit. [12127]
    Mr. Doug Henderson: None.
    Mr. Evans: Does the Minister think that we are getting value for money for the contribution that we make to the EU budget, which then finds its way into the salaries of Labour Members of the European Parliament? I say that because so many of them have shown themselves to be spineless and have turned themselves into political eunuchs by agreeing to be gagged and not to talk about any issue relating to the way in which they are elected to the European Parliament. Does the Minister agree that we should hold back some of the contribution to their salaries because they have agreed to be gagged?
    Mr. Henderson: The House deserves a better question than that on an important issue. What I shall do for the hon. Gentleman is to answer the question that he should have asked, which was—
    Madam Speaker: Order. That is rather too easy. The hon. Gentleman must answer the question asked.
    Mr. Henderson: It would have been easy if the hon. Gentleman had addressed the issue that one of his hon. Friends addressed earlier on the budgetary issue, as he would have been given a sensible answer.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Minister will know that the second largest component of the EU budget is that of structural funds. He will recognise that there are areas of the United Kingdom, particularly in Wales and Scotland, where that is an important issue. We are moving towards the reform of structural funds and we are setting up a Welsh Assembly and a Scottish Parliament. Will the Minister bear it in mind that those bodies will be directly involved in the way in which regional funds are distributed in the next century?
    Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Major structural reforms are necessary in
    706
    the Union and will be tackled at the summit in Luxembourg; one such issue is that of the structural funds themselves. The rules that currently govern the dispersal of structural funds were drawn up seven or eight years ago when the shape of the European economy and the priorities for development were different from those that pertain today. An important issue that the summit must address is how we should consider what is happening in the European economy today and what change is necessary to the structural funds to ensure that those areas that need essential help receive it, regardless of the country in which they are located.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does the Minister think that our ability to negotiate a fair contribution to the EU will be increased or decreased by our presence in the single currency?
    Mr. Henderson: The United Kingdom's contribution has been decided in previous negotiations. I have already said in reply to a Conservative Member that such issues will be discussed at the summit in December, when a way forward will have to be decided on all such matters, including the future budget. One of the factors that I made clear at the weekend and which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made clear in countless negotiations with our European partners is that our abatement is not negotiable in the negotiations.

    EU Common Foreign and Security Policy
    Mr. Rammell: If he will make a statement on Britain's objectives in respect of common foreign and security policy matters during its presidency of the European Union. [12130]
    Mr. Robin Cook: It will be our objective to demonstrate that, by working together, the countries of the European Union can carry greater influence to our mutual advantage. High priorities for the presidency will be maintaining robust pressure for fulfilment of the Dayton agreement on Bosnia and support for the resumption of progress in the middle east peace process. A major event in our presidency will be the Asia-Europe summit, which Britain will host and which will enable us to strengthen our trade links and our political dialogue with Asia.
    Mr. Rammell: I thank the Secretary of State for that response. Will we seek to use the presidency to establish a European code of conduct on arms sales to ensure uniformity of policy across the European Union in line with our ethical foreign policy so that where we do not grant arms export licences, these are not taken up by other countries?
    Mr. Cook: I am delighted to advise my hon. Friend that we have already begun such discussions. I was pleased that both the Prime Minister of France and the chair of its foreign relations committee have welcomed our new criteria on arms sales. We are in discussion with them on how we can turn those criteria into a common code of conduct, which would make sure that we compete against each other by raising commercial standards, not by lowering human rights standards.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
The Commonwealth Heads of Government met in Edinburgh from 24 to 27 October—the first such meeting in Britain for 20 years. A Labour Government were in power the last time the meeting was held in this country and I am delighted that a Labour Government were able to welcome Commonwealth heads back to Britain. Fifty-one member states attended the meeting, 43 represented by heads of state or Prime Ministers—the largest ever gathering of Commonwealth heads. We also welcomed Fiji back to the Commonwealth.
I should like to thank the people of Scotland, and Edinburgh in particular, for the warm welcome that they gave my fellow Heads of Government and their delegations. I should also like to thank the police and everyone else involved in the organisation of the meeting for everything that they did to make the arrangements run so smoothly.
Her Majesty the Queen was able to address a Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting for the first time. The warmth of the welcome that she was given was a tribute to the regard in which she is held by Commonwealth Governments all over the world.
Also for the first time, a Commonwealth business forum was held immediately before the Heads of Government meeting. It reflected the clear focus of the meeting on economic issues, in particular trade, investment and development. After an excellent debate, we were able to agree the Edinburgh Commonwealth economic declaration on "Promoting Shared Prosperity". That demonstrates the unique role that the Commonwealth can play in bringing together developed and developing countries in this area. The declaration—the first of its kind—sets out economic principles shared by the Commonwealth to match the political principles on good government and human rights set out in the Harare declaration of 1991.
The declaration marks real progress in four areas: first, agreement that the Commonwealth should be a force for freer trade in the world. In particular, we supported the expansion of duty-free market access for exports from the least developed countries, the need for adequate successor arrangements for African, Caribbean and Pacific banana exporters and a study of steps to increase trade between Commonwealth countries.
Secondly, we recognised the important role that the private sector has to play. We strongly supported the conclusions of the business forum and in particular the decision to establish a business council to facilitate contact between businesses across the Commonwealth. We also agreed on the benefits that international investment can bring and decided to finalise a code of good practice for Commonwealth Governments to encourage private investment.
I attended the launch of the new south Asia regional fund in the margins of the meeting. The fund should provide some US$200 million from the Commonwealth Development Corporation, countries of the region and
708
others to promote investment in south Asia. The Government also intend that the Commonwealth Development Corporation should itself develop a new relationship with the private sector. That will give it increased funds for investment, and the proceeds from the sale of shares in the CDC will be ploughed straight back into the development programme.
Thirdly, we endorsed the target of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015, and emphasised the importance of substantial and swift debt relief in achieving that. That built on the valuable work of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Mauritius Commonwealth Finance Ministers' meeting and the target of ensuring that every highly indebted poor country is launched on the process of debt reduction by the year 2000. The UK is willing to cancel aid debts of lower-income Commonwealth countries totalling £132 million provided they follow sensible economic policies. We have already made formal offers to seven countries with debts of £18 million and discussions have started with others.
Fourthly, the meeting sent a strong message to the Kyoto climate change conference in December that all countries, developed and developing, will need to play a role in achieving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
In that context, I was able to announce that the Government will provide an additional £3 million for the Commonwealth's Iwokrama rain forest project in Guyana.
On the political side, Commonwealth heads reaffirmed their commitment to the Harare principles on good governance and human rights and agreed that any future Commonwealth members must meet the Harare criteria. We agreed that the Commonwealth ministerial action group set up at Millbrook in 1995 should continue to deal with serious and persistent violations of the Harare principles.
The meeting spent some time discussing our approach to the Nigerian regime. We unanimously agreed to continue the suspension of Nigeria. That excludes Nigeria from all Commonwealth activity.
The Commonwealth ministerial action group now has delegated power to invoke a number of specified measures, if the group decides that those would further the process of transition and respect for human rights in Nigeria. They include visa restrictions, withdrawal of military attaches, the cessation of military training, an embargo on the export of arms, the downgrading of diplomatic missions and cultural links and a ban on sporting contacts.
In addition, after 1 October 1998, the action group will assess whether Nigeria has satisfactorily completed its transition programme. If that assessment is negative, Heads of Government will consider Nigeria's expulsion from the Commonwealth and the introduction of further measures, such as a mandatory oil embargo.
I believe that those measures, taken together, send a clear and strong message to the Nigerian Government from all the members of the Commonwealth: if they do not improve substantially their respect for human rights and move back to democracy, they face severe sanctions.
Heads of Government strongly condemned the military coup in Sierra Leone and decided to continue the suspension of the military regime from Commonwealth meetings. We also called for the immediate reinstatement of President Kabbah, the legitimate head of state, whom I welcomed to the meeting as my special guest.

709
A final communiqué reflecting our discussions was issued at the end of our meeting yesterday morning. Copies of that and the economic declaration are available in the Library of the House.
In conclusion, I am pleased to report to the House that there was a remarkable degree of agreement at Edinburgh on both economic and political questions. Many heads said that it was the most harmonious Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting for many years.
I believe that the Commonwealth is needed now more than ever. It bridges the gap between developed and developing and provides a forum for co-operation and joint endeavour, and it can provide a strong moral lead in a world where basic human rights are too often under threat.
The meeting was also a success because the Commonwealth has a new focus on economic issues, it is showing the rest of the world the way on environmental problems such as climate change and it is setting an example in the field of human rights—our action on Nigeria makes it clear that the Commonwealth will not tolerate undemocratic behaviour and human rights abuses in its ranks.
At Edinburgh, my fellow Heads of Government and I began a process of change to prepare the Commonwealth to face the challenges of the 21st century and, in a striking testament to all that Nelson Mandela has done, with Commonwealth support, to transform his country, we agreed that the next Heads of Government meeting should be held in South Africa in 1999. There is no better place to ensure that a renewed Commonwealth is a force for good in the world.
Mr. William Hague: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. On the Conservative Benches, we share his satisfaction that Scotland was host to the Commonwealth leaders and his pleasure that so many countries attended.
Does the Prime Minister agree that the constructive and friendly relationship that we now have with our friends in the Commonwealth is a tribute to decades of hard and difficult work? Is it not one more part of our heritage in which we can take pride? May I join the Prime Minister in his welcome for Fiji, his comments on Sierra Leone, and his tribute to Her Majesty the Queen?
I also welcome some of the conclusions of the summit. On the Conservative Benches, we hope that the Edinburgh economic declaration will act as a stimulus to greater and freer trade. We hope that the agreement that developed countries will work to produce a successful Kyoto conference will produce a cleaner world. To see whether those hopes will be turned into reality, will the Prime Minister tell us more of the detail of what was agreed in Edinburgh?
Although the Prime Minister has been described as relieved that the benefits of trade liberalisation were placed at the centre of the declaration, would it also be fair to describe him as disappointed not to win more explicit endorsement of a new round of world trade negotiations? While it is obviously right that steps should be taken to help smaller countries cope with the changes required by freer trade, does he share our conviction that we should support transitional but not protectionist measures?
May I also welcome the further progress made on debt and development at Edinburgh? Given Britain's history in playing a leading role in taking action to relieve debt
710
burdens for the poorest countries, what new and further concrete steps do the Government propose to take? The Prime Minister has accepted some important and challenging statements on development aid. In particular, there is language about increased assistance from the international community. Should that be seen as an endorsement of the current spending plans on aid or as an intention to change them, or does the agreement instead mean a redistribution within our budget?
On the environment, the whole House will be pleased to see the commitment to success in Kyoto that has been so emphatically underlined, but when the declaration talks of significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, how significant are those meant to be? Will there be talk about hard figures or merely soft targets? What are the prospects of specific targets and a specific timetable? When there is talk of new resources to implement Agenda 21, how much might that involve and where will the resources come from?
What criteria will now be used to assess whether Nigeria has completed the programme for the restoration of democracy that has been demanded? Can the Prime Minister assure the House that he is satisfied with the mechanisms for enforcing sanctions and the plans for tougher sanctions later, should they be needed?
On future membership of the Commonwealth, will the Prime Minister confirm that the criteria applied to the membership applications from the Palestine National Authority, Yemen and Rwanda will be the same as those used in considering the position of other middle eastern states, including Israel?
I pay tribute to the huge number of people who worked hard to make the Commonwealth leaders so welcome in Edinburgh. Can the Prime Minister confirm reports in this morning's press, however, that delegations were angry about the allegedly patronising and arrogant attitude of a small number of his officials? Is it true that his press secretary gave briefings on talks believed by others to be confidential, and unilaterally and erroneously announced that the leaders had rejected the new applicants for membership, forcing the Secretary-General to clarify the position?
Finally, I congratulate the Prime Minister on his new role as a film producer. It is touching that he took so much trouble to make a film celebrating our world-class industries, entrepreneurial economy, consumer choice and flexible labour markets, all of which were created by Conservative Governments.
The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman forgets that on 1 May the Conservative Government were rather overwhelmingly rejected. As a matter of fact, the film shows what a good job the people of Britain are doing.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's stuff about arrogant officials and press briefings, I think that the problem was the press secretary's golf, rather than any briefing. Those reports this morning were complete and utter nonsense. Everybody spoke of what a successful and harmonious Heads of Government meeting there had been. There was a tremendous fund of good will towards this country and the Commonwealth in general. We should brush off such press stories with the contempt that they deserve.
I shall deal with the right hon. Gentleman's serious points about the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. In respect of freer trade, the most important

711
outcomes were the statement of clear principle that we want to move towards freer trade, and the fact that the liberalisation process was clearly supported. Of course we would have preferred to go further, as would many of the developed countries. That is true, but all the countries accepted that it was a question not of whether we move towards more free trade, but of how we manage that process. That was a significant step forward. In respect of protectionism, I entirely agree; the last thing that we want is protectionism in any shape or form.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what specific steps we would take with regard to debt and development. First, as I pointed out, the Mauritius mandate that was negotiated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer took us a considerable way forward in giving debt relief to poorer countries. Secondly, the changes in the Commonwealth Development Corporation will help to bring more private investment, and therefore greater development, to some of the poorest countries in the world. Those were two significant steps forward.
With respect to the Kyoto targets, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the European Union has specific targets, of which Britain is a part and a strong supporter. The answer is that we want to get targets and timetables that are as good as possible. It was not the role of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting to come to a declared view on specific percentages and timetables, but the important factor is that, for the first time, it was accepted that all countries, including the developing countries, have a role to play and an obligation to play a role in that process.
In respect of Nigeria, the right hon. Gentleman asked what would be the indications that Nigeria was moving from its present position. Obviously, elections would be the first and most important indication, and the second would be the release of political prisoners. Both must be undertaken. Contrary to some reports, a very strong series of sanctions is now in the hands of the Commonwealth ministerial action group, which can be used if proper progress is not being made. That was unanimously agreed by the Heads of Government meeting. Those tough sanctions, as I outlined in my statement, will give us an important lever to try to bring about greater democracy in Nigeria.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of new members. The same criteria will apply to all new members. He specifically raised the issue of Israel. No formal application has been made by Israel, but should such an application be made, the same criteria will be applied as to every other country.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I welcome the Prime Minister's statement, and in particular the complimentary remarks that he made about Edinburgh and Scotland.
What the Prime Minister has told us about debt relief will be extremely encouraging to some of the poorest countries in the world. However, I confess some disappointment over the failure of the Commonwealth Heads of Government to take more decisive action in relation to Nigeria.
712
In his statement, the Prime Minister told us that any country applying for membership must meet the principles of the Harare declaration. If Nigeria was not a member and was applying for membership, it could not be admitted because it is in breach of those very principles.
The truth is that there has been no improvement in Nigeria since its suspension. The same regime is in place and the same breaches of human rights are part and parcel of the way in which that regime purports to govern the people of Nigeria. What justification is there for a country that so blatantly, obviously and defiantly flouts the values of the Commonwealth to continue to retain membership of an organisation that exists for the promotion of human rights, if it exists for anything? Is there not a risk that the harmonious atmosphere to which the Prime Minister has rightly drawn our attention may be achieved at the expense of decisive action?
The Prime Minister: No, I do not accept that, for the simple reason that Nigeria is suspended from the Commonwealth and is excluded from all Commonwealth activity at present. The Heads of Government meeting in New Zealand a couple of years ago delegated power to the Commonwealth ministerial action group to come up with a series of recommendations, which we have now accepted and endorsed. They will include expulsion if Nigeria does not change. The list of sanctions is very strong. As I said at the press conference at the conclusion of the Heads of Government meeting yesterday, all those who want to see change in Nigeria should come together and get behind the recommendations of the ministerial action group. Those recommendations are strong and right, and they will lead to the expulsion of Nigeria if it does not change.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Is it not right to recall that during the South Africa crisis a decade ago, many establishment figures in this country were writing off the Commonwealth as irrelevant? Happily, a more relevant and dynamic Commonwealth has emerged from the Edinburgh CHOGM. However, does not the issue of Nigeria—to which the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) referred—strain the credibility of the Commonwealth as a human rights organisation and the Harare declaration? My right hon. Friend said that a "clear and strong message" had been sent to Nigeria. A clear and strong message was sent last time. My right hon. Friend's colleagues must surely realise the damage that has been done to the human rights credibility of the organisation by the failure to take decisive action now.
The Prime Minister: I simply do not accept that we have not taken clear and tough action, which includes a series of sanctions that are extremely strong. They could lead not merely to the expulsion of Nigeria from the Commonwealth, but to a mandatory oil embargo, visa restrictions, a military arms embargo and the cessation of cultural and sporting links. Those measures would have a very important and serious effect.
At Auckland two years ago, we agreed to delegate to the ministerial action group the task of monitoring what was happening in Nigeria and then producing a series of recommendations. It has done that and, to my mind, the most important thing now is to carry through that process. The deadline is 1 October 1998 and, if there has not been

713
substantial progress by then, the sanctions will follow. There is no doubt about that. That is the best and the proper way to proceed.
Mr. John Wilkinson: It would be churlish not to express appreciation of Her Majesty's Government's recognition of the economic potential of the Commonwealth—not least in view of the fact that this country conducts a higher proportion of trade outside the European Union than with any other big countries within the Union. Britain also has a larger proportion of trade with the Asian region, where there are many Commonwealth countries. As the European Union takes a leading role in Britain's trade policy, how can the Prime Minister ensure that important reforms—such as safeguarding the banana regime that is so crucial to Caribbean producer countries within the Commonwealth—remain?
The Prime Minister: That is precisely why we mentioned the position of the banana producers particularly in the communiqué and in our discussions. Britain can play a role as a bridge between the Commonwealth countries and the European Union. We can make clear to our European partners the importance of not having a fortress Europe and of taking account of the problems faced in other parts of the world.
Another thing that we can do—we shall stress this point very much in the coming months, particularly when we have presidency of the European Union—is emphasise the need for fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May we welcome the timely £3 million help that has been given to the vulnerable and fragile Guyana rain forest?
What reflections does the Prime Minister have on President Mandela's comments about Lockerbie? Is having a trial in Scotland really more important than having any trial at all? In the light of the decision to discuss Bosnia in The Hague, is it, after nine long years, really impossible to send the Lockerbie issue to The Hague?
The Prime Minister: I welcome what my hon. Friend said about the additional resources for the Iwokrama rain forest project.
As for Lockerbie and the position of the Libyan suspects, there is nothing that I can add to what I said yesterday and what I understand the Foreign Secretary said at Question Time today. Everyone wants these people brought to trial, but it is important that nothing is done which undermines the perception and the fact of the integrity of the Scottish judicial process. That will be felt very strongly by people in Scotland.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Will the Prime Minister spell out exactly what the Government are going to do to support the Commonwealth agreement to support the Caribbean countries that are banana producers? In addition to working with his European partners, will he consult his friend President Clinton in the United States of America, who accepted a large donation to his re-election fund from a large banana producer and trader in the United States? Could not the Prime Minister combine his friendships with Europe and the United States to help the Caribbean producers?
The Prime Minister: Fortunately, I am not responsible for anyone else's campaign donation funds. We are
714
supporting the banana producers in the World Trade Organisation and other forums, which allows us to take account of their case. Everyone understands the problems of those countries as economies that are completely dependent on one particular form of produce. From the bilateral discussions that I had with people in the Caribbean states and, indeed, from Africa, I think that they are well aware of the support that Britain is giving them. The best support that we can give is to use our influence in the international forums where we are represented to take account of their case.
Mr. George Galloway: I congratulate the Prime Minister on the great skill shown at Edinburgh at the weekend, including that shown in striking the difficult balance on the issue of Nigeria. However, I should like to press him on the two applicants that have been mentioned and which were rejected—Yemen and the Palestine National Authority. It was reported that Yemen, including Aden with which we of course have great historical connections, was rejected because of its perceived lack of democracy and some questions about its economy. However, there are already, of course, not a few members of the Commonwealth whose democratic systems are not all that far from that of Yemen and whose economies are not that far from that of Yemen, which is a sleeping giant of a country—it has enormous oil reserves and a great future.
Apparently, the Palestine National Authority was rejected because it is not yet a state. I understand that point, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) has argued, could not the peace process in the middle east be assisted by a show of hospitality and welcome from the Commonwealth to the emerging Palestinian state based around the Palestine National Authority?
The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for what he said about the meeting in general. As for the applications for membership made by Yemen, Rwanda and the Palestine National Authority, we did not reject them but said that we would keep them under review in accordance with the criteria that we then established at the Heads of Government meeting. We shall carry on doing that. They are not ruled out altogether; indeed, we specifically welcomed the interest expressed by the Palestine National Authority. However, there is no state there as such, and it is important that we apply the criteria—criteria to which we have held and which have been codified and accepted over time by the Commonwealth Heads of Government—entirely fairly and objectively to any state that makes an application to us. We shall do that. Applications are kept under review, and I think that each of the two countries—Yemen and Rwanda—and the Palestine National Authority understand very well that they are not shut out from consideration and that their applications will remain under review and be determined in accordance with the criteria that we have established.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I join others in thanking the Prime Minister for his kind remarks about the hospitality offered by the citizens of Edinburgh and of Scotland in general. No doubt he will have noted that during the past 30 years, 50 countries in the Commonwealth have achieved full independence—perhaps Scotland will be next on the list.

715
On the issue of the cancellation of aid debt, will the Prime Minister expand on what he means by the pursuit of sensible economic policies? What criteria will be exercised and who will monitor the exercising of those criteria?
The Prime Minister: The short answer is that we need to make sure that the relief—and therefore, effectively, the aid money—that we are giving those countries will be properly used and that economic policies will be pursued to make best use of it. That will be done in respect of each country individually. It is important to know that whatever help we give will be properly used. It must be properly directed, not wasted, and should form part of a programme to put the economy of the country back on its feet.
The strong message came out from the contributions of all the poorer countries that they resent being dependent on aid. They want to escape from that situation and believe it to be in their best interests to do so. We must ensure that, by a combination of trade, investment and aid, we allow those countries to reach a position of self-sufficiency and independence. Many of them are enormously rich in natural resources, but a large part of the public spending of many of those countries is eaten up by debt repayment—often just the repayment of interest, without ever touching the debt capital.
A combination of measures is required. We must ensure that any relief that we give is properly directed, but we are doing that in consultation with those countries.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is very important that there should be no attempt to develop an organisation such as the Commonwealth, which is based on consensus, into an alternative United Nations? It needs to work on the basis of its networks. May I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the report produced in the previous Parliament by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which criticised the admission of Cameroon to the Commonwealth without specific democratic guarantees? Will he give us an assurance that any future new members will be required to meet the democratic criteria laid down in the Harare declaration?
The Prime Minister: What my hon. Friend says is correct. At the margins of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), met the Prime Minister of Cameroon and made our concerns clear. It is important to hold firm to the principles set out in the Harare declaration. There may be difficult judgments to make in certain cases, but those principles are clear and right and should be adhered to. The Commonwealth ministerial action group report dealt not just with the situation in Nigeria, but with the situation in Gambia and Sierra Leone.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While I share the concern expressed on both sides of the House and elsewhere about the situation in Nigeria, does the Prime Minister accept that it is important that the United Kingdom Government, the Commonwealth and other
716
international forums should be even handed when dealing with such countries? The democratic structures and human rights records of several Commonwealth countries leave a great deal to be desired, let alone those of the People's Republic of China. Many countries, not least the United States, are prepared to extend tremendous hospitality and welcome to the leaders of that country. Is it not important that we do not isolate Nigeria and that there is on-going dialogue? It is a huge and important country in Africa.
The Prime Minister: In one sense, what the hon. Gentleman says is right. We want Nigeria back in the Commonwealth, but there has to be a response from Nigeria. The Nigerian Government must obey at least the minimum requirements of the democratic rights and processes set out in the Harare declaration. As a military regime, and with the number of political prisoners that they have, they plainly do not qualify. Dialogue is fine, but they need to know where they stand. They now know where they stand. If they do not make substantial progress towards restoring a proper democratic regime, releasing political prisoners and obeying minimum human rights standards, they will face sanctions. Of course, everyone acknowledges that Nigeria has a large population and is rich in resources. We want it back in the Commonwealth, but the price of being in the Commonwealth is adherence to its principles.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: When human rights and human rights abuses were discussed at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, what consideration was given to the routine harassment of Opposition forces and politicians in Kenya?
Was any pressure put on the Australian Government concerning their proposed amendment to the Native Title Act 1993, which would substantially remove Aboriginal land rights and would put the cause of Aboriginal people back decades if it was passed by the Australian Parliament? The amendment also contravenes United Nations declarations and other declarations concerning the rights of indigenous peoples.
The Prime Minister: I have no comment to make on the situation in Australia.
In respect of Kenya, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met a delegation from Kenya during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting and made clear to them our concerns. We have repeatedly condemned the excessive violence used by the Kenyan police and we have repeatedly raised the problems of human rights there. It is an issue which we raise frequently, certainly on a bilateral basis.
Sir Sydney Chapman: In matters relating to the Commonwealth, has it now become the Government's policy not to act without the consent or consensus of the other Commonwealth countries? In contradistinction to what my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, given the serious nature of the violations of human rights in Nigeria, given the length of time for which they have been going on and given the Government's proud proclamation of their ethical standards in their foreign and Commonwealth policies, should not this country take a lead and give an

717
example by introducing the severest sanctions on the Nigerian Government, which might help to concentrate their mind?
The Prime Minister: Without repeating what I have already said about Nigeria a number of times, I make the point that it is simply wrong to say that the action that is being proposed by the ministerial action group is not tough. Indeed, Britain played the leading part in putting the programme together. The measures that will follow do not merely include expulsion. Nigeria is now suspended from the Commonwealth; it is suspended from all Commonwealth activity. To all intents and purposes, vis-á-vis Nigeria and the Commonwealth, Nigeria is out of the Commonwealth. The measures that we have proposed in addition, which I listed earlier, are in a sense of greater force in relation to the Nigerian regime.
We are taking action and we have played a significant part in the action taken by the European Union. We shall carry on, whether in the Commonwealth or elsewhere, making our position clear in respect of Nigeria and in respect of any other country whose human rights record we believe falls short of what it needs to be.
Mr. Norman A. Godman: In sharp contrast to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I welcome the Prime Minister's unequivocal statement that the trial of those deemed responsible for the murders at Lockerbie will be held at the High Court in Edinburgh. I also welcome the invitations issued to representatives of Arab and African countries to visit Edinburgh to examine for themselves the fairness and transparency of our legal system. Would it not be a good idea for the Lord Advocate to suggest to the Libyan authorities that a small team of Libyan lawyers would be welcome to take part as advisers to those defending the accused at any such trial?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that anyone can doubt the validity of Scottish justice and the strength of the Scottish judicial system. It is highly respected everywhere in the world and nobody has ever been able to produce evidence to cast any doubt on its independence or impartiality. The question of who may advise the people from Libya if they are brought to trial in Scotland is a matter which will be considered in accordance with the normal processes of Scottish law. As my hon. Friend rightly says, there can be no doubt about the impartiality of the Scottish judicial process. That is absolutely clear and that is what I have said.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I press the Prime Minister on a question that was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague)? I welcome the declaration by the Commonwealth countries in respect of the reduction of CO2, and other greenhouse gases being a potentially significant environmental improvement. Is that merely an aspiration by the Commonwealth countries, or did that declaration envisage any fixed targets?
The Prime Minister: There are not, and it would not be appropriate if there were, because the Commonwealth will not be negotiating at the Kyoto conference. The Commonwealth was setting out its belief as a matter of principle, that all countries—including developing
718
countries—have a role and the obligation to play a role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. My own view is that that is a tremendous help in the run-up to the Kyoto conference.
One of the big problems is that some industrialised countries will say, "Why should we reduce greenhouse gas emissions?" if the developing world and some of the countries that are or will become big producers of greenhouse gas emissions have no reciprocal obligations or at least an agreement to a process involving the developing countries. The importance of that part of the communiqué which we agreed at Edinburgh is that we can say in principle that Commonwealth countries will play their part in the process. Therefore, strategies such as the joint implementation strategy, where there is some recognition by developing countries that they have to play a part in the process and use more environmentally beneficial forms of energy, give us a foothold in achieving those aims. That is more important than setting targets.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I noticed that the Prime Minister clarified some of the latest press announcements. I welcome the fact that some of the earlier ones were equally fallacious, as Scotland would not have been Scotland without the skirl of the pipes. Having said that, let me welcome the statement about debt accommodation and press the Prime Minister especially on inward investment to those countries. Will there be any restrictions on raising interest levels over the years, as that is one of the penalties that have been imposed on many developing countries in the past? On the other side of the equation, is there any limitation on the growth of the Commonwealth? Apart from human rights issues, is it not also necessary to keep something of a family tie, or will it simply be an amorphous body competing with other bodies?
The Prime Minister: There was a strong declaration in favour of encouraging inward investment and for developed countries to do everything they could to assist it. It is important to recognise that the developing countries themselves must welcome that inward investment, and the terms upon which it is made are obviously extremely important.
One of the best aspects of the economic declaration was—for the first time—the welcome in principle by Commonwealth countries for more private sector investment in their economies. That is a big move forward, which we should welcome. Of course, the south Asia regional fund—the $200 million facility for encouraging greater inward investment in south Asia—is an example of the type of practical arrangement that we can put together on the back of that general principle.
It is immensely important that we keep the concept of the family of Commonwealth nations. Many other things happened during the conference. For example, children from each of the Commonwealth countries spent a week together. In a sense, they were symbols of the fact that the Commonwealth is and must be more than a trade and investment gathering; it is also a body of nations with a strong common heritage, a common language, shared values and—if we use the next period of time imaginatively—the possibility to be a bridge between the developed and developing countries.
One of the good things about the Commonwealth meeting last weekend was that, partly because we have got over all the problems in South Africa, which meant

719
that sanctions were the only issue that was talked about, Britain is now in a position to play a far more constructive role in the Commonwealth.
Mr. Bob Russell: Bearing in mind the Prime Minister's condemnation of human rights abuses in Nigeria, will he give an assurance that there will be no more deportations to Nigeria of people who currently reside in this country?
The Prime Minister: That is a matter for the courts and for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to decide in accordance with the normal rules. Those rules will be applied properly.

BILLS PRESENTED
  BANK OF ENGLAND
  Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Secretary Margaret Beckett, Mr. Alistair Darling, Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Geoffrey Robinson and Mrs. Helen Liddell, presented a Bill to make provision about the constitution, regulation, financial arrangements and functions of the Bank of England, including provision for the transfer of supervisory functions; to amend the Banking Act 1987 in relation to the provision and disclosure of information; to make provision relating to appointments to the governing body of a designated agency under the Financial Services Act 1986; to amend Schedule 5 to that Act; to make provision relating to the registration of Government stocks and bonds; to make provision about the application of section 207 of the Companies Act 1989 to bearer securities; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 62].
  GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY (REFERENDUM)
  Mr. Secretary Prescott, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Nick Raynsford and Ms Glenda Jackson, presented a Bill to make provision for the holding of a referendum on the establishment of a Greater London Authority and for expenditure on preparation for such an Authority; and to confer additional functions on the Local Government Commission for England in connection with the establishment of such an Authority: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 61].

  Higher Education (Scotland)
  4.14 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may be aware from this morning's press of an incomprehensible decision to fund the fourth year of higher education in Scotland only for Scots and for non-British European Union nationals. That means that British taxpayers' money would be used to subsidise French, Italian or Greek students attending university in Scotland, but not those from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Has either the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Secretary of State for Education and Employment attempted to make a statement on the issue, which involves repellant bigotry, appalling politics and dubious legality?
  Madam Speaker: I have not been told that any statement of that nature is to be made. Hon. Members of course keep an eye on the annunciator. Statements are always announced well in advance—well before lunchtime—so that we are aware of anything that might be taking place.

  Prevention of Delay in Trials
  4.15 pm
  Miss Anne McIntosh: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that a person indicted for a serious criminal offence shall be brought to trial within a period of not more than 110 days; and for connected purposes.
  The Government say that they are committed to speeding up the justice process, bringing people to trial sooner. They have suggested that they want to halve the time that it takes for youth offenders to be brought to trial. I believe that the introduction of a statutory time limit would help, in particular, to ease the overcrowding in prisons and prevent people from being allowed out on bail. Such a time limit would also comply with the Government's promise to bring young offenders before the courts earlier and prevent them from reoffending while awaiting trial.
  Such a provision could usefully be introduced into English law to expedite the process of youth justice. Will the Government consider incorporating into English law the 110-day rule, which is highly regarded as one of the cornerstones of the criminal procedure and justice system in Scotland, and which recognises protection for the accused by providing that he may not be detained for a total period of more than 110 days?
  Under common law, there is no time limit for commencing an action brought by the Crown. A prosecution may therefore be commenced at any time after the alleged offence. The prerogative writ of habeas corpus, which is enshrined in the Habeas Corpus Acts 1679 and 1816, is a means of securing the release of a person unlawfully detained, but it is a prerogative writ and not a statutory requirement.
  The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 provides for a regime of statutory time limits for the prosecution of criminal cases, but it has yet to be implemented. As there are no mandatory time limits set for the detention of prisoners on remand in England and Wales, the length of imprisonment does not constitute unlawful detention. At any given time, 20 per cent. of the prison population are prisoners on remand. At the end of August, 12,000 prisoners were on remand in England and Wales.
  Under Scots law, the 110-day rule prevents people from being detained without trial for more than 110 days. After that period, they must be released. The introduction of a time limit for detention on remand in England and Wales would help to speed up the operation of the judicial system and would avoid people being detained in custody indefinitely. Allowing trials to be brought at an early date would assist witnesses in presenting their evidence before diminishing memory weakened the case against the accused. The Bill would assist both the defence and the prosecution in any trial.
  The new legislation is needed to protect the civil liberties of those detained by the police. If the Government are serious about legal reform—as they claim to be—and earnest in their desire to modernise the English legal system, they should consider introducing the 110-day rule in England to improve the rapid delivery of justice and to protect the rights of the accused.
  The 110-day rule exists under Scots law and could usefully be applied in England. The rule simply states that if a person is taken into custody, his trial must commence
  722
  within 110 days. If it does not, that person must be released. As a Scottish advocate, I can vouch for the benefits of such a system. The reform would avoid the problem of people languishing in custody indefinitely, which is unacceptable when people are later acquitted at trial. We have a duty in England and Wales to process people's cases as quickly as we can. Going to court can be the most stressful and disruptive occasion in many people's lives and to keep them waiting in custody, without a definite 110-day limit, is unacceptable both to the prosecution and defence.
  Allowing trials to be brought at an early date assists witnesses in presenting their evidence. While I concede that exceptions will have to be made to the rule, especially if the defence has not had time to prepare its case, we should offer a minimum guarantee to protect people's civil liberties. The 110-day rule is seen as a peculiarly Scottish concept, but it is a vital safeguard which protects the civil liberties of those detained by the state.
  How does the rule work? If the trial has not started by the time the accused has spent 110 days in custody, he must be liberated forthwith unless the period is extended. A trial starts when a jury is sworn to try the accused. Once an accused person is liberated under the provision, he cannot be pursued for that offence and he shall be for ever free from all question of process for it. An extension of the 110-day rule may be granted by a single judge of the High Court if the delay in beginning the trial is due to the illness of the accused or a judge, the absence or illness of any necessary witness, or a sufficient cause not attributable to any fault on the part of the prosecutor. The defence or the Crown may appeal against the granting or refusal of the extension to the Court of Appeal.
  There is sufficient evidence for the Government to be interested in applying the rule in England. Today, I obtained copies of two consultation papers from the Library. The first dealt with reducing remand delays. The Government remind us of their manifesto commitment to reduce remand delays to national targets, but it has taken longer for cases to be completed in recent years, despite significant reductions in the number of cases coming to the criminal courts. In far too many custody cases, statutory custody time limits are not being met, and urgent changes are needed to improve current performance. I remind all those who are interested in the subject that we have until 14 November to submit responses to the consultation paper.
  In a third consultation paper, which sets out the Government's proposals for reforming the youth justice scheme and tackling delays, the Government remind us that one of their top priorities is faster, more efficient youth offender proceedings. They specify that a key target—indeed, one of the Government's five election pledges—is to halve the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders.
  We are told that it is currently taking an unacceptable average of four and a half months for a young person who commits an offence to be sentenced. In the worst cases, the offenders are not dealt with until a year or more after the offence is committed. Such delays anger and distress the victims and do not help the young offender, as the link between the offence and society's response to it is broken. The new system would enable the youth justice system to operate more effectively.

  723
  On the question of people being allowed out on bail, I remind the House that in the tragic case in which the woman police officer was murdered at the weekend, the accused had been released on bail. That is another argument for the Government adopting the measure. I think that I have given sufficient reasons for the 110-day rule to be introduced into English and Welsh law. I urge the Government to support my proposal.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Miss Anne McIntosh, Mrs. Eleanor Laing, Mr. Keith Simpson, Mr. James Gray, Mr. David Prior, Mr. Andrew Tyrie, Mr. Christopher Fraser, Mr. Robert Walter, Mr. Tim Collins, Mr. Desmond Swayne, Mrs. Theresa May and Mr. Nick St. Aubyn.

  PREVENTION OF DELAY IN TRIALS
  Miss Anne McIntosh accordingly presented a Bill to provide that a person indicted for a serious criminal offence shall be brought to trial within a period of not more than 110 days; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 28 November, and to be printed [Bill 65].

  Defence Policy
  [Relevant documents: Minutes of Evidence taken before the Defence Committee on 29th July (Gulf War Illnesses), HC 222-i, and 30th July (Strategic Defence Review), HC 138-i, and the First Special Report from the Defence Committee (Government Replies to First to Sixth Reports of Session 1996–97: HC 94 (Sale of the Married Quarters Estate), HC 211 (The Army Terms of Service (Amendment) Regulations (S.I., 1996, No. 2973)), HC 142 (Defence Medical Services), HC 127 (Defence Spending), HC 233 (Heavy Lift) and HC 158 (Gulf War Illnesses: Latest Developments)), HC 153.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
  Madam Speaker: I inform the House that, because of the great number of right hon. and hon. Members seeking to take part in the debate, I must restrict Back-Bench speeches to 10 minutes.
  4.26 pm
  The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): I approach this speech with a mixture of pride and humility: pride not in myself, but in the accomplishments, professionalism and sheer dedication of the British armed forces, which I have been temporarily asked to represent in this Chamber; and a sense of humility when confronted with both the admiration that they enjoy world wide and the daunting nature of the tasks that lie ahead.
  At the same time, I am clear that those of us who have the privilege of being appointed to the Ministry of Defence realise that it brings with it no mundane or simple challenge, for this Department is charged with providing the fighting power to discharge one of the primary tasks of Government—the protection of our fellow citizens, our country, our freedoms, our dependent territories and our wider interests in the world.
  Under this Government, the Department is charged with a second task, for, as the Prime Minister has made clear, the Government believe in taking an active part in international affairs. We accept that just as the citizen at home has responsibilities as well as rights, so, too, in the international arena we as a nation have an obligation to contribute towards making the world a better, safer and more secure place. This is not just because of our international standing in the UN, NATO, the European Union and the Commonwealth—though that would surely be enough in itself—and not just because of the self-evident self-interest of a more secure world, but because if there is to be an ethical dimension to our foreign policy, it will surely require positive action in resisting aggression, protecting civilians, seeking to prevent genocide, terrorism and enforced starvation, assisting evacuees and tackling the world wide scourge of the drugs trade. That will encompass peacekeeping and peacemaking, and the many other tasks in which our armed forces are a primary or important instrument of action.
  Those tasks would be challenging enough in normal times. However, we live not in normal times but in an epoch of rapid, profound international change. A mere decade ago, the cold war presented grave dangers, but the two great glaciers held in check in their hinterland a multitude of potential problems, frozen in relative stability.
  A torrent of new risks has been unleashed, in the form of border disputes, ethnic enmities, civil wars, arms proliferation, mass illegal migrations and international

  725
  criminal opportunities. The relative simplicity of the old threat has gone, and with it, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the comfortable certainties that marked yesterday's security strategy.
  I was struck last night by the large number of hon. Members—some long standing and distinguished, and others relatively new—who wanted to speak in this first defence debate of the new Parliament; it is a reflection of the abiding interest of the House in the defence of our country.
  I regret that I was unable to deal with all the myriad points made by hon. Members. I will, however, touch on the substantial points raised by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), a distinguished former Secretary of State for Defence, whom shortage of time, rather than discourtesy, prevented me from answering.
  Our strategic defence review—which, I reiterate, is policy led, rather than resource driven—will ensure that we have clarity in our objectives and coherence in our planning as we move into the 21st century. Resources obviously matter and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday, we are determined, as part of the review, to undertake a ruthless search for greater efficiency in defence spending within the present budget, to create the space to redeploy towards perceived inadequacies and any newly identified roles, capabilities, missions and tasks. We want not only to deliver value for money but to ensure that Britain has flexible, high-capability forces, able to meet tomorrow's challenges.
  As far as possible, we want to build consensus. That does not mean quiescence, or a lack of criticism or vigour in debate. There will be disagreements—we, like all other Governments, will make mistakes and we fully accept that it is the duty of the Opposition to point them out, preferably before they are made—but we believe that the grounds exist, as the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said last night, for all of us to work together to build a framework for the future, putting national security and the national interest above party politics.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: Those are fine words, but where is the foreign policy base line for us to discuss? It would be easy to achieve consensus if there were a Green or White Paper on the foreign policy base line for the strategic defence review, but, as there is not, we have to conclude that the base line will appear in a final document after the Treasury axe has fallen, and it will be a reverse justification.
  Dr. Reid: That relates to another point made last night by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife. This debate will contribute to the formulation of ideas, so we would not want to prejudge it. More importantly, I commend to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to the Royal United Services Institute and the English Speaking Union and his articles in a number of publications. The hon. Gentleman will find in them a range of assumptions which address high-intensity and low-intensity warfare, peacekeeping, geographical dispersion of threats, risks, capabilities, sustainability, and concurrency of operations. There is no shortage of views put out by my right hon. Friend to inform the debate.
  726
  In addition, we have of course had seminars and submissions. We have had as much open discussion as possible. We have put the emerging thinking into the public domain, but we genuinely wish the House to contribute to that thinking.
  I listened with interest to the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife last night because almost every issue that he mentioned has a resonance with the issues raised by my right hon. Friend, with the exception of the merging of the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence, which I believe has not been done anywhere else in the world.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: It seems to command some support among former Foreign Secretaries. On the substantive point, there are issues about, for example, the extent to which the United Kingdom's defence should be integrated with Europe or whether the primacy of NATO should be maintained in all circumstances. Those are political judgments. The Minister knows my view. I believe that there should be much more integration of British and European defence. So far, we are not sure what the Government's view is.
  Dr. Reid: In that case, I commend to the hon. and learned Gentleman that elementary document, the Labour party manifesto, which was endorsed by 95 per cent. of Labour party members and, overwhelmingly, by the people. NATO is the cornerstone of our defence. Yes, we wish to develop the European security and defence identity, but within the framework of NATO. That is not a matter for discussion in the defence review. The other matter that was written into our manifesto was the retention of the minimum deterrent through Trident. We have made our views plain on that issue, as on all the other issues that have been mentioned.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I press the Minister a little further on the foreign policy base line? May we assume that in the strategic defence review, the three primary roles of the armed forces—the defence of the realm and its dependent territories, defence against an external aggressor, and full ability to take part in recognised international defensive and offensive forums such as NATO—will be fully maintained and that our ability in those respects will not be significantly reduced?
  Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman may take it that those three roles are encompassed by the aims of the review, but if it was as simple as wrapping the matter up in those three roles despite the changing world and our changing commitments, we would not need a defence review or debate; we would merely write down the roles. We are not going to abandon the defence of Britain. We are committed to NATO and to common protection and security. I have already made it plain that we are committed to the defence of our dependent territories and, of course, to discharging our international obligations to the world. I say yes to the three roles, but the matter is slightly more complex, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
  If we are to make a rigorous analysis, we must begin by analysing the base from which we start. I believe that we do not start from a very firm base in all areas. Thinking back to the discussion last night, it is not only that defence expenditure has been cut by 29 per cent. since the mid-1980s or that personnel numbers have been

  727
  cut by 32 per cent. or that tanks, frigates, destroyers and the surface fleet have been cut. It is that we believe that the manner in which those cuts were made was too arbitrary.
  The arbitrary nature of the reductions and the apparent lack of coherence has left us with a sorry legacy—an inheritance which is now manifesting itself in a number of inadequacies. I want to mention only three as examples. This need not be a point of party political contention. I do not suggest that the previous Government intentionally designed the inadequacies, but, before we start to deploy resources, we have to backfill the inadequacies to meet our most basic tasks. The first is the inadequacy of strategy. Clear direction must be given so that everyone involved, including service men and women, who ultimately have to bear the task that we place on their shoulders, knows the direction in which we are moving.
  Secondly, mention was made last night of the parlous state of the defence medical services. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that it is now obvious that the defence medical services are in a sorry mess, and that those Members will support me when I say that I have instructed that an urgent reassessment take place, and that proposals for action be formulated without waiting the five years suggested by the Defence Select Committee.
  The third example will be recognised by hon. Members throughout the House. There are chronic inadequacies in personnel numbers. Published figures showed a shortfall of more than 5,000 men in the Army alone when the new Government took office. Whatever their intent, the previous Government's redundancy programme, the implementation of which I fully accept was complex, has created a serious shortfall. We aim to redress that as one of our major priorities.
  Mr. Bob Russell: I seek clarification. Is the Minister saying that the previous Government cut too much, cut too little, or got it just right?
  Dr. Reid: If we are running 5,000 men short or, on projected figures for next year, possibly a great deal more than that, no one can suggest that the previous Government got it just right, whatever their intent. They got it badly wrong. However, it is not a simple matter of replacing soldiers made redundant with new soldiers. The matter is not open to simple solutions. It involves a range of problems not only of numbers but of culture, retention, the nature of the modern armed forces and the nature of the community from which they draw their raw material. I do not suggest that the previous Government simply should not have handed out redundancy notices, but, whatever their intent, they got it badly wrong. All of us will now wish to put it right.
  Mr. Norman A. Godman: While I accepted the reprimand given to me yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when I raised the case of Major Eric Joyce, may I say to my hon. Friend that the recent highly publicised cases of bullying and sexual discrimination against young recruits will act as a severe deterrent to the recruitment of young men and women to our forces? I remind him as a Scots Member of Parliament that there have been two cases of bullying
  728
  of young Scots recruits in infantry regiments. I suspect that those cases will act as a severe deterrent not only to young men and women but to their parents. My hon. Friend will have to do something about it.
  Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend raised a specific case last night. He will fully understand that I cannot and will not comment on a specific case which is an operational matter, any more than he would intervene in a case in the civilian courts. On the general matter that he raises, I make two points. First, the Government recognise the convention, which has served the country well, that the armed forces and their personnel do not get involved in politics, but that does not mean that I and others are not well aware of the point that he raises. I have made it plain in words and deeds that we will not tolerate bullying.
  The Government have been in office only six months. On questions of gender, harassment, treatment of ethnic minorities and meritocracy, I ask my hon. Friend to judge us by our deeds. I make the personal point that, while I find it of interest that people—not my hon. Friend but others—seek to enlighten me with philosophical tracts about the benefits of opening opportunities to people from working-class backgrounds, I and other Labour Ministers do not need to read the tracts. We have lived the experience. We value it because we come from that background.
  We have made plain our intention to ensure that accessibility to our armed forces and promotion within them will be open to the widest possible reservoir of talent in our nation. Our armed forces will maintain their admired international position only if pathways to progress are open to the brightest and the best. That applies irrespective of ethnic origin, gender or social class. We know that that presents a stiff challenge in a changing age and we are under no illusions, but we are determined to give the issue the priority that it deserves.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Does the Minister suggest that what he describes is not the case at present and that there is active prejudice in career progression in the armed forces? I think that the armed forces may be rather surprised and disappointed to hear him say that.
  Dr. Reid: The Chief of the General Staff held a press conference on Monday of last week in which he announced the Army's view that there was a perception of racism inside the Army. The Chief of the General Staff—not politicians—made it plain that he would not tolerate it. We applaud the Army for taking that initiative. We fully back it. It is not a matter of political correctness. The Army understands that if it is to maintain the reputation and admiration that it has won, it must respond to the world situation and the expectations of our people at home. I applaud the Army for its initiatives on racism and other matters.
  Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put into practice the Government's commitment to extending opportunities for women in the armed forces. Today's armed forces must be seen as somewhere where women can make progress. Yesterday's announcement has taken us one stage further in that direction.
  We face a greater challenge in recruitment from the ethnic minorities. The armed forces have until relatively recently remained distanced from the progress in racial

  729
  awareness made in other areas of society. It is regrettable—I let the facts speak for themselves—that only 1 per cent. of service men and women state that they are from an ethnic minority background. Ethnic minority recruiting has remained stubbornly low, despite intensive efforts. The Government and the armed forces are aware of our responsibility. We are examining the image of the services among ethnic minorities to see what more can be done to unlock barriers and remove misconceptions. We must also satisfy ourselves that there is no scope for discrimination or exclusion, and that we create a culture in which all personnel value, respect and learn from one another.
  In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman), I say that I made it clear in my first days of office that we would not tolerate racism, bullying, sexual harassment or intolerance in the armed forces. In answer to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), I say that the service chiefs are equally determined that those things should not be tolerated. It will take time, but we are united in our resolve and determined to succeed.
  I give the House a number of examples of what we are doing. We are striving to improve recruitment from our ethnic minority population. Exploratory talks have already taken place with local officials in Newham, east London, and the borough of Sandwell in the west midlands to examine how best to introduce recruiting drives in those areas. As I said, earlier this month, the Chief of the General Staff launched the Army's equal opportunities strategy. We do those things not only because they are just, although they are, not only because the Commission for Racial Equality has said that we must, although it has, but because the extension of opportunity is not only a moral imperative but a matter of effectiveness and efficiency for our armed forces.
  If we are to ensure that the widest possible array of talent and the best possible quality of leadership are available to our armed forces, ability rather than gender, social class or ethnic origin must be the criterion according to which recruitment and promotion to leadership takes place.
  When people raise the subject of racism with me and ask whether it is a matter of political correctness, I remind them that the most glorious hours of the British armed forces were spent when they stood alone against the most poisonous regime ever to emanate from the European continent. The poison at the heart of that regime was racism. There is no place for racism in the ethos of the British armed forces.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: The Minister talked about consensus. I hope that he will agree that his Government are continuing the previous Government's policy. He will recall serving on the Select Committee that considered the Armed Forces Bill, which I chaired, where we gave the Commission for Racial Equality four years to report back so that when the Committee sat again in the year 2000 it would have a report that it could get its teeth into should it be necessary.
  Dr. Reid: I willingly agree with that. I have made no allusion to any previous Government. What I have done, and what I hope that the House will do, is to identify those areas where we need to make improvements that are for
  730
  the benefit of our armed forces and of the country. I do not lay complaints at the door of any previous Governments.
  The efforts must not stop at the recruiting office. Once service personnel have joined the armed forces, we must ensure that we retain and develop their skills. In the last financial year, nearly 9 per cent. of our service personnel volunteered to leave the armed forces prematurely. That is unsustainable and it shows that something is wrong. The new Government are well aware of their responsibility to provide a stable and comprehensive structure to support service people in their work. Some of the key retention issues are being addressed through a comprehensive review of pay, allowances and charges following the independent review.
  A new allowance package is being introduced on 1 December, designed to target resources where they can be most effective. For the future, we shall be introducing a new, more flexible pay system that will provide everyone with the opportunity to increase their earnings within their rank in recognition of experience and qualifications. That continued throughout the deliberations of the previous Government.
  We are also committed to bringing service housing up to the highest standards. We are actively examining the complex and unsatisfactory range of death and injury benefits and our resettlement procedures. Those measures should help us to make a start in delivering the right quality of life, geared to the needs of the 21st century.
  All those measures are directed at our most precious resource in the armed forces: our people. Of the three elements of fighting power—which include the conceptual element of doctrine, strategy and tactics, the physical element of tanks, battleships and aircraft—it is the third element, the moral element of purpose, kinship, direction, belonging and motivation, which is most often forgotten. It is forgotten because it is the hardest to define and to quantify, or to illustrate in learned books or accountants' ledgers. But without it the other two elements of fighting power are as nothing.
  That is why my very first action as a Minister was to demonstrate clearly this Government's recognition of the duty that we owe to those men and women who serve their country, by responding to the concerns of Gulf veterans. The House will recall that we have doubled the financial resources allocated to dealing with that issue, enhanced the medical assessment programme and instituted a new programme of research. I am glad to be able to inform the House that almost half as many concerned veterans have been through the medical assessment programme in the past six months as had been through it in the previous four years.
  Mr. Frank Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend and I am grateful for the measures that have been taken in relation to Gulf war syndrome. May we have a similar sort of sympathetic review of the circumstances relating to the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association whose members gave similar sterling service to this country and who finished their engagements in difficult circumstances? They have suffered over the years, not only from personal disability,

  731
  but because some of their offspring have been born with severe disabilities and have died early. Could we have a similar review for those people?
  Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who has been handling that issue, will be referring to that subject later, so my hon. Friend may want to wait for that contribution.
  At the time of my earlier announcement, I instructed that a report be compiled on the scientific basis on which medical counter-measures—vaccines and NAPS tablets—were used in the Gulf, and I promised to publish it in full. I am pleased to tell the House that the report has been published today and a copy placed in the Library of the House.
  When British troops are engaged in conflict, it is the duty of the Government of the day to make the best available choices in order to protect them. Those choices are not made in an ideal world, but involve hard judgments, and some risks often have to be taken. Speedy action was essential in 1990, as it has been on every other occasion.
  As the House may already know, and as I confirmed today, some of the medical counter-measures used at the time were not licensed in the UK. The House will be aware that the fact that a medical product is unlicensed does not in itself mean either that it is untested or that it is inherently unsafe, but I thought that the facts deserved to be confirmed and made public.
  One specific issue that the paper addresses is the simultaneous use of anthrax vaccine and pertussis, commonly referred to as whooping cough vaccine, which the Ministry of Defence envisaged with the object of increasing the efficacy—accelerating the effects—of the anthrax vaccine. In late 1990, the Department of Health notified the Ministry of Defence of anxieties over such simultaneous use, based on the preliminary findings of tests on laboratory animals. Despite my efforts and those of my officials, it has not been possible to establish whether the Department's anxieties were taken into account when formulating the final decision to use pertussis vaccine.
  Mr. Barry Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for seeing my constituents, Mr. Robertson, Mr. Doyle and Mr. Turnbull, within weeks of taking office and I thank him for putting the information before the House. In what way can my constituents and many other veterans receive the most up-to-date treatment and medicine available in the light of the knowledge that my hon. Friend now has? Is it not astonishing that that potent mix of vaccines was put into the veins of our soldiers? Surely, something can be done on health grounds.
  Dr. Reid: With regard to the latter point, I said at the beginning of my speech that it is the primary duty of every Government to protect their service men and women. Our world is less than ideal; when a war was thrust upon us, I have no doubt that the Government of the time were motivated by a desire to protect our service men and women. We have extended and widely advertised the assessment facilities and I hope that my hon. Friend's constituents will take advantage of that.
  732
  I should emphasise that the use of pertussis vaccine in that way is not a common factor linking UK veterans who are ill with those from other coalition countries, particularly the United States of America. Only British troops were given this particular combination of vaccines, but it is not only British troops who are ill.
  The information that I am making available today is as complete as we can make it. I hope that it will help Members of the House, Gulf veterans and the general public better to understand the background to matters which for some years have been a source of confusion, misunderstanding and mistrust.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister knows that the subject of Gulf war syndrome occasions great anxiety on both sides of the House. He knows that in the previous Parliament the Select Committee on Defence wrote a stringent report about what it believed should be done. In the light of what the Minister has said and of all the other information that is now available to him in his new capacity, does he believe that it is time that we decided to award compensation on a no-fault basis to those who can establish that their present condition has arisen as a result of their service in the Gulf?
  Dr. Reid: First, the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that compensation is already available in the form of a war pension, which is not insignificant when translated into a capital sum. Secondly, the problem is not only that no fault has been established; no cause has been established. If it were within my power—which it is not—to say exactly what the Gulf war illnesses are and what caused them, I, like many others in the House, would do so. The reality is, however, that a cause has not been established and no responsible Government—no matter how sympathetic—can pay compensation when no fault and no cause have been established without opening the floodgates to anyone who wants to claim on any occasion.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister give way?
  Dr. Reid: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I must make progress with my speech.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Minister's concern and his positive approach to this issue. My question is simple, because I understand the concept of no fault. Some veterans have not yet had back their medical returns; these are taking so long that the veterans might run out of time for making claims. Have there been inordinate delays in getting the returns back? Will it be permissible for the veterans to go beyond the time span?
  Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman will understand that the assessment for war pensions is not carried out by my Ministry, but by the Department of Social Security. If we can do anything to speed up the process, we will do it.
  I should have mentioned that I am also publishing today a further memorandum about the circumstances in which Parliament was misled concerning the use of organophosphate pesticides during the Gulf war. It includes details of an investigation carried out earlier this year which could not be published at the time because disciplinary procedures were contemplated. The paper also reports the outcome of those disciplinary procedures,

  733
  which are that three service and civil service personnel are the subject of formal action in respect of their conduct in relation to the events set out in that report.
  I place great emphasis on bringing these matters to the House, not only because of the debt of honour that we owe to those who have served their country, but because of the wider obligations to the people of this nation to explain the actions that were taken. I hope that we can now follow up on the fresh start by the new Government by drawing a line under past events and concentrating on future action to help veterans, which should be the focus of our attention.
  The great achievements of our services should not be a well-kept secret. The only way to keep the faith of the nation and to build on the trust that we have with the people is to be as open as possible. That relates not only to service personnel issues, but to what our services are doing, and it may help to increase the knowledge of the sterling work our forces do. That is why we have increased the number of places on the armed forces parliamentary scheme from eight to 20 per annum. I am pleased to tell the House that we are over-subscribed this year, so any hon. Member who wishes to apply for next year should get the application in now because there is a big queue for places on detachment to our armed forces.
  Defence is not a stand-alone activity. The armed forces and the tasks that they carry out are part of the fabric of our national life. Defence is a major employer—not only in the Ministry and the services, which sustain some 340,000 jobs, but in the defence industry and in the wider community. The armed forces are also linked to our wider community through the volunteer reserve forces, who continue to make an important contribution—none more so than the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. I am delighted to announce that, following the successful trials at RAF Benson last year under the former Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), the RAF intends to create a further four role-support squadrons. Those will provide regular RAF units with support in a variety of roles in peacekeeping and crisis management. I hope that the House will applaud that welcome boost to the opportunities available to reservists, which shows how seriously we take their role.
  Mr. Brazier: Will the Minister give way?
  Dr. Reid: No, I have given way enough and I must make progress.
  It is on operations that the courage and professionalism of our armed forces are best seen. I have had the opportunity to visit our troops in Northern Ireland. Despite the welcome progress in the political sphere, it is our troops who still stand vigilant against terrorism in that unhappy province.
  Increasingly, the tasks of our armed forces are overseas, supporting the maintenance of international order. In the skies over Iraq, in the Gulf, in Cyprus, in the Adriatic and in Bosnia, the RAF, the Navy and the Army stand sentinel for the international community. The tragic conflict in Bosnia has engaged our complete attention and we are well aware of the role played by British troops, but I should like to mention that the British forces serving with the stabilisation force performed with great courage and skill when, earlier this year in Prijedor, they acted in support of international law and order to detain persons indicted for war crimes.
  734
  As our forces answer the challenges put before them, others escalate in scale and import. We put the global fight against the drugs trade higher on the priority list than it has been for many years. The West Indies guard ship merits particular mention in that context and its conspicuous success is highlighted by involvement in the seizure of more than £150 million worth of drugs. New agreements with the United States are now being finalised, which should improve further the effectiveness of our combined anti-drugs efforts.
  New challenges emerge, as do new opportunities. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday, defence diplomacy must be another emerging area to which our armed forces can contribute greatly, not only through NATO and other international organisations, but through our extensive bilateral defence relationships. Nearly 1,000 activities took place during 1997, ranging from joint exercises to visits of specialist training teams to secondment of senior officers and civil servants—1,000 activities involving the British armed forces contributing to a safer, more secure world.
  The challenges and the opportunities continue to grow, but we must not forget the importance of matching resources to commitments and I have made plain the Government's commitment to seek benefits for the taxpayer by ensuring that every penny that is spent is spent wisely. In an increasingly uncertain age, our armed forces are being asked to fulfil a wider range of tasks than ever before—not merely in our defence interests, but in support of the promotion of the common good, both in our own country and throughout the international community.
  I believe that the service that those men and women offer this country—a service which, in its ultimate form, embraces the potential sacrifice of life and limb—is matched by the inescapable duty of the Government, on behalf of the country, to provide leadership, care and resources commensurate to that commitment. That is a duty which the Government readily undertake and a pledge which I willingly give.
  5.7 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: Our annual two-day defence debate always generates a remarkable breadth and depth of discussion, ranging from international and strategic affairs and perspectives to the erudite examination of the merits of procurement decisions. That is all right and proper. In opening for the Opposition on the second day, my first duty is to put on the record our thanks and admiration for the dedication of the hundreds of thousands of people who are the prime asset of our nation's defence—those in uniform and in the scientific and industrial civil service, agency staff and contractors' staff.
  Since 1 May, it has been said time and again by Ministers that defence was not an issue in the general election. If the Government really believe that, we are living in dangerous days. Hon. Members who take even a passing interest in defence know that defence is a live issue. Anyone travelling abroad, be it to France or to the far east, knows that defence is an issue. The United Kingdom's military will probably see more active service in the next two or three decades than in the five decades since world war two.
  I shall now comment on what the Minister for the Armed Forces said about progress in research on Gulf war illness. Undoubtedly, hundreds of men and women who

  735
  fought in the Gulf are ill. They need help, which is available through their general practitioners and the wider national health service. The challenge for the medical and scientific community has been to identify a syndrome or common theme with a common cause and then, if they meet that challenge, to discover whether there is a common cure. The previous Government therefore asked the Medical Research Council to design and commission appropriate research. Ministers emphasised time and again that they had an open mind, and we must all continue to have an open mind while doctors and scientists explain to us what has happened over the years.
  In the previous Parliament, the Defence Select Committee discovered serious failings in the way in which the Army had administered substances and recorded—or rather, not recorded—who had been given what, but we welcome the latest initiative to piece together that very distressing jigsaw.
  People who understand freedom know that if we want peace we must prepare for war—high-intensity war. In Britain, we understand that the end of the cold war brought more, not less, instability. We know that to keep the peace in Bosnia we need the AS90 gun and the Challenger tank, as well as friendly soldiers in shirt-sleeve order and election observers.
  Then there is Trident. When Labour Members were lining up to support the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, the Conservative position on Trident was solid—and so it is now. I genuinely welcome the Labour Government to this common ground of hard and realistic defence policy. They have come in from the cold, but they have not even taken off their overcoats, let alone sat down to talk about their conversion. We are a bit suspicious. Are they about to try and tiptoe out again? Will the coats that they leave behind turn out to be ours after all, returned as MOD surplus to requirement now that they have won the general election?
  The Government have bought the planned extra missiles, but they are going to reduce the warheads. They have decided not to scrap the fourth Trident submarine, but we understand that they might tie her up alongside the other three. If our entire nuclear deterrent fleet is berthed, crewless and effectively mothballed, what does that say about the seriousness of our deterrent? What signals does it send about our role in the world under Labour? What does it say about the relationship between the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary?
  In paragraph 203 of the Ministry of Defence performance report published yesterday, we read:
  "Trident already provides a continuously available sub-strategic capability. This will become fully robust when Vigilant joins the operational cycle later in 1997. The four boat Trident fleet will ensure that such patrols can continue to be maintained throughout the lifetime of the Trident force."
  That is what we signed up to.
  In paragraph 243, we read of a remarkable Royal Navy deployment, Ocean Wave:
  "The Royal Navy embarked on a seven month deployment to the Asia Pacific region in January 1997. The deployment, known as OCEAN WAVE 97 and comprising some 20 ships, aimed to demonstrate the UK's commitment to the region, to test the Royal Navy's ability to deploy an operationally effective and self-sustaining force out of area and to underline the UK's continuing interest in promoting international peace and stability.
  736
  There were numerous major and minor exercises together with an array of goodwill visits to further these aims. The Task Group returned in August 1997."
  That proud report will be a matter of history, never to be repeated, if the Government will not send Trident to sea and if they cut naval capabilities—perhaps even decide not to replace our three aircraft carriers. There is not much hope for consensus down that route.
  Mr. John McWilliam: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Will he tell me, first, the Conservative party view of the non-proliferation treaty and the duty of the Government to ensure that they do not breach it and, secondly, whether any Conservative Defence Minister ever gave details at the Dispatch Box of a Trident mission?
  Mr. Key: Of course not, because it has rightly always been a matter of convention in all Governments that deployment of our nuclear deterrent remains a secret. On the first point, the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that our position was laid out by our Defence Ministers year after year after year to the House, and our position remains as stated.
  Into our homes, and into our hearts and minds, television brings not only sanitised "defence" as soaps and documentaries, but the reality of death and destruction, maiming and killing. It also brings images of peace enforcement, peacekeeping on land and sea and in the air, and the hope of millions for normality and freedom.
  The world has probably understood for longer than us the value to our nation of soldiers in khaki who, in a good cause, fight and win when others fail, and can then don red tunics and gently bear a princess to her funeral before the eyes of the world. Who says now that pomp and ceremony have had their day?
  Defence may not have been a party issue in Hamilton, South. I suspected that the Labour candidate who is now Secretary of State for Defence never mentioned it in his general election address because he had hoped to be Secretary of State for Scotland. I checked, and he did not mention defence in his election address. Next door, in Hamilton, North and Bellshill, I assumed that the Labour candidate's election address would be very strong on defence, because he hoped to be Secretary of State for Defence. I was wrong; the present Minister for the Armed Forces did not mention defence even in his election address.
  However, defence certainly was an issue in Hampshire, North-West, as it was in the Salisbury constituency. In our constituencies, the military of all three services and all ranks did not forget that new Labour's architects and masters had fraternised with CND in the cold war years. All our constituents knew what it was like to sustain men and women who, as well as being prepared to die for their country in war, made the peacetime sacrifices of difficult, often dangerous and usually repetitive service away from home, in some obscure place, and in pursuit of what they perceived to be someone else's problem. "Overstretch" became a household word.
  While Labour dithered and demonstrated, in the 1980s, Conservative policies won the day. The cold war ended. Changes in defence were inevitable. The past decade has witnessed review after review of the military. The previous Secretary of State, Michael Portillo, at last

  737
  promised a period of stability. In Westminster, one could almost hear the sigh from Salisbury plain. Last year, the Defence Select Committee, of which I was a member, produced a unanimous report declaring that, as a percentage of gross domestic product, the defence budget had reached 1930s levels and must fall no more. The names are recorded.
  In the most recent general election, Labour prayed that defence would not attract the media's attention. Labour did not fool its old Labour left wingers. They held their breath long enough to win the election, but by July they had found their wind again. Of course we have not heard from them in this debate—although we may still—but we heard them over the weekend in the media. They are alive and well.
  In Bosnia earlier this month, a soldier in a remote camp told me that he had just received a letter from his wife in England. She was worried sick that she would not make ends meet until he came home. Her husband explained that she was a good manager, but, like most service wives, did not have access to the charge card or credit facilities that most people now take for granted. This is certainly not a party political issue.
  Did you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that men and women serving in our forces are denied store cards by excellent establishments such as Marks and Spencer, Waitrose and many others? I only mention those because they were specifically complained of to me. I shop at both, so I hold no prejudice against them. Why does this happen? First, the credit raters classify as a bad risk a person who moves house within less than three years. That includes most service married quarters. Secondly, credit rating databases often record bad debts by address, not by occupant. On moving from one service married quarter to another, it is possible to inherit a bad address.
  I commend the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute's financial services department for understanding the problem, but I hope that Ministers will join us in urging the financial world to treat forces families fairly. I hope that we can all agree on that. There can be little risk in offering modest credit to men and women in uniform, subject to the discipline of the chain of command. The Army Families Federation told me last week that military personnel returning home from abroad can be sure of a BT phone line only if they pay by direct debit because they are regarded as a bad-debt risk.
  Another issue that can impact heavily on service families is eligibility for benefits, including jobseeker's allowance. We want our forces to "follow the flag". We recognise that times have changed and that many wives have their own careers and earnings expectations. When a spouse is posted, a hard-won job must come to an end. The Department for Education and Employment, however, deems all wives to have made themselves voluntarily redundant.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Key: I shall give way when I have finished the point.
  Wives must throw themselves on the mercy of adjudication officers; otherwise, they may lose benefits. I raised the matter with Ministers in the previous
  738
  Government earlier this year and on 7 April the then Under-Secretary of State told me that the Ministry of Defence would establish how the system was working in practice. I should be grateful if Ministers would now tell us what progress has been made in respect of a phenomenon that arose after the new system was introduced. Naturally, it is important that Departments work together and accommodate each other's changes. I am not making a party political point, but it would make a real difference if the Ministry of Defence would ensure that Army wives' point of view was heard in that respect.
  Those are the everyday problems faced by forces families. We must never forget that those people are not just part of our military community. This is not just a behind-the-wire issue. Pay and conditions, the state of married quarters, problems of the defence medical services and the much improved world of service education focus on the Ministry of Defence. Forces families are, however, also part of all our communities. We are proud of them and grateful to them.
  Yesterday, the Secretary of State announced a modest increase in the number of opportunities for women in the Army. That is fine. It is an unsurprising extension of the equal opportunity policies put in place by the Conservative Government. Any hesitation on our part—any caution—is born of practical problems and experience, which the new Ministers lack. As with the issue of homosexuality in the armed forces, it is no good forcing political correctness on the Navy, Army and Air Force if they are not ready for it and if it would impair their front-line effectiveness. Politicians and campaigners alike must recognise that the ethos of service life is different from civvy street. We expect military personnel to live their lives by higher standards and different codes of behaviour. Change is slow because it must take place for the right reasons. The enforced and repeated separation of husbands and wives in the forces leads to great tensions. Many wives will worry about an increase in the number of women in the forces. That is understandable; I hope that it will be groundless.
  In July, I wrote to the Minister for the Armed Forces about another problem. Each of our three services has its own codes of conduct, traditions, prejudices and sanctions. The Minister and I know, and there is now wide recognition, that moral or social behaviour that is apparently acceptable in one service is not acceptable in another. He and I know of at least one case where an officer in one service has had his whole life ruined while the other party in a different service remains undisciplined, with his or her career unscathed. More joint service operations and more women close to the front are likely to exacerbate that problem, which can and should be addressed. We must not allow another decade to slip by without consolidating into a single Act the Navy, Army and Air Force discipline Acts.
  I also pay tribute to the many thousands of scientific, industrial and administrative civil servants on whom our fighting forces depend. Those dedicated men and women are too often taken for granted until some crisis calls for their years of training and experience. We then know that we can count on them and that they will give their all, too. The first contractorisation of industrial civil servants took place at Boscombe Down in my constituency more than a decade ago. Since then, Ministry of Defence personnel have endured shake ups as great as anything in the private sector. Generally, they have been beneficial.

  739
  We shall examine in great detail the Government's proposal for a defence diversification agency. We shall need to see vision and purpose in their plans for a defence evaluation and research agency before agreeing another shake up, but we shall give it positive consideration.
  Occasionally, one must draw a firm line in the interests of national security. One such case that we are watching closely is the impact on the work force of Royal Ordnance in Bridgwater as well as the impact on national security of the proposed merger, or joint venture, under consideration between Royal Ordnance's owner, British Aerospace and the French company, SNPE. We understand the concerns of the Royal Ordnance work force and those expressed last night by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) about the importance of maintaining a British capability in the manufacture of ammunition explosives.
  Have the Government decided whether to allow that joint venture to proceed? As we had no direct answers from the Government yesterday, I should be grateful for some answers later this evening.
  Mr. Godman: The concerns voiced by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) on behalf of the work force in Bridgwater are shared by the employees of Royal Ordnance in Bishopton in Renfrewshire. I, too, would like some satisfactory answers concerning their continued employment in both establishments.
  Mr. Key: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. His intervention gives me an opportunity to put on record the fact that the trade unions, who prepared excellent briefings for Conservative Members, are clearly not opposed in principle to the commercial success of their enterprises. Nor are they opposed to the internationalisation of the production process. They rightly fear for their members' jobs, however, and have a commendable concern for the national interest when it comes to defence. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get the news that he wants tonight.
  The Royal Ordnance work force is an important part of the 400,000-strong UK defence industry. We salute our defence industry. The British defence manufacturing industry is not just world class, though it is; it is not just the world's favourite, though it is; it is a world-beating industry. It is probably the most heavily regulated industry in Britain today. Literally every bag of screws—let alone Land Rover—is subject to interminable scrutiny by at least three, sometimes four or even five, Departments of State and to United Nations, European Union and British Government export criteria and conditions.
  The Conservative Government had no hesitation in accepting the moral and ethical dimensions of exporting defence equipment. Conservatives believe in article 51 of the United Nations charter—the right to self-defence—with all its implications for the purchase of defence products. The UN charter is indivisible. Some Labour Members want to pick and mix. The question is not whether Britain had an ethical foreign policy before 1 May—of course it did. The question is: how ethical is it for the Government to put at risk the jobs of 400,000 of our citizens to appease their own moral vanity? That
  740
  new vanity is interpreted by friendly countries as moral imperialism, and they say so. New Labour—new imperialism.
  Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend will be interested to know that the first evidence of the cost of that new morality to British interests and jobs has already been made clear by Vosper Thornycroft not winning a substantial contract for Malaysian patrol vessels, which went—in as yet unexplained circumstances—to a German competitor, despite the fact that Vosper thought that it was doing extremely well. The Turkish Government are now warning the British defence firm—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman is supposed to be making an intervention. He cannot make such a long intervention. He can make a comment to the Front-Bench spokesman, and that must be the end of that.
  Mr. Blunt: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point that I wish to make is that the $7.5 billion Turkish market now seems to have gone for a Burton because of Labour's foreign policy.
  Mr. Key: I fear that we shall hear many more stories like that. My hon. Friend is right, and I shall refer to further examples of the changes that have taken place in the past six months or so.
  The practical implications of that new vanity intrude in two ways: first, through the strategic defence review, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) spoke yesterday; and, secondly, in procurement terms. It has been drawn to my attention that not just hundreds of millions but billions of pounds worth of defence procurement programmes have been destabilised by the incoming Labour Government. My fax has been red hot with tales of disbelief and woe by the bucketload.
  When my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) winds up the debate for the Opposition, he will have something to say about restructuring the European defence industry, the importance of this country's relationship with the United States and the dangers of a fortress Europe attitude to procurement.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: While the hon. Gentleman is discussing arms sales abroad, and especially possible arms sales to Turkey, should he not use his position to say something about the systematic abuse of human rights in Turkey, the incursion into neighbouring countries by the Turkish armed forces, and the deaths of thousands of Kurdish people in the war going on in the east of that country? Does he not think that we have a role to play in not providing arms that can be used to kill so many civilians?
  Mr. Key: Of course we have a role to play, although I dare say that Mr. Deputy Speaker would say that that is for a foreign policy debate rather than this one. I have no doubt of the defence dimension of it, and I have no hesitation in pointing out that any export to any of those countries is subject to the range of inquiries that I described a few minutes ago. There is nothing new in the so-called ethical foreign policy. It has always been there.

  741
  The Conservative Government ensured that our forces would be better equipped than ever before. There was a sea change in the way in which the Ministry of Defence made its contracts. The Labour Government will be lucky if smart procurement achieves half as much as the Conservative reforms. There is nothing smart in new Labour slithering back into its old bureaucratic ways by imposing new copy-in-triplicate, buck-passing, time-wasting procedures, while Defence Ministers wait by the month to hear whether the Foreign Secretary approves and wait until next year to hear whether the Chancellor will allow them to defend our nation as it should be defended.
  The stress that the strategic defence review is causing the procurement industry is unjustified. The list of projects concerned about the future is long: Bowman, ASTOR, COBRA, Skynet 5, EH101, Apache, multi-role armoured vehicle, future engineer tanks, future large aircraft, aircraft carrier replacements—the list is endless. Even Eurofighter is not sacrosanct if the Treasury will not pay or if it modifies the spending profile. It was the commitment of the Conservative Government to Eurofighter that convinced our partners to proceed with that project. We need Eurofighter.
  Before and after the general election, we were promised that the strategic defence review would last six months, starting on 2 May. Now we are told that it will be another six months. There is no consensus across the Floor of the House on that.
  Meanwhile, the people who form the greatest part of the nation's defence are kept in the dark. The foreign policy base lines are secret. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces wriggled around on this point a few minutes ago. Until the foreign policy base lines are made public, we are in no position to make a judgment, and we will not hear that until after the Treasury has decided whether the Ministry of Defence can have what it wants. There is no consensus on that between the parties.
  In the short term, while we wait, thousands of long-term jobs are being put at risk. Most of the defence equipment exported from the United Kingdom by most of the companies involved is pretty uncontentious. That is why the Department of Trade and Industry export licensing unit has committed itself through its code of practice to achieve a target for obtaining licence approvals of 20 working days from receipt of the application.
  The unit was not doing badly until April. According to the DTI, in April 93 per cent. of straightforward licences were being cleared in 20 days, and 70 per cent. of those that had to be circulated to other Government Departments were being cleared in 20 days. By September, under Labour, the rate for simple applications had slipped back to 60 per cent., and joint decisions had slumped to just 48 per cent. achieving target. The DTI receives more than 1,000 applications a month, and is clearing less than half.
  I remind the House that the vast majority of those export orders are for products already manufactured for Britain's forces and help to keep down the cost to our taxpayers. Above all, they keep British people in British jobs. British firms are sympathetic towards harassed officials in Government Departments who have had a new regime imposed on them, with no increase in resources or manpower. This is a new problem entirely created by this Government—new Labour, new problem.
  742
  I know that the main problem lies with the DTI, not the MOD, but let me explain why it matters to the entire Government and to our nation. Not only are British firms suffering lengthy processing delays, but it is now virtually impossible for them to obtain a reason for a delay or a date by which a decision will be made. Many of those companies have been trading in the same products with the same countries for years. Labour has imposed lengthy delay and query, even on non-lethal repeat business.
  Customers—usually overseas Governments or their agencies—place worldwide competitive bids against demanding terms and conditions of supply, including performance bonds supported by irrevocable bank guarantees, liquidated and consequential penalty clauses for late delivery and, of course, the final sanction—disbarment from future tenders.
  Mr. Tom King: In speaking about the increased competition that British companies face, and recognising the importance of the ethical dimension to our defence export sales, has my hon. Friend noticed the interesting report that President Mandela is to go to Saudi Arabia in two weeks to seek to achieve substantial defence exports for South African companies? One does not imagine that President Mandela would be involved in anything the least bit unethical, but that puts into context some Labour Members' inclination to criticise any defence exports, and draws attention to the threat that our companies face from increasing overseas competition.
  Mr. Key: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that telling point. He is right. The South African defence industry is a worldwide industry and is very good indeed. It is tendering for many of our traditional markets and winning in some of them. We must be fully aware that the competition that we face from sources that we hitherto considered beyond the pale is now making a great inroad into our potential business.
  Time is of the essence when responding to contractual delivery dates. Once the capital outlay for the prime contractor capital system or equipment has been purchased, it is crucial that the supply of expendable goods and services be available on demand. Our defence export industry has been winning new export orders in the face of fierce international competition. The Government's dead hand on export licences has already resulted in serious damage to UK exporters' credibility to contractually perform as a reliable quality supplier. Export orders have been cancelled because of late delivery caused by the lack of a licence.
  Substantial costs have been incurred by British industry for liquidated damages and additional shipping costs. US and European competitors have moved in very fast on our export markets. How much longer are Ministers prepared to sit on their hands and see British exports lost and British jobs lost? More quickly than I expected, unemployment will rise in this sector. It is still true: Labour is not working. There is no consensus.
  Ms Rachel Squire: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that during 18 years of Conservative government, hundreds of thousands of jobs were lost in the defence industry, and particularly close to home, 10,000 jobs were lost in my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline,

  743
  East (Mr. Brown) at Rosyth naval base and Rosyth dockyard, as a direct consequence of the hon. Gentleman's Government's decisions?
  Mr. Key: I should like the hon. Lady to speculate on what those figures would have been if a Labour Government had been in place. I remind her that although all of us who have defence-oriented constituencies saw dramatic changes in employment patterns, we ended up with hundreds of thousands of new jobs, economic activity rates in this country higher than anywhere else in Europe, and unemployment lower and falling.
  Yesterday my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State laid out clearly our position on land mines. I shall merely emphasise one point and make one other. If the Government want consensus, they are more likely to find it on the issue of anti-personnel land mines than on many other issues. The new Government must realise that, as any infantryman will tell them, mines save lives as well as taking them. Used properly, they can be an effective, efficient, time-limited deterrent and defence.
  The British Army felt that it was bounced by the new Government's announcement on mines, in respect of both details and timing. That was neither wise nor competent. Further progress can, will and should be made. It will succeed if it has the full agreement and support of the armed services down the chain of command and heeds the advice of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency.
  Mr. Frank Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me a copy of the paper written by the former Engineer-General Sir Hugh Beech, in which he makes the case that the military purpose of anti-personnel mines has been long outlived? He says that they are redundant and that sensors are available with sufficient range and accuracy to draw direct and indirect fire to any kind of incoming incursion force, thereby making APMs unnecessary for the safety of our own people and providing support for his view that in the past our APMs have killed more of our own men than enemy forces.
  Mr. Key: I am aware of those views, and of course I respect them. I should be delighted to see the paper: I think that it is important to be as well informed as possible about such issues. I warmly welcome the promise of money and training facilities for mine clearance work. However, what will be the impact on the Royal Engineers in terms of deployment, recruitment and retention? That issue must be considered.
  I issue a word of warning to Ministers, who are prone to photo opportunities that they regret later. I propose to make a deal between Front Benchers on the issue of land mines: no more stunts. The issue is too serious. We must stand back and leave it to the experts.
  The image of the late Princess of Wales in an Angolan minefield will stay with millions. Back in the United Kingdom, I know that many thought it undignified—or even stupid—for a role model such as Her Majesty's Secretary of State for International Development to dress up and smilingly wave about weapons responsible for such carnage. That stunt did little to help the cause—it simply was not worth it. As for the Secretary of State for Defence, I will spare his blushes.
  744
  A couple of weeks ago—right on cue before the return of Parliament—the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced his first raid on the defence budget. How did the Secretary of State for Defence respond? He invited the pop group Verve to rent disused MOD property for concerts. That is good news for fans of Verve and good news for the Treasury. It may work when looking for small change, but it will not do as a serious response when defence coffers are empty, when the cupboard is bare and when the Treasury is no longer the MOD's flexible friend. I fear that defence Ministers will then be the Treasury's flexible friends.
  British defence costs increased greatly after the inception of IFOR in December 1995 because of the doubling in size of the British force in Bosnia. The costs totalled £244 million to the end of March 1997—that is £60 million for 1995–96, £160 million for 1996–97, and a separate £24 million in 1996–97 for the cost of the RAF contribution to the air component of IFOR, Operation Decisive Edge, based in Italy. The Ministry of Defence was reimbursed for the total sum of £244 million from the Treasury contingency reserves. The MOD would seek to recoup the additional costs from the reserve should it not be able to absorb them
  "without detriment to the rest of the defence programme".—[Official Report, 25 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 29.]
  In July this year, when responding to a parliamentary question, the Minister for the Armed Forces stated that the cost of Britain's military contingent of IFOR, including its air support component, was estimated at "something over £200 million" in the 1997–98 financial year. That would be about 1 per cent. of the overall defence budget. Given that the size of the British force in Bosnia has fallen significantly since the early days of a direct NATO role in that country—it now stands at about 5,300 men—the £200 million plus might include some of the £120 million mentioned in November 1996 as being additional costs for repair and restocking.
  I can find no reference to any commitment by the Treasury to fund the costs of United Kingdom peace implementation in Bosnia from the reserves in this financial year. Has the Ministry of Defence conducted negotiations with the Treasury on that matter? Has there been a settlement? Will defence lose 1 per cent. of its budget in addition to the 1 per cent. fine given to health—£168 million? Are the Government getting careless? Have they lost 2 per cent. of the defence budget since May?
  By summer 1996, Conservative Defence Ministers and the then Defence Select Committee were showing not just inflexibility to Treasury pressure but a new steeliness in their approach to defence expenditure. I pay tribute to Michael Portillo, whose instinct for defence won him many friends in all three armed services as well as in the Ministry of Defence. I was grateful to hear the Minister pay tribute to him last night. As a former Chief Secretary, Michael Portillo would spot a weak spending programme better than anyone—but he also knew a bottom line when he saw it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) knew his business as Minister for the Armed Forces inside out. He made it his duty to understand what was going on at the sharp end of the services. It is no secret that his frustration with the Treasury attitude to defence brought him, with great honour, close to resignation.

  745
  My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) was ruthlessly inquisitive about the procurement programme for which he was responsible. It was not very smart of the incoming Government to claim credit, after just a week or two, for fundamental improvements and new approaches that were put in place during my hon. Friend's term of office. My noble friend Lord Howe proved as a defence Minister that his blood flowed not just blue, but royal blue, light blue and khaki as well.
  The previous Defence Select Committee was unanimous in its view that the defence spending plan for this nation had reached rock bottom. Many members of that Committee have been replaced by the electorate or by the mysterious machinations of the appointments process in the House. I was very pleased to see the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) elected as Chairman. He has a proud record on defence and a deep knowledge of his subject—unlike the Minister. In view of all that the hon. Member for Walsall, South has said over the years—on the record and off it—we would not want to see him resign his chairmanship of the Defence Committee. Yet we know that he would not flinch from that decision if he were pushed too far.
  Similarly, we do not want to see the Minister for Defence Procurement pushed off his perch. Only last year, he said:
  "I also happen to think that this country does not spend enough on defence".—[Official Report, 14 October 1996; Vol. 282, c. 506.]
  Quite so. The Opposition need Lord Gilbert, even if the Government do not.
  What about Defence Ministers? Without fear of contradiction, I assert that they are all nice men—more than that, they are thoroughly decent and honourable. They are delightful and hard-working opponents. I think that they honestly went to the recent general election and accepted office believing that the strategic defence review would be just that. However, where is the beef? Labour sneered before the general election that its approach to defence is fundamentally different from that of the Conservatives, yet now the Government are begging for consensus. They might get it—on our terms.
  Innocents that they were, Labour Members did not imagine that they would be rolled over, first by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and then by the Treasury. The muggings began, and the parliamentary answers became more defensive and more opaque. Labour Members were bound hand and foot, with rope to spare. Gordon marched them up to the top of the hill and he marched them down again. They sailed away for a year and a day—it will be that long before we know the real outcome of the SDR.
  I hope that Defence Ministers are not in office for long—but I hope that they enjoy their tenure. While they are in office, the nation will expect them to fight new Labour in the Treasury. I fear that prospects are not good and that it is time for us to know where the beef is. I suspect that Ministers will need divine intervention—at breakfast, lunch, dinner and at tea. Given their ministerial record so far—and to remind them what we are on about—I recommend that Defence Ministers say grace before every meal: the politician's grace, "God bless our food and God bless our words in case we need to eat them later."
  5.48 pm
  Mr. Terry Davis: We have heard a fascinating speech by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). I thought the best part was his claim that the Opposition need Lord Gilbert. They need anyone who can make a better speech than the hon. Gentleman. If that is the extent of the criticism that the Opposition can make of the Government's defence policy, anyone could do better—perhaps even the Liberals.
  It is often said that the problem with Defence Ministers and military commanders is that they are always fighting the last war: they base their decisions on the last war rather than the next. We heard the hon. Member for Salisbury refight the last election and, in many of his allusions, refight the 1979 general election. Looking to the past is not the way to establish a sensible defence policy for this country.
  I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Salisbury and his colleagues who said that we need to base our defence policy on foreign policy. The hon. Gentleman said that we need what he called foreign policy base lines. He is absolutely right about that, but he and his friends have not been listening. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has spelt out the basis of our defence policy—the Government's defence review—in several speeches. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Salisbury is interrupting from a sedentary position. I suggest that, instead of researching my right hon. Friend's election address, he would do better to research my right hon. Friend's speeches.
  Mr. Key: I have read them.
  Mr. Davis: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman needs not only to read but to reread them. He would then see that my right hon. Friend has spelt out several times the basic policy guidelines of our foreign policy in relation to our defence policy.
  A surprising omission from the speeches made by Opposition Members today and yesterday has been any welcome for the Government's emphasis, which was spelt out clearly at the beginning of the Secretary of State's speech yesterday, on defence being cost-effective. That notion is welcomed by every Labour Member.
  I entirely endorse what my right hon. Friend said, but I hope that I may presume to make one suggestion: perhaps he could ask one of his junior Ministers or a parliamentary private secretary to read the National Audit Office's reports and the Public Accounts Committee's reports of the past 10 years and to make a list of their recommendations and findings. On the basis of that list, my right hon. Friend could then ask what has happened as a result of those reports, because if there was one Government Department that wasted a colossal amount of money under the previous Government it was the Ministry of Defence. Every NAO report presented to the House contained a scandal in terms of the Ministry of Defence not getting value for money.
  I commend that suggestion to the Secretary of State. We have all seen the Treasury minutes—the bland and banal assurances that action would be taken—but it would be worth looking back over published information to ascertain what is happening to ensure that the Ministry of Defence achieves value for money.

  747
  Another aspect of getting value for money is the emphasis on the fact that this country's defence is now based on collective defence. We are in alliances; the days have gone when we could rely solely on our own resources and efforts and on the ability and professional skills of our armed forces to defend the United Kingdom. We are into collective defence, a change which has occurred over the past 50 or 60 years.
  I found my right hon. Friend's references to working with our allies in NATO very encouraging. I was, however, a little disappointed that he made no reference at all to the importance of the Western European Union as the European hard core of NATO and the need to work closely with our allies in the rest of Europe through the WEU to ensure the defence of this country in the widest sense.
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson)indicated assent.
  Mr. Davis: I see that my right hon. Friend is nodding, so I think that he has taken the point.
  We congratulated the Prime Minister on his success at Amsterdam, where he achieved an objective that was common to the Government and the Conservative Opposition. When the positions were reversed, the Labour Opposition supported the Conservative Government in arguing that the WEU should not be integrated into the European Union but be kept as a separate entity. Only the Liberal party thought that it should be integrated.
  What happened at Amsterdam, however, means that there is an obligation on the British Government to ensure that more is now done to sort out the working relationship between the European Union and the WEU. We cannot simply sit back and say that Amsterdam was successful; we have an obligation to ensure that that relationship, which is crucial to any European security and defence policy or identity, is sorted out. I see very little being done in that respect, but it is something which we should take into account in the next few months, and especially when the United Kingdom holds the presidency of the Council of Ministers.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State goes to Russia next week to meet his counterpart there, and it is significant that a delegation from the Russian Duma is coming in the opposite direction to meet representatives of the WEU Assembly so that we can discuss at parliamentary level the development of a common defence and the implications for Russia, Russia's neighbours and the WEU of common objectives and arrangements.
  I greatly welcome the openness with which my right hon. Friend has approached the strategic defence review. It is a genuine effort to involve as many people as possible, to take advice and suggestions and to listen to what is said in many quarters. On the other hand, we can perhaps consider whether the trend has gone far enough, in that, if we believe in collective defence and are basing our policy on an alliance or alliances, it would be sensible in the course of the review to take account of the views expressed and the contributions made by our allies. The extent to which the Government are doing that is not clear. It may be happening, but I would appreciate some
  748
  clarification in the winding-up speech of the extent to which the review takes account of our allies' views and contributions.
  The Secretary of State made another important point yesterday when he said that our enemy is instability. Members of all parties have paid tribute to the contribution of our armed forces in Bosnia, but there has been one outstanding example of instability in the past six months to which the United Kingdom has not offered assistance—Albania.
  I appreciate that the problem in Albania erupted before the general election, so crucial decisions would have been taken before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took office. However, the Government could have contributed to the efforts made in Albania by other WEU countries and, I think, some central European countries because there was a period after the election when it was still possible to do so. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would clarify our reasons for not assisting our friend and allies. Perhaps we did not want to get involved, or perhaps we wanted to get involved but could not do so because we did not have the resources. In any event, we must be clear about the Government's rationale for not joining a number of countries, which played a major part in bringing stability to Albania at a very important time.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also said that ethnic disputes were a major threat to this country's security. I am sure that he is right, but if we are to do something about instability and ethnic disputes in areas such as the Mediterranean, it is time to question the relevance of nuclear weapons in dealing with such a threat. If we have to make choices based on priorities, surely it is time to ask whether it would be better to spend money on aircraft and ships to get our armed forces to the Mediterranean to deal with disputes and bring peace to that troubled region rather than to spend it on nuclear weapons. It is quite reasonable to ask such questions about priorities within the constraints of a defence budget. Again, I should welcome some clarification from Ministers on that important point.
  5.58 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak. I warmly welcome the new Minister for the Armed Forces to the Dispatch Box for the first time. I am sure that he will enjoy the job every bit as much as I did—indeed, I am green with envy at the idea that he should hold that post. I am grateful for his kind words about me in the past. I also welcome the Secretary of State and congratulate him on an assured start at the Dispatch Box yesterday.
  I pay a brief tribute to the previous Chief of the Defence Staff, Field-Marshal Sir Peter Inge, with whom I had the honour to serve and who left the Ministry of Defence in May. He was a very distinguished CDS at an extremely difficult time. I welcome the new Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Charles Guthrie, who has made a confident and assured start. I am sure that he will do a good job.
  Since I stopped being the Minister for the Armed Forces—a job which I miss every day—I have been reflecting on why our armed forces command such tremendous respect and affection in this country. Indeed,

  749
  their standing has increased during the summer. We all have our own theories about that. Undoubtedly, the past triumphs of the Falklands, Bosnia and the Gulf have a great deal to do with it, but I believe that the issue goes further than that. The public have come to see the British forces as highly professional, versatile, can-do organisations whose people are fiercely proud to be associated with them and are determined to give their best.
  The services elicit profound admiration because of their strong emphasis on the importance of training, the priority that they place on the interests and welfare of individuals, their relentless pursuit of all that is truly excellent in life and their continual willingness—even appetite—to update, upgrade and modernise their methods of operation. There is no scope for a hideous, new Labour, modernising project.
  There were some matters of great concern to me when I left the Ministry of Defence, which I should like to talk about briefly. I remain extremely anxious—as I know the Minister is—about the recruitment difficulties faced by the services in general, and the Army in particular. We are fishing in a pretty small pool for men and women of considerable courage, fortitude, determination and strength of character, with the versatility to turn their hands to anything. Such people are not easily found. When they are found, they must not be wasted.
  My next great concern is the increasing difficulty that the services are having in doing their business as more and more restrictions and regulations on issues such as health and safety at work are forced down their throats. The consequences will soon show. With all those rules and regulations and the introduction of longer-range, more lethal and more mobile weaponry and equipment, it is becoming increasingly difficult to carry out realistic military training. We must overcome that, because only through the full rigour of military training and careful preparation for war will our services be able to undertake the tasks expected of them.
  My next concern is how the services are coping under the microscope of hysterical media attention. With the full range of the magic hypocrisy at their command, the press pretend to adore the services, but rejoice in every opportunity to shaft them, sometimes very seriously, when things go wrong. Things do go wrong, of course, but such events are only truly shocking in military life because they happen rarely.
  My greatest anxiety is the challenge that we all face in convincing the general public of the need to devote substantial sums of money to defence. The Government have the important task of continually reminding the nation of the reasons why we need strong, highly trained and well-equipped forces. That is not an easy task for a Government who include many pacifists and past and present activists of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, who care nothing for defence and despise most of the qualities that make our armed forces unique.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) for his excellent speech. Ministers have already discovered, as we did, that the Treasury is wholly unconcerned with the capabilities of our armed forces. Ministers must learn that the Treasury is their enemy and must be fought accordingly for every inch of ground. The other major problem that they will have with the Treasury is its profound ignorance of defence matters and all that goes with them. It was always my considered
  750
  opinion, when working at the Ministry of Defence, that those at the Treasury worked for the Russians. Nothing has since persuaded me that I am wrong.
  There is little scope for a substantial reordering of priorities in a strategic defence review, or any other major reduction in our core commitment. I very much hope that it will be a serious and, above all, credible exercise. If new thinking emerges, we shall need to study it carefully.
  Past and present commitments were never the result of a honey-eyed view of Britain's role in the world. The unmistakeable truth is that we are one of the world's greatest trading nations. Our exports account for approximately a quarter of our gross domestic product. Of all the European Union members, Britain is by far the biggest investor overseas. We have a vital interest in ensuring a stable environment in which to trade and do business. I hope that the strategic defence review will point the way to greater flexibility in the way in which we deploy our defence assets and, possibly, greater realism about the scope of our capabilities. If it is a genuine review, it will make the military more open and honest about where the problems lie and what is achievable. Operational audit must continue to play a big part in such assessments. If it enables us to get away from the self-defeating trickery of double, and sometimes even triple, hatting, it will serve a good purpose and I shall support it. Clearing away some of the smoke and mirrors is not a bad ambition and we should support it.
  I wholly agree with the point made by the Secretary of State yesterday about the use of the military in furthering British foreign policy objectives. I hope that the Foreign Office is making a positive contribution to the strategic defence review, but I must warn the Minister that there will continue to be problems with the Foreign Office over military matters. Those in the generation who served in the Army through national service or as regular soldiers are coming to the end of their careers. The instinctive understanding of matters military between the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence is waning. I hope that the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence will get together to ensure that there is a constant exchange of officials at all levels between the two Departments, so that clear understandings remain. I always wanted more Foreign Office officials on the commitments staff, and the Foreign Office could clearly benefit from having more service men and women on attachment to it.
  If the Foreign Office has done its stuff, it will acknowledge that the armed forces are a glittering, golden asset for the promotion of our interests abroad. We need to make sure that we have the full array of places at all the military colleges. I did all that I could to encourage the staff college, in particular, to make more places available. That will be difficult as the joint services college comes on stream. The ties thus created are of profound value to foreign students and to us. I hope that the wider use of military training overseas will be addressed in the review as a critical issue.
  When I was Minister for the Armed Forces, it was my great pleasure to travel extensively in the middle east and Europe. I was always greatly struck by the extraordinary regard and respect for the services that those countries had. Bahrain is a good case in point. The crown prince of Bahrain and I did our officer cadet training together and jointly shared the horrors of Mons officer cadet school 30 years ago. Many other Bahrain service men have done

  751
  a great deal of training in our country. The military ties that bind us are strong. The Minister for Defence Procurement will chair joint defence talks with Bahrain in November. I hope that we shall do all that we can to further our overseas links, because they make our life much easier abroad and they are an important and impressive way of promoting British foreign policy.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.
  6.8 pm
  Laura Moffatt: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech in this defence debate. I shall begin with a few words about the former Member of Parliament for Crawley, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). He brings colour to the House, and he is a jolly and courteous character. As we have just heard, he is an honest man and I wish him well in his new constituency.
  It gives me great pleasure to tell the House a little bit about my constituency. Crawley is a wonderful town and I believe that it is the best of the new towns, although, like me, it is getting on a bit. This year, we are celebrating our 50th birthday with a variety of events throughout the year.
  Back in its early years, Crawley attracted the pioneers from London—people such as my parents who wanted to raise a family in a house with a garden and to work close by. Crawley has now grown to a population of almost 100,000, but we still have lots of open spaces, sports facilities and cultural facilities second to none. Only last week, the Minister for Sport opened our new football stadium and he was warmly welcomed by the town. Crawley is a good place in which to live.
  Even in the early days, politicians understood that families need good-quality housing with gardens and they resisted high-rise buildings, for which we have a lot to thank them today. For most of this time, Crawley has had a fine Labour council which has always been guided by sound principles of good financial management and has always insisted on the very best facilities and services. In turn, the council has been rewarded by the support of the town.
  The wise and principled leadership of Alf Pegler, known as "Mr. Crawley", was tragically ended last year by his death. I can only say how sad I am that he died before his dream of a new Labour Government came true. His work goes on in Crawley and it will not be forgotten.
  Crawley is a very lively town, with the majority of economic activity in Sussex. We have Gatwick, a major international airport which now handles 25 million passengers and is expected to handle 40 million passengers on a single runway—an enormous technological feat. It takes a lot of co-operation by all involved to cope with such a demanding resident as an international airport. We work together to reduce aircraft noise and we absorb 32,000 workers on and off the airport, with all the special challenges of having such an exciting activity within the constituency and the influences that that has on the economy.
  The House may remember the "boom town to gloom town" national headlines about Crawley in the late 1980s. I am glad that this Government are tackling head-on
  752
  boom-bust economics and that they are facing issues of training and education so that we are equipped in Crawley to take on the fantastic job opportunities there.
  Many companies are involved in our town, some of which are involved in the defence industry, mainly in simulation and communications equipment. These companies which, incidentally, always said to me on visits before the election that they had thrived and prospered under previous Labour Governments, provide the very best in the world and compete with the best in the world. They provide our forces with the new technologies they so desperately need to play their part not only in defending the realm, but in peacekeeping, the early detection of conflict, fighting crime and dealing with natural disasters.
  We must have up-to-date forces who are able to take on the many different roles asked of them. The strategic defence review should properly take account of those differing roles and we should not allow our forces to be overstretched and under-equipped. I believe that the review is taking proper account of those factors.
  What the Prime Minister said to the new Labour conference earlier this month about the United Kingdom must surely be true of our armed forces. He said:
  "We can never be the biggest, we may never be the mightiest but we can be the best."
  With being the best in every sense of the word goes a determination to be fair and to treat those in our armed forces decently. That is why I shall devote the rest of the time allowed me to the plight of those suffering from what we have come to know as Gulf war syndrome.
  During the previous Parliament, United Kingdom Gulf war veterans felt that they were being ignored and that their condition was not taken seriously. There is, however, no doubt that they are ill. Many are suffering a great range of symptoms, families are breaking up under the strain and people are becoming sicker and sicker. During the previous Parliament, sufferers felt that they were no nearer the truth. People who, before the Gulf conflict, were fit and well are now reduced to shadows of their former selves. We have a duty to do our utmost to understand why this has happened. Why has it happened to United Kingdom troops and to United States troops, but not to French troops? We must have some answers.
  Much of the work undertaken by eminent epidemiologists was rubbished by some during the previous Parliament. It is now time to work in complete co-operation with other nations involved in the Gulf war and to pull together all the information and studies. Every aspect of life before and during the conflict, such as diet, levels of stress, types of clothing worn, and chemical and inoculation exposure, needs to be included. We must also collate successful treatments from GPs caring for veterans, and establish efficacy and good practice for care. It is vital that this information is shared between all agencies.
  There is a need for the utmost urgency and our Minister for the Armed Forces has made an excellent start. I believe that he has a real understanding of the issue. The Ministry of Defence published a document in early July, entitled "Gulf Veterans Illness—a new beginning", which offered hope to hundreds of veterans. Funding for research has doubled and, in July, the Minister for the Armed Forces met veterans once again. The Defence Select Committee quickly resumed its work in the new

  753
  Parliament by questioning the Minister on the issue. He had a superb grasp of it and, with the publication of the new report today, we are making real progress.
  The search for answers is to be stepped up. Fairness is the watchword for the new Labour Government and our record in six short months has borne this out. People are suffering long-term illnesses that they could not reasonably expect. Our mission in the House must be clear—to ensure that the nation can have confidence that the very best efforts are being made to find answers, not only for justice for the veterans, but for the prevention of such suffering again. We can now have that confidence.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Mike Hancock: I congratulate the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) on a splendid maiden speech. I am sure that her sentiments about the victims of Gulf war syndrome will be echoed around the Chamber and around the nation. Justice for them and for their dependants is long overdue.
  I also take this opportunity to pass on the good wishes of many of the service men whom I represent in Portsmouth, and of those who live in Hampshire, to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) for his efforts to get a fair deal and greater understanding of Ministry of Defence problems. I thank him for his efforts on their behalf.
  I also congratulate the Ministry of Defence team on its performance at Defence Question Time. It was certainly the most enjoyable Question Time in my short time in the House in this Parliament and in my previous time in the House. Ministers' responses were the most positive that I have heard for a very long time.
  We are, however, talking about a review of our defence capabilities. When the Minister for the Armed Forces introduced the debate, he said that the review would be policy led and not resource driven, but he did not go on to talk about what would happen if the policy was driven by a lack of resources and reversed its aims. Listening carefully to what the Minister said and to what the Secretary of State said in his excellent speech yesterday, we heard them talk about the 29 per cent. less expenditure and the 100,000 fewer personnel available to the armed forces. What they did not say was that resources would be made available to secure the strategic defence of the nation if the review suggested greater commitments than we have at present.
  We have had no clear commitment that there will be no reduction in expenditure. We need cast-iron guarantees because otherwise the defence review is a meaningless exercise. Many who have spoken in the debate have rightly celebrated the quality of our armed forces and I also pay tribute to the many men and women I have met during my time representing in politics the city of Portsmouth and the county of Hampshire. I know from travelling around Europe and elsewhere of the high esteem in which our armed forces are held, whether they are members of the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force, the Army or the Royal Marines who have a splendid reputation wherever they serve because of their tough role on behalf of the community.
  Recently, I visited eastern Europe, where the contribution of the British Army was greeted with widespread admiration and support. Nobody had anything but a good word for the performance of our troops in
  754
  Bosnia and the way in which they behaved, handled problems and developed the technique of responding to difficult circumstances in many different parts of the world.
  We also need to pay tribute to our reserve forces in the Territorial Army, the RAF and the Navy. They should be considered to be a national asset. They are flexible, available and we can count on them. We need to understand that they play a continuing and vital role in the defence of the nation and share the responsibility of our defence capabilities.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) pointed out yesterday the many deficiencies in the starting point for today's debate on defence capabilities. He talked about the lack of foreign policy objectives and the fact that we still have not clearly established our priorities.
  Many hon. Members have rightly and traditionally used the debate to raise constituency matters. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and others spoke about the Royal Ordnance explosives factory. Let me pass on to the House the support for his campaign and that of others who wish that resource to be retained of my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and my hon. Friends the Members for Taunton (Mrs. Ballard) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). They are committed to that cause and support the need to maintain an explosives production unit in the United Kingdom. We should not make ourselves vulnerable by allowing a bad decision to be taken.
  I also congratulate the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) who made a thoughtful speech yesterday. He spoke about the worthwhile Astor project. However, the issue is not quite as straightforward as it appeared from his presentation. I represent many people who work for Lockheed Martin, which is based in the city of Portsmouth. That company and its work force have assembled a rich cocktail of expertise and commitment to making the project work. It could be a real asset for the defence community of the nation. I would not want any Minister to rush headlong into a decision without considering what was available.
  As I represent the home of the Royal Navy, it would be wrong of me not to mention the city of Portsmouth and its commitment to the Royal Navy. The local newspaper, the Portsmouth News,has recently been running a petition, which I am delighted to say the Secretary of State has agreed to receive in a few weeks' time. Signatures were not collected door to door, so people had to make the effort to go and sign the petition. It was signed by thousands of people and it concerns the very subject that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex spoke about—getting people to realise that we get nothing for nothing and defence has to be paid for. It urges the Government to provide resources to give the Navy the right capabilities to fulfil what the nation expects of it. Many people in Portsmouth have witnessed at first hand the run down of the Royal Navy which has affected civilian jobs as well as the service personnel who go to sea on our behalf. It is important that the Government take seriously issues such as those raised by the Portsmouth News. The people of that city have responded magnificently in support of our armed forces.
  What are the armed forces for? Many hon. Members have challenged the Minister to explain that. Those who go to the cinema regularly will have seen the

  755
  advertisement that shows how our armed forces help such laudable causes as famine relief, clearing up after earthquakes and other natural disasters and supporting communities affected by them.
  Last week, I heard the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office tell the Oxford Research Group that he wanted the armed forces to do more to combat the threat of drugs particularly in the Caribbean. For the first time, a Foreign Office Minister had said that the review had a distinct responsibility to produce some solutions that would give greater flexibility for our armed forces to be used in the defence of communities against drug addiction. However, there was no announcement in the House. We heard nothing from the Foreign Secretary or the Secretary of State for Defence about what the policy guidelines should be.
  The two-day debate on defence policy is a bit of a hit and miss. Is it meant to be suggestion box days where we put all our proposals in a hat in the hope that someone will pick them up and run with them? We have not been given sufficient information to make the review the substantial exercise that is required to take our armed forces into the next decade with any degree of surety about where they will be in 10 years' time.
  Recently, I had the pleasure of visiting Gibraltar with other hon. Members. The strategic necessity of that base is clear. We need to consider it in connection with the threats that were discussed yesterday and have been well documented. The base at Gibraltar and the two sovereign bases in Cyprus are key issues in the long-term defence of the nation, yet no Foreign Office statement has been made.
  Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Defence was challenged to name the enemy. I supported him whole-heartedly when he talked us through an eloquent presentation on where he saw potential enemies. I urge any hon. Members who have not yet done so to read the document recently produced by the North Atlantic Assembly on the state of Russian forces. It describes a horror story waiting to happen—in some cases, it has already happened—posing threats across eastern Europe and beyond. There is the opportunity for someone to go out of control. We need a quick response to the real threat resulting from the collapse of the old Soviet armed forces. How right the Secretary of State was to make that issue plain and simple to understand in the House.
  The review should have started to address some of the policies that the Ministry of Defence has recently put into practice, such as the number of agencies that have been set up. I read with interest questions that were asked by hon. Members towards the end of the previous Parliament concerning the role of those agencies. There has been no proper evaluation of whether any of the targets set are capable of being achieved or whether the setting up of 40 or more agencies within the Ministry of Defence has produced real value for money. The review should have been given the opportunity to examine their role and the way in which they are to be developed over the coming years in the defence of our nation.
  Let me touch on an issue that many hon. Members have mentioned. We have heard a great deal about procurement—pieces of metal, fabric, computers and everything else that we need for the defence of our nation.
  756
  Some hon. Members have spoken about the other important commodity that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key)—
  Mr. Viggers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are the clocks working?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman might be referring to the 10-minute limit on speeches, which does not apply to Front-Bench Members.
  Mr. Hancock: I am grateful for that response, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I am sure that it comes as a disappointment to the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers).
  Mr. Godman: That is a shame.
  Mr. Hancock: I am sure that the hon. Member for Gosport is heartened by the support of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman). I shall do my best to speed up so that other hon. Members have the opportunity to speak.
  Let me talk about the courage, dedication and loyalty of the armed forces—their human side. The immediate concern must be the retention and recruitment of Army personnel. Those of us who represent constituencies where the military are based will hear first-hand accounts of the problems that they face almost every day and the issues that confront their families.
  Yesterday, we heard some comments about Major Joyce and his role in trying to expose some of those deficiencies. One of my constituents who has two children in the armed forces wrote to the Daily Mail setting out her defence of Major Joyce's position. She did so using some of the very words that he had used. She put them into the context of her family. Her daughter, who wanted to be promoted to sergeant and was subject to a promotion review, became disillusioned when she was told by a senior Army officer in Germany that he did not believe that there was a place in the Army for women. After serving for a considerable time, my constituent's son-in-law recently left the Army because he had become extremely disillusioned and disappointed at the way in which the Army had responded to various needs.
  We need to take seriously the sort of suggestions that Major Joyce attempted to make. How wrong the Secretary of State was to say yesterday that whether a court martial was the end of the story was simply an Army matter. That was not a satisfactory response. Major Joyce was making a stand which many of his fellow members of the armed forces would have liked to have made. Ministers have a right and a duty to respond to it.
  Mr. Soames: Rubbish.
  Mr. Hancock: Although I am sure that that point comes as a disappointment to the hon. Gentleman, I assure him that, from talking to members of the armed forces in Hampshire, there is a considerable amount of support for the stance that Major Joyce took.
  In her maiden speech, the hon. Member for Crawley referred to Gulf war veterans and their problems. I ask the Minister to consider seriously the civilians who went to

  757
  the Gulf in the service of the Crown who, unlike in the Falklands war, were not enlisted. They suffered the symptoms of Gulf war syndrome, too.
  I have constituents—sadly no longer working—who served on ships in the NAAFI. Service personnel on those ships will benefit from any review and are entitled to other benefits that are already available about which the Minister talked. Many civilians who served the three services are not being given the option of being included. Sadly, many of them have had a very swift brush off from the MoD.
  What about the Chinese laundry men who worked on Her Majesty's ships who, with a cavalier sweep, have been dismissed? [Laughter.]
  Mr. McWilliam: I hope that Opposition Members who are laughing have the opportunity to visit the war memorial at Fitzroy in the Falklands to see the names in Chinese of the Chinese laundry men who were killed unnecessarily in that place.
  Mr. Hancock: I represent 40 of the 80 chinese laundry men who currently work for the Royal Navy—and I am proud to do so. Many of them wear three or four medals on their chests in honour of the service that they have given the nation. Many of them feel very bitter about the way in which, sadly, they have been dismissed as if they are no longer important since the MoD has taken on contractors who would rather employ retired Gurkha soldiers or others. If we are to care for our service personnel, we need to care for all the service family.
  Asbestos victims—civilian and military—have been talked about many times in the House. Over a long period—I am not directing these comments at current Ministers—cases of human misery and suffering have arisen. Lives have been tragically cut short or ruined in the service of this country. We have heard the case of nuclear test veterans. I hope that in his winding-up speech the Minister will, as promised, comment about the way in which we can address their problems. For how long was their case ignored or treated with disdain in the House?
  I cannot conceive that it is possible for senior or middle-ranking officers and NCOs not to know of the bullying that goes on. It is impossible in some close-knit units not to know what is going on. Yet they seem totally amazed when such stories start to emerge. We hear disclaimers that the incident is isolated. There are too many such incidents for that to be so. Bullying is a real problem—as is racism and the apparent distaste among senior officers and others for people who are continuously questioned about their sexual preferences. If we are trying to create an environment in which the public are encouraged to join our armed forces, such behaviour is totally wrong.
  It was interesting to read today on the front page of The Times an article entitled:
  "Army wants to recruit homeless and jobless".
  The Army is going to homeless hostels in the north-east to recruit soldiers. It is already in night clubs. It will not be long, if we are not careful, before the welfare-to-work programme will—possibly—carry an obligation that one has to consider military service. Perhaps we are not too far from new-style press gangs being brought into operation to persuade people to join the armed services. If we really want to encourage people to join the armed
  758
  forces, we have to make the services transparent. They have to be seen to be fair and seen to respond to the promotion needs of men and women. We need to be fair to recruits and look after their families, especially when they have problems in the armed forces.
  I had hoped that this two-day debate would give Ministers enough to think about to prompt them to say that there are too many unanswered questions. I am delighted that they are going to take a little longer to come back with answers to the review. I hope that they think long and hard about the many points that have been made in the debate and the 500 or more comments that they have received. This issue is far too important to be pushed aside. As the Minister said, it comes back to whether it is policy led or resource driven. If resources are not available, some of the commitments will go, some of the kit that is needed will not be provided, some of the personnel needed will not be trained and some of our obligations will not be fulfilled. That would be a disaster for this nation. Hon. Members should fight tooth and nail against it.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) on her first speech in the House. She graphically outlined the consequences for both sides of the conflict of so-called "clean wars" such as the Gulf war. The onset of Gulf war syndrome is one more product of the use of chemicals in any form in war by either side. Perhaps more consideration should have been given to the arming of Iraq in the early 1980s, which was a major component in the provocation of the Gulf war.
  I welcome the fact that the Government are undertaking a review of the country's defence strategy, and particularly welcome the introductory remarks in the Ministry of Defence's paper on the defence review in which it is stated that the review is foreign-policy led. The first statement of the new Foreign Secretary after the election was on the human rights dimension in foreign policy. I hope that that will run through all aspects of our defence policy, including the defence industry and the question of arm sales.
  This country spends well over £20 billion a year on armaments of one form or another. We spend considerably more on defence than any other European country—apart from Greece and Turkey—as a proportion of total Government spending. Indeed, if we reduced our defence expenditure to the European average of about 2.2 per cent., there would be an overall saving of £6 billion a year. Although that would not all be realised immediately—it never could be—it could be realised over a longer period.
  I was pleased that, in his opening remarks yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State drew attention to the question of the establishment of a defence diversification agency and pointed out that an announcement is due to be made—presumably when the conclusions of the defence review are put forward. I look forward to that. Clearly, if we are to harness the undoubted skills of people in the defence industry, they should not be thrown on the scrap heap of unemployment. As hon. Members who represent areas with considerable naval, Army, Air Force or defence-related ship-building

  759
  interests will know, those highly skilled workers ought to be given something more socially useful to do. That is surely at the heart of the question of cutting defence expenditure: not wasting the skills but putting them to some good use. Goodness knows, there are enough needs around the world to benefit from such good use. I am especially pleased that the Secretary of State announced yesterday that he will publish all the submissions to the defence review, if the contributors wish that to be done. That means that I do not need to send Opposition Members a copy of my lengthy submission, because they will be able to read it in the Library. I am sure that some of them will wish to do so and, in fact, some of them are nodding sagely.
  We face issues that confront the entire planet and that is the context in which we should undertake the defence review. We live in a world with an ever-growing gap between the richest and the poorest, with the systematic and constant abuse of human rights in many areas, and with a serious threat of environmental destruction and disaster. The ghastly cloud that has hung over Indonesia, Singapore and other parts of south-east Asia should be a warning to us all that there are limits to growth and to what we can do to the environment. We should recognise that many military conflicts around the world have roots in poverty, human rights abuses and the fight for natural resources. The Gulf war was really about oil, and the background to the Falklands conflict also contained an oil dimension.
  We should look to a world in which we can reduce the possibilities of conflict and the amount of the world's resources expended on military matters. We should concentrate on the alleviation of poverty, as the Prime Minister said this afternoon in his report on the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh. The defence review could give us the chance to do so.
  It is worrying that in the aftermath of the cold war—with all the attendant problems in central Europe and the former Soviet republics, including enormous ethnic tensions and the war in Chechnya—one of the proposals advanced by the western nations, including Britain and the United States, is the expansion of NATO to embrace several central European countries. It is hard to believe that in five years' time the Polish people will be happy to see their defence expenditure double while schools close—because there is no money to keep them open—and welfare and hospital services are cut.
  I notice that American arms manufacturers expect to sell many F16s and other aircraft to Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary and to undertake joint military manoeuvres with the Ukraine. If that is not a recipe for future conflict, I do not know what is. To expand NATO to the borders of Russia will create great political pressures in that country to expand military expenditure and research to deal with the perceived threat of NATO expansion.
  We should concentrate on disarmament and demilitarisation, instead of the militarisation of the whole of central Europe and the conflicts that will result. Otherwise, a big bill will have to be paid by the people of central Europe and by taxpayers in Britain and the United States to fund rearmament programmes.
  760
  As well as thinking seriously about the possible results of NATO expansion, we must address the consequences of the arms sales programme that has been conducted in the past. In the 1980s, many Labour Members criticised the regime in Iraq and the policy of selling arms and equipment that could be used for the manufacturing of arms to the Ba'athist regime. We were told that our criticisms were nonsense and that Britain's economic interests came first. What happened? A super-armed regime systematically abused the human rights of its people and, eventually, provoked an enormous military conflict. That should have been a lesson to us, but the sale of arms to Turkey continues, despite the attack on the Kurdish people, as do arms sales to Indonesia.
  I do not have much time left in which to make two further points. This debate gives us another opportunity to reconsider the question of the holding and maintaining of nuclear weapons by Britain. There is a fundamental moral case that we should not hold any nuclear weapons. I have always held that view and I always will. It is inconceivable that we should hold weapons that threaten the very existence of the planet. Nuclear weapons have not brought security or peace: they have meant the abuse of human rights, the invasion of civil rights and untold damage to this planet. Mordecai Vanunu tried to blow the whistle on the Israeli military experiment and he has been in solitary confinement for more than a decade. In his name and those of people like him, who have campaigned systematically for peace, we should reassess our possession of nuclear weapons and their cost.
  The real cost of nuclear weapons has been systematically hidden by the Ministry of Defence and I suspect that it is £1.5 billion a year. However, the cost is not the real issue. We should address the principle involved. In a world in which there is no obvious enemy or threat to this country, why on earth do we have those weapons, other than to threaten people who may challenge our economic interests? Public opinion polls suggest that 59 per cent. of the United Kingdom population would feel more secure without nuclear weapons. We should, on this occasion, listen to public opinion.
  Oxfam, which has long campaigned for the elimination of poverty in the world, has produced an interesting booklet called "A Safer Future: Reducing the Human Cost of War". It lists some of the causes of conflict and I shall mention four:
  "deep ethnic or religious divisions … intense inequality and competition over the means to earn a living … no democratic rule of law or institutional framework to allow peaceful change … a ready supply of small arms and ammunition."
  Conflicts abound around the world, fuelled by inequality and the profiteering of arms manufacturers. The defence review gives us an opportunity to reassess our defence commitment to try to contribute to a safer, more sustainable world. The expansion of NATO and the increase in military expenditure in central Europe and other places can only increase the danger of serious conflict. It is time to reassess those issues and to enter the next century with a more peaceful intent than we have managed to achieve this century.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Martin Bell: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, and I wish to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Crawley

  761
  (Laura Moffatt) on an excellent maiden speech. She clearly had a much easier time than I did in framing the appropriate compliments to her predecessor.
  Am I alone, because I do not represent a party, in believing that we should not play party politics with the defence of the realm? I made it my objective when I became, almost by accident, a Member of Parliament to make only short speeches on subjects that I knew something about. I had the privilege of serving in uniform with the 7th Armoured Division in the Gulf and, out of uniform, alongside British troops in Bosnia. I know from both experiences that we have the best little Army in the world. I know, too, that unless it changes at least as fast as circumstances are changing, it will no longer be the best little Army in the world. We have to go back to first principles and renew them. I shall make some brief suggestions.
  I have argued in my previous life, as well as this one, that any defence review must take as a starting point the welfare of service families. That issue is not ancillary to the enterprise: it is central. It is good to know that the Secretary of State has heard about overstretch directly from service men in Split. I can add more. I know of units that were sent on almost back-to-back, six-month unaccompanied tours in Bosnia. It was not uncommon for a battalion's casualties to include not only the dead and wounded—and there were such casualties, because the soldiers risked their lives to save lives—but 10 per cent. and more of its marriages. Soldiers would return to find that they no longer had a functioning home. They had gained a medal and lost a marriage. What kind of a deal is that?
  Let us match commitments to resources and resources to commitments in the defence review. We should change our attitudes to operations and active service, which tend to be thought of as a cycle. Troops train for the operation, carry out the operation—whether fighting a war, or peacekeeping and enforcement—and the cycle resumes. In fact, the process is a continuum, involving pre-conflict, conflict and post-conflict.
  We should not forget the lessons that have been learned in Bosnia and Rwanda about pre-emptive deployment. A pre-emptive UN deployment prevented war in Macedonia and, in my judgment, saved thousands of lives. Kofi Annan believes that a pre-emptive deployment of one armoured brigade in Rwanda at the beginning of the emergency would have held off genocide and saved hundreds of thousands of lives. One does not have to be a super-power to field an armoured brigade.
  We must welcome the Government's initiative on mine clearance. A war does not end with a ceasefire or a peace agreement, and mines will blow up for generations and kill and wound children yet unborn. I can think of no better use of our taxpayers' money than that our soldiers should continue to train children in many countries in the identification of mines.
  Finally, I wish to refer to rank and privilege—not the functions of rank, but its privilege—and the gap that exists, certainly in the Army, between officers and other ranks. We are privileged to have listening to this debate my friend Major Eric Joyce, a soldier of distinction who has risked his career and now faces—
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to refer to Strangers during a debate in the House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): It is not strictly in order, and I advise the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) not to do so.
  Mr. Bell: I stand corrected. Major Joyce faces a court martial or an administrative dismissal, or he may have to resign. I hope that Ministers will make a distinction between the disciplinary action being taken and the merit of his ideas. Here is just one—that a sergeant should find a fast-track promotional route into the Royal Military academy at Sandhurst which, at the moment, he cannot do four years after signing up. That route is closed. The proportion of soldiers who are now officer cadets at Sandhurst is 0.2 per cent. For me, that is an indictment of the rigidity of the present system and we must surely change it.
  We live in revolutionary times. Great changes are taking place in society. Some of us find ourselves as Members of this House because of those revolutionary changes. We know that the Army will have to change, and this is the appropriate time to be looking for the appropriate ways in which it should change so that it can continue to be the best little Army in the world. One thing we know for sure—what it cannot do is mark time.
  6.51 pm
  Mr. John McWilliam: It is a significant privilege to follow the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) and, for the first time in 20 years in this House, I can say that I do not disagree with a word that an hon. Member sitting opposite me has said.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) on an excellent maiden speech, and I look forward to working closely with her on the Defence Committee. In particular, her medical expertise will be of great benefit to the Committee as we study Gulf war syndrome. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate also the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who is on the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that he continues to do so for a long time, and I shall miss his company on the Select Committee, at both the evidence sessions and our informal evenings when we are away. I should add to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley that on many occasions—although not today—the most colourful thing about her predecessor was his socks.
  I wish to say a few words about our armed forces. I have served on the Select Committee and as a defence Whip, and I have been associated with the armed forces since I was chairman of the Edinburgh military tattoo policy committee. I have seen our armed forces in the Gulf, Bosnia, Northern Ireland, Turkey and northern Iraq. I am utterly at a loss to explain how they can continue to display such professionalism and commitment, to be so effective and to show such compassion and humanity under the difficult circumstances in which they find themselves, given the pressures to which they have been subjected in the past 15 years.
  If I had suggested when I was first elected to the House that we cut our armed forces by a half of what the previous Government did, I would have been subjected to the most terrible ridicule. The previous Government cut our armed

  763
  forces by more than was called for by the most lunatic resolution passed by conference in the old days of the Labour party—and, believe me, there were some lunatic ones.
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has just left the Chamber. I respect his pacifism, but I stood for election on the Labour party manifesto. We all stood for election on that manifesto, but it was not the one for which my hon. Friend was arguing. I shall always protect his right to be a pacifist, but I hope that no Opposition Member is under the impression that the majority of Labour Members are pacifists—we are not.
  I wish to express my gratitude to the people who have made the ammunition, guns, aircraft, uniforms, boots, tents and everything else that our armed forces have needed. If it were not for the defence manufacturing industries, we would not have succeeded in the Falklands and we certainly would not have succeeded in the Gulf.
  Mr. James Gray: I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman has repudiated pacifism. Has he also repudiated his membership of the parliamentary Labour party Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament group between 1982 and 1986?
  Mr. McWilliam: It seems to me that 1986 is a long time ago. When I joined the CND, it was multilateralist and I could not get it to change, which is why I left. I will accept no more interruptions. If that is the standard I can expect, it would not be worth while.
  If the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) reads the joint report of the Trade and Industry Committee and the Defence Committee, published during the previous Parliament, he might gain more insight into what we ought to be doing in terms of defence procurement. I am deeply worried by the proposal to form a joint company between Royal Ordnance and SNPE of France. Not that long ago—I am sorry to say—the previous Government gave away our ability to manufacture FH70 ammunition for our main field howitzers. The Belgian company that ended up with the contract refused to supply 155 mm ammunition to our forces in the Gulf. We cannot and must not allow the SNPE-Royal Ordnance joint company to go ahead, and we must continue to have the ability to manufacture military explosives in this country.
  A review must address overstretch. Nights away from home, extended tour intervals and shortened periods between tour intervals are having a distinct effect on the morale of our armed forces. We must do something about that. The previous Government cut and cut and let the situation worsen without any thought for the consequences. My colleagues on the Select Committee—the majority of whom were Conservatives—felt the same as me and were prepared to produce critical reports. I can assure the House that as a member of the current Defence Committee, I shall act in no way differently from the way in which I acted on the previous Committee.
  There are serious problems with procurement projects, particularly where there are high levels of system integration. We have failed in all sorts of areas—from airborne radar aircraft to frigate command and control systems and the tactical weapons system on nuclear submarines—because of one problem. The Ministry of
  764
  Defence cannot cope with high levels of system integration—which is strange, because our industry certainly can. We have one of the best information technology industries in the world, and it is capable of dealing with contracts with high degrees of sophistication and integration. It is only when the MOD's procurement process gets involved that it goes astray.
  I shall give my hon. Friends on the Front Bench a piece of advice that I used to give when I was city treasurer in Edinburgh. I used to say to officials, "If you want to have unplanned works added to a contract, please bring me your proposal together with your resignation—it will save time."
  I congratulate the Government on the progress on Gulf war syndrome since the general election. The Select Committee on Defence in the previous Parliament was extremely critical of the then Government for their failure to move and their assertion that the only research that was needed was psychological and, frankly—I blame not the Government but certain individuals—for trying to mislead the Committee as to possible causes. Those who were responsible have either resigned or been disciplined, but I resent the fact that it happened; if it ever happens again, I promise that I, for one, will cause trouble.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the defence medical services, as did my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces. When I visited the defence medical services last year, I was shocked by the demoralisation; by the state that they were in; by the fact that the three services, although it was supposed to be a tri-service system, had different arrangements; and by the discovery that the nearest officer from whom an aircraftman or aircraftwoman could get help would be a surgeon squadron leader or a surgeon group captain, and that often there was no officer they could refer to on their base. The different conditions of service for members of different services doing the same job cause resentment, and that must be dealt with.
  I shall now resume my seat before another Conservative Member makes another stupid intervention.
  7 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam). I can at least join him in the tribute that he paid to British industry and its contribution to the success of our defence forces.
  Those who 10 years ago called on the Government to turn their swords into ploughshares are today queuing up to demand ever more defence expenditure. That is indeed an encouraging sign. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), who represents the home of the nuclear submarine, declared on 30 May 1987 that Labour would
  "end the madness of our reliance on nuclear weapons",
  adding that the
  "arms race has brought us to the brink of total destruction"
  and that the Conservatives
  "claim that these weapons of mass destruction make us secure. The truth is that they do not."
  Greater joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, and even greater joy if the entire parliamentary Labour party repenteth, with the exception of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).

  765
  The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness is now calling for more aircraft carriers, so we can take great encouragement from that.
  Mr. Gray: Constituency interests.
  Mr. Howarth: There may be constituency interests there, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is also acting on principle.
  The Labour party cannot claim great insight, because even the Russians are going for competitive tendering; the Labour party is not in the avant garde of change. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said yesterday, it is a tribute to the Conservative party that Labour has been forced over the years to change its posture on defence, and our debate in the past two days is testimony to the fact that we have won the argument that strong defence leads to peace and to freedom.
  The Secretary of State said yesterday that we live in a more complex world following the fall of the Berlin wall. We would all agree with that. The certainties of the cold war have been replaced by uncertainties. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) may be interested to know that I was not in the Treasury, but I worked for the Russians. While not in the House, I spent a year working for the Russian aircraft design bureau, Sukhoi, manufacturers of the Su-27 fighter aircraft; and a fascinating time it was.
  I met Konstantin Marbachev, the chief designer of the Su-27, arguably one of the most potent aircraft in the world, and asked him, through the interpreter, "If we are all friends, who is the enemy?" He looked up and said, "Mussulmanski." [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"] Mussulmanski—Islamic fundamentalism. That is only one potential threat. There are others, such as Russia itself, should it implode—we should not take a return to Russian nationalism lightly—and China.
  We face a complex and difficult world, and it is important to prepare our armed services not only for humanitarian action but for hostilities. It is right for us to deploy our troops where they can play a humanitarian role, but we should remember what they are there for in the first place: to defend the realm and our interests throughout the world. I fear that the decision to extend the role of women in the armed forces smacks more of political correctness than of a need to deal with a recruitment problem.
  The Minister faces a problem, because if we are to prepare for myriad possible eventualities, he will have to retain a nuclear capability and continue to invest in the smart weapons that made all the difference in the Gulf war and kept casualties to a minimum. He will have to invest in air superiority and in the troops who will be able to hold the territory. It is hard to see how all that can be maintained without additional resources. I agree with much of the rhetoric of the new Defence Ministers, and I think that they are men of honour, but they will be judged not by their rhetoric but by their deeds.
  Many hon. Members have referred to British Aerospace's proposal to sell its Bridgwater Royal Ordnance factory to a French company, SNPE. The trade unions have produced an interesting briefing on the matter, which says:
  "Unless Government intervenes to protect strategic capacity … Britain will, in future, have to depend on France to meet the needs of our armed forces, including in times of crisis."
  766
  Ministers face a difficult decision. Sir Dick Evans of British Aerospace has said that the restructuring of defence industries throughout Europe is a vital priority and urged the Government to speed it up. He recognises that there is a political dimension.
  The Government will have to grapple with the issue, because they will find it hard to rationalise the industry in Europe—which probably has to be done—without risking the loss of some critical strategic capability, which no one in the House, not even the Liberal Democrats, great federalists though they are, wants to surrender to France. We must look not only to co-operative agreements with our continental partners but to the United States, and France finds that unacceptable.
  The Minister will have to deal with the Foresight programme, promoted by the British aerospace industry. He knows that the President of the Board of Trade has given her support to that programme of technological research, which is vital because we are living off yesterday's investment: today's export sales of defence equipment are based on past investment. The Government keep banging on about investment, so perhaps the Minister can tell us what they intend to do about the Foresight programme.
  I bitterly resent the imputation that the Conservative Government did not have an ethical defence sales policy. We had a strict licensing regime. Ministers must understand that defence sales enable us to support our allies and to get value for money from production runs that we could not afford if our only marketplace was the United Kingdom. The Government will have to think hard about that. They must stand firm in support of defence sales, which are important to British industry and to the execution of our foreign policy. Saudi Arabia is an ally, and made more strongly an ally by its defence ties with us.
  The royal yacht Britannia has a part to play in promoting not only defence sales but all British exports. I am very sorry that it has been dropped. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young)—my former boss, to whom I was parliamentary private secretary—was far too gentle yesterday when he mentioned all the press reports on Sunday 3 August about how the Government were going to reinstate the royal yacht Britannia. The reports were designed to ensure that the Foreign Secretary's adultery with his secretary was driven off the front pages of the newspapers. It is no good the Under-Secretary shaking his head; he knows that that was why it was done.
  In the few moments left to me, I wish to raise one or two local matters because defence is a key issue for my constituency. British Aerospace has made much of the need to use the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and tap into its resources. I stress to the Minister that we already have a defence diversification agency in the form of DERA, which employs 2,700 people in Farnborough and 8,000 scientists. It is being used; please continue to use it. When the Secretary of State comes to the centre of mine expertise at Minley, at the Royal School of Military Engineering—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  7.10 pm
  Ms Rachel Squire: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces on their excellent speeches, on their rapid reaction approach to tackling the multitude of problems left to us by the previous Government and on implementing some of the commitments made in our election manifesto. I particularly the welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister today on Gulf veterans and the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt).
  After a mere six months of government, we are already undertaking tasks that the previous Government dodged and shied away from not for months but for years. Even Conservative Members spoke in favour of the strategic defence review and said that the previous Government's policies had led to severe overstretch and falling of morale in the armed forces.
  Listening to some speeches from the shadow defence team and from Conservative Members, I was reminded of some of the quotes I saw in 206s. For those who are not familiar with them, they are officer fitness reports which are scathing in their comments and decide whether an officer should continue in his role. I shall quote two or three and leave my hon. Friends to decide which ones apply to Conservative Members.
  The first says: "This Officer"—or hon. Member—
  "is not so much of a has-been, but more of a definitely won't-be."
  The second states:
  "He would be out of his depth in a car park puddle."
  I see that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) appreciates that one.
  The third states:
  "Since my last report he has reached rock bottom, and has started to dig."
  The fourth quote reminds of the shadow Secretary of State, who spoke about spinning yesterday, and states: "This Officer"—or hon. Member—
  "reminds me very much of a gyroscope—always spinning around at a frantic pace but not really going anywhere."
  I see that I have the approval of Conservative Members for introducing fitness reports for the shadow defence team.
  Our strategic defence review needs to go back to basics and ask what role Britain wants to play, what sort of military we want in the 21st century, and what are the real and potential threats to our national security and interest. The review gives us an opportunity to shape our future and that of the world we live in. It could be no better timed as we approach the millennium.
  I agree with Government and Opposition Members who remarked that defence is often regarded as the least attractive area of Government policy and the prime place to make savings. We can too easily forget that the prime role of a Government is to provide their people with security and freedom. That came across to me forcefully recently when I had the honour of attending a North Atlantic Assembly plenary session in Bucharest. I became aware of how keen Romania and many central and east European countries were to join NATO because they thought that it would provide the security and freedom that they have lacked for so many decades.
  768
  The cold war may have ended, but it has been replaced by a more diverse range of security challenges. We must reject an island mentality and continue to recognise that our defence and security interests mean that we should remain in NATO and the United Nations, and support NATO enlargement.
  I should like to mention the excellent reports that were prepared for the North Atlantic Assembly by my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) on "Partnership for Peace" enhancement and on the cost comparisons of NATO enlargement. The Secretary General of NATO made a good point in his speech to the NAA in Bucharest when he said:
  "The costs of enlargement will pale in comparison to the costs we have to pay when peace breaks down like it did in Bosnia."
  NATO enlargement means that our forces will continue to be called on to deal with a far more diverse range of security challenges. Their peacekeeping role in Bosnia is essential; they have performed excellently in IFOR and now in the stabilisation force, SFOR. We must debate more fully our involvement in peacekeeping and consider what position we are prepared to take and in what parts of the world we are prepared to operate in that capacity.
  NATO should be recognised as having given us the framework for dialogue with Russia, for all the tensions that that creates. I support the Secretary of State in his vision of greater partnership and co-operation.
  Despite improvements in Russian control over nuclear material, there is continuing concern about the safety of the Russian nuclear arsenal and the leakage of technology and material to unstable regimes in the middle east and elsewhere. There are also major concerns about the storage and disposal of decommissioned submarines, for example, and their environmental impact. Those considerations should play a part in our strategic defence review.
  The force with which I have had the pleasure of dealing most is the Royal Navy, because I undertook the armed forces parliamentary scheme with the Navy. I recommend the AFPS scheme to hon. Members. I hope that the role of the Royal Navy in our future defence interests will be recognised. I urge that we debate fully and consider carefully the future role of the aircraft carrier. Having been on both HMS Invincible and HMS Illustrious during sea war exercises, I have seen the flexibility, range and capability that they offer.
  The Minister for the Armed Forces would be surprised if I did not mention the importance of maintaining our shipbuilding and ship refitting skills, particularly at Rosyth dockyard in my constituency. I know that staff at the dockyard eagerly look forward to playing such a role.
  I join others in praising and expressing my support for the reserves, especially as Dunfermline is home to one of the best air training corps in the country.
  Our defence industry plays a crucial role in providing us with a capability. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to support some of the comments that have been made. I welcome the smart procurement. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement to examine the savings that can be made in the bureaucracy that still exists in procurement.

  769
  I join all hon. Members in praising our armed forces. They make us proud to be citizens of the United Kingdom. I finish by quoting Admiral Collingwood, who said of Trafalgar, but his remark applies to all forces today:
  "When all exert themselves zealously in their country's services, all deserve that their high merits should stand recorded."
  It is our task to ensure that our armed forces are able to continue to serve our country with such excellence.
  7.21 pm
  Mr. Peter Viggers: The defence review was couched in grand and sweeping terms. In his announcement on 28 May, the Secretary of State said that the review would
  "provide Britain's Armed Forces with a new sense of clarity, coherence and consensus. The review will be foreign policy led … the review will look afresh at all aspects of our policy and programmes."
  However, events since then have demonstrated the failure of the Government to live up to their promise. I shall demonstrate that the Government's defence policy is defeatist, blinkered, doctrinaire and unimaginative.
  In the summer, shortly after their election, the Government found for the first time, not surprisingly, that they faced a funding crisis in the national health service. I say that it was not surprising because the Government kept to the spending targets of the previous Government, but did not allow for inflation so there was a shortfall of some 2.5 per cent. What happened? The Secretary of State for Defence was mugged in Whitehall in broad daylight by the Treasury. The mugger demanded money with menaces. It had a knife and was prepared to cut, as the Treasury always is.
  The Secretary of State had a foolproof evasion technique at that point. The Government had announced on 28 May, with all the authority of government, that there would be a fundamental review of defence with no holds barred. However, the Secretary of State did not dispute the matter with the Treasury. He gave in. His response to the threat was, in the immortal words of the Minister for the Armed Forces:
  "One throws £168 million in the basket."
  I submit that those words deserve to be carved on a granite plinth and placed outside the Ministry of Defence to record the Minister's first brush with a hostile power.
  Dr. Reid: I know that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House. If he read the whole quotation, it would say:
  "One takes £246 million. One throws £168 million in the basket. Whatever is left represents what was achieved during the negotiations."—[Official Report, 27 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 678.]
  Mr. Viggers: I attended more bilateral meetings in the Treasury when I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary than the Minister or, I suspect, any hon. Member present has. It is possible for Ministers to stand up to the Treasury, which does not divide capital and income. Ministers can take a line. On this occasion, the Ministry
  770
  of Defence was rolled over. That shows that the role of current Ministers, as we shall see increasingly in the years ahead, is to put a good face on failure.
  Dr. Reid rose—
  Mr. Viggers: I am sorry, I cannot give way again, even to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have the greatest respect.
  So the Government's defence policy is defeatist. It is also blinkered. The Government said that they would
  "look afresh at all aspects of our policy and programmes",
  but the review will not examine two aspects. One is Trident. That is correct, because Trident is a unique nuclear deterrent. The second is the Eurofighter, which has a fixed number of 232 purchases. Why Eurofighter? It was initially an air-to-air combat aircraft in the production of which four nations participated. After delays and cost increases, it was redefined to have also a ground attack role with anti-armour missiles and stand-off air-to-surface missiles. Those will inhibit the air-to-air role. One does not need to be a pilot to see that Eurofighter is dull. The Mig 29 Fulcrum aircraft has performed unbelievable feats of aerobatics at air shows in the west for a decade. The Sukhoi 27 Flanker and its derivatives are a generation ahead of Eurofighter in agility, even though they are a whole generation older.
  Eurofighter looks what it is—a conventional 1980s air frame with poor stealth characteristics and limited range. It lacks thrust vectoring and it needs afterburners to sustain supersonic flight. At a cost of £15 billion, it will take an enormous amount out of the defence budget, so why is it excluded from the defence review? The answer is that the Labour Government have excluded Eurofighter to protect jobs. As in so many cases, the Labour party is showing its true colours. It believes that defence is a job creation agency. Just when we need flexibility and mobility, we are locked into the old inflexibilities of the cold war. So the defence review is blinkered.
  The defence review is also doctrinaire. Despite the promise in his announcement of 28 May, the Secretary of State has taken one more issue out of the review—the opening of more posts to women, which was broadly welcomed by Labour Members. I saw many of them nodding happily yesterday. I wonder how many of those who were nodding had been in a trench, a tank or a spy bunker. Very few hon. Members now have experience in the armed forces, and many also lack experience of the armed forces. It is the duty of those who have experience in the armed forces to point out the stresses, pressures, space constraints and interaction of loyalties in the armed forces and to say that the presence of women will complicate them. I do not take sides on the issue. I should like to discuss it with those in the armed forces and hear their views.
  However, if we are to have a fundamental strategic defence review, surely the Government should have had the courtesy to discuss with the House of Commons the opening of posts to women rather than announcing it in the opening speech of the two-day debate. Exactly the same applies to homosexuality in the armed forces. It is a serious issue. I remember the fluent and powerful speech that the current Minister for the Armed Forces made in support of the status quo at the end of the proceedings of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, which I chaired.

  771
  It was a sufficiently important issue to be the subject of a free vote. It concerns me that the issue is also part of the strategic defence review. The fact that the Government have announced that there will be another free vote shows that they are more interested in political correctness than in military efficiency.
  The strategic defence review is also unimaginative. It does not deal with the great issues of British foreign policy, our place in the world and how we can make ourselves and others more secure. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) reported, countries in central and eastern Europe are racked with internal and external problems. How can we help them? They are hopeful, fearful and very uncertain. Where is the foreign policy framework within which the strategic defence review will take place?
  Important developments are taking place in foreign affairs. NATO is expanding to take in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. Other countries are making forceful demands for further expansion. I should like to see the "Partnership for Peace" expanded, rather than NATO.
  We should consider what encouragement we can give through the Ministry of Defence to countries in central and eastern Europe, many of which are uniquely geared to the military-industrial combines that produced weapons in the past. In removing those combines, we remove from those countries an important part of their industry. Could not the Government produce a new initiative on arms procurement, to use the skills of companies such as Sukhoi, and Antonov in Kiev, which I visited recently? Antonov's design centre has produced the Antonov 70, which has many of the characteristics that we need for our heavy lift capability. Why are there no initiatives with other European states, especially those that most need help?
  Looking outside Europe, why was the Secretary of State so vague about our involvement outside the NATO area? Would not this debate have been an ideal opportunity to put forward new ideas for discussion? Do the Government have a view on the United Nations developing its own international military staff? Do the Government think that they could contribute more to peacekeeping, perhaps by promoting the idea of a staff college for peacekeeping here in the United Kingdom, as we have unique qualifications owing to our special information on civil defence and aids to civil power?
  We have heard little new in the debate. The so-called review is unimaginative and a missed opportunity. Of course, we know why the two-day debate has been held now. The Select Committee on Defence is always pleading for the two-day debate on defence to be brought forward. It has been brought forward now because Ministers can simply reply to every question by saying that everything is under review. I hope that Ministers have enjoyed their time in office so far, as that enjoyment will not last. The next time that we see them here they will have to come and give us the bad news.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Frank Cook: It may be of some help to the House if I put it on the record that I no longer serve on the Select Committee on Defence. That is a
  772
  source of some disappointment to me, but I have been mollified to some degree as I have been elected vice-chairman of the defence and security committee—the main committee—of the North Atlantic Assembly. It has asked me to pick up the report that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) and is lying on the Opposition Front Bench. It is a report on the state of the Russian forces: I have been asked to develop it into recommendations for reform of the Russian forces. I am to do that in conjunction with Russian delegates, officials and military. If we do a decent job, we could write ourselves into the history books. All that is sufficient recompense for losing my seat on the Select Committee.
  I have one or two points to make before I turn to the main thrust of my speech which is, as the House might expect, land mines. Comments have been made about NATO enlargement and its cost. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said that he could not see the justification for NATO enlargement. Initially, I was also a little suspicious and wondered why, if NATO had been successful, we needed to improve on it.
  The truth is that NATO's character is changing dramatically. I refer my hon. Friend to the comments of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), who, sad to say, has left the Chamber—I know that my hon. Friend took note of them at the time—about the pre-emptive deployment in places such as Rwanda and Albania. That illustrates the sort of character that NATO is developing. It has been assisted by the development of the "Partnership for Peace" formula.
  The NATO nations—on a 16-plus-one basis—can bring in other nations, agree the semaphores and dialogue, and harmonise the equipment and disciplines necessary for participating collectively in peace maintenance activities. NATO is no longer the NATO that we used to know. I used to be an advocate of withdrawal from NATO, but if we do not learn day by day, we are defeated. The one lesson that I have learnt—and I have been a delegate since 1987—is that if NATO had not existed when the wall came down, we would have had to invent it. The people who are most grateful to it now are the central and eastern European nations, which are clamouring to join. I suspect that Russia, although it has not yet gathered the strength to knock on the door, is ready and waiting for the door to be opened.
  We have heard much in the debate about the value of our personnel, both male and female. To those who are worried about women in our forces I say that women are already there and performing important work—it is a question of what role they fulfil. We have heard about their value, the importance of their families, the distress that can be caused and the stress to which they are exposed.
  We have also heard about Major Joyce, the difficulties involved and the fact that the only response may be a court martial. Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Norway, which are all NATO allies, recognise and make provision for an organisation called Euromil, which is a form of military trades union that allows military

  773
  representatives to represent individuals without identifying them. Such an organisation for our British forces could—
  Mr. Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cook: No, I cannot give way as I have only 10 minutes in which to speak. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I will engage in public debate with him—he can book the hall and I will pay for it.
  A relationship between organisations such as Euromil—which exists for our NATO allies—and the Ministry of Defence could solve many difficulties. The Government have seen fit to reinstate the trade union rights at GCHQ. I hope—although I see that the Government Front Bench is empty of major Ministers—that they might consider the establishment of a similar sort of relationship in this area.
  I hope that the review that is being afforded to the Gulf war veterans will also be extended to include the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, which has, for many more years, suffered similar problems in terms of representation.
  The Labour Government have taken firm action in Bosnia. I represent the Westminster Parliament in the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and in the North Atlantic Assembly. Their attitude towards the British in connection with war crimes prisoners has changed dramatically because of the resolution that we showed.
  On 2 July, I sent a memo to Ronald Lehman, the director of the Centre for Global Security Research at the Livermore laboratory in California. I also sent a copy of the memo to my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for International Development. The memo stated:
  "This simple courtesy note is to alert you to recent exchanges between myself and Dr. David Eimerl of the Center for Global Security Research at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory when I outlined to him my ideas on the proposal to create an international organization to promote and accelerate measures to reduce levels of UXO pollution generally and APM contamination particularly, so facilitating the faster return of potentially available land to gainful use."
  I went on to outline how the organisation could put to good use serving officers, retirees and volunteers who want to train personnel in the 67 countries that have been polluted with the filth.
  On 21 July, I received an answer from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence who said that he had read my letter with interest. I am pleased to see that the initiatives taken by the Labour party in its five-point plan go some way towards meeting the call that I made in my memo, but I do not think that they are sufficient. We need to go further and the Government need to enlist non-governmental organisations to complement and augment the clear programme that has been set out and which I welcome.
  This morning, I went to a seminar on land mines at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies. I heard a lot about the difficulties experienced by researchers developing censors that can detect a pimple on a pebble half a metre below the surface 60 yd from an aircraft at 300 ft. The researchers are concentrating on detecting the land mine, which is important and needs to
  774
  be done, but the papers of General Sir Hugh Beach tell of the censors to which I referred earlier—censors that can detect human movement, and direct either indirect or direct fire on whoever is making the incursion.
  Those sensors are freely and readily available now, but we do not seem to be applying the right levels of attention to the problem. If we did so, we could remove the military necessity of using anti-personnel mines to defend our fortifications and do the job more cheaply, cleanly and accurately, without the need to eradicate the damned things afterwards when non-combatants are maimed and killed. People talk about the costs of doing that, but I would point out the costs of not doing it—for example, the unquantifiable cost of the arable land in this country that is denied to agricultural use because we do not know whether it is mined and we have difficulty finding out. I appeal for thoughts on this matter to go further.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am privileged to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to be able to speak in this two-day defence debate. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook).
  There is no doubt that our armed forces are among the most professional, if not the most professional, in the world. It would therefore ill behove the Government to stretch their conditions of service too far—a point to which I shall return later.
  The strategic defence review is the sixth such review undertaken since the second world war and it takes place in a 15-year time frame. It is therefore important that we get it right. We must focus on our world role. In a brief intervention on the Minister for the Armed Forces I tried to elicit what the foreign policy base line actually is, and he gave me the answer I expected—one that was somewhat wide of the point and gave us no detail on which to hang a coat. Our armed forces are there to give us the choice as to whether we wish to take part in any of the world forums that we support so rigorously. I hope that no strategic defence review will ever take away that choice from the Government of this country.
  With that choice available to us, we have taken part with honour in world conflicts and in world forums. We been able to participate so successfully because we have been able to equip our armed forces with some of the best equipment in the world. Whatever the previous Government did—I accept that, over the past 10 years or so, we cut the manpower of the combined services from 315,000 to 215,000—we always ensured that our armed forces had the best equipment in the world. I hope that that will continue under the strategic defence review and that we shall have the ability to procure the latest equipment.
  I echo other hon. Members' comments about the Technology Foresight programme. There is no doubt that as we move into the next millennium the electronic revolution will gather pace. Every day, microchips become smaller, which means, for example, that rockets will be able to carry computers with increasing amounts of memory and that minor powers will be able to develop such strategic equipment far more easily. We have to be fast on our feet in our procurement programmes—we have to look at the latest equipment, but we must also look over the horizon to see what is coming along. That is

  775
  part of the problem with procurement costs: we look at a piece of equipment for procurement, but then find that technology has advanced, so we have to change the specification. We have to acknowledge that problem and consider counter-measures.
  In the short time available, I wish to deal with one or two of the personnel issues. First, there is Gulf war illness, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) called it. I welcome the open way in which the Minister for the Armed Forces is dealing with this matter and I ask him to determine whether or not there is such a syndrome. Constituents have written to me on the subject and there is no doubt that people have become ill as a result of the cocktail of medicines administered to them during the Gulf war. Of course, the cocktail was administered during wartime and in a rapidly changing situation, so I am not necessarily attaching any blame, but if genuine mistakes were made, I look to the Minister for the Armed Forces to come clean, and compensation should be paid to families who have been inconvenienced.
  I shall refer briefly to our territorial armed forces. An easy path to take in the strategic defence review would be to cut our volunteer forces, but they are absolutely essential. They do valuable work in signals units and, in this age of electronics, signals and communications will become ever more important. It is, therefore, incumbent on us to draw on our brightest graduates and recruit the best people from our universities so that they can provide the skills of tomorrow that our armed forces need.
  The Minister for the Armed Forces does not appear to be paying attention, but I hope that he will listen for a minute. The strategic defence review is giving rise to uncertainty in the armed forces. The sooner it is completed, the sooner the armed forces will know where they are going and the easier it will be to implement a realistic recruitment programme, especially in the Army where personnel are desperately needed. I hope that the Minister will get on with the review and complete it as quickly as possible.
  I return to the subject of our world role and re-emphasise the primacy of NATO in our defence planning. The Americans are prepared to deploy 100,000 troops outside their own territory in Europe and elsewhere under the NATO umbrella. We would be crazy to do anything to jeopardise that. Some of the anti-American noises coming from some of our European partners are astonishing at a time when they are all cutting their defence budgets as a proportion of gross domestic product. We should be encouraging and thanking the Americans for their contribution.
  I warmly welcome any expansion of NATO to the east through peaceful means—through "Partnership for Peace", not through annexation into NATO. That is the way to go: we do not want all those future NATO powers to gear themselves up with military expenditure, but we want them to come under the NATO umbrella so that we can control their thinking on strategic military affairs.
  This has been a valuable debate. I have some important defence industries in my constituency. I want our armed forces to continue their professionalism in the world. I do not want them to suffer administrative overstretch. I want them to be equipped with the latest equipment. I want us to maintain our position as the world's No. 2 defence
  776
  exporter—now well ahead of France. I want our brightest graduates to be involved in the Technology Foresight programme. I want some of our best equipment to be designed, produced and manufactured in this country.
  Above all, I want the jobs in my constituency and elsewhere in the defence manufacturing companies, which are some of the best in world, to be retained here—or, if not here, maintained in collaboration with our European partners. To achieve that, we have to maintain a proper procurement programme. I do not want the strategic defence review to cut any of our options in the world. If in future we are invited to participate in NATO, the United Nations or any other world forum but are unable to do so because the Government have cut our defence forces, I shall hold to account the Ministers responsible for those cuts. If their words today and yesterday mean anything at all, they, too, will want to keep our armed forces in good shape.
  7.47 pm
  Mr. Nigel Beard: Our Army, Navy and Air Force are recognised as unsurpassed in their capabilities and record. They are truly professional in roles as disparate as Northern Ireland and the defence of western Europe through NATO. They are admired world wide for their skill and discipline and bring great credit to this country. Nevertheless, there is a need to look closely at what we are asking them to do.
  Times have changed radically over the past 10 years. The Berlin wall has come down, the Soviet Union has fragmented and today's foreign policy sees Britain's influence projected around the world through overseas aid and trade and the vibrancy of our arts and sciences and not just by military capability and alliance.
  The previous Government made several ad hoc cuts in defence spending in acknowledgement of all these changes, but they were financially driven. It was not clear that our resulting defence forces were consistent with the tasks that we asked them to undertake. The current defence review is the first time that there has been a comprehensive assessment of our defence forces since the defence of NATO Europe against mass attack across the north German plain ceased to be the central focus of our defence policy.
  The aim of the review must be to define the nature of British defence interests in the context of the new Government's foreign policy and to ensure their consistency with the scale and allocation of defence spending.
  With the exception of Northern Ireland, which we must hope will soon not need to be a defence issue, none of the scenarios defining potential defence operations will involve a vital British interest on its own. We are most likely to be acting in concert with some of our allies in NATO or the Western European Union or the Commonwealth or the United Nations. It is impossible to imagine circumstances in which British forces should or would be called to operate entirely on their own. Even humanitarian aid operations would require some support from a host Government.
  One of the major questions that the review must address, therefore, is, what type of collaboration with allies may be envisaged? Will it be collaboration with self-sufficient units, operating side by side with allied counterparts but capable of operating independently?

  777
  Or will it be an operationally integrated force of land, air or naval forces under an integrated command structure, the individual national components of which would be unable to operate independently?
  Operational requirements and national pride have favoured national forces that are complete in themselves, but that may not be either the most effective or the most efficient arrangement in future. There is a great deal of uneconomic duplication among NATO allies in providing the fiction of independence for armed services that will never operate independently.
  Changed circumstances have different implications for each of the three services and raise different questions. I shall discuss the Royal Air Force first.
  With future operations more likely to look like Northern Ireland or Bosnia than the Gulf war, the overriding question for the Royal Air Force is whether our potential spending on aircraft is consistent with future defence roles.
  A commitment has been made to the collaborative development and purchase of Eurofighters, with hard-won German agreement. It will secure Britain's aircraft industry and consolidate the trend towards collaborative programmes in Europe. Both those aims are laudable, but where is the scenario of future operations that would require even half of the 232 aircraft that we are committed to purchase? Even an engagement such as the Gulf war would not justify those numbers if we are playing an equitable role with our allies.
  The previous Government's 1996 defence White Paper outlined plans to replace 37 Sea Harriers in a possible collaboration with the United States of America. The cost estimates given for the collaboration, at $30 million to $40 million per aircraft, are less than those for the Eurofighter, but for a far more complex aircraft. Unsurprisingly, the Rand Corporation and the US Congressional Budget Office have questioned the credibility of those estimates. The scene appears to be set, therefore, for the most familiar of all defence scenarios—an expensive project that ends with costs two, three or four times the original estimates.
  Feasibility studies with potential US partners are also known to be under way for the replacement of 85 Harriers and 142 Tornado strike bombers.
  Where is the foreseeable operational need for all those aircraft? How is such a potential financial commitment likely to be proportionate to their defence role? Is there a way in which the large number of Eurofighters to which we are committed could be diverted to meet parts of the other roles that are being investigated?
  I come now to the Royal Navy. There has long been no call to deploy the Royal Navy world wide. There is no plausible operation that it could be called on to carry out without the integrated or collateral support of allies.
  In the cold war, the submarine threat to naval and merchant ships was there, but with the break-up of the Soviet Union, where does that submarine threat now come from? Likewise, in the cold war the Navy had major roles in operations to defend NATO's flanks in Norway and Turkey. However, there is now no threat to Norway and I question whether any potential threat to Turkey from Syria or Iraq could justify a significant naval force.
  On what basis, therefore, can the present size of the Navy be justified? Amphibious forces, including amphibious ships and the Royal Marines, are undoubtedly
  778
  consistent with worldwide emergency and peacekeeping operations and obligations to some of our dependent territories. The ships can lie over the horizon without political commitment to an operation, but they influence events and provide for intervention at very short notice.
  Amphibious intervention in emergencies or peacekeeping roles and the protection of North sea and Atlantic oil installations give a clear, firm basis for naval planning in the future. It seems unlikely, however, that those operations alone could justify a Navy of the present size, which, according to the 1996 defence White Paper, is 15 submarines, 36 destroyers and frigates and 44 Merlin anti-submarine warfare helicopters.
  The Army is a service whose force structure, doctrine and training have been comprehensively defined by potential NATO operations in north-west Europe. It is here, therefore, that there is the greatest danger of things rolling on with the momentum of the past.
  Tank battles across the north German plain are now the least likely operation imaginable, but quite recently they were a preoccupation of the Army in Germany. Heavy main battle tanks such as Challenger no longer fit into any future operational concept. The need is for flexibility and mobility and easy movement by air—all of which define a lighter tank.
  The 1996 White Paper catalogues 386 Challenger 2 tanks on order and 350 to come. Although those may replace the unreliable Challenger 1 tanks, their overall role must now be in doubt. The weight of Challenger limits its deployment in most parts of Europe, including Bosnia, and expensive aircraft are required to move it anywhere by air.
  In the new era, the Army will retain a central role in our defence, but it will need to revise its operational concepts and force structure to provide for a more flexible and mobile role. With that will come a need to rethink the equipment in a way that is compatible with greater movement and manoeuvre.
  The defence review being undertaken provides for modernisation of the armed services—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his 10 minutes.
  7.58 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: I wish to make five brief points.
  First, I believe that the decision not to replace Britannia is deeply regrettable and owes much more to political posturing than it does to sound judgment. It is much regretted in the New Forest, which is home to the CADLAND project.
  Secondly, I add my voice to that of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) in calling for a Minister for veteran affairs. My constituency has a high proportion of retired officers, and the problems and anomalies that they bring to my constituency surgeries would be well served by such a Minister. Recently, the Royal British Legion at Milford-on-Sea asked me to raise that issue.
  Thirdly, I should like to draw attention to the Secretary of State's statement on the opportunities available to women in the armed forces. I should have liked to address my remarks to the hon. Member for Thurrock, were he in his seat, because he expressed incredulity that my right

  779
  hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) could offer only a cautious welcome to the statement.
  My welcome is only cautious because in my squadron I rely heavily on the skills of two female operators to maintain high frequency communications networks. They train with my squadron headquarters and are part of the team, but if we were to go into operations I would be denied their services. That situation has not changed as a consequence of the Secretary of State's statement because the Royal Armoured Corps is beyond its scope. That is why I am only cautious in my welcome.
  Another reason for being cautious is that some people will use the successful integration of females into the armed services as an argument for going even further. I am glad that the Secretary of State ruled out the possibility of female soldiers serving in infantry regiments of the line. It would be operationally unsustainable and wholly repugnant if female soldiers were to fix bayonets and close with the enemy.
  A third reason for exercising some caution in this respect is that, as the hon. Member for Thurrock must be aware, an administrative overhead applies to any attempt to integrate male and female soldiers as a consequence of the intimate circumstances in which they must serve and at the same time to maintain discipline. As St. Bernard of Clairvaux said:
  "To be always with a woman and not to have intercourse with her is more difficult than to raise the dead."
  As one is not capable of the latter, one is certainly not capable of the former.
  There has been some loose talk about cutting the Reserves to some 40,000 members or doing away with the Territorial Army altogether. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) that it is precisely because there is financial pressure on the defence budget that we should make even greater use of cost-effective Reserves. An argument that is being made against such an eventuality is the disappointing response in terms of volunteers for the high-readiness Reserves. I do not believe that that argument holds water. The effectiveness of the Reserves is much better measured by their outstanding contribution in Bosnia over the past few years. The disappointing number of signatures for the high-readiness Reserves is a failure on the part of the chain of command in its ability to inform soldiers and market the high-readiness Reserves.
  To be effective, our Reserves must have adequate equipment with which to train. I draw the Minister's attention specifically to the decision to withdraw the series 3 Land Rover from service by the end of this year. I do not dispute for a moment the fact that the series 3 Land Rover should be withdrawn from service. It is extremely expensive to maintain. My squadron has two vehicles that are more than 18 years old, one of which was converted from civilian use and therefore has a limited range. I would have welcomed a decision to withdraw the series 3 Land Rovers as new vehicles were released. On 1 January, my light reconnaissance squadron will have no recce cars at all. To a light reconnaissance soldier, a Land Rover is as vital as a SA80 rifle is to an infantryman.
  780
  Furthermore, we have been told that only 60 per cent. of our establishment figure for those vehicles will be replaced, and as yet we have no timetable for that replacement. I can probably manage to train my squadron effectively with 60 per cent. of the vehicle establishment, although other squadrons in my regiment will have great difficulty in doing so. Nevertheless, it will be extremely difficult to train effectively at a regimental and battle group level with only 60 per cent. of the vehicles. Some units, by the nature of their tasks, will be able to function with less than 60 per cent. of their establishment, while others, by the nature of their role, will require 100 per cent. of their establishment. Undoubtedly, brigades and divisions will have their own priorities. My fear, however, is that even a division will have insufficient vehicles at its disposal to make those priorities effective. The matter must therefore be considered at Army level.
  Those decisions need to be taken at the highest level and I urge the Minister for the Armed Forces to consider them.
  8.5 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: The comments by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) about working with women automatically leading to sexual intercourse sounded to me like defence of the rapist, and were patently nonsense, as are all such reasons for discrimination.
  I want to raise six matters. As I have only 10 minutes, I shall do so quickly. The first is about the United States nuclear programme and follows on from the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) about the influence of our allies on the strategic defence review. I remember sitting on the Committee on the Arms Control and Disarmament (Privileges and Immunities) Bill in 1987 with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence when the subject of nuclear testing came up. He said in Committee that a comprehensive test ban treaty would be useful as it would form a barrier to further weapons development. Now that my right hon. Friend is in office, will he tell the House whether that remains true? There are disturbing reports from across the Atlantic of new nuclear weapons being developed. In the post-cold war period, that seems unnecessary.
  My second point is about Trident. My opposition to its expense, uselessness in practical defence terms and immorality is well recorded. However, in 1995 a commitment was made that, on coming to power, a Labour Government would put no greater a number of warheads on Trident than there were on Polaris. I hope that an announcement that such a policy has been carried out will be made soon. If missiles can be ordered outside the strategic defence review, that commitment can be confirmed.
  My third point relates to "suitcase" nuclear bombs. Reports coming out of Russia that suitcase-sized nuclear weapons have gone astray are alarming, even if the source of those allegations has limited credibility. If nuclear weapons are truly the weapons of last resort, as the leaders of the nuclear powers keep telling us, what is the use of such portable weapons? The fact that the weapons are so portable makes them harder to control and easier to steal.
  The Americans deployed equivalent weapons in the 1960s—their atomic demolition munitions—but subsequently withdrew them from service. I understand

  781
  that we have never had such weapons. Perhaps it is time to outlaw small nuclear weapons such as those. Britain will be in a good position to promote such a measure; it would remove a significant proliferation threat. The fear that portable nuclear weapons could be stolen and used for terrorist-style operations has been the source of film plots, such as in the film "The Peacemaker", which is showing in cinemas now.
  My fourth point also relates to the Committee on which I served with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in 1987. I raised at that time, and have done so often since, the ratification of the 1977 additional protocols to the 1949 Geneva conventions. Those protocols apply the Geneva conventions to civil wars, and they should have applied to the war in Bosnia. I raise the matter in a defence debate as those are important documents on the laws of war and, as such, are in the defence sphere.
  In recent years, I have been told repeatedly that we are on the verge of ratifying the protocols. Has anything changed with the new Government? The protocols were signed under a Labour Government, and it would be appropriate for them to be ratified under a Labour Government, but can we do that soon, please?
  The fifth point relates to anti-personnel mines. This morning, I spoke at a United Kingdom defence forum meeting on land mines. I learned a lot about the difficulty of clearing mines from other speakers who had experience in the field. The moratorium announced shortly after the election has been widely welcomed. I welcome it, and I also welcome the new mines information and training centre at Minley in Surrey.
  I am concerned, however, about the issue of use in "exceptional circumstances", which was suggested to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State before the summer recess. That reservation should be removed once the international treaty on land mines is in force.
  Things have moved on. More than 100 states have endorsed the treaty that has resulted from the final meeting in the Ottawa process held last month in Oslo. The treaty is due for signing in December. It will come into force six months after the 40th country ratifies it. That will probably take a couple of years to come about. The Ottawa treaty may not be perfect, but it is a substantial improvement on what was available in the past, and there seems no prospect of achieving anything better in the foreseeable future.
  We should be an early ratifier of the treaty. The opt-out on use in exceptional circumstances could be withdrawn as soon as the Ottawa treaty is signed by us. That would send a powerful message around the world that the British Government are serious about the treaty. We have much credibility to rebuild on the international stage, after many years of Tory intransigence on the issue of land mines.
  The sixth matter which I shall raise is that of the Fabian Society pamphlet published by Major Eric Joyce, "Arms and the man—Renewing the armed services". Major Joyce has done us and the Army a favour. I shall not refer to the disciplinary action against him, which I do not support, but some of the comments in the pamphlet should be put into the record. He states:
  "The role played by social class in the way we in the Army recruit and organise ourselves, and the centrality of outmoded Victorian values to our institutional ethos, are now acting as powerful inhibitors in our efforts to deal effectively with our dire 'manning' crisis. We should now take direct action to consign our inefficient and unfair social divisions to history."
  782
  Major Joyce goes on to describe "three Victorian-style 'castes'" in the Army, which he calls
  "the Posh, an exclusively white, male, privately-educated elite which runs the institution and wholly dominates its culture… the Professionals, the middle-classes who provide the technical expertise and 'middle management'; and finally… the Plebeians, the working classes… the great 'use and discard' rank and file."
  Major Joyce states:
  "The simple fact is that few school-leavers today wish to join an institution steeped in snobbery and where a glass ceiling will be placed upon their career prospects on account of their social class."
  Social class is not the only issue. He continues:
  "On gender… we enforced unlawful employment policies… long after it became clear that they were wrong. On race, we continue to fail those from ethnic minorities in spite of regular and severe warnings from the Commission for Racial Equality; and on sexuality we continue to fight a damaging and pointless rearguard action against homosexuality based more upon the moral views of some senior officers than any meaningful rationale about the impact a change in policy may have upon operational effectiveness."
  Those points need to be taken into account in the strategic defence review. They are about modernisation. That was one of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's central themes. We must bring modernisation to bear on those aspects in the strategic defence review.
  I said in the last defence debate that I hoped that a change of Government would lead to a change in Government culture in matters of defence, with greater openness, fewer mistakes, much less money wasted and fewer immoral decisions. That is part of the modernisation process as well. I am pleased that Labour Ministers have made a good start in that respect.
  8.15 pm
  Dr. Julian Lewis: In the time available, I shall speak about Trident, propaganda and security. I realise that the Government Front-Bench team has no formal responsibility for the security services, but I hope to speak about them nevertheless, because they have implications for the defence of this country. I shall not expect particular answers on the questions that I raise.
  In a previous existence, I worked professionally as a counter to the unilateralist propaganda of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in the early 1980s, and as the person at Conservative research department who had to investigate the Labour party's position on unilateralism in the early 1990s. It therefore brought a smile to my face to listen to so many hon. Members on the Government Benches saying, "What, us? Unilateralists? Never. Never heard the idea." It seems as hard to find an ex-CND supporter on the Government Benches as it was to find a supporter of Adolf Hitler in Berlin in 1945 or of communist Soviet power in Moscow after 1991.
  Some people, however, stick to their former opinions. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said that public opinion was in favour of getting rid of the bomb. That is news to many of us. Throughout the second cold war, when it was far more dangerous in nuclear confrontation terms, my colleagues and I commissioned opinion poll after opinion poll to ask whether people thought that Britain should continue to possess nuclear weapons, as long as other countries did so.
  Time and again, we got the same answer, and we did so in subsequent years, too. Two thirds of people think that Britain should possess nuclear weapons as long as

  783
  other countries have them; one quarter want unilateral nuclear disarmament. It does not change, and I do not believe that it has changed.
  I could not help but compare the behaviour of the Minister for the Armed Forces when I met him first a few years ago, when we were on a radio programme with a CND supporter. The Minister had at one stage supported unilateralism, but in frank conversations with him after the programme—I am sure that he will forgive my mentioning this—he admitted straight out that it had been a mistake, his party had got it wrong, and he would do his best to encourage the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to take the appropriate attitude and learn the appropriate lessons from that. I applaud that, and I have never sought to exploit the fact that at one stage the Minister—
  Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman is exploiting it now.
  Dr. Lewis: No, I am not; I am applauding the fact that the Minister for the Armed Forces admitted that at one stage he was on the wrong side of the argument. I could not help but be amused, however, at the contrasting claim of the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) that, when he was in CND, it had been a multilateralist organisation.
  I have the book that I wrote when I was working in Conservative research department, and I have the hon. Gentleman's entry. A measure of the multilateralism that he supported can be seen from two quotations. In 1982, the hon. Gentleman signed early-day motion 609 in which he saluted the "courage and determination" of anti-nuclear protestors at Greenham Common as indicating
  "the deep revulsion of the British people to the presence of nuclear bases on United Kingdom soil."
  On "Newsnight", as late as October 1988, he said:
  "We've got to negotiate them"—
  British nuclear weapons—
  "away. If we can't negotiate them away realistically, we've still got to get rid of them."
  Never mind, the hon. Gentleman is on the right side now.
  I turn to Trident. It has been suggested that money could be saved by reducing readiness through halving the number of warheads and taking the submarines off 24-hour patrol. Time does not permit me to examine that suggestion in detail, but I ask the Minister: does he think that he will save any money by removing warheads and putting a smaller number on Trident missiles? If he will not—and I suspect that it may cost money—it will be the most meaningless form of gesture politics.
  By reducing the readiness of Trident or any other armed force, we run another risk. If we wait for a crisis to arise before restoring readiness, we risk intensifying the crisis by restoring readiness when the international scene has darkened. That is one of the reasons why, when Britain had run down our forces as a result of the appalling 10-year no-war rule which operated from 1919 to 1933—we finally got rid of it about 10 months after Hitler came to power—the Government did not feel able to campaign openly for rearmament until 1936. They were afraid of intensifying the crisis by rearming sooner.
  784
  We must recognise that Trident is a comprehensive deterrent against nuclear blackmail from whichever rogue Government or future super-power the threat may come. We have a great advantage over the planners of the 1920s who, as I have said in this place before, had so little idea of where the threat would come from that each of the three armed services made its hypothetical defence plans against an entirely different country. If I remember correctly, the Royal Navy made plans against the Japanese; the Army planned against the Russians; and the RAF planned against the French. I shall comment no further on the latter point.
  We do not face that sort of dilemma with Trident because it will deter any possible nuclear threat from any identifiable future enemy. I remind those who ask from where the threat would come or who say, "If there is no threat today, why do we need it?" that the life span of our deterrent will be at least 30 years. It is worth remembering that the life span of the third reich was only 12 years, from 1933 to 1945.
  We should remember also that Trident must constitute a minimum deterrent, not just at the beginning of its 30-year life span but at the end. Trident must retain flexibility so that it will be able to meet future minimum deterrence standards. I regret the fact that the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), said yesterday that we must abandon the Moscow criterion: the ability to get through a sophisticated anti-ballistic missile system. If we do that, what will we do if someone develops a sophisticated system during that 30-year period? People will jump up and down and say, "You must not raise your minimum deterrent, because you will intensify the international crisis."
  I turn now to the security services. I am concerned about a report published in The Guardian that referred to the Minister without Portfolio—a gentleman who seems to have been almost as unpopular with MI5 as he is with his party colleagues. In the report headed "Mandelson wants MI5 files pulped", the Minister defended himself against the fact that an MI5 file on him had been opened, while admitting that he had indeed been an activist in the Young Communist League. He said:
  "I was not a subversive or a threat to national security—I was a teenager holding ordinary leftwing views."
  I was a teenager at the same time as the Minister without Portfolio, and I assure him that his were not ordinary left-wing views; they were despicable views in support of a murderous totalitarian political system. Anyone who had held similar views about the Nazis would never be allowed to forget it.
  Mr. Godman: And Saddam Hussein.
  Dr. Lewis: I agree. It is a disgrace that the Minister without Portfolio does not even have the shame to admit that he was wrong. He seeks instead to destroy the files that show that he and many others were wrong. In George Orwell's novel "1984", it is said:
  "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past."
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  8.25 pm
  Ms Dari Taylor: In yesterday's defence debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George)—who is now the excellent Chair of the Defence Select Committee—said that many new Members now sit on that Committee. I am privileged to announce that I am one such member. After my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), I am the second woman to sit on the Defence Committee. We are the only two women to do so in 17 years. I believe that that sends a positive signal that women not only are treated with respect in the House but are seen to have a role in the defence of the realm and in the armed forces.
  I was also very pleased with the comments of the Secretary of State and the Minister yesterday. They outlined changes in opportunities for women in the armed forces. We are making a "quantum leap", and I am more than pleased about that. The move is not just valued or appropriate, but well overdue. I am delighted that the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) is in the Chamber to hear my speech, because I found his comments shameful and thoroughly unacceptable.
  The Army's report into discrimination and harassment in the service has launched a very important drive. It requests that we eliminate harassment and discrimination, which I think is totally appropriate. From my experience as an equal rights officer for many years, I suggest that the path will be bumpy and the achievement very difficult, but nevertheless important. However, it is important for me to tell Ministers that I am disappointed that women are still excluded from certain roles within the armed forces: contact battle roles, the infantry and armoured regiments. I think that that is a problem, not because I believe that all women should take on combat roles—I do not believe that all men should do so—but because I believe that individuals have the right to choose. That is the absolute principle: individuals have the inviolable right to be treated equally. I believe that that should be the modus operandi of my Government.
  I believe also that selection should be on the grounds of talent, not gender. It should certainly not be based—I make this point with great gusto—on prejudice. I found the comments of the hon. Member for New Forest, West shameful. There is no sense of political correctness in the Government's actions: we all wish to be part of Great Britain and part of the armed forces. We do not see you having an exclusive capability or an exclusive right. I am therefore disappointed that there are still only limited, albeit extended, roles for women.
  The three services have used women in support roles on the front line, on warships and on RAF bases. How is it that we are good enough in support roles but somehow not good enough in combat? How dare you have the presumption to tell us that? We have the right to choose.
  We all understand that it is crucial that we maintain a fully combat-effective Army. I have no problem with that, but I have a problem with the notion that, somewhere along the line, women need to be protected. I understand that concern and, much of the time, I respect it, but we do not need your protection—
  Mr. Swayne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It might not be my place to say so, but I feel that I ought to protect you from the hon. Lady, who is being rather unpleasant to you.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The occupant of the Chair does not need that kind of protection.
  Ms Taylor: I have nearly finished what I want to say.
  The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency states that women are not strong enough. Who says so? The physical tests involve a single lift, repetitive lifts, carrying, and a loaded march. My mother was 5 ft tall and worked as a nurse for 15 years, until she was 58, repeatedly lifting very heavy dead weights. She did it with concern and compassion. No one has the right to say that women are not strong enough. If we pass the physical test, we should be included. As I said, we have the right to choose. That means that we all have the right to be treated and selected fairly.
  We are in the throes of a strategic defence review. A careful analysis is being made of our strengths and of our future needs. Like many hon. Members, I was appalled by the previous Government's treatment of the Army. There were expenditure cuts with no analysis—one badly thought-out act followed another. My constituency was at the raw end of those cuts. My predecessor, Tim Devlin, fought valiantly. He asked the Conservative Government to think again and not to remove the naval stores from Eaglescliff in the constituency. He failed. The previous Government were not prepared to listen. They were prepared only to cut—
  Mr. Blunt: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Taylor: No, I will not. The previous Government were cutting for one reason only—because public expenditure was out of control. They wanted to save money at the expense of the 600 jobs that were lost in my constituency. That is perhaps not as many as other constituencies lost, but the loss came on top of already high unemployment. I hope that my Government will never do that. We should never cut simply because public expenditure is out of control.
  8.32 pm
  Mr. John Burnett: Most hon. Members have welcomed the strategic defence review. It provides an opportunity to influence future defence policy, first by examining Britain's commitments and interests and, secondly, by matching the defence requirements to sustain those commitments and interests. The Government have stated that they want strong defence forces, that they are committed to collective security through NATO and to being a major contributor to the peacekeeping efforts of the United Nations. We have many and diverse interests and commitments throughout the world, and our investments overseas are greater than those of any other European Union country.
  In the past 10 years, our outstanding armed forces have been actively involved and deployed not only in Europe but in the middle east, the Falklands, the far east, central America and Africa. There is therefore a national imperative to sustain a strong Navy with a flexible, experienced and expert amphibious force as an integral

  787
  part of it. I sincerely hope that the Government will never underestimate the expertise and know-how required to conduct amphibious warfare. If we do not have amphibious forces, we shall be completely dependent on friendly ports and airfields when conducting expeditionary operations, including peace support, the evacuation of nationals and conflict itself.
  Last night, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) kindly allowed me to intervene on his speech to remind the House that today is the 333rd anniversary of the formation of the Royal Marines. For centuries, the Royal Marines, as an integral part of the Royal Navy have, with the Navy, built up an expertise, flexibility and efficiency in amphibious operations which is the envy of the world. However, that is not all that the Royal Marines have provided and will, I hope, continue to provide for our country. They offer an extremely wide utility over the defence spectrum. They are specialists in arduous and difficult climate and terrain conditions—for example, in cold weather, the jungle and the desert. They also provide excellent value for money and are eminently well suited to an era of co-operation with other countries. The Royal Marines' close links with the United States Marine Corps are well known. They also have links with many other foreign marine corps. For example, next May is the 25th anniversary of the United Kingdom/ Netherlands amphibious force.
  I was therefore shocked during the recent recess to read press speculation of a merger between the Royal Marines and the Parachute Regiment. Press speculation can be a precursor to Government action. These formations have entirely separate and distinct cultures, histories and roles, and the speculation is bad for morale and for recruitment.
  I hope that the Minister who winds up the debate will confirm the 1996 order for two new landing ships to be known, I understand, as Bulwark and Albion, replacements for the old Bulwark and Albion, and that he will acknowledge the vital importance to Britain's interests of having a specialist amphibious capability. Integral to that is the role of the Royal Navy and Britain's commandos, the Royal Marines.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. David Chaytor: I welcome the establishment of the strategic defence review and especially the Secretary of State's repeated assertions that strong defence is essential to winning public support. It is a message which is particularly relevant to my constituency which has a long and proud military tradition and was for many years the home of one of the nation's most distinguished regiments. I pay tribute to my constituents who served in the armed forces recently, especially in Bosnia, the Gulf and the Falklands.
  I am delighted that the Government are reopening the issue of Gulf war syndrome and considering seriously the problems experienced by so many people who served in the Gulf. I hope that a similar re-examination can be granted to people who suffered debilitating illnesses as a result of their being nuclear test veterans.
  I hope that regimental museums will be considered in the defence review as they fall within the Ministry of Defence budget. The cuts inherited from the previous Government are causing major problems for these important parts of our national heritage.
  788
  The most important point about the review is that it will be foreign policy led. There has been a concern for many years that Britain's defence policy has been the result of centuries of imperialism and historical accident rather than being the servant of a coherent foreign policy. It is critical that the foreign policy parameters for the review are well examined and clearly thought out. If that means that the review takes a further six months to complete, it will be six months well spent.
  The debate is no longer about stronger or weaker defence, but about appropriate defence. That is why it is important to agree on Britain's role in the world in the last years of this century and the early years of the next. Our defence policy and our armed forces commitments must match our foreign policy responsibilities.
  Many hon. Members have commented in the past two days on the implications of the end of the cold war. It is said that future threats to our security will come, not from global nuclear warfare but from a series of regional conflicts, from ethnic struggles and divisions, from international terrorism and from the increasing problem of the international drugs trade. It follows that the central issue for the defence review is whether our current military structures, systems, personnel levels and, above all, hardware are matched to the security threats of the future. I am thinking in particular of Eurofighter and Trident. It is interesting that questions were raised from the Opposition Benches about the appropriateness of Eurofighter for defence in the first part of the next century.
  The defence review must also consider other issues. We need to re-examine the concept of security and insecurity and consider the causes of insecurity, which are rooted, as several hon. Members have already said, in injustice, unemployment, great inequality and the fierce struggle for a share of natural resources. We also need to consider our future relationships within NATO and its eastward expansion. Future generations will be astonished that the decision to enlarge NATO has been taken without any public debate. It is remarkable that in the United Kingdom, and perhaps also in the United States, there is almost no understanding, debate or concern about the implications of the eastward expansion of NATO. It may well be beneficial to United Kingdom security in the long run, but, on the other hand, it may be the precursor to a different kind of cold war in the 21st century. The issues must be clearly examined and there should be a thorough public debate.
  Our relationship with the United Nations and the role of the United Nations—although that is a foreign policy issue—must be dealt with in the defence review. Our position as a permanent member of the Security Council gives us advantages in helping to change the role of the United Nations in the next century. Several hon. Members have pointed out the importance of early, pre-emptive strikes and the early use of military intervention to avoid greater military conflict later. The United Nations has a crucial role to play in that and our troops have a crucial role to play in the United Nations.
  I welcome the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the defence diversification agency. It is vital that it should be introduced as soon as possible. Most employees in the defence industry understand that there cannot be a continuing expansion of military production. Basing our industrial production on ever-higher levels of production of ever-more complex

  789
  weapons is an unsustainable vision for the future of this continent and of the planet. There has to be an alternative. That alternative cannot be simply to throw the skills of defence workers out on to the streets. We must use those skills in more socially useful production.
  The defence review should also consider our future defence policy with our European partners. One of the most interesting aspects of the Maastricht treaty—signed by the previous Government—is its commitment to a common European defence policy. There has been little public debate about that common European defence policy to which the previous Government committed us. The issue raises important questions about the role of Britain's independent nuclear deterrent in a future common European defence policy.
  We are where we are with Trident. There are serious questions about the conditions under which Trident could ever be used. It is difficult to foresee a scenario in which it could be used without inconceivable damage to the global environment and without the permission of the President of the United States or our European partners.
  The issue is crucial to the global development of nuclear weapons. If we accept that Trident is a legitimate form of defence, every other country in the world can realistically argue that it should also have Trident. Our position on Trident was clearly set out in the manifesto. Our intention to seek to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world is also clear. I believe that Trident has an important role to play in that. The Government should be strongly encouraged to consider ways in which Trident can be used to influence the elimination of nuclear weapons globally.
  Some hon. Members have said that the best way to maintain peace is to prepare for war. I cannot agree that that presents a sustainable future for the planet. It was also pointed out earlier that defence was not an issue in the election campaign. The key issues were jobs, education and health. Those are crucial issues, directly related to Britain's defence policy.
  Why do we spend significantly more than our European partners? I do not believe that it is possible or advisable to set an arbitrary target for defence spending. The level of defence spending has to be related to foreign policy commitments. However, we have to ask whether it is the case that, because Germany spends less on defence than we do—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat under the 10-minutes rule.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. James Gray: Unlike some of the hardened old cynics from my party who have argued over the past couple of days that the strategic defence review is entirely run by the Treasury and is based on no foreign policy, I intend to accept the Secretary of State's assertion that the review has no Treasury content, that there will be no deep cuts in our armed forces and that British defence will continue much as it has for the past 20 or 30 years. However, I sympathise in advance with the Secretary of State if, when the results are announced in April or May, there are deep, hurting cuts in the Army, the Navy and the Royal Air Force, when he will have to
  790
  consider his position, having given the House such categorical assurances that the Treasury had no part to play in the strategic defence review.
  I should like to make a few remarks about the Territorial Army. I have substantial defence interests in my constituency. We have the Army in Colerne, Corsham and Hullavington and the RAF at Lyneham. Astonishingly for a land-locked constituency, North Wiltshire even has the Royal Navy in the form of RN Copenacre. My constituency covers the whole spectrum.
  I intend, however, to devote my remarks entirely to the Territorial Army, with which I have some personal connection and which plays an outstanding role in my constituency. I am proud to be wearing this evening the Honourable Artillery Company tie. I do not say that through any claim to military distinction because I can almost certainly say that I am the least distinguished soldier in the history of the British Army. I joined the HAC as a grade 3, band 3 gunner. I then did my basic gunner's course and my basic driver's course, and I even did my officer cadet's course, although I was never promoted. I served for seven distinguished years at the end of which I left the Army as a grade 3, band 3 gunner. Without question, that was the least distinguished career in the history of the British Army.
  I am, none the less, hugely proud of all that the regiment did. In France the other day, I went into a cemetery to discover that Honourable Artillery Company members died in their hundreds at the age of 18. They marched out of the barracks in London straight into war and they were killed instantly. I am immensely proud of that record not because of my personal distinction in the regiment, but because of the regiment in general. Similarly, in the second world war, we produced thousands of officers because we had by that time become an officer cadet unit, and we are now serving in Bosnia for the first time since the second world war.
  The Territorial Army makes a huge contribution in my constituency. Last Friday, I visited the 23rd signals division based in Corsham which consists of 3,500 personnel, between one half and two thirds of whom are in the Territorial Army. That base includes one regiment that is wholly territorial, the only regiment in the British Army that, I believe, is wholly integrated into a brigade. The brigade also has a squadron composed entirely of British Telecom engineers. They are not people who come away at weekends to train, but people who come away at weekends to work and to make a contribution to the signals and communications of today's modern Army.
  The territorials make three particular contributions to the Army. The first is as reservists, the citizen soldiers of old, and that is a tremendously important role. The second contribution is as volunteers playing an active role, as in Bosnia, as a result of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 under which they can now volunteer to go abroad. The third contribution is the role such as that played by my British Telecom engineers.
  More importantly, the Territorial Army makes a huge contribution to the local community and to businesses. The Territorial Army invests in people, especially the young. It provides people with personal skills and confidence which they would not necessarily get in civilian life. Civilian employers know that well and are happy to give extra leave to any of their personnel who choose to join the Territorial Army.

  791
  The Territorial Army also makes a useful contribution to community spirit and to some of the values that may have been lost in the 1990s. I think of values such as pride in the nation which some of our young people usefully get from the Territorial Army. The TA upholds those traditional values and is a useful link—the only useful link in many parts of the country—between the Army and civilian life.
  I am concerned that the Territorial Army may be seen as the soft underbelly of the Army if the review turns out to be a cost-cutting exercise. The fact is that the TA costs only 5 per cent. of the total Army budget, but it makes a huge contribution to the country and to the defence of the realm. The TA punches above its weight in a very real way and costs about one fifth of the cost of its regular counterpart. We and the regular Army must not forget that. The Secretary of State may like to consider, instead of using regular Army officers to advise him on the Territorial Army, involving the four TA brigadiers during the review.
  The regimental system may be considered to be an expensive luxury in the regular Army. It is, however, particularly important in the Territorial Army where members may be entirely separate from each other and may come together only once a week on a Wednesday evening and for two weekends in the middle of the summer. It is terribly important to them to have regimental pride, a regimental history and a regimental museum, which the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) mentioned a few minutes ago. All those things matter terribly if one sees one's mates only once or twice a month and when one often has to serve with them in extremely uncomfortable circumstances.
  The boffins in the Ministry of Defence may say, "The regimental system in general is desperately expensive. Let us do away with it." They may say, "The regimental system in the Territorial Army simply cannot be justified any more. It would be much more efficient to do what the Canadians did and to bring in cross-skills units." They should bear in mind that the Canadians quickly discovered that that was a mistake and that they are in the process of reintroducing the regimental system which served them so well.
  I appeal to those who are taking part in the strategic defence review not to think lightly of the Territorial Army. I appeal to them to bear in mind the immense contribution it makes to the defence of the realm and to society. I appeal to them in particular to preserve the regimental system within the TA.
  8.55 pm
  Mr. Norman A. Godman: I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) about the maintenance of the Territorial Army. I must also say, although she is not in her place, that I am in profound disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) when she argues for women being allowed untrammelled access to all units in the armed forces. In that regard, curiously enough as an old-fashioned Labour man, I am in complete agreement with the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). I believe that women cannot be allowed to join infantry regiments. The mind boggles
  792
  at the thought of women joining the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, for example. I have no doubt that I am in the black book that the hon. Gentleman's neighbour, the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), has brought into the debate. I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) on her fine speech both in defence of her constituents and on Gulf war veterans.
  Although he is not in his place, I offer belated compliments and thanks to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). When he was Minister of State, he had an open-door policy for Members with constituency problems related to the Ministry of Defence. I had a number of meetings with him. He rarely, if ever, accepted the case that I put to him, but he always showed immense affability and good humour. He once said to me in relation to the passage of Trident submarines through traditional fishing grounds near where I live that I was known as the fisherman's friend. He, too, always showed deep concern for fishermen in relation to the passage of those massive vessels through their fishing grounds. I hope that my hon. Friends will ensure that the code of practice for submarines in respect of fishermen going about their everyday activities will be strengthened. Not so long ago, we lost four fishermen in a terrible accident involving a nuclear submarine.
  I thank the hon. Members for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) and for Taunton (Mrs. Ballard) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) for their support for Major Eric Joyce. He may have been somewhat indiscreet vis-à-vis Queen's regulations, but he should not have to face the ordeal of a court martial. Perhaps he will be a little more discreet in future.
  Although it is a long time since I wore uniform, I am very proud of our armed services. For some strange reason, last year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who was then the Opposition Chief Whip, invited me to Bosnia to act as an international observer at the elections there. Again for some strange reason, I finished up in an appalling hotspot known as Brcko along with the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). I was immensely relieved when my Tory colleague informed me that we were being guarded unobtrusively by six members of the SAS. As an old red cap, I was delighted to hear that, although I had not spotted them.
  Let me say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that the work force at Royal Ordnance Bishoptown understand the need for change in terms of defence procurement and international agreements. The factory is not in my constituency. It is in the neighbouring one, but some of my constituents work there. They are hard working and loyal to their nation and to its defence needs. I hope that the Minister will treat with sympathy our representations on their behalf and invite the hon. Members concerned to his office, so that we can discuss the genuine fears that those people have about their continued employment.
  I was pleased to hear the powerful statement by my hon. Friend the Minister of State concerning the Army's determination to stamp out the evils of bullying and sexual and racial discrimination and harassment. I certainly encountered those problems when I was a young soldier. I thought that some of the worst excesses would have been stamped out by now. I say that in defence of many of my young constituents who serve with the Argyll

  793
  and Sutherland Highlanders and other Scottish infantry regiments. Bullying by junior NCOs has to be stamped out and officers at the ranks of lieutenant, captain and major have a duty to ensure that it is eradicated.
  Not so long ago, a young woman constituent of mine who had been very keen to join the Army suffered terrible harassment at the hands of a thuggish corporal during her initial training. She was treated very badly simply because she was a Scot. If certain hon. Members want separation, that is the way to send us down that road. She suffered dreadfully. I brought the matter to the attention of the then Minister of State, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex, and it was dealt with. However, it was a disgraceful case and her parents were extremely angry. There have been other recent cases involving young recruits from Scotland who have been badly treated. The problem must be stamped out.
  I should like there to be a much more open form of promotion from the ranks into commissioned ranks. I have always believed that our warrant officers and senior NCOs are the backbone of the British Army. As a young service man, I used to thank God for their presence, given some of the chinless wonders who had pips on their shoulders. When I was in a rough house, I was always pleased to have a couple of those NCOs alongside me.
  We cannot have women in infantry regiments. I also believe that the rules and procedures concerning courts martial need to be changed and probably will be. Despite being old-fashioned in some of my views, I have no objections to homosexuals serving in our armed forces. That may well be forced upon us in time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who is not in his place, is a pacifist. I do not share his views, but I do have similar concerns about the expansion of NATO. I believe that the expansion is being driven by the Americans, in their interests, in order to maintain their grip on most of continental Europe. NATO should and must be led by European senior military officers and not Americans. One day, the Americans will pull out of Europe, and we need contingency plans for when that day dawns.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: It was Lord Mayhew who, while Liberal spokesman on defence in another place, said that the call for a defence review in opposition was a glorious escape route from a policy. We know that the Labour party in opposition was caught in a pincer movement, where any policy acceptable to the country was not going to be acceptable to the party. One has to congratulate the Labour party on the way in which in opposition it put the invisible man in charge of defence policy, who followed his orders to kill the issue as effectively as possible. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) certainly did his political task well.
  In opposition, as it aspired to govern, the Labour party should have thought privately and deeply about defence. There is no evidence that it has done so. It is impossible to find any speech devoted to defence made in public by the leader of the Labour party in the past decade. Indeed, it is impossible to find almost any remark other than the standard eulogy to the armed forces in any speech that he has made. Even if one had dissected the speeches of the official Opposition spokesman before 1 May, one would have had only the vaguest clue to any potential Labour
  794
  policy. One is reminded of Chancellor Kohl's remark 10 days ago, when talking about the search for the Government's policy on economic and monetary union, that there was no point in trying to find out as they did not know the policy themselves. In one sense, that is why we have arrived at the strategic defence review.
  In the framing of the strategic defence review, I welcome the desire for consensus, of which much has been made. If we are to have consensus, the easiest way to achieve it would be on the foreign policy base line—but there is no Green Paper or White Paper on it for us to discuss today. The explanation that I was given—that the finding of a foreign policy base line is part of an iterative process—is fine-sounding waffle. Agreement has been possible between the parties, but the chance has been missed.
  The speeches by the Secretary of State to the Royal United Services Institute, the English Speaking Union and the Select Committee on Defence were also fine-sounding words, but so vague. In his memorable phrase, they were so much "mother pie and applehood". In yesterday's debate, the Secretary of State said:
  "The British people … believed that we would protect and improve the tools that underpin Britain's place in the world, particularly our armed forces … We will not betray the trust of the British people."—[Official Report, 27 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 610.]
  How can one protect—let alone improve—Britain's armed forces if one begins the defence review process by saying that there will be no more money?
  I am afraid that the conclusion that we must draw—and are entitled to draw—is that the process is a news management exercise. Yesterday's story was about an expanded role for women in the armed forces. Today's story in the papers is about recruiting the homeless into the Army. On widening the employment of women and widening the search for recruits, I entirely agree with right hon. and hon. Members on the Treasury Bench. It is a sensible approach to the manpower and recruitment problems in the lean years of the 1990s, which we were discussing in the Army in the late 1980s. However, we should not lower the standard of trained troops.
  The Minister will know that this generation, which is—I am afraid—in many respects a couch-potato generation, requires an increase in training levels and an increase in resources devoted to the training budget. That is one of the serious strains that the Government will have to address in putting effective troops on the ground.
  The absence of a foreign policy base line is a pity. The conclusion that we draw is that it is possible to change that foreign policy base line at any time in the process. In a sense, we are waiting for the Treasury axe to fall.
  The real purpose of the defence review under Labour and the task that it has been given by project Blair—which defines the overriding policy of the Government as their re-election—is, first, to cause no trouble and to reassure the defence interest and, secondly, to generate sufficient money for health and education in years three, four and five of this Parliament. I must congratulate the Prime Minister on appointing a team that will reassure the defence community in the early stages. He has two Ministers of State who are expert—indeed so expert that I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Defence has had a testing time as they have demonstrated their expertise over the past six months. The Secretary of State

  795
  and his team are solid citizens in the eyes of the people who support defence. The team will be sorely tested in the months ahead, and let us hope that the faith that the defence community has invested in that team is realised.
  So far, defence seems to be coming quietly. In the review to date, which has had no political direction, we seem to be heading towards the same answers as before. The three defence roles that we had under the previous Government will be translated, so I understand, into seven defence missions. The 50 military tasks will be translated into 30. The troops-to-tasks question will produce the same answer. The real change to our defence posture came in "Options for Change", as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) made clear yesterday. The underlying assumptions in "Options for Change", which was the real defence review for the end of the cold war, were correct. He got some issues at the margin wrong, including infantry numbers, although we restored two battalions in 1993.
  The Minister of State yesterday drew attention to the problem of soldiers serving back-to-back tours in Bosnia. That happened to members of my regiment—the Light Dragoons, which is an armoured reconnaissance regiment. The catastrophic policy in "Options for Change" was to cut armoured reconnaissance from five regular regiments to two. I hope that the Minister of State will find room in the reorganisation to restore the three armoured reconnaissance regiments that were cut, because such units are eminently deployable and flexible enough to perform the tasks that face the modern Army. Perhaps the Minister of State will be able to produce six proper armoured regiments with 50 tanks each, once we have our force of 300 Challenger 2s deployed, which would mean no change in cap badges or regimental numbers.
  The review is addressing the same old questions. What is Britain's place in the world? What capability should we be able immediately to deploy? What national capabilities must be preserved in terms of our defence industrial base? What military capabilities must be preserved, even if they are unlikely to be deployed immediately? How much should our nation spend on defence in the absence of an immediate threat? All the evidence suggests that the answers to those questions are the same. The Secretary of State for Defence told the Defence Committee that he understood the requirement for high-intensity conflict capability and therefore the need for armoured infantry and self-propelled artillery. He talked about a global role for the United Kingdom, which means an amphibious capability, with aircraft carriers to provide air cover over troops we deploy beyond these shores.
  I welcome the fact that the Eurofighter is exempt from the review. The Royal Air Force must have an effective defence capability and all the evidence suggests that the Eurofighter is the right answer. If it is not, Ministers have been badly misled for at least a decade and I cannot believe that that is the case.
  I am concerned about the process. First, is the process of the defence review genuine? What will happen when it becomes clear that more money is required for defence, not less? Secondly—and this is the defining question—I fear that civil servants who are running the defence review wish to define the issues for 20 years ahead. When I was in the Ministry of Defence, it was difficult enough to make sense of the long-term costings for year 10. If we
  796
  define issues 20 years in advance, we shall cut off too many military options by trying to address the tidy minds of the bureaucrats.
  My major concern about the review is the same as that expressed by many other hon. Members—the role of reserves and cadets. The reserves and cadets have few friends inside the Ministry of Defence. The Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and even the Regular Army are not friends of the reserves and cadets, who take away resources. Their only allies are the politicians. The Secretary of State talked yesterday about getting the maximum value for money solely for defence. He must think about the role of cadets in the wider community and the effect on the personal development of many young people—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Keith Simpson: In the past two days, many right hon. and hon. Members have spoken with feeling about their support for the armed forces and the defence industry. Like them, I have elements of the Army and the RAF in my constituency.
  The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) pointed out that this is a strange form of defence debate because we have very little to debate. It has been interesting, but there has been no policy document or White Paper to debate. We do not even have in the Library the defence performance document that the Minister for the Armed Forces promised in the summer would be placed there in the autumn. We were promised a mission statement from the MOD, but that has not appeared.
  A general area of policy has been outlined in a series of speeches because—understandably, in many respects—Ministers do not want to be pinned down. Let us try to discover what this cautious defence review, heavily influenced by the Treasury, will come up with. One does not need six months to do that.
  Hon. Members will have concluded that the big idea will be to restructure our armed forces into an expeditionary force capability. The House will realise that a series of crucial questions arising from that will affect personnel and equipment. First, such an expeditionary force capability probably will be expensive, as the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee has pointed out. Secondly, it will put even greater strain on our armed forces in terms of the number of tours that they will have to undertake.
  In a few months, Ministers will be faced with making real decisions about major items of equipment including air, land and maritime systems. Are we to have new carriers? Will we have a future large aircraft capability? Hon. Members know that this is an area of difficulty and that it is highly unlikely that we will get both. We have not begun to debate the issue because Ministers have preferred to talk in generalisations.
  Next July or August, we will gather here to debate the strategic defence review White Paper, which will fall into the orbit of the comprehensive spending review. Ministers will have to come up with some real decisions, and I fear that many hon. Members will be disappointed. The crux is that we and the electorate were promised a strategic

  797
  defence review with a big vision. What we have so far is a cautious tale—not a lion that roared, but a mouse that squeaked in the corner. Many people will be disappointed, particularly Labour Members. There will be a series of options that Ministers will have difficulty explaining.
  My final point is a personal one. Much has been made today about the culture in the British armed forces. There is no doubt that the armed forces have to change and are, in many respects, highly conservative. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) is not here, because he quoted from a poorly written article by a serving officer who churned out a load of old thinking—possibly sociology—from 10 or 15 years ago which has no relation to much of what the armed forces are concerned with today.
  Labour Members who have not worked with or spoken to members of the armed forces have many mistaken beliefs. There is no place in our armed forces for bullying, sexual abuse or discrimination. The overwhelming majority of our armed forces, of all ranks, are totally opposed to that, and my hon. Friends and I would certainly support any action taken by the Minister for the Armed Forces to stamp it out.
  We have probably the best armed forces in the world, and the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) was right: that is not something to be complacent about. The challenges that Ministers may require them to face, through an expeditionary force strategy, will place a great strain on them and their families.
  9.20 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I congratulate the Ministers on their appointment and wish them well, although, to judge, from the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), whom we all regard as extremely well informed, they will have an extremely rough time trying to fulfil all the pledges and ideals that they have given us today.
  Although she is not here, I congratulate the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), whose constituency neighbours mine, on her speech. I noted especially her interest in noise at Gatwick airport, as most of the aeroplanes fly over my constituency. I look forward to having a word with her about that and approaching the authorities.
  The debate, although interesting, has been disappointing because we might have expected the Government, after six months in office, to give some hint of their defence priorities—Conservative Members keep making that point—and to be more specific, rather than obliging the House with somewhat platitudinous comments and, to be fair, not unworthy generalisations.
  For many years, Labour Members have talked over and over again about the need for a strategic defence review. They have had plenty of time to get all the information that they need—the White Papers and estimates have given them a great deal of information—yet, six months after they took office, we are none the wiser, apart from knowing that to overcome recruitment problems women will be given a combat role and there will be a relaxation of the rules on homosexuals in the armed forces.
  The plans for women in combat have been greeted with understandable caution by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). I
  798
  was a gunner in the last war. I was in a foxhole and I am damned if I would have found it suitable to find a woman there, exposed as I was to front-line infantry from the other side. I do not condemn women and it is not a question of equal rights: it is something about which we should be very cautious, and people with far more experience than I would back me 100 per cent. on that point. There are plenty of dangerous jobs that women can do, but there are some that are not appropriate.
  There is nothing in what the Government have said that one can recognise as a strategic defence review: it is a review, but it is hardly one of strategy. There has been no announcement of any change in our foreign policy priorities—a point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate and for Mid-Norfolk—and without such guidance we are completely in the dark.
  There is little wonder, therefore, that the delay in coming to any conclusions about defence expenditure has created the impression that the exercise is primarily a review of expenditure policy: nothing more or less than a cost-cutting exercise. If the Government think that that is unfair, I say that it was unfortunate to be told by the Secretary of State at the Royal United Services Institute that there would be no resource constraints on this policy-driven exercise—just as he was negotiating a reduction of estimates with the Treasury.
  For years, Labour Members have parroted the idea of a strategic defence review, but we had one, as hon. Members have mentioned. The previous Government were quick to recognise that the end of the cold war had important implications not only for Britain's defence strategy but for the NATO alliance as a whole, all of which was spelt out in "Options for Change". What is more, NATO headquarters was delighted that the previous Government had taken such an initiative. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) was responsible for implementing that change in strategy.
  "Options for Change" has stood the test of time. It spelt out in clear language, as NATO has continued to recognise, that the end of the cold war would lead to reductions in armed forces and in the burden of defence expenditure. That was the peace dividend which all hon. Members welcomed at the time. "Options for Change" also recognised that NATO forces would need to be flexible and capable of rapid reaction and involvement in high-tech warfare.
  We were among the first to recognise that, in addition, we should have highly disciplined and professional armed forces that would have the ability to carry out the difficult tasks of peacekeeping and peace enforcement. That ability has earned worldwide praise. Not an hon. Member has met members of the armed forces and seen them in action and not come back with such reports. Our armed forces cannot be that bad. When people criticise the state of the armed forces, I wonder to what extent they are making political capital out of the obvious difficulties that the armed forces face.
  We recognise that the restructuring of the armed forces was right, but it left the Army, and particularly the infantry, overstretched. The demands of peacekeeping and of Northern Ireland have increased and imposed greater burdens. In the early 1990s, we knew that we would face some problems. It is no good the Minister nodding his head. I do not remember him as a great soothsayer telling us how we would be plunged into the Bosnia situation for

  799
  such a long time. Those factors, with the demographic situation in Britain, raise the question of recruitment and, as other hon. Members have mentioned, the problem of reserves, which the Government cannot ignore. We particularly need the specialist efforts of reserves to reinforce the highly technical parts of our military forces that are so valuable when it comes to moving to intensive warfare. That point was picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for north Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) in his excellent contribution.
  The Secretary of State mentioned the need to try to maintain a consensus on defence. It is right that we should try. To criticise, as he did, the previous Government for reducing defence expenditure to 2.7 per cent. of gross domestic product can only invite the retort that for years Labour spokesmen have urged a reduction to the average level of other NATO countries, which is well below 2.7 per cent. We are not the highest spender, but the criticism that expenditure has been reduced does not sit well coming from Labour. If the Government will lay off bleating about our expenditure, I promise to lay off referring to their past involvement in CND. [Interruption.] I gather that some of my hon. Friends will not; I understand.
  I suppose that we should not pay too much attention to such bleating because it is another example of the typical Blairite-Mandelsonian rubbishing of previous Government policies that is so often the prelude to their adoption. [Interruption.] I could not resist that. I am glad that it is appreciated. I am all for trying to be pals with the other side on important matters of state.
  There is no indication of a need for a substantial change in military strategy. There have been no events that could lead us to believe that the threat has grown worse. Since 1981, I have been involved in various capacities with NATO?s parliamentary assembly. At one time, NATO was targeted by short and medium-range nuclear weapons. We had awful rows about that. A huge mass of Soviet ground troops faced us on land, their mechanised battalions within a few hours of Brussels, where we were sitting. France could easily have been overrun. The Atlantic ocean was infested with nuclear submarines.
  Today, if one goes to NATO headquarters at Mons, one will see Russian armed forces officers. British troops taking part in "Partnership for Peace" training exercises in Poland are well spoken of. That, together with expansion of NATO to include Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, holds out greater prospects for European security than we could possibly have imagined. An examination of the NATO summit in Madrid and the NATO-Russia foundation pact surely invites the prospect of a new era of co-operation with the Russian Federation.
  However, some aspects of defence policy could impose greater burdens. One is the relationship between the United States and its NATO partners. Our American friends express anxieties about the willingness of their European partners not only to foot the bill but to take on more responsibility for troublespots that they regard as of greater concern to Europe than to America. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown).
  800
  The first point leads to a second one which was picked up by hon. Members on both sides of the House—the role of Western European Union as an arm of NATO. France sees the United States control over the use of some NATO assets as undermining European sovereignty and choice.
  Thirdly, some wish that the European Union would take on a more direct role in European defence. I worry about that. It may happen one day, but I am a NATO man and I believe that NATO should be the bedrock. I do not want too many people in the European Parliament mucking about with it.
  Fourthly, the instability in the middle east speaks for itself. A growing proportion of countries in the middle east are extremely well equipped and have tactical missiles.
  Fifthly, Britain is a member of the United Nations Security Council. We have to ask ourselves what importance we attach to our peacekeeping roles in areas outside NATO. That may be part of the moral quest, but if Britain wishes to play a leading diplomatic role in these days of drugs, famine and revolution, it cannot duck its responsibilities as a member of the human family through the United Nations.
  Sixthly, there is an urgent need—this is probably the most difficult task from the point of view of cost and efficiency—to bring together the defence industries of western Europe in such a way that competition is not eroded, and we must recognise that to attempt to shut ourselves off from collaboration with American companies can only lead to increased costs. That point was emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire and other hon. Members.
  I hope that collaboration with American companies will not blind us to the priority that we should attach to the merging of separate European national industries to form something that is truly European. We do not want a single bloc of European nations to come together as one company because that would create a monopoly, but we want companies of sufficient size to compete globally. Some American companies seek not only to dominate the defence market but to become global. That is why I attach great importance to our collaboration with American companies.
  In this debate, the Government have not considered or recognised the judgments that will have to be made on military grounds about our armed forces. I can see the Government recognising that we need better air lift. Armour will still be needed, if only because tanks are needed to protect peacekeepers, but in reduced amounts and provided that the money is used to strengthen our ability to project force beyond our shores, as that is one of our worldwide responsibilities. If we are to project force overseas, we need heavy airlift planes, at least two aircraft carriers and support ships in order to continue our policy of rapid response.
  I foresee difficult decisions in the RAF—they were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). We shall have to decide where the balance of advantages lie. How many Eurofighters do we buy? They are expensive. To what extent could they be bought if we run the risk of reducing our capacity for long-range bombing? We should take advantage of the opportunities that we have—with the co-operation between BAe and Lockheed and their arrangements for the production of the

  801
  American joint strike fighter. All those issues, together with Trident, make me realise what important decisions, with cost implications, the Government have to take.
  Nothing that I have mentioned involves anything near what one would describe as a massive change in our strategy; it is, rather, a continuation of the principles that have underpinned our defence since the early 1990s. Everything depends on making a budget that will allow the policy to be affordable. From what we have heard today, if the Government's intentions are to be believed—I want to believe them—we shall have fewer problems and we shall come through this difficult period. However, if the Secretary of State and his Ministers are forced to renege on his good intentions he will have no other course but to resign.
  9.36 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): It is a great privilege to close this debate on British defence policy and it is also a pleasure to welcome the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) back to the defence Front Bench after an interval of 25 years. He gave us an interesting tour d'horizon.
  Over the past two days, we have had a wide-ranging, informed and well-attended debate on matters of great importance to Members of Parliament, the armed forces and those whom we all serve—the British public. The Government want defence issues to be debated openly and attention paid to all views. That is why openness and inclusivity are two of the watchwords of the strategic defence review. In the time available, I should like to respond to some of the points raised, but my colleagues and I will be writing to hon. Members about matters that I am unable to cover tonight. I convey my apologies in advance to any of those whom I miss out tonight.
  Not only has this been a useful and informed debate, but there have been some interesting revelations. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), the number two on the Opposition Front Bench, revealed at some length his complete dissatisfaction with the previous Administration's handling of personnel matters.
  The shadow Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) revealed himself to be a serial reader of The Guardian—than which there is no more serious offence in the Conservative party, apart from having doubts about the Opposition policy on European currency.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) revealed that he was not new Labour, which was a great shock to us all. His contribution was incisive and well informed. He is one of the regular stalwarts of defence debates, as are some other hon. Members who are present.
  There are others who are no longer Members of Parliament, but who used to make regular contributions to defence debates. I am thinking of Peter Hardy—who will, I am sure, be making regular, informed contributions in another place—of Keith Mans and Hector Monro, who are still very much involved in defence matters, and of Bill Walker, whose contributions were regular if somewhat predictable.
  The encouraging feature of the past couple of days has been the number of new Members of Parliament who have contributed to the debate. I should like particularly to
  802
  mention my hon. Friends the Members for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) and for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw). One of the results of the general election has been a substantial increase in the number of Labour Members representing defence constituencies, and we look forward to their continuing contributions.
  I am also pleased to see a number of new Opposition Members taking an active interest—although, in a couple of cases, that interest might be an act of contrition for previous incarnations in the Ministry of Defence. We look forward to all their contributions in future.
  Speaking from the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Salisbury made what could be regarded as a low-key speech. However, he made some serious and irresponsible allegations about alleged delays in export licences. We have checked with the Department and with the defence sales organisation and they say that they have received no representations from industry about delays. If the hon. Gentleman knows of any individual cases, we shall be delighted to investigate, but his speech could only have provided comfort to our overseas competitors and he should reflect on whether he was selling British industry and exports short. However, given that the shadow Secretary of State has complained that Eurofighter was excluded from the strategic defence review, I suspect that industry will cease to be surprised at the antics of the Opposition Front Benchers.
  The hon. Member for Salisbury also made the extraordinary move of coming to the House and defending land mines. My hon. Friends the Members for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) and for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) raised those serious issues during the debate and I wish to ask the Opposition spokesman a simple question, so that he can clarify the position. I am sure that the country will carefully note his answer. Does he believe that the Government should sign the international treaty on land mines—yes or no?
  Mr. Key: The answer is a simple yes. We were delighted that the Labour Government carried on the work started by the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), which led the Government of Canada to press successfully for the measure. If the Minister had taken the trouble to listen, he would have realised that I endorsed everything my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) said yesterday and added only two points. The Minister might do well to listen a little more carefully instead of sweeping ahead with generalisations.
  Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman takes a long time to say yes and his answer is in complete contradiction of what he said in his earlier speech.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley made an excellent maiden speech. That is no surprise—she was an excellent candidate, as I discovered when I visited her constituency in the build up to the general election. It is no wonder that the previous hon. Member for Crawley moved to Mid-Sussex. However, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) made an excellent speech, with which we found ourselves in substantial agreement. I had better say no more and spare him further embarrassment. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley will play a constructive role on the Select Committee on Defence, as will my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), who also spoke today.

  803
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley spoke effectively about Gulf war veterans, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor). My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North tried to relate that to the case of the nuclear test veterans, but the situation is not comparable. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces has made resources available to establish the facts in the case of the Gulf war veterans' and this action has been warmly received. However, studies were carried out into nuclear test veterans, in both 1988 and 1993. Those studies were conducted by the highly respected National Radiological Protection Board and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and were published in the British Medical Journal for proper scientific comment and evaluation. The studies showed that
  "participation in the test programme has not had a detectable effect on the participants? expectation of life, nor on their risk of developing cancer or other fatal diseases."
  Since taking office, I have discussed the matter with the NRPB, which is vigorously convinced of the validity of the results.
  I now turn to points raised yesterday by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and today by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman). Both spoke about the possibility of a merger between Royal Ordnance, which is in the Bridgwater constituency, and a French company SNPE. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has also met my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement to discuss the subject. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I am unable to comment on the merger proposal until the matter has been examined by the regulatory authorities, I can assure him tonight that Defence Ministers recognise the efforts of the loyal work force at Royal Ordnance and will consider carefully the strategic requirement to retain access to supplies of ammunition and munitions.
  Yesterday, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who, I am pleased to see, was able to return from the talks to be in his place tonight, raised the subject of the procurement programmes Starstreak and ASTOR, which affect his constituency—and Northern Ireland in general.
  I confirm that we remain committed to exploring the feasibility of Starstreak in the air-to-air role. We have also emphasised to our allies in the United States that Starstreak should receive a fair evaluation in its competition with the Stinger missile to fulfil a US requirement for an air-to-air capability on attack helicopters. That is absolutely necessary to demonstrate that we genuinely have a two-way street in the procurement of defence equipment, and we are emphasising that point.
  On the airborne stand-off radar project, I confirm that it remains our aim to place a contract in 1998, and that the Government very much appreciate the work carried out by the two contractors involved in project definitions. In both cases, we recognise the expertise of Short's and its importance to Northern Ireland, and we fully understand why the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone raised its case so vigorously.
  That leads me to broader procurement issues. From its inception, the strategic defence review has included an element dedicated to the review of our procurement
  804
  policies and processes. It could not be otherwise, given the underlying ethos of the review, which is to shape Britain's defence capabilities for the new millennium. That will inevitably feed into the way in which we equip our forces and thus our future procurement programme.
  In the new strategic environment, our forces must have the flexibility to face a wide variety of tasks, from high-intensity combat to humanitarian missions, and they need the right equipment—the right capabilities—to do so. We are considering how best to procure those capabilities, making the most efficient use of defence resources. That is where our procurement policies and processes feature in the review. I would emphasise, however, that there is no procurement moratorium during the review. I hope that that answers the point made by the hon. Member for Salisbury.
  We need to ensure that we obtain value for money for the British taxpayer. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, the British people want strong defence for this country, but they do not want defence at any price. We must justify every pound that is spent.
  Undoubtedly, we need to do better in the sphere of our major equipment procurement. We need to eliminate the cost overruns and delays that have characterised too many equipment projects. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) drew attention to the National Audit Office findings on the MOD's major projects report for the year ending 31 March 1996, which suggest that more than half are overspending and that most will fail to meet their original in service date.
  At that time, the average slippage in projects since first approval stood at 37 months. The main reasons given for that are technical difficulties, budgetary constraints, the need to redefine the programme and difficulties with collaborative projects. Programme changes already have added, or will in later years add, a further £400 million to costs; specification changes an additional £180 million. Poor estimating has added, or will add, a further £130 million and differential inflation in defence contracts £340 million. What a devastating indictment that is of the previous Administration.
  Our goal has to be faster, cheaper and better defence procurement. To coin a phrase used by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State before the Defence Select Committee in July, we are looking for "smart procurement". Obviously, the MOD and industry have a crucial role to play in its achievement and at last industry has a partner with which it can engage in dialogue.
  Let us acknowledge that there are real strengths and benefits in our traditional approach to procurement, but also serious weaknesses. The process can be unnecessarily long and it can be difficult to recover the time lost in delays once they have occurred. We have also tended to concentrate effort on achieving the maximum technical capability before equipment first enters service, rather than trying to get as much capability as we can into service on time. We are therefore looking to develop alternative models for our procurement process that will enable us to respond to the realities of the modern world.
  We need a range of modern, streamlined procurement techniques that allow us to keep pace with technology, with industry and with the requirements of our armed forces.
  What are the essential elements of that? The first is the phased introduction of capability through a continuous and concurrent process. That is to tackle the time and cost

  805
  overruns and to achieve better value for money than in the past. The second is the adoption of best practice across the board by continually measuring performance internally and externally against that of industry and our allies. The third is making our procurement processes more interactive with industry, improving the management of our requirements and involving industry at the earliest stage, and working in partnership with it. The fourth is flexibility, looking at the compression of procurement time scales and the best way to allow for regular upgrades to keep pace with advances in technology.
  We fully recognise that that requires a coherent and consistent approach from Government. As a result, we have make it clear that our aim is to align our processes more closely with commercial best practice and to work in a more integrated way with industry.
  Mr. Brazier: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as this is a subject on which, before coming to the House, I was privileged to be co-author of a study covering eight countries. Is the Minister aware that the list that he just mentioned does not include the armed forces? The early involvement of the armed forces, not just in formulating requirements but in project teams, makes the most proficient procurement system while the surest way to achieve the most devastating cost overruns is to have to change things after they have come into service.
  Mr. Spellar: I look forward to receiving a copy of that study as the hon. Gentleman?s contribution to the strategic defence review. He obviously did not listen to what I said previously because I said that streamlined procurement allows us to keep pace with technology, industry and the requirements of our armed forces. Obviously, that will involve the armed forces at an early stage. We are fully intent on that and look forward to receiving the hon. Gentleman?s contribution.
  We are looking to the various elements of smart procurement, taken together to deliver measurable improvements in our performance. We are determined to drive out the factors that are the main contributors to cost and time scale overruns, of which we have seen far too many.
  Much still needs to be done to develop the full package of smart procurement measures, but the Procurement Executive has already begun to implement some elements. We also recognise the need to engage industry in the process and are already involved in extensive consultations with industry through the National Defence Industries Council. Its working parties are taking account of the views of companies, both large and small. That is very important because there has been a tendency to regard the prime contractors as the industry and to forget the huge numbers of firms and employees in an enormously capable and interdependent supply chain. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have such firms in their constituencies and recognise their value to the local and national economies.
  The response that we have received from industry has been positive. That comes as no surprise as there are considerable benefits in this for industry as well as for us. It will help to sustain the British defence industry?s place in an increasingly competitive global market through a
  806
  continued reputation for quality, effectiveness and value. We shall back its competitive role in that international marketplace. After all, it was a Labour Government who first set up the defence sales organisation.
  On the future of the UK defence industry in the global market place, one of the policy principles underpinning the strategic defence review is the Government?s commitment—previously made in opposition—to a strong, capable and competitive UK defence industry. The aerospace and defence industry in Europe has been a tremendous contributor to economic prosperity. One has only to mention the success of the Airbus consortium in the civil sector. In 25 years, it has come from nothing to capture a third of the world market for airliners.
  In Britain, the export achievements of British Aerospace, GEC and Rolls-Royce, and the thousands of smaller firms that support them, have made a major contribution to the balance of payments. The fall in defence spending, however, since the end of the cold war and the rapid rationalisation of US defence industries that has followed represent a huge challenge to Europe's defence and aerospace sector. The industrial giants of Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Hughes, with their vast industrial strengths, will make it increasingly difficult for fragmented European industries to compete in the years ahead. Europe must respond to that challenge.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the recent industry conference:
  "Europe's defence and aerospace industry must rationalise or die".
  That must have been a favourable message as British Aerospace shares shot up at the announcement. To lose out to US competition in emerging markets when domestic orders can no longer provide the critical mass required for continued viability is to risk everything. Sooner or later, marginalised European industries would founder as their Governments could no longer afford to pay the spiralling costs of keeping them alive.
  While recognising this challenge, European industry has up to now been slow to respond, operating as it does in different political environments, with different forms of ownership and commercial systems. We in Government are not in the business of arranging transnational commercial marriages. That is for industry to do, based on its judgment of where its best interests lie. That is the best means of securing a healthy, competitive private sector industry designed by industry itself, not by Government diktat. However, unlike the last Conservative Administration, who dogmatically believed that such issues should be left solely to the market, the present Government recognise that we have a key role to play in the restructuring process.
  The facts speak for themselves—except to the profoundly deaf. We are the principal customers of the UK defence industry. The decisions that we take in this area will have a profound effect in shaping the market environment in which the defence and aerospace industries operate. We have a role to play in facilitating the necessary international agreements that would allow mergers or joint ventures to proceed, and we can help by establishing a clear policy framework in which industry can make sensible decisions on how to restructure.
  The need for defence industrial restructuring in Europe is urgent. The call for Europe to get its act together should not imply any hostility to our US allies, as was rightly

  807
  mentioned by the right hon. Member for Wealden. Many industries have substantial business in the US and cannot ignore a procurement budget that is twice that of Europe combined. Indeed, some of the solutions to consolidation may involve US companies. We must recognise that a healthy mix of competition and co-operation between US and European industries is in the interests of countries on both sides of the Atlantic.
  We must also recognise the need to widen the technology in the defence industries. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced yesterday that the Government intend to make the best use of the skills and technologies developed for defence purposes, by encouraging their wider exploitation in civil markets. Such defence diversification will strengthen the country?s industrial base. In that context, I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth).
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to the Minister for his kind remarks. Will he respond to my request for the Government to state that they will support Foresight action with Government money for research and development in the aerospace industry, along with the private sector money that is on offer?
  Mr. Spellar: I intended to write to the hon. Gentleman about that, as I am mindful of the time available.
  The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) referred to ballistic missile defence. The SDR makes it clear that we now face fundamentally different security risks, and he drew attention to some of them.
  Our prime concern in assessing the need for ballistic missile defence for the UK concerns the ballistic missile threat as a means of delivering chemical or biological weapons. Potential responses are not of course limited to active ballistic missile defence.
  The pre-feasibility study considered the options for active defence only. Its conclusions and those of other, related work have informed our work on ballistic missile defence, and continue to do so in the context of the strategic defence review. We attach great importance to work in NATO on this subject.
  I shall deal with the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) and the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett)
  808
  regarding the replacement for Fearless and Intrepid. I can confirm that the contract was placed for two amphibious ships with VSEL on 31 July 1996. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness raised the possibility of a replacement for Invincible. Studies to establish a procurement strategy for any new class of aircraft carrier are at an early stage, with further work subject to the outcome of the SDR.
  Let me finish by recapping on the major themes of the British defence policy under a Labour Government. At the election, we pledged to be—and always will be—strong on defence. Our strategic defence review, therefore, has at its roots firm principles, including commitment to NATO, strong armed forces, retention of Trident coupled with progress on arms control, and support for a strong defence industry. That should be a welcome message not only in this country but with our allies. I am delighted to say that such messages were reaffirmed at this year's Labour party conference.
  We do not want defence to be a party political football. We wish, through the review, to establish the widest possible vision about Britain's essential security interests and defence needs and the role of our armed forces. That is a change to the way in which defence has sometimes been viewed in the Chamber, which may disappoint some Opposition Members. However, we owe it to our service men and women who risk their lives for us and to our pursuit of our commitments and interests around the world.
  Our armed forces are a great asset to this nation wherever they serve, and they want and deserve a clear sense of direction into the 21st century. The Labour Government will provide that direction through the strategic defence review and through our commitment to a country that is strong at home and strong abroad.
  Mr. David Clelland: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order No. 148 (Committee of PublicAccounts) be amended, in line 7, by leaving out the word 'fifteen' and inserting the word 'sixteen'.—[Mr. Clelland.]

  Aircraft Noise (South-west London)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clenand.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Tony Colman: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that this Adjournment debate is about a subject close to your heart, as you have an interest in Stansted airport. I look forward to hearing the Minister for Transport in London respond to the debate, clarifying Government policy in this area.
  I have spent much of the past three years espousing the cause of sustainable development as set out in the Rio treaty. I was particularly pleased to see that the consultation paper for the Greater London authority defines the key function as:
  "sustainable development, giving all Londoners an improved and lasting quality of life, combining environmental, economic and social goals".
  I read under the proposals for an integrated transport strategy for London that there is a need for action
  "to take forward London-wide measures to reduce air traffic pollution."
  In that context, I speak tonight on behalf of my constituents and all those who suffer noise pollution both in south-west London and on the approaches to Heathrow. There are now more than 1,200 flights a day into Heathrow and, despite efforts such as runway alternation—which I applaud—many of those flights bear down in a cone of appalling noise across swathes of central Putney, Sheen, Richmond, Isleworth, Hounslow and on into the airport. When the northern runway is used, Fulham, Barnes, Kew, Brentford and Hounslow are affected.
  Two years ago, the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) told the House that the aircraft instrument landing system required a precise line of approach, which was undeviating in the hardship that it delivered to residents below. The microwave landing system, which offers a variation of approach, has still not been advanced in the two years since the previous debate. Thus, there has been no improvement. There are noise limits only for departing aircraft and not for incoming aircraft—an oversight which has prevailed for years, despite assurances about a change.
  Night flights continue to plague the sleep of the people of Putney and elsewhere. Why have such flights not been banned? In respect of the last consultation, a constituent wrote:
  "Our three-year-old son comes into our bedroom at 4 am terrified by the noise of the large jets screaming overhead in the middle of the quiet night."
  Another constituent counted 39 aircraft coming in over his house between 4.30 am and 8 am on a Sunday—when Sunday restrictions should have made that impossible. Why cannot the departure times of flights from the far east be rescheduled so that they arrive at Heathrow at a suitable time?
  Putney suffers doubly as it is also under the flight path for helicopters that use the Battersea heliport. Routes H10, H3 and H7 converge over Putney common, and thus all helicopters from the north, west and south fly over Putney and Fulham at very low levels. The noise can be
  810
  excruciating. I, of course, exclude the need for helicopters to bring badly injured patients to Queen Mary?s university hospital regional burns unit, a unit which I am fighting to retain at that hospital.
  It is widely accepted that one way to reduce aircraft noise is to limit that noise at source. International agreement is essential, and I welcome the International Civil Aviation Organisation?s phasing out of the noisier chapter 2 aircraft by 2002. I also welcome the checks instituted by the Civil Aviation Authority, leading to the grounding of aircraft if they do not meet the necessary standards.
  As the Minister is aware, Cranfield university in Bedford recently undertook a series of experiments on a digital, pneumatic actuator, and I am pleased that the Department of Trade and Industry, British Airways and the British Airports Authority are working together in sponsoring the device that claims to eliminate most noise. Aircraft construction companies will need to adapt aircraft engines to control carbon dioxide emissions to ensure that the Kyoto agreements against global warming are not breached. It is important that noise pollution is tackled at the same time as air pollution is dealt with. Developments such as that which I have outlined are the way forward for an innovative Britain, finding solutions to problems.
  This debate is particularly urgent because of the events of 16 October. On that day, Miss Elizabeth Duthie of the aviation environmental division of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions told the terminal 5 planning inquiry:
  "Government now believes that a continuing improvement (in aircraft noise) cannot be guaranteed indefinitely"—
  a statement that appears to signify a change to the previous policy, which was
  "to do everything possible to ensure that the noise climate improves."
  Alarm has spread through west London, especially as the inspector for the terminal 5 planning inquiry—Roy Vandemeer—believes that the Government have moved the goalposts. That will materially affect his work on the inquiry.
  In July, Miss Duthie said:
  "night flights cause negligible sleep disturbance".
  I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to spend the night at the home of one of my constituents in Putney to discover how wrong that statement is.
  We thus have a catalogue of woe, and an environmental and social disaster. Of course, there are economic gains in employment and wealth creation, thanks to the superb success of BAA and Heathrow Airport Ltd. and the many airlines and companies involved with the workings of the airport. Heathrow is the stepping stone to Europe for the rest of the world and is a world-class industry in its own right. I am not suggesting anything that would harm that success story but, in the spirit of local Agenda 21, for which I lead in London, all the stakeholders—businesses, local government and local people—need to plan for the sustainable development of the airport. That must mean that the social and environmental damage currently inflicted must be reduced.
  The need to work with the community is doubly important with the terminal 5 inquiry. Local people and I see terminal 5 as an environmental disaster, yet business states that it is essential for the continued pre-eminence

  811
  of Heathrow. The battle line has been drawn up for three years—the Minister will have to decide, although I am not expecting her to express a view this evening.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) has passed to me the response of his local residents association to the consultation by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on the integrated transport policy. The association puts forward the concept of airport environmental limits. I commend the document as a way forward which will enable BAA and local residents associations to sit down and work out, within the framework of the Greater London authority, a future for Heathrow.
  The hon. Members for Windsor and for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) have asked to be allowed to intervene to support my argument. I have agreed that they should do so to emphasise the cross-party concern about the matters that I have outlined.
  I ask the Minister to come to the rescue of the people of Putney and of all those suffering from aircraft noise on the Heathrow flight path by agreeing to the following points.
  First, let the people decide about noise limits. In my response to the Greater London authority consultation, I strongly recommend that the authority and the mayor, not the Government, should decide about noise limits, just as they will decide about other London transport issues. The United States Government do not make decisions about JFK airport in New York; local government does. That is also the case for noise controls for all other United Kingdom airports, except Gatwick and Stansted. Only the mayor of London can bring together all the stakeholders involved. I look forward to the new consultation period on noise limits. I shall recommend stiff limits from 1998.
  Secondly, let there be noise limits on incoming as well as departing aircraft and proper fines for miscreants, not the £500 fine currently levied.
  Thirdly, let there be a ban on night flights between 11.30 pm and 6 am. That works elsewhere, so why not here? Consultation is due to start shortly. I ask that that should be an option that the people can vote on.
  Fourthly, let controls cover all aircraft—small as well as large—including helicopters. Often smaller aircraft—and certainly helicopters—are noisier and fly lower.
  Fifthly, I commend the Cranfield research project into noise reductions in aircraft engines. Noise pollution should be discussed together with air pollution controls at Kyoto. It is a worldwide problem.
  Sixthly, let there be an unequivocal statement this evening that the Government are determined to reduce noise pollution on the Heathrow approaches, repudiating the views expressed by Elizabeth Duthie of the aviation environmental division. Let there be a target for reductions between now and 2010.
  I was proud to be at the United Nations on 23 June to hear the Prime Minister make such a strong commitment to sustainable development and to a 20 per cent. cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. The people of south-west London want a similar commitment on aircraft noise. They have suffered long enough.
  10.11 pm
  Mr. Michael Trend: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) for allowing me to add briefly to his remarks. I agree that landing rather than take-off is now the significant problem. Unlike those living in west London, those who live in my constituency to the west of the airport have no alternation of runways. When the misery occurs, it is constant rather than infrequent.
  The hon. Gentleman put the case for a ban on night flights very well for his constituents and I agree most strongly with him on that. I have said this before in the House and I shall go on saying it until the Government listen; it is essential that my constituents get the good night's sleep to which they are entitled. That can be achieved in Windsor only if there is a total ban on night flights. As the hon. Gentleman has said, that is done in other parts of the world. It is high time it was done here.
  10.12 pm
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: I thank the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) for allowing me to speak. I am interested in the effects of noise on health. I live in my Richmond Park constituency, where we have had an escalating noise problem over the past 20 years. I am particularly concerned about health issues because I was a doctor in the health service before my election to Parliament.
  There is an enormous, accumulating mountain of evidence on the effects of noise on people's health. Evidence on noise is being given to the terminal 5 inquiry. Paper after paper has shown how people suffer sleep deprivation because of aircraft noise—which has already been mentioned—and how people with mental health problems or heart problems are badly affected by aircraft noise. Their conditions may not be caused by aircraft noise, but they can be made significantly worse by it.
  There has been a recent survey of attainment levels, particularly in terms of the reading ages of children living around large airports, which was initiated by people in Frankfurt. When it was planned to build a new airport, the people there decided to test a large cohort of several hundred children to find out what their reading age was while the old airport was in operation. They found that the reading age of those children was six months below average. The people involved had the good sense, once the airport had moved to its new site, to retest the same group of children and they discovered that their reading ages had returned to normal within a year of the noise being removed.
  As well as affecting the population's health, aircraft noise affects the attainment of children in our schools, and the problem could get worse. I have been in schools in my constituency where, in the course of a lesson, teachers have repeatedly had to stop completely while an aircraft has gone overhead. The lesson is disrupted until the noise subsides.
  I do not suggest that the problem is overwhelming at the moment. Twenty years ago, however, we doubted the evidence that was emerging on the link between smoking and lung cancer. That is how medical evidence emerges. The evidence that is emerging on the effects of noise on health and on children's attainment in schools around airports is at a similar stage to the evidence on smoking and lung cancer 20 years ago. We do not want in 20 years'

  813
  time to have gone down that road and to have discovered that aircraft noise really is dangerous and that we should have acted earlier.
  I urge the Government to look seriously into the problem and to take measures, as the hon. Member for Putney suggested, to do something about the problem before it is too late.
  10.16 pm
  The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on obtaining this Adjournment debate and on affording the House the opportunity to discuss the important issue of aircraft noise around Heathrow. I also congratulate him on his generosity in affording time to the hon. Members for Windsor (Mr. Trend) and for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) for them to present cogently, albeit briefly, their concerns on behalf of their constituents.
  As my hon. Friend acknowledged, Heathrow airport is an important national and European asset. It is the largest international airport in the world and in 1996, it handled almost 56 million passengers and 1 million tonnes of freight. In terms of value of trade handled, it is Britain's largest port. It is no less important to the local economy, providing 50,000 direct jobs and a further 26,000 in support services. It contributes directly to the prosperity of west London, which includes my hon. Friend's famous and historic constituency, and to the prosperity of neighbouring counties.
  The airport also has a major environmental impact on the surrounding areas and on those living under its principal arrival and departure routes, an impact most of us tend to overlook when we go on holiday or travel abroad on business. The main impact comes from aircraft noise and the Government acknowledge that it is a cause of annoyance to many people and of more serious concern—indeed, distress—to some.
  The Government intend to tackle aircraft noise in two ways. First, we will seek further reductions in noise at source through international negotiation and agreement. Secondly, we will set a framework for the control and mitigation of operational noise around airports.
  The Government will do everything practicable to ensure that the noise climate around Heathrow continues to improve. There has been a substantial improvement in the noise climate around the airport over the past two decades and the improvement is expected to continue for the remaining years of the phase-out of chapter 2 aircraft. The noise climate thereafter is now expected to be much more favourable than was expected before the phase-out was agreed in 1990. As I hope all hon. Members will agree, that was a real achievement.
  This success makes the securing of further improvement all the more challenging. After chapter 2 phase-out, we cannot be sure of achieving continuing improvements year on year, every year. However, the Government are determined to take all practicable steps to prevent a deterioration in the noise climate around the airport after the phase-out of chapter 2 aircraft is completed. Indeed, I restate our policy that we will continue our efforts to do everything practicable to improve the noise climate over time. In giving that assurance to the communities around Heathrow, the Government recognise that additional regulatory measures may become necessary to achieve the target.
  814
  In the longer term, we can expect further improvements from the retirement of Concorde and from incremental improvements in technology which, together, should more than offset the trend to larger aircraft.
  Our aim, like that of successive Governments since the impact of aircraft noise became a cause for concern, is to strike a balance between the considerable economic benefits of the airport and the effect on the communities around it.
  It is widely recognised that many factors other than the level of noise itself influence sensitivity to aircraft noise. For my hon. Friend's constituents, the alignment of Heathrow's two main runways means that during westerly operations, which occur for about 70 to 75 per cent. of the time in an average year, they are overflown by landing aircraft on final approach.
  Increasingly there are claims that the noise of landing aircraft is worse than the noise of aircraft taking off—a point made cogently by my hon. Friend. Undoubtedly, greater strides have been made in reducing take-off noise. Those who live in the south of my hon. Friend's constituency would probably say that take-off noise remained the bigger problem. Aircraft taking off use considerably more power than those landing, but because modern aircraft generally climb more quickly than earlier generations of jet aircraft, their noise is now attenuated more quickly by altitude. Also, because there are more take-off routes, the number of aircraft flying each one is fewer. For people living under the arrival routes, by contrast, the steady succession of aircraft flying over them may contribute to their annoyance.
  For technical and safety reasons, aircraft usually take off and land into the wind. At Heathrow, because the prevailing winds are from the south-west, the airport must operate in a westerly direction for most of the time. Furthermore, landing aircraft have to be aligned with the runway and are usually established on the instrument landing system by about nine miles from touchdown. They will usually have descended to an altitude of about 2,500 ft by this point.
  The distance of nine miles from touchdown means that most landing aircraft using the southern runway have to overfly my hon. Friend?s constituents. When the airport is busy, which it is for much of the day, aircraft will often join the ILS further east over Battersea, Brixton or Lewisham. When the northern runway is in use, landing aircraft will join that ILS from anywhere between Barnes and Greenwich. What cannot be varied is the final approach track of landing aircraft, which must be aligned with the centre line of the landing runway. A curved final approach is not possible.
  For a long time, Heathrow has operated a system of westerly preference. The system has been in place since 1962 and is primarily a noise mitigation measure. Its purpose is to reduce the number of aircraft taking off to the east over west London, and so the numbers of people affected by take-off noise are reduced.
  Historically, take-off noise has been the greater concern, but because of the improving climb performance of modern aircraft, the system of westerly preference is kept under review. The Heathrow Airport Consultative Committee and Heathrow Airport Ltd. carried out their own evaluation of westerly preference last year and their findings indicated that it continues to have the overall beneficial effect of reducing the numbers of people living

  815
  within the 57 dB(A) Leq noise contour. This noise contour is the one widely accepted as being closely correlated with the onset of community annoyance from aircraft noise during the day. Aircraft taking off from Heathrow are required to follow noise preferential routes. They were designed as far as possible to avoid the most populated areas. Pilots are required to follow NPRs until they reach an altitude of 4,000 ft. The one NPR routed over my hon. Friend's constituency passes to the south and is used during easterly operations only. That is for about 25 per cent. of the time during an average year. Track-keeping by pilots using that route is of a high standard.
  Comparable fixed routes for landing aircraft are not possible before aircraft join the ILS and align themselves with the runway. That is because air traffic controllers require operational flexibility in order to maintain safe separation between landing aircraft. As a result, landing aircraft follow a wide swathe of tracks which are determined tactically by air traffic controllers until each aircraft joins the ILS for the runway in use. They must then follow the international standard rate of descent of 3 deg to touchdown. The resulting concentration of landing traffic on final approach over the last eight to 13 miles to touchdown is unavoidable. My hon. Friend referred to MLS—the microwave landing system. Even if that is introduced in the future and replaces ILS, it is not expected to change the requirement.
  Wherever practicable, pilots are required to apply noise-reduction procedures known as continuous descent approach and low power, low drag. The aim is to keep the aircraft in a clean configuration for as long as possible to reduce the amount of noise reaching the ground. That means not lowering the undercarriage or using flaps until absolutely necessary and maintaining engine power at low levels consistent with safety.
  During day time operations, aircraft join the final approach glide slope at a minimum altitude of 2,500 ft about eight to nine miles from touchdown. As I said, that is a minimum joining point. During busy periods, aircraft will join further east at higher altitudes. There is a trial in progress, which was started approximately two years ago, whereby aircraft are required to join two to three miles further east at not less than 3,000 ft between 4 am and 6 am. The purpose is to reduce disturbance from early morning arrivals by having them join the ILS glidepath at a higher altitude. The procedure should benefit not only my hon. Friend?s constituents but those of the hon. Members for Windsor and for Richmond Park. I recognise however that it has less support from other communities. An assessment of the trial is under way.
  Runway alternation during westerly operations has been operated at Heathrow between 7 am and 11 pm since 1972. One runway is used until 3 pm each day when landing traffic is switched to the other runway. The runway used also alternates on a weekly basis so that
  816
  communities in west London benefit on alternate weeks from quiet periods in the evenings. It benefits most those who live under the last eight miles of the approach tracks.
  Runway alternation was not extended into the night period in the 1970s in order primarily to provide opportunities for essential maintenance of the runways and associated equipment such as the ILS. A second trial of night-time runway alternation has however been running for some months and was provisionally brought to a close on Sunday 26 October. The results of the trial and the associated local opinion surveys are about to be evaluated—initially by the Heathrow Airport consultative committee and Heathrow Airport Ltd., who jointly initiated the first trial last winter. I hope to receive their report later this year. I will study it carefully before reaching a decision on any permanent arrangements. However, the initial feedback on night-time runway alternation indicates that it has generally been positively received.
  Such initiatives and others are part of the continuing programme of research and studies which the Government undertake to develop measures for the mitigation of noise impacts around designated airports. HAL also undertakes studies through HACC and other groups. Safety must be an overriding consideration, but in a balanced approach, all important factors must be taken into consideration. We have a full programme. As well as consulting on the night restrictions, I hope shortly to consult on departure noise limits and to announce the results of the night-noise contours study.
  Most night flights at Heathrow are early morning long-haul services arriving after 4 am. A ban on night flights at Heathrow was given serious consideration in 1976–77. It was decided after consultation to allow night operations to continue while taking steps to ensure that eventually all such operations were carried out by quieter types of aircraft. That has happened, and the noisiest types are no longer allowed to operate. Night movements at Heathrow have been regulated by successive Governments since 1962; their numbers are strictly limited.
  It has been the practice for many years to review the night-flying restrictions at Heathrow from time to time—usually every five years. Just such a review is due to start early next year. It will consider the restrictions to be applied for the five years from October 1998 onwards. I hope to issue a consultation paper before the end of the year. I acknowledge that disturbance to sleep is a problem and the measures taken to alleviate it are important.
  Weight for weight, modern jet aircraft are approximately a quarter as noisy as the first generation of jets, and half as noisy as the second generation—
  The motion having been made at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Family Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the effect on the number of recipients of family credit of cutting the taper to(a) 65 per cent., (b) 55 per cent. and (c) 50 per cent. [12814]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is in the table:

  Level of taper (per cent.)

  Increase in number of family credit recipients (000s)

  65

  35

  55

  175

  50

  285

  1. Results are derived from the Policy Simulation Model based on the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey, uprated to 1997–98 caseload levels.

  2. Caseload effects are rounded to the nearest 5,000 claimants.

  Backdating
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will amend the rules for backdating of disability living allowance and attendance allowance to ensure that arrears from an any grounds or any time review can backdate the claim from the time of the claim. [12847]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The changes introduced in April 1997 inadvertently limited payment of arrears as a result of an "any grounds review" (requested within three months of a decision) on disability living allowance, disability working allowance and attendance allowance. Extra-statutory payments were made until amending regulations came into force on 13 October 1997.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has for changing the regulations relating to social fund payments following the Social Security Commissioner's decision in the case of Mr. O'Flynn. [13299]

  Mr. Denham
  Amending regulations were laid yesterday. Earlier this year, the Social Security Commissioner decided that the provision, which restricted entitlement to a funeral payment provided the funeral took place within the United Kingdom, infringed European Community law.

  The changes bring the legislation into line with European Community law. Where someone is living in this country, but originally came from another EEA country, they may be able to claim help with funeral expenses if they satisfy the existing eligibility criteria which apply to all other claimants. They may be able to
  772
  get help if, and only if, the deceased person also lived here. Under the changes they will be able to claim if the funeral takes place in another EEA country. However, the amount paid will be limited to the amount which would have been paid had the funeral taken place where the deceased had lived in the United Kingdom.

  A further change has been made to bring the provision into line with European Community law. The person arranging the funeral may also get help with travel costs to arrange or attend the funeral, but the amount allowable would not exceed the amount which would have been paid if the funeral had taken place locally.

  A number of other minor changes have been made to restore, or clarify, the original policy intention.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Football Grounds
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is his Department's policy on the provision of standing areas at those football grounds where it is currently prohibited; with which bodies he has consulted; and if he will make a statement. [12955]

  Mr. Fisher
  [holding answer 27 October 1997]: There has been a great deal of debate recently about the re-introduction of standing accommodation for spectators at premier league and first division grounds. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport made clear in a statement last week, the Government have no plans to review the policy which requires clubs in the premier league and the first division to be all-seater, but which allows clubs in the second and third divisions of the Football League to retain some standing accommodation subject to stringent safety requirements.

  The Taylor report identified all-seating as the factor which contributed most to spectator safety. We are, of course, prepared to listen to comments made about the provision of spectator accommodation, consulting relevant bodies such as the Football Licensing Authority as necessary, but we should be very careful before considering any change of policy.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Special Secure Units
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason there was a delay from June 1996 to May 1997 in implementing a system of three-monthly health reviews of prisoners detained in special secure units; what is the agreed format and content of these reviews; how many prisoners have been examined to date; and what percentage of the total special secure unit population this represents. [12605]

  Ms Quin
  The special secure unit operating standards were amended in January 1997 to provide that the health of prisoners detained in SSUs should be formally reviewed at three-monthly intervals. Detailed discussion about the content and format of health reviews and related
  773
  disclosure issues were not concluded until April 1997. Instructions were issued to prison medical officers and the first reviews took place in May 1997.

  The process of formal review does not replace the existing arrangements for the health care of prisoners in SSUs which is comparable to that elsewhere in the prison service. The three-monthly reviews are designed to collate information gathered over the review period, assess the health of each prisoner, identity any areas of concern and initiate any necessary remedial action. Reports from outside specialists may be commissioned where necessary. A summary of the three-monthly review report along with any health care recommendations is given to each prisoner.

  In May 1997 there were 23 exceptional risk prisoners held in SSUs. Reviews were carried out on all of these prisoners. There are now only six exceptional risk prisoners in England and Wales, all of whom are held in the Whitemoor SSU. Subsequent reviews have been carried out on these prisoners.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average total cost per year of maintaining a prisoner in a special secure unit. [12606]

  Ms Quin
  The average total cost1 per prisoner place in a special secure unit is estimated to be approximately £61,000 per annum for the year ending 31 March 1997, the period for which the last detailed analysis was carried out.
  1 Average total cost represents the cost per SSU accommodation place certified to hold prisoners in an establishment.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are currently held in special secure units; for how long each prisoner has been held in such units; and what is the nationality of each such prisoner. [12607]

  Ms Quin
  The table shows the six prisoners held in the special secure unit at Whitemoor. There are currently no other prisoners held in SSUs.

  Nationality

  Offence

  Time spent in SSU

  American

  Conspiracy to murder

  2 years 7 months

  Colombian

  Customs evasion

  4 months

  British

  Armed robbery

  9 years 3 months

  Cypriot

  Customs evasion

  4 years 2 months

  Irish Republic

  Importation of drugs

  1 year 11 months

  British

  Importation of drugs

  1 year 11 months

  Parole Board
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has made provision for those detained during Her Majesty's pleasure to have their cases considered by the Parole Board at oral hearings. [13297]

  Mr. Straw
  The Parole Board Rules 1997, which were made on 6 October 1997 under section 32(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, came into force on 6 October. A copy of the rules has been placed in the Library.

  The rules apply to those detained during Her Majesty's pleasure and to all discretionary lifers, including those sentenced under section 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997.
  774
  Apart from minor changes to statutory references and interpretation, the rules are identical to their predecessors, the Parole Board Rules 1992.

  Parliamentary Boundary Commission
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whom he intends to appoint to the vacant post of commissioner at the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England. [13300]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I am very pleased to announce that we have appointed Mr. Michael Lewer QC to serve as a Commissioner at the commission. His appointment is effective until 31 December 2000.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the business plan for the Prison Service for 1997–98. [13301]

  Mr. Straw
  I am publishing today the Prison Service's business plan for 1997–98, including the key performance targets I have set.

  I recognise the pressure under which the service is now operating. The audit of resources which I published on 25 July made it clear that the key assumptions on which the service had been planning for the current year, particularly the size of the prison population, have already been overtaken. I announced on 24 July an increase in Prison Service funding this year and next year to help meet these pressures. At the same time, work underway as part of the comprehensive spending review, the study of ways of closer working between the Probation and Prison Services—which I announced on 16 July—and other policy developments in the criminal justice field will all have long-term implications for the service, which makes long-term planning difficult.

  For these reasons, I have decided not to publish a three-year corporate plan this year. Instead I am publishing a business plan which sets out clear targets and priorities for this year but does not significantly change the longer-term objectives previously set for the service and focuses on the need to accommodate the prison population safely while maintaining balanced, positive regimes so far as possible. I will shortly discuss with the Director General the priorities and direction for the service for the next three years, which will be reflected in the corporate plan for 1998–2001.

  The plan includes the performance targets against which the service has been operating so far this year. The majority will require some improvement on last year's performance, but I recognise that the further rapid rise in prisoner numbers so far this year, well ahead of the assumptions made when the plan was drafted, will have an impact on performance.
  775
  The targets are:

  Escapes
  To ensure no category A prisoners escape.
  To ensure that the number of escapes from prisons and from escorts, expressed as a proportion of the prison population, is lower than in 1996–97.

  Assaults
  To ensure that the number of assaults on staff, prisoners and others, expressed as a proportion of the average population, is lower than 9 per cent.

  Drugs
  To ensure that the rate of positive testing for drugs (the number of random drug tests that prove positive expressed as a proportion of the total number of random tests carried out) is lower than in 1996–97.

  Overcrowding
  To ensure that the percentage of the prison population above the uncrowded capacity of the estate is no more than 13 per cent.

  Time unlocked
  To ensure that by 31 March 1998 at least 60 per cent. of prisoners are held in establishments which normally unlock all prisoners on the standard or enhanced regime for at least 10 hours per week day.

  Offending behaviour programmes
  To ensure that there are at least 2,200 completions by prisoners of programmes accredited as being effective in reducing re-offending, of which 670 should be completions of the sex offender treatment programmes.

  Cost per place
  To achieve at least a 1.3 per cent. reduction in real terms in cost per place compared to 1996–97, ensuring that the average cost of a prison place does not exceed £24,610.

  Staff training
  To ensure that, on average, staff spend at least six days in training.

  I have also set a target on purposeful activity, to ensure that prisoners spend on average at least 22.5 hours per week engaged in purposeful activity. This target takes account of work to improve the accuracy of these figures. Because of this, this year's target is not directly comparable with performance in previous years, but it is intended to maintain performance at the level delivered last year.

  I regard it as extremely important that prisons provide a full day's constructive and challenging activity for prisoners, and I shall be asking the Director General to consider how he can improve on this targeting the years ahead. But I do recognise that the population pressures facing the service make it unrealistic to set a higher target in 1997–98.

  Prisoner Transfers
  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what basis prisoners will be transferred between United Kingdom jurisdictions and the islands, following the introduction of schedule 1 to the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. [13304]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government attach considerable importance to enabling prisoners to maintain family ties while serving their sentences. As part of a number of measures to facilitate family contact, there is provision for prisoners to transfer to another United Kingdom jurisdiction, or to one of the islands, where they have close family members.
  776
  The Criminal Justice Act 1961 provided for inter-jurisdictional transfers to be made on either a permanent or a temporary basis. Permanent transfers were normally refused where, as a consequence of differing early release provisions applying in the various jurisdictions, a reduction in time to serve would have been likely to result.

  In 1992, an inter-departmental working group recognised the particular difficulties posed in relation to the permanent transfer of long-term prisoners to Northern Ireland because of differing early release provisions, and recommended that consideration be given to amending the legislation to overcome this problem. This recommendation was accepted and has been given effect in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (section 41 and schedule 1) brought into force on 1 October 1997.

  The new provisions provide for prisoners to be transferred to another jurisdiction on either an unrestricted or a restricted basis. In the case of an unrestricted transfer, the administration of the prisoner's sentence will become a matter entirely for the receiving jurisdiction. A restricted transfer will be subject to conditions whereby the sending jurisdiction will continue to administer certain specified aspects of the sentence.

  Transfers will continue to require the consent of the Secretary of State of both the sending and receiving jurisdictions. Normally, transfer requests will be approved only where the prisoner has at least six months left to serve in the receiving jurisdiction before his or her release date at the time of making the request, and where the prisoner has no outstanding appeal against conviction or sentence, is not charged with further criminal proceedings, and is not liable to any further period of imprisonment in lieu of payment of any outstanding monetary orders made by a court.

  Each application will be assessed on its individual merits, taking into consideration:

  (i) the purpose for which the transfer is requested;

  (ii) whether the prisoner was ordinarily resident in the jurisdiction to which transfer is sought prior to the imposition of the current sentence; or whether members of the prisoner's close family are resident in that jurisdiction and there are reasonable grounds for believing that the prisoner will receive regular visits from them; or whether the prisoner has demonstrated through preparations that he has made for his life following release from prison that he intends to reside in the receiving jurisdiction upon release and he is in the later stages of his sentence;

  (iii) whether there are grounds for believing that the prisoner may disrupt or attempt to disrupt any prison establishment, or pose an unacceptable risk to security; and

  (iv) any compelling or compassionate circumstances.

  When considering whether to make an unrestricted or a restricted transfer, the Secretary of State of the sending jurisdiction will take into account the period and terms of transfer requested by the prisoner, and whether, as a consequence of an unrestricted transfer, there would be likely to be any effect on the length of time which the prisoner would be required to serve, or on any post release supervision requirement.

  Where an unrestricted transfer is granted, the prisoner will serve the remainder of his or her sentence in the receiving jurisdiction as if that sentence had been passed

  777
  there, and will be subject for all purposes to the statutory and other provisions applying to prisoners within the receiving jurisdiction.

  A prisoner granted a restricted transfer will automatically remain, for the duration of his or her transfer, subject to the law governing release on licence, automatic release, post release supervision and recall applicable in the sending jurisdiction. In addition, any other condition relating to the terms of a prisoner's detention as the Secretary of State of the sending jurisdiction may deem appropriate in any particular case or class of case may be attached to the transfer.

  A prisoner transferred on a restricted basis will normally become subject for all purposes, other than those specified in any conditions attached to the transfer, to the statutory and other provisions applying to prisoners in the receiving jurisdiction (including, for example, such matters as categorisation).

  In the light of the new arrangements the Government have taken the opportunity to consider how applications for temporary release from prisoners transferred to another jurisdiction on a restricted basis should be handled. In future, decisions on applications for temporary release for compassionate or other purposes submitted by prisoners granted a restricted transfer for the purposes of facilitating family ties will normally become the responsibility of the jurisdiction to which the prisoner is transferred. Prisoners will be able to apply for periods of temporary release under the provisions existing in the receiving jurisdiction. Each such application will be considered by the appropriate authority in the receiving jurisdiction on its own merits and in accordance with the relevant criteria applying in that jurisdiction. Prisoners will normally, therefore, no longer be eligible to apply for temporary release under the provisions applying in the sending jurisdiction.

  However, where a restricted transfer is time limited (for example, to enable the prisoner to receive accumulated visits), or for a purpose other than to facilitate family ties (for example, to attend judicial proceedings or to receive medical treatment), and the prisoner is expected to return to the sending jurisdiction, decisions on temporary release will continue to be made by the sending jurisdiction.

  The effect of any conditions attached to a transfer will be explained to the prisoner concerned prior to transfer. Any conditions imposed may be reviewed at the request of the prisoner or either of the Secretaries of State party to the transfer at any time during the duration of the transfer, and may be varied or revoked by the making of a further order. A restricted transfer may not be made unrestricted without the consent of the prisoner concerned. Any requests for variation or revocation of conditions will be considered under the normal transfer criteria.

  A prisoner granted a restricted transfer may be returned to the sending jurisdiction at any time if this proves necessary, for example, if the purpose for which the transfer was granted is no longer being fulfilled, at the request of the receiving jurisdiction (in the case of disruptive behaviour), or in the interests of the administration of the sentence (such as consideration by the Parole Board or to undergo post release supervision).
  778
  Transfer requests submitted by remand prisoners will be considered in accordance with the normal transfer criteria. However, in view of the need to ensure that the prisoner is available to the courts as required, normally such requests will be granted only where there are compelling or compassionate reasons for doing so.

  Where a transfer is agreed, the timing of the prisoner's move will be subject to operational and security considerations in the sending and receiving jurisdictions.

  "Corpus Juris"
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the document "Corpus Juris" sponsored by the Directorate General (Financial Control) of the European Commission; what Her Majesty's Government's policy is on this document; and if he will place a copy of the document in the Library. [12813]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 27 October 1997]: We understand that the document in question is a discussion paper with no formal status. We disagree with many of its recommendations which are incompatible with the legal traditions of this country. However, for any of them to have effect, they would need to be proposed formally and agreed unanimously in the Council. I understand that an English translation of the document should be obtainable from the European Commission. I am arranging for copies to be obtained and placed in the Library as requested.

  Crime (Sentences) Act 1997
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) of 30 July,Official Report, columns 261–62, what is the linkage between section 20 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 and other early release provisions; and if he will make a statement on his grounds for not implementing section 20; [12727]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 30 July, Official Report, columns 261–62, to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate how the extended supervision of sexual offenders he proposes in the Crime and Disorder Bill will differ from that provided in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. [12742]

  Ms Quin
  We decided not to implement the release and post-release supervision provisions set out in sections 10–26 of the 1997 Act on the grounds that they were unnecessarily complicated. Our preferred approach is that the courts should be required to spell out in open court what a sentence means in practice, based on the existing release and supervision arrangements provided for by the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  The principle of extended supervision of sex offenders is one which the Government fully support. However, the arrangements for extended supervision of sex offenders in the 1997 Act cannot be brought into effect independently of other provisions in part II of the Act which we believe would create overly complex arrangements. That is why we intend to bring forward fresh provision to do this in the Crime and Disorder Bill. This will give the courts the same powers in respect of maximum post-release supervision as section 20.

SCOTLAND

  Sewerage Charges
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will grant relief to domestic customers in respect of sewerage charges in 1998–99. [13374]

  Mr. Dewar
  Yes. I have set aside £29.7 million for this purpose. This sum represents a saving to average band D households of between £17 and £20 in 1998–99. The sum is in line with the previous Government's expenditure plans. This relief, first introduced in 1996, is a transitional arrangement which is to be phased out by April 1999. We shall pay grant to water authorities to compensate for the charge income they will forgo in 1998–99. Of this some £9.0 million will be available to the East Authority, £7.4 million to the North Authority and £13.2 million to the West Authority. The necessary order will be laid before Parliament shortly.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Goods and Services (Payments)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list each of the functions relating to payment for goods or services supplied for which her Department is responsible indicating the management systems purchased, all subcontractors involved in the work; co-operative arrangements with other Departments; and the costs of the systems and processes in the last year for which figures are available. [12559]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My Department has an in-house payment system which processes most payments made in the UK in respect of goods or services supplied under the aid programme. Payments are authorised by the spending departments, which are mainly overseas. After input and review by headquarters staff in the UK these payments are then recorded, checked and cleared for issue by the accounts department in our East Kilbride headquarters. The accounts department's total running costs for 1996–97 were £819,000 but not all these costs related to the processing of payments for goods and services. It would involve disproportionate expense to make a reliable estimate of spending departments' and other headquarters' costs covering only this aspect of work.

  In addition, my Department employs five procurement agents: these agents include in their fee a sum to cover payment to suppliers. This fee covers all aspects of procurement agents' services and agents do not separate out that element of their fee which covers payment to suppliers.

  Financial aid to partner Governments under the terms of loan or grant agreements is made by Crown Agents Financial Services which charged £589,000 for this service in 1996–97. Some payments are also made overseas by embassies and high commissions on our behalf.

  PHARE
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has 780
  made in respect of the financial irregularities noted by the Court of Auditors in its special report concerning the decentralised system for the implementation of the PHARE programme between 1990 and 1995. [12503]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We maintain regular contacts with the commission (DG1A) in order to help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of PHARE implementation and financial control procedures. We agree with the findings of the report and will maintain pressure for improvements.

  Kenya
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what are the current levels of aid to Kenya; and how much is provided to(a) the Government of Kenya and (b) non-governmental organisations. [12553]

  Mr. Foulkes
  British aid to Kenya in 1996–97 was about £25 million, 40 per cent. of which was provided through non-government channels.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will provide support to human rights monitors in Kenya. [12551]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My Department has offered to provide finance to assist with an election observing programme by three well-respected non-government organisations in Kenya.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she next expects to meet representatives of the Kenyan Government to discuss human rights issues. [12550]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development met President Moi and Finance Minister Mudavadi in Nairobi on 6 October 1997. During these meetings she explained Britain's commitment to the elimination of poverty in poorer countries and our intention to work with those Governments which are themselves committed to taking the full range of measures necessary to achieve this aim including the improvement of human rights. She has no plans to meet representatives of the Kenyan Government.

TREASURY

  VAT (Schools)
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if all state schools are registered for VAT, and what the differences are between VAT treatment for(a) local education authority schools, (b) grant-maintained schools and (c) private educational facilities. [12776]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Local Education Authority schools are covered by the VAT registration of their parent local authority. Other schools may be registered for VAT in respect of non-education activities. Education itself is exempt from VAT, so no school has to charge VAT on its provision of education.

  There are some differences between different types of school in respect of recovery of VAT incurred on their expenditure. Local Education Authority schools can recover all VAT under the special provisions made for

  781
  local authorities; other schools cannot, though grant-maintained schools are compensated for this by central Government grant, and independent schools can take non-recoverable VAT into account in setting the level of their fees.

  Financial Services Regulation
  Mr. Stephen Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his proposals for reform of financial services regulation. [13096]

  Mr. Darling
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has decided that the new single regulatory organisation is to be called the Financial Services Authority. This name has been adopted by the body formerly known as the Securities and Investments Board.

  The draft legislation to be published next summer will include draft statutory objectives for the Financial Services Authority. These are expected to include objectives in the following areas:
  the promotion and maintenance of confidence in the UK financial sector and markets;
  protecting consumers by ensuring that firms are competent and financially sound and give their customers confidence in their integrity, while recognising customers' own responsibility for their financial decisions;
  promoting the improvement of public understanding of the benefits and risks associated with financial products through the improvement of information and advice;
  monitoring, detecting and preventing financial crime.

  We also intend to set some objectives to condition how the Financial Services Authority goes about its job. We want it to:
  be efficient and economic, ensuring that costs and restrictions on firms are proportionate to the benefits of regulation;
  facilitate innovation in financial services;
  take account of the international nature of financial regulation and financial services business.

  The Financial Services Authority has today published a launch document with more details of the preparations for the new regulatory structure. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The Financial Services Authority has also published today consultation documents on practitioner and consumer involvement and the basis for charging for banking supervision. The details of the new regulatory structure and the Government's intentions for the draft legislation will be subject to further consultation.

  Indirect Taxation
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the European Commission proposals to adopt a new procedure concerning the implementing measures relating to indirect taxation, as observed in IP/97/653. [12504]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In common with most other member states, the UK is committed to the maintenance of unanimity in the Council as the basis for EC decision-making on indirect tax matters. The UK is thus opposed to the European Commission's proposals.

  Taxation (Expatriates)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change the arrangements for the taxation of expatriates. [12845]

  Dawn Primarolo
  All aspects of the UK tax system are kept under regular review.

  National Assets Register
  Mr. Alan Keen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to be able to publish the National Assets Register. [12581]

  Mr. Darling
  The Government is currently working towards the completion of the National Asset Register and hopes to publish it in the second half of November 1997.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make it his policy to protect Britain's zero rates of VAT during negotiations on stage III of economic and monetary union; [12841]

  (2) what action he will take to ensure that Britain's zero rates of VAT are protected under European Commission plans to harmonise VAT rates. [12842]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Although the European Commission aspires to the further harmonisation of VAT rates as part of its suggested programme for a "common system" of VAT, there are no current legislative proposals on rates. The UK's zero rates are fully safeguarded under existing EC VAT law, and any change requires the unanimous agreement of member states. We are committed to retaining the right to keep our existing zero rates and there is no question of being forced to give them up.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the real change in total public expenditure for(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99 consequential on the higher gross domestic product deflators announced in the Budget. [12477]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 27 October 1997]: In the July Budget, the projections for General Government Expenditure were increased in cash terms by £0.4 billion in 1997–98 and by £4.1 billion in 1998–99 compared with the figures published in the November 1996 Budget. An additional £1.2 billion was provided for Health and £1 billion for Education in 1998–99. Forecasts for the GDP deflator were also increased. In 1995–96 prices, the July projections for General Government Expenditure were lower than those in the November 1996 Budget by £2.6 billion in 1997–98 and £1.5 billion in 1998–99.

  Single European Currency
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer where Nordic gold for single currency coinage will be mined; which companies will be involved; and if his Department will undertake research on the ecological effects of the mining and refining involved. [12517]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 27 October 1997]: There are no plans for single currency coinage for circulation to contain gold.

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of members of closed pension schemes with no sponsoring employers who will be adversely affected by the Budget changes to the value of tax credits. [12838]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 27 October 1997]: We have no detailed information concerning the membership of closed pension schemes with no sponsoring employers.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to compensate members of the closed pension schemes with no sponsoring employers whose weekly income has fallen as a result of the Budget changes to the value of tax credits. [12837]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 27 October 1997]: No.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  BNFL
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the role of her Department in determining dividend guidelines relating to BNFL; when the guidelines were last reviewed; and what factors were taken into account in determining such guidelines. [12938]

  Mr. Battle
  Dividend policy is reviewed from time to time by my Department, in consultation with the Treasury, the most recent being in 1995, when the basis of calculating the dividend was changed from a current cost accounting basis to a historic profit after tax basis. A number of factors are taken into account in determining dividend policy, including the need for the Government, as shareholder, to earn a reasonable rate of return on its investment.

  Gender

  Grade

  Permanent

  FTA

  Casual

  Standby

  Secondment

  Male

  Female

  Grade 6

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2

  4

  20

  Grade 7

  1

  8

  0

  4

  51

  57

  7

  SEO/SSO/SPTO1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  2

  4

  21

  Higher Executive Officer

  2

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  22

  Executive Officer

  1

  4

  1

  0

  0

  2

  4

  Administrative Officer

  13

  5

  143

  0

  0

  56

  105

  Administrative Assistant

  2

  1

  49

  0

  0

  19

  33

  Insolvency Examiner G

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  20

  Investigations Officer

  6

  4

  0

  0

  0

  10

  0

  Administrative Trainee

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  2

  Higher Executive Officer D

  6

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  2

  Higher Scientific Officer D

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  22

  Lawyers

  11

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  8

  Legal Trainees

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  21

  Senior Research Officer

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  21

  Assistant Economist

  6

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  3

  Assistant Statistician

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  3

  20

  Typist

  0

  0

  13

  0

  0

  0

  13

  1 Senior Executive Officer/Senior Scientific Officer/Senior Professional and Technical Officer.

  2 Note that ethnic data has been suppressed for those grades where numbers recruited are five or less, to avoid the possibility of identifying individuals.

  784
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what contact has taken place between officials of her Department and representatives of BNFL since 1 May. [12950]

  Mr. Battle
  The Department maintains regular contact with BNFL on a wide range of issues.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when her Department last approved BNFL's corporate plan; what period it covered; and if it indicated that mixed oxide fuel is to be manufactured by BNFL at Sellafield. [12942]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  BNFL's 1996 Corporate Plan was approved in November 1996. It covered the period from April 1996 to March 2000. The Plan, and the Company's 1996 Annual Report and Accounts, indicated that Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel continues to be manufactured at Sellafield.

  DTI Recruitment
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will publish summary information on DTI recruitment for calendar year 1996, and the use of permitted exceptions to the principles of fair and open competition and selection on merit, as required by the civil service commissioners' recruitment code. [13302]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  It is DTI policy that recruitment is carried out on the basis of fair and open competition and selection on merit, subject to the exceptions permitted by the Civil Service Commissioners. My Department has systems in place which ensure that the principles of fair and open competition are understood and followed, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment Code. These systems are subject to internal check by The DTI's Internal Audit.

  The DTI's Executive Agencies and the Government Office network make separate arrangements for publishing recruitment data, and the following table and narratives describe only Headquarters recruitment.
  785
  The number of occasions on which the permitted exceptions to fair and open competition and selection on merit have been used at each level (except for appointments of up to 12 months) are categorised as follows:
  extensions of appointments of up to 12 months up to a maximum of 24 months:
  two Administrative Assistants where permanent post holders were on temporary promotion into the next grade which was subject to advertising
  one Administrative Officer where the future of the post was subject to review
  recurrent short term appointments:—none
  short term appointments where highly specialised skills are required:—none
  extensions of short term appointments beyond the initially publicised period, including conversions to permanency:
  one Assistant Statistician appointment extended to 18 months where a replacement with statistical experience could not be identified

  secondments:—none

  extensions to secondments:—none

  re-appointment of former civil servants:

  one at Grade 6

  six at Grade 7

  four at Executive Officer

  two at Administrative Officer

  two at Investigations Officer

  transfers of staff with their work (not under TUPE):—none
  transfers of staff from other public services without work (unless from a public body staffed exclusively by civil servants):—none
  appointments of surplus acceptable candidates to shortage posts:—none
  appointments of disabled candidates under modified selection arrangements
  any use of the exceptions reserved for the Commissioners:—none.

  Company Auditors
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she has received the fifth annual reports of the recognised supervisory bodies for company auditors under part II of the Companies Act 1989. [13303]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I have received the fifth annual reports of all the recognised supervisory bodies for company auditors, and have placed copies in the Library. My Department will be discussing the contents of the reports with the bodies as necessary.

  Lloyd's of London
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what evidence concerning the operations of Lloyd's of London in 1982 has been passed by her Department to the Serious Fraud Office since the end of June 1997. [12976]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 27 October 1997]: My officials received a number of papers relating to Lloyd's which were passed to the Serious Fraud Office for their consideration.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what costs have been incurred to date by the United Kingdom Government as amicus curiae in cases involving Lloyd's of London in the United States courts. [12975]
  786
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 27 October 1997]: The costs of individual activities undertaken by the Government in pursuit of its regulatory responsibilities in respect of Lloyd's of London cannot be separately identified, and the resources devoted to producing them would be disproportionate.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judicial Appointments
  Ms Fiona Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what changes his Department proposes to make to the current system of judicial appointments. [13296]

  Mr. Hoon
  It is essential in the public interest that the judiciary at every level is of the highest possible quality. Appointments will continue to be made strictly on merit, after the independent views of the judiciary and the legal profession have been taken into consideration by the Lord Chancellor; and appointment to full time office normally made only after satisfactory service in a part time judging.

  Nevertheless, improvements can be made. I intend to present an annual report to Parliament on the operation of the judicial appointments system. The first report will cover the period 1998–99. I also intend to end the system of appointment to the High Court bench only by invitation and to invite applications for appointments to the High Court bench, so that all with judicial ambitions can be assured that their cases are properly considered.

  I propose to ensure appropriate flexibility in part-time sittings arrangements where, for example, women or men have taken career breaks for family reasons. My officials are developing plans to ensure that those who sit part-time may be able to concentrate their sittings into a shorter period of time than at present. By this means these career breaks will not, so far as practicable, impede career development.

  I intend to increase the upper age limit for appointment as Assistant Recorder from 50 to 53 in future competition rounds. Raising the age limit to 53 will widen the pool of potential applicants. The normal period of service as an Assistant Recorder and Recorder, before appointment to the Circuit bench, is five to seven years and an appointment to the Circuit bench at or around 60 would enable the judge to serve for a minimum of 10 years before retiring at 70.

  In the longer term I intend to review whether an Ombudsman should be appointed with power to examine fully complaints from anyone who feels unfairly treated by the appointments process; and to review the appointment procedures for deputy High Court judge appointments. I have recently appointed two solicitors, direct from the profession, to act as deputy High Court judges. This has not happened before. I also intend to review the scope to improve arrangements for appraisal of performance of the part-time judiciary, not least to improve the assessments of their performance which contribute to my decisions on applications for full-time office.

  Since becoming Lord Chancellor I have decided to involve in the process of shortlisting judicial candidates for interviews both judges and lay members who will

  787
  have, in advance, a summary of the views expressed in consultation about every applicant. An additional 28 lay members have been appointed to assist in the shortlisting and interviewing of candidates for a range of judicial appointments including those of Circuit judge, District judge and Assistant Recorder. I have taken steps to promote work on equal opportunities, in conjunction with the legal profession, which I will announce shortly. I have required that any allegation of misconduct made in the course of consultation about a judicial candidate must be specific and subject to disclosure to the candidate.

  So far as the magistracy is concerned, I have increased for the first time the upper age limit for appointment as a lay magistrate to 65, so as to draw from the pool of the age group 55 to 65 to achieve a better social and political balance on the bench. This age group includes many who may have taken early retirement. I have also opened the magistracy to blind candidates on an experimental basis.

  I believe that these positive measures will strengthen the openness, flexibility and effectiveness of the arrangements for judicial appointments. I do not rule out further measures in due course. I earlier announced (23 June 1997, Official Report, column 145), that I proposed to consult on the merits of establishing a Judicial Appointments Commission. However, in the light of the measures that I have listed above, the resources of my Department, and the other substantial priorities facing my Department, including a very heavy workload connected with legal aid and civil justice reforms, I have decided not to proceed with further work on a possible Commission, but to concentrate on making those changes I regard as most urgent.

  Mental Incapacity Report
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action his Department proposes to take in respect of the Law Commission's report on mental incapacity. [13097]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Law Commission's Report on Mental Incapacity is a thorough and detailed examination of the current law. It provides a coherent framework for reform. The Government recognises, however, that the Report addresses sensitive issues on which strong personal views may be held.

  The Government does not consider that it would be appropriate to legislate in this area without fresh public consultation. It therefore hopes to issue a Consultation Paper by the end of the year seeking views on the full range of the Law Commission's recommendations.

  The Law Commission's Report does not make any recommendations concerning euthanasia. The Government is of the certain view, in line with the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics, that euthanasia cannot be sanctioned in any circumstances. The Consultation Paper will therefore not seek views on this subject.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Nectarines
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons the EU Commission has placed restrictions on the size of nectarines which may be sold. [12337]

  Mr. Rooker
  The EU Marketing Standard for nectarines has been in place since 1990.

  There is substantial over-production of nectarines, brought about largely by the Intervention (withdrawal) system. The Commission has sought to tackle this to some extent by limiting the size of the fruit that can be marketed and thus intervened (withdrawn), thereby limiting the cost to EU taxpayers. Although the EU regime for fresh fruit and vegetables has only recently been reformed, with significant reductions in the amount of produce that may be withdrawn, ultimately we would prefer to see an end to the withdrawal system.

  The establishment of minimum sizes helps to ensure that only nectarines which are sufficiently developed, and able to ripen, are available to the consumer.

  Agriculture Councils
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Councils held on 22 and 23 September in Brussels and on 20 and 21 October in Luxembourg; and if he will make a statement. [13295]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  I represented the United Kingdom at meetings of the European Union Agriculture Council on 22–23 September and 20–21 October. I was accompanied at the October Council by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, Lord Sewel.

  At the September Council, EU Agriculture Ministers followed up their informal discussions of early September on the Commission's proposals to reform the common agricultural policy which have been made as part of Agenda 2000. On this occasion, discussion focused in particular on rural development, environmental and structural policy. Member states reaffirmed the importance of an active rural development policy to assist the transformation of European agriculture; there were, however, differences of view in the Council on the funding of rural and structural measures in the future. I stressed the importance to the United Kingdom of setting the proposals on rural development clearly in the context of changes to the market mechanisms of the CAP, on which the Commission's Agenda 2000 proposals represented an important first step. I also emphasised the need to foster alternative rural enterprises as the source of new employment possibilities in the countryside in the future.

  The Council of Ministers also heard reports from the Commission on progress in negotiations on veterinary and plant health equivalence agreements with third countries; and noted the Commission's intention to lodge an appeal in the WTO dispute concerning hormones in beef. In a brief discussion of BSE, I reported to the Council the steps I have taken in the United Kingdom, both legislative

  789
  and administrative, to tighten up our measures to counter illegal exports of beef and beef products from the UK. These were welcomed in the Council.

  I pressed the Commissioner and the Presidency to provide an early opportunity for the Council to discuss the present state of the beef market, on the basis of the Commission's promised report, to decide whether the short term market adjustment schemes agreed in 1996 were working effectively.

  I also raised in the Council the UK's serious concerns about the impact of the recent WTO Appellate body ruling on the EU bananas regime in so far as its affects access by ACP Caribbean banana producers to EU markets. I urged the Commission to reach a rapid and equitable solution to the problems flowing from the WTO ruling which would not only respect WTO obligations but allow the EU to meet its commitments to the ACP and in particular on Caribbean trading partners under the Lomé Agreement.

  At the October Agriculture Council, discussion concentrated on the market reform proposals contained in Agenda 2000. I argued for the removal of production controls in the form of quotas and compulsory set aside and for a lowering of support levels to bring EU prices closer to world market prices and I argued that transitional arrangements should begin soon. The Council will resume its discussion on this crucial issue in November. A letter from the President of the Agriculture Council to the President of the European Council on employment policy in rural areas was approved by Ministers.

  In a debate on the Commission's report on the beef and veal markets, I expressed doubts about the efficacy of the early marketing scheme for veal in reducing production on the EU market, and urged the Commission to make a further cut in the premium paid under the calf processing scheme. The Council reached political agreement upon changes to the system of support for producers of durum wheat. Under the compromise which was agreed by qualified majority (Greece, Sweden and Denmark opposing), the additional aid paid for durum wheat in

  560–609 kg

  610–659 kg

  660–709 kg

  710–759 kg

  Over 760 kg

  Totals

  Liveweight

  Cows

  27,250

  21,351

  12,010

  5,230

  2,582

  68,423

  Other

  2,700

  1,960

  1,138

  702

  1,448

  7,948

  Deadweight

  Cows

  24,889

  22,886

  18,531

  13,149

  16,643

  96,098

  Other

  2,328

  1,863

  1,402

  1,042

  3,952

  10,587

  Totals

  57,167

  48,060

  33,081

  20,123

  24,625

  183,056

  International Whaling Commission
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the outcome was of the annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission held on 20 to 24 October in Monaco; and if he will make a statement. [13294]

  Mr. Morley
  The International Whaling Commission's 49th annual meeting was held in Monaco from 20 to 24 October. The United Kingdom delegation was composed of officials from the Ministry of Agriculture,790
  traditional producing areas was reduced, and the maximum area eligible for aid in each member state determined. Five thousand hectares will be eligible in the United Kingdom.

  The Council discussed the Commission's green paper on the general principles of food law in the EU, in which I emphasised the UK Government's commitment to attaining very high levels of food safety. The Council also took note of Commission reports on genetic resources, BSE, and the state of play on veterinary and plant health negotiations with their countries.

  Cattle Slaughter Scheme
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average weight of cattle slaughtered under the over-30-months cattle slaughter scheme; and what proportion of the cattle slaughtered under the scheme exceeded that average weight. [10159]

  Mr. Rooker
  [pursuant to his answer, 31 July 1997, c. 433]: The average weight of cattle slaughtered under the OTMS is as follows:

  Average weight (kgs)

  Percentage exceeding average weight

  Cows

  600

  47

  Bulls

  802

  47

  Heifers

  549

  49

  Steers

  632

  49

  All animals

  604

  47

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle weighing(a) between 560 and 609 kg, (b) between 610 and 659 kg, (c) between 660 and 709 kg, (d) between 710 and 759 kg and (e) over 760 kg live weight have been slaughtered under the over-30-months cattle slaughter scheme during 1997. [10160]

  Mr. Rooker
  [pursuant to his answer, 31 July 1997, c.433]: The information requested is as follows:

  Fisheries and Food, assisted by officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and representatives of environmental organisations and veterinary experts. I attended the first day of the conference and took the opportunity to meet with representatives of the environmental organisations and the chairman of the IWC.

  At this meeting we made clear the United Kingdom's continued opposition to commercial whaling. We stressed that the UK does not believe that there is any justification

  791
  for any whaling to take place, other than some subsistence whaling by indigenous peoples, and would like to see all other forms of whaling ended. We believe whaling does not serve any genuine need and involves unacceptable cruelty. We also emphasised our continuing support for the current moratorium on commercial whaling. I am pleased to say that a request by Japan for a quota of 50 minke whales, which we and many others considered would have breached the moratorium, was again defeated.

  Before the meeting, Ireland had indicated that it intended to put forward a number of ideas for consideration. At the meeting Ireland explained that it was concerned that the inability of the IWC to reach agreement on fundamental issues relating to whale conservation made progress on this impossible and might lead to the break-up of the IWC. It wished, therefore, to explore whether there was any scope to reach an agreement between those opposed to and those in favour of whaling.

  With this objective, Ireland suggested:
  the revised management scheme (RMS) should be completed and adopted; the RMS, which is currently being developed by the IWC, is intended to ensure that any future whaling takes place only on a sustainable basis and under the full control of the IWC;
  any quotas granted under the RMS should be restricted to coastal areas of nations that are currently whaling, creating a de facto ocean sanctuary;
  any quotas should be for local consumption only, to prevent the development of international trade in whalemeat;
  so called "scientific whaling" should be phased out over a period;
  regulations for whalewatching should be prepared to minimise disturbance to whale populations.

  There was a preliminary discussion of these ideas. The UK made it clear that, while we were ready to explore all ways of improving whale conservation, we would only support measures which we were convinced would contribute positively to this objective. We wished to see the current moratorium on commercial whaling made permanent, which we believed would be the most effective way of creating a global whale sanctuary, and we strongly supported ending scientific whaling. On the other hand, we had serious reservations about the Irish ideas on coastal whaling, and could not accept any definition of coastal whaling which allowed it to take place up to 200 miles from the coast.

  While there was a good deal of support for Ireland's wish to break the current deadlock, a number of other delegations expressed reservations about particular aspects of the proposals. The Irish Commissioner, who was elected IWC chairman at the end of the meeting, will now consider how best to carry matters forward before the next IWC meeting in Oman in May 1998. The UK delegation remains to be convinced that aspects of the Irish proposal will assist whale conservation.

  At recent IWC meetings the UK has, with New Zealand, been pressing Japan to end the use of the electric lance, a device used to kill whales wounded but not killed by an explosive harpoon. We believe that there is conclusive evidence that use of the electric lance is inhumane. At this year's meeting we again raised this issue, and I am pleased to say that Japan has undertaken to end use of the electric lance, except in exceptional
  792
  circumstances, from the start of the next whaling season. I believe that this is a significant success and demonstrates what can be achieved by persistence linked to sound science.

  As in previous years the UK delegation made clear our opposition to the whaling activities of Norway and Japan. We supported a resolution calling on Norway to reconsider its objection to the moratorium and to halt all commercial whaling operations. We also supported two resolutions strongly criticising Japan's scientific whaling programme and calling on Japan to end scientific whaling.

  The IWC agreed a number of new aboriginal subsistence whaling quotas. These included a quota for grey whales, for which the United States have been seeking a small quota for use by the Makah Indians. Since the IWC sets quotas for particular stocks of whales, the quota ultimately agreed also took account of a bid by Russia for a quota for use by the indigenous people of the Chukotka peninsular in Siberia. In discussion the UK pressed for a reduction in the level of quota sought; we also argued that the Makah, who have not whaled for over 70 years, have not established a valid claim for an aboriginal quota. I am pleased to say that the quota finally agreed is significantly lower than was originally proposed; in agreeing it the UK made it clear that our agreement did not imply that we accepted the validity of the case made on behalf of the Makah.

  New quotas were also agreed for bowhead whales and for whales hunted by aboriginal subsistence whalers in Greenland.

  During these discussions the UK expressed concern about the humaneness of aboriginal subsistence whaling. In the light of these concerns we proposed a resolution which, while welcoming the steps taken so far to reduce the pain and distress caused to whales by these hunts, called for further improvements. The resolution, which was adopted by consensus, also ensures that this issue will be revisited annually by the IWC.

  A number of other issues were discussed during the meeting. The UK promoted a resolution on small cetaceans calling on all member countries to take appropriate steps to reduce by catches and directed takes and to encourage further scientific research. We also supported a resolution endorsing the work of the Scientific Committee on threats posed to cetaceans by climate change and pollution and encouraging further research.

DEFENCE

  Naval Bases and Supply Agency
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Naval Bases and Supply Agency for 1997–98. [13094]

  Dr. Reid
  The chief executive of the Naval Bases and Supply Agency has been set the following key targets:

  1. To complete 92 per cent. of assisted maintenance periods for vessels to time, budget and standard.

  2. To supply 92 per cent. of available material to rectify operational defects on vessels within required delivery dates.

  793

  3. To establish the NBSA cost per materially available vessel day by establishing a baseline for the unit cost of vessel repair and maintenance, and then setting targets for reducing this cost.

  4. To complete integration of the Portsmouth naval base and director supply (south) management structures, and to consolidate the corporate management structure of the agency by reviewing opportunities for rationalisation of the HQ structure.

  5. To establish the agency account via the CAPITAL Project, including the provision of an executive information system to meet business requirements, by March 2000. Progress report in March 1998.

  6. To achieve year-on-year efficiency improvements of 2.3 per cent.

  7. To achieve full accreditation of Investors in People by phased implementation by 2000. Progress report in March 1998.

  Territorial Army and Volunteer Reserves
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost per year to his Department of each member of(a) the Territorial Army and (b)the volunteer reserves. [13092]

  Dr. Reid
  The information requested is set out in the table rounded to the nearest £100. The figures are calculated from the overall cost of the reserve force concerned for the financial year 1996–97 and its average membership for that year. They exclude provision for items whose costs cannot be identified separately from those incurred for the regular services.

  £

  Territorial Army

  6,100

  Royal Naval Reserve

  6,700

  Royal Marines Reserve

  7,300

  Royal Auxiliary Air Force1

  7,400

  1Figures relate to those personnel who could be called out to perform an operational role: they do not include RAF volunteer reserve (civilian component), RAF volunteer reserve (training) or RAF volunteer reserve (university air squadrons).

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what is the current cost of the reserve forces, by type. [11023]

  Dr. Reid
  [pursuant to his reply, 29 July 1997, c. 183]: I regret that my previous answer was incorrect because further information has been brought to light. The revised information for financial year 1996–97 is in the table. These figures exclude provision for those items whose costs cannot be identified separately from those incurred for the regular forces.

  £ million

  Royal Fleet Reserve

  0.04

  Royal Naval Reserve

  17.5

  Royal Marines Reserve

  6.6

  Territorial Army Commando Units

  1.8

  Army Reserve

  0.6

  Territorial Army

  341.3

  Royal Air Force Reserve

  0.4

  Royal Auxiliary Air Force

  9.5

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money is allocated to maintaining the Territorial Army in the current financial year; what is this sum as a percentage of the defence budget; and what the 794
  allocation will be in (a) cash and (b) as a percentage of the defence budget in the next three financial years. [8183]

  Dr. Reid
  [pursuant to his reply, 16 July 1997, c. 234]: I regret that my previous answer was incorrect because further information on the costs of the Territorial Army has been brought to light. When this additional expenditure is taken into account it shows that the overall cost of the Territorial Army for financial year 1997–98 now stands at some £340.4 million (not £334 million) which still represents about 1.6 per cent. of the defence budget. This figure excludes provision for those items whose costs cannot be identified separately from those incurred for the regular Army.

  The allocation of funds for the Territorial Army in the next three financial years will be determined as part of the MOD's long term costing, which is the process by which the Department recosts and adjusts its internal plans. The Department's internal plans represent projections and assumptions, which inform advice to Ministers on the affordability of particular elements of the defence programme, and it has been the policy of successive Governments not to publish detailed information arising from this. Accordingly, I am withholding the information requested in the second part of the question which constitutes internal discussion and advice, under exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Army Equipment Support
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future management of the Army's equipment support. [13093]

  Dr. Reid
  I have instigated a formal review of the Army's Equipment Support in order to determine whether agency status or other options for equipment support, including privatisation, contractorisation or partnering arrangements with Industry would best meet the Army's requirements.

  Comments and contributions from those with an interest in the equipment support services provided by the Director General Equipment Support (Army) on behalf of the Quartermaster General Army will be welcomed and should be sent by 7 November to:

  Major General P. V. R. Besgrove CBE

  Director General Equipment Support (Army)

  HQ QMG

  Monxton Road

  Andover

  Hants SP11 8HT.

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has received the report of the inspection of the Ministry of Defence Police by Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary; and if he will make a statement. [13095]

  Dr. Reid
  My right hon. Friend has received the report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary on the Ministry of Defence Police. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library of the House.

HEALTH

  Nurse Recruitment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses in England and Wales were recruited from(a) the Irish Republic and (b) Northern Ireland in each of the past five years. [12608]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is not collected centrally. I refer my hon. Friend to the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for statistics about nurses registered to practice in England and Wales.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Quota Hopping
  16. Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons the agreement reached on quota hopping was not included in the Amsterdam treaty. [12129]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 18 June,Official Report, columns 331–44, at Amsterdam. Not a single member state was willing to support the protocol to the treaty proposed by the previous Administration.

  EU Enlargement
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what practical measures will be taken to ensue that new countries are helped to join the European Community. [12131]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The European Commission has proposed reinforcing the pre-accession strategy for Central European applicants to the European Union. This should lead to better targeted financial and technical assistance to help the applicants prepare for EU membership. The European Council will adopt a position on these proposals at Luxembourg in December.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the expansion of the European Union. [12145]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer that I gave today to the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall).

  Kashmir
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards Kashmir. [12132]

  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards Kashmir. [12135]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are deeply concerned by the continuing conflict in Kashmir and support the search for a just and lasting solution. We condemn the acts of 796
  terrorism and the abuses of human rights which bring suffering to the population. We call for an end to all external support for violence in Kashmir. We welcome the dialogue between India and Pakistan and urge them to pursue meaningful talks on Kashmir and the other issues that divide them.

  EU Common Foreign and Security Policy
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he expects will be Britain's(a) gross and (b) net contribution to the European Union's budget for common foreign and security policy matters for the year 1998–99. [12133]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The EC Preliminary Draft Budget (PDB) for calendar year 1998 makes provision for commitments of up to 30 Mecu (i.e. about £22.1 million) for CFSP actions. Britain's gross contribution is approximately 15 per cent. of the total budget, i.e. up to £3.32 million depending on the prevailing exchange rate. Britain does not benefit directly from CFSP expenditure.

  European Court of Justice
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the areas in which the European Court of Justice has gained jurisdiction under the terms of the Amsterdam treaty. [12134]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We believe that if the European Union is to work properly, the Court of Justice must have strong, if carefully circumscribed, powers. The new Treaty involves a limited extension of ECJ jurisdiction in a way which respects this balance.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the peace process in Bosnia. [12136]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer that I gave today to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire, (Mr. Barnes).

  Middle East Peace Process
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his assessment of progress in the middle east peace process. [12139]

  Mr. Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the middle east peace process. [12141]

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received regarding the middle east peace process. [12148]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer hon. Members to the oral answer that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden).

  Cyprus
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives he has put forward to try to solve the impasse over the re-unification of Cyprus. [12142]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We intend to remain active and creative in support of the UN Secretary-General's mission of good offices on Cyprus.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on human rights in Indonesia. [12143]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We remain concerned about the human rights situation in both Indonesia and East Timor. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the situation during his visit to Indonesia in August.

  EU Budget
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to reduce incidents of fraud in relation to the EU budget. [12144]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We are committed to reducing fraud against the EU budget. Tackling fraud and financial mismanagement will be a priority for our Presidency next year and we will be announcing a package of measures which we intend to take forward.

  Taiwan
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Taiwan. [12146]

  Mr. Fatchett
  While we have no diplomatic relations with Taiwan, we value our commercial and cultural ties. We welcome expanding trade links, the growing number of Taiwanese students and tourists who visit, and increasing Taiwanese inward investment in the United Kingdom.

  UN Reform
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the UN reform package. [12147]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear at the UN General Assembly last month our strong support for the Secretary-General's reform package. It will give the UN the flexibility, competence and efficiency it needs for the next century. We are now working for its early endorsement.

  EU Institutions (Communication)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to improve communications between national parliamentarians and EU institutions. [12149]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We support closer contacts between national parliamentarians, in line with its commitment to enhance the role of national parliaments in the EU. The development of such contacts is principally 798
  a matter for national parliaments to pursue. I understand that the House authorities are considering the question of representation at the European Parliament and/or in Brussels for the House of Commons.

  Cuba
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Cuban Government on relations with the European Union and the United Nations. [12150]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the Cuban Ambassador at the Diplomatic Reception in June and the Ambassador called on my noble Friend Baroness Symons, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, on 26 June. Officials frequently discuss with the Cuban Government their relations with the European Union and the United Nations.

  We and EU partners share the goal of a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba. We favour constructive engagement, not isolation. The EU adopted a Common Position on Cuba on 2 December 1996, reaffirming the EU's commitment to constructive engagement and to promoting political, economic and human rights reform in Cuba. This was presented to the Cuban Government on 21 July and we look forward to furthering this dialogue.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made on international controls on weapons proliferation to the strategic defence review. [12114]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have worked closely with the Ministry of Defence on all aspects of the Strategic Defence Review. We remain committed to maintaining and, where necessary, strengthening international controls on weapons proliferation. We are working in the relevant international fora to this end.

  Kenya
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support the United Kingdom Government are offering to the Kenyan election process. [12335]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Provided we are satisfied that there is the prospect of free and fair elections in Kenya, we will seek to contribute to international and local monitoring of them. Our exact plans have yet to be finalised.

  We welcome reforms which will be relevant to electoral conditions agreed by the Inter-Parties Parliamentary Group in Nairobi and President Moi's acceptance of them. We look to all concerned to observe both the letter and the spirit of the reforms in the conduct of the elections themselves.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the Kenyan Government. [12336]
  799
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have made clear to the Government of Kenya our views on the conditions that need to be established to ensure that the forthcoming Presidential and legislative elections are free and fair. We have welcomed reforms agreed by the Inter-Parties Parliamentary Group in Nairobi and President Moi's acceptance of them. We have urged that the necessary legislative and other measures be taken quickly to allow sufficient time for full implementation before the elections. We look to all concerned to observe both the letter and the spirit of the reforms in the conduct of the elections themselves. We have also made clear our concerns about human rights in Kenya, and about the economic issues which led the IMF to allow Kenya's Enhanced Statement Adjustment Facility to lapse.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  School Enrolments
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the enrolment at(a) Brooklands primary school, Dundonald, and (b) Dundonald primary school at the beginning of the academic year 1997–98; how many pupils applied for places for that year; and how many applications were refused. [12772]

  Mr. Worthington
  The enrolment numbers at the beginning of the academic year 1997–98 for Brooklands primary school and Dundonald primary school were:Brooklands Primary School: 602
  Dundonald Primary School: 588

  There were 104 applications for Brooklands primary school of which one was refused. There were 84 applications for Dundonald primary school and no refusals.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the enrolment at(a) Movilla high school, Newtonards, (b) Regent House grammar school and (c) Glastry high school at the beginning of the academic year 1997–98; how many pupils applied for places for that year and how many applications were refused; and if she will make a statement about the future provision of places at (a) to(c). [12773]

  Mr. Worthington
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  1997–98 school year

  Number of applications received

  Number of applications refused

  Actual enrolment

  Movilla High School

  199

  21

  888

  Regent House School

  270

  59

  1,422

  Glastry College

  102

  none

  583

  Movilla high school has been refurbished and extended to cater for an enrolment of 900 pupils. A capital scheme is planned to increase the size of Regent House grammar school to cater for 1,470 pupils. Glastry high school has the capacity to cater for 697 pupils.

  Lanark Way, Belfast
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to provide a school at Lanark way, Belfast. [12893]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 27 October 1997]: The need for a new replacement primary school for pupils in the St. Paul's parish of West Belfast has been under consideration for some time. A number of possible options for the location of the school are being examined. These include a site adjacent to Lanark way-Springfield road, Belfast. However, no decisions have been taken. The outcome will be informed by consultations with relevant interests and the conclusions of an economic appraisal to determine the most cost-effective method of meeting the educational needs of the pupils in the area.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has for development at Lanark way, Belfast. [12894]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 27 October 1997]: The Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland) recently agreed the sale of three sites at Lanark way for commercial/industrial use. The Department plans in the near future to place on the open market a further area of 1.6 hectares for development purposes.

  Central Services Agency
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which directorates have achieved benchmarking in the Central Services Agency. [12890]

  Mr. Worthington
  The information requested is as follows:

  Regional Supplies

  Medical and Ophthalmic Directorate

  Finance and Administration Directorate

  Human Resources Directorate

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff, broken down by their perceived religion, were employed in the Central Services Agency, Adelaide street, Belfast, in each of the last two years. [12888]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 27 October 1997]: Based on the agency's fair employment monitoring returns for 1995 and 1996, the information is as follows:

  1995

  1996

  Male Protestant

  102

  88

  Male Roman Catholic

  83

  72

  Male not known

  11

  7

  Female Protestant

  183

  167

  Female Roman Catholic

  147

  141

  Female not known

  10

  7

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many directors there are in the Central Services Agency, Adelaide street; and what is their perceived religion. [12891]
  801
  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 27 October 1997]: Of the agency's eight directors, four are perceived Protestant, three are perceived Roman Catholic and for the eighth the information is not known—the person is on secondment from the Department of Health and Social Services.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the schools sending pupils for work experience to the Central Services Agency, Adelaide street, Belfast. [12889]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 27 October 1997]: The information is as follows:

  St. Genevieve's comprehensive school

  St. Louise's comprehensive school

  Belfast institute of further and higher education

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many senior officers in the Central Services Agency are perceived to be Protestant though claim to be non-Christian. [12892]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 27 October 1997]: The agency does not know how many senior offices are perceived to be Protestant though claim to be non-Christian—this information is not collated.

  Grammar Schools, Belfast
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many primary school pupils transferred to Belfast grammar schools in 1997 from the Bangor and Ards area. [12752]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 27 October 1997]: One hundred and eighty children transferred from primary schools in the North Down and Ards borough council areas to grammar schools in Belfast this year.

  Prison Service
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to chapter 8 of the Prison Service annual report, what were the actual reductions in the cost of running the service in 1995–96. [12966]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 27 October 1997]: In 1995–96 there was a reduction in the total cost of the Northern Ireland Prison Service of £700,000 over the previous year. The equivalent figure for 1996–97 was £100,000 higher.

  The reduction referred to in chapter 8 of the annual report for 1996–97 was primarily due to a recategorisation of part of the expenditure within the total cost, as well as a smaller sum reflecting lower staff-related costs consequent on the closure of Belfast prison.

  Decommissioning Commission
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what public funding has been provided for the arms commission established in Northern Ireland; what are the salaries of those appointed to the commission; and what is the current annual budget for the arms commission. [12785]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 27 October 1997]: No annual budget has yet been determined for the independent international commission on decommissioning which was
  802
  established on 24 September. However, in the UK capital and running costs, including salaries, are estimated to be some £1,200,000 until the end of May 1998. Most of the running costs will be shared equally with the Government of the Republic of Ireland who have provided the commission with an office in Dublin.

  Training and Employment Agency
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the students selected for the Training and Employment Agency sponsored programme in the United States of America are from Northern Ireland, broken down by religious denomination. [12771]

  Mr. Worthington
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 22 October 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me, as Chief Executive of the Training & Employment Agency (T&EA), to reply to your question about the number of students from Northern Ireland, by religious denomination, who are on T&EA sponsored programmes in the United States of America (USA).
  The T&EA operates 4 USA programmes through its Business Support Division and 1 through its Training Division. The breakdown of these programmes, which are aimed at enhancing the skills and competences of young people, is as follows:

  Number

  Business support division programmes

  Catholics

  80

  Protestants

  51

  Not stated

  20

  Total

  151

  Training division programmes

  Catholics

  10

  Protestants

  14

  Total

  24

  I hope you find this information helpful.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Trees
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the impact of non-indigenous trees on native species forming climax woodland; and what account of detrimental impact on native species is taken when considering tree preservation orders. [12496]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department has not commissioned any research directly, but the impact of non-native species on semi-natural vegetation is an active area of research by universities and others, including the statutory conservation agencies. Examples include work recently commissioned by English Nature on the recovery of
  803
  ground flora of ancient broadleaved woodland following conifer removal, and work at the Oxford Forestry Institute on the interaction of sycamore and ash.

  Tree preservation orders are made by local planning authorities to protect selected trees and woodlands in the interests of amenity. In deciding whether or not to make orders in respect of non-native trees, authorities are not required to consider the likely impact on native species.

  Director of Transport Security Report
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has published the 1996–97 annual report of the Director of Transport Security. [13298]

  Mr. Prescott
  Copies are available in the House Libraries.

  Sustainable Development Unit
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has, on what time scale, to set up a sustainable development unit within his Department. [12710]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government's sustainable development unit was set up on 7 July 1997 in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It reports to the Deputy Prime Minister and has a Government-wide remit to promote sustainable development.

  Its main tasks in the new parliamentary Session are to lead a review of the UK sustainable development strategy, with extensive public consultation, and to take forward the "greening Government" initiative in conjunction with a strengthened system of Green Ministers.

  England and Wales: real levels of average unmeasured water and sewerage charges to households (at 1997–98 prices)

  (£)

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Anglian

  145.92

  146.40

  160.94

  166.30

  163.52

  163.46

  166.85

  179.33

  187.22

  192.24

  Dŵr Cymru

  142.97

  147.15

  154.22

  147.87

  160.91

  160.76

  164.73

  175.82

  182.92

  190.04

  Northumbrian

  113.77

  105.23

  111.49

  111.30

  114.84

  121.67

  137.14

  139.48

  135.32

  137.37

  North West

  112.21

  113.63

  119.53

  121.18

  118.42

  117.59

  121.19

  131.25

  136.68

  141.23

  Severn Trent

  116.52

  121.45

  125.13

  125.76

  123.52

  120.32

  120.54

  128.87

  134.05

  138.77

  Southern

  136.78

  131.32

  144.56

  148.40

  147.18

  147.69

  148.88

  158.12

  163.84

  169.10

  South West

  161.02

  163.61

  170.41

  166.61

  160.71

  163.76

  165.99

  176.97

  177.93

  179.92

  Thames

  112.34

  117.08

  114.58

  120.74

  124.57

  130.32

  136.29

  140.78

  138.33

  139.87

  Wessex

  153.21

  171.55

  167.14

  161.40

  155.27

  151.84

  151.98

  161.34

  171.82

  177.39

  Yorkshire

  115.39

  118.01

  125.25

  126.72

  129.18

  128.05

  128.99

  139.26

  145.94

  151.46

  England and Wales

  123.17

  125.86

  132.76

  132.92

  132.72

  134.05

  136.46

  145.26

  148.96

  153.15

  (£)

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Anglian

  201.59

  218.36

  229.30

  241.78

  256.27

  270.02

  286.02

  298.28

  302.89

  307.47

  Dŵr Cymru

  200.29

  205.95

  218.08

  231.05

  246.68

  261.33

  278.26

  279.63

  281.24

  283.09

  Northumbrian

  140.85

  150.19

  159.46

  174.51

  181.07

  191.50

  204.63

  208.92

  212.69

  216.79

  North West

  148.01

  154.64

  161.58

  168.84

  175.86

  186.67

  197.75

  205.88

  214.39

  221.52

  Severn Trent

  145.36

  148.72

  157.55

  164.28

  172.76

  179.95

  195.34

  199.16

  204.47

  207.10

  Southern

  172.39

  174.35

  179.76

  192.08

  197.47

  202.19

  215.34

  227.65

  236.09

  245.23

  804
  Additional information on Greening Government and Green Ministers can be found in the reply by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) on 31 July 1997,Official Report, column 542.

  Water and Sewerage
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the real level of average household bills for water and sewerage in Great Britain as a whole and for each region of Great Britain in each year since 1978. [12831]

  Angela Eagle
  No figures are available for the average unmeasured household bill for water and sewerage in Great Britain as a whole. No fully valid comparison is possible between water services bills in England and Wales and in Scotland, where the administrative and funding arrangements for water services have been and are quite different.

  I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that in Scotland the real levels of average water and sewerage charges for the years 1989–90 to 1996–97 are as given in the following list. Information is not yet available for the current year, or for the period prior to 1989–90.

  Scotland: real levels of average water and sewerage charges to households (at 1997–98 prices)

  1989–90: £90.21

  1990–91: £89.68

  1991–92: £100.40

  1992–93: £106.14

  1993–94: £106.21

  1994–95: £109.57

  1995–96: £112.91

  1996–97: £120.75

  In England and Wales the real levels of average unmeasured household water and sewerage charges for the years 1978–79 to 1997–98 are as given in the following table.
  805

  (£)

  1998–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  South West

  191.08

  204.09

  213.17

  227.22

  258.66

  294.11

  331.35

  339.98

  343.96

  351.92

  Thames

  141.52

  141.76

  146.73

  153.12

  159.20

  167.79

  176.85

  184.42

  188.45

  191.37

  Wessex

  186.78

  193.49

  199.68

  208.95

  216.62

  230.01

  244.20

  248.96

  251.02

  256.12

  Yorkshire

  156.73

  171.72

  176.37

  183.24

  187.78

  196.61

  209.23

  218.04

  223.84

  222.88

  England and Wales

  159.51

  166.76

  174.38

  183.83

  192.92

  203.22

  215.97

  222.16

  226.87

  230.37

  1. The table shows the average household bills, for those charged on an unmeasured basis only, of customers of the water and sewerage companies in England and Wales, and, before privatisation, of customers of the regional water authorities.

  2. Charges before and after privatisation in 1989 are not strictly comparable. In particular regional water authorities charged for some services that were not transferred to the privatised water companies.

  European Union
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list his Department's priorities for the United Kingdom presidency of the European Union. [12970]

  Angela Eagle
  The forthcoming presidency of the European Union will provide an excellent opportunity for the UK to lead discussions on a wide range of important environmental and transport issues. Discussion of the many possibilities are currently taking place and I will write to my hon. Friend when final decisions on the departmental priorities have been decided.

  Railway Lines (Children)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps have been taken to ensure the continuation of the scheme operated by the British Railways Board for train drivers to visit schools to alert children to the dangers of trespassing on railway lines. [12884]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 15 July 1997,Official Report, column 131.

  British Railways Board
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the value of the land owned by the British Railways Board. [12886]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The book value of the freehold properties held by the board at mid-October was £125 million.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what is the current acreage of land owned by the British Railways Board; [12885]

  (2) how much of its land the British Railways Board disposed of in each of the last three years by (a) acreage and (b) value. [12887]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 15 July 1997,Official Report, columns 130–31.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reviews his Department has undertaken of the transportation of radioactive waste by land, sea and air for reprocessing purposes to Sellafield. [12951]
  806
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The safety regulations for the transport of radioactive material, including radioactive waste, are reviewed nationally and internationally on an ongoing basis to ensure that the good safety record of this transport is maintained.

  The then Advisory Committee on the Safe Transport of Radioactive Materials—ACTRAM—carried out an independent study of the safety of transport of low level waste, published in 1988 as "The Transport of Low Level Radioactive Waste in the UK, ISBN 0 11 752087", a copy of which is held in the Library.

  In addition, the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee—RWMAC—has published a report, "The Import and Export of Radioactive Waste, ISBN 1 85112 0467 (September 1997)", a copy of which is in the Library. RWMAC recommends that special tests be applied to each application for the import or export of radioactive waste, to ensure it accords with Government policy.

  The Department also commissions periodic studies of the radiological impact of the transport of radioactive material on a modal basis. The latest studies carried out by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) on the Department's behalf are: "Radiological Impact of the Normal Transport of Radioactive Materials by Sea", by R. Gelder, NRPB Memorandum NRPB-M749 (December 1996); "Radiation Exposure from the Normal Transport of Radioactive Materials within the UK 1991 Review", by R. Gelder, NRPB Report NRPB-R255, ISBN 0 85951 351 3 (May 1992); and "Radiological Impact of the Normal Transport of Radioactive Materials by Air", by R. Gelder, NRPB Memorandum NRPB-M219 (March 1990).

  Train Operating Companies
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the applications by some train operating companies to extend the duration of their franchise agreements. [12874]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has recently received such an application from Great North Eastern Railway Limited. Applications will be considered on their merits. However, there would need to be very convincing arguments of public interest and value for money to justify renegotiation of contracts which were freely entered into following a competitive process.

  New Local Authorities
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate
  807
  his Department has made of the additional annual revenue costs or savings achieved by new local authorities created since 1994 relative to the revenue costs of their predecessor authorities in their last year of operation. [12940]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Department has made no estimates of this nature.

  Radioactive Materials
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his Department's policy towards the proposed shipment of radioactive materials from Australia to Dounreay. [12952]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department will ensure that any such shipments of irradiated nuclear fuel for reprocessing comply with the appropriate national and international safety regulations, current at the time of shipment, to ensure control of the hazards to persons, property and the environment. In keeping with Government policy, the contract to reprocess this fuel, if signed, will contain a clause to ensure the return of the separated wastes to Australia.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what arrangements he has made for the Exchequer to share in revenue generated by the Railtrack/Virgin scheme for the modernisation of the west coast main line railway. [12877]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The franchise agreement with Virgin Trains requires Virgin to introduce significantly accelerated and enhanced services following the upgrade of the west coast main line. The franchise was let through the competitive tender process and the winning bid from Virgin commits them to turn a subsidy of £76.8 million in 1997–98 to a premium payment of £220.3 million in 2011–12. There are no arrangements for the Exchequer to share in revenues.

  M25
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Highways Agency will place in the Library the names and addresses

  £000s

  Local authority

  1994–95 outturn

  1995–96 outturn

  1996–97 outturn

  1997–98 initial

  Bid

  Allocation

  Bid

  Allocation

  Bid

  Allocation

  Bid

  Allocation

  Isle of Wight

  2,187

  2,187

  1,536

  1,536

  no bid

  0

  no bid

  Total

  2,187

  2,187

  1,536

  1,536

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cleveland

  5,726

  3,169

  Hartlepool

  548

  548

  3,727

  3,200

  2,530

  2,350

  1,860

  1,200

  Redcar and Cleveland

  87

  87

  3,353

  2,891

  3,405

  3,405

  4,057

  900

  Middlesbrough

  194

  194

  2,370

  2,160

  4,471

  2,950

  2,183

  1,300

  Stockton

  498

  498

  2,947

  2,947

  3,951

  3,450

  3,515

  800

  Combined Fire Authority

  55

  100

  County total

  1,327

  1,327

  18,123

  14,422

  14,357

  12,255

  11,615

  4,200

  Avon

  3,098

  2,910

  Bristol

  3,128

  2,719

  4,369

  3,600

  3,510

  900

  North Somerset

  3,197

  3,197

  3,119

  3,100

  3,527

  800

  Banes1

  2,783

  2,783

  3,404

  3,404

  3,039

  900

  808
  of the 4,000 people who objected to the M25 widening scheme between junctions 12 and 15 in the official consultation period that ended in July 1996. [12876]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 27 October 1997]: In accordance with registration under the Data Protection Act 1984, the names of the objectors were published with the decision letter issued on 18 March 1997, a copy of which was deposited in the Library. To place their addresses in the Library would contravene the provisions of the Act.

  Motorway Drivers (Tests)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure all newly qualified drivers pass a specific motorway test before being allowed to undertake unsupervised motorway driving; and if he will make a statement. [12899]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 27 October 1997]: My noble Friend the Minister for Roads announced on 15 October that the Government would be setting new road safety targets for the year 2010. Targets will be set within an outline strategy for achieving them. The questions of new drivers and motorway training will be considered in setting that strategy.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what have been the transitional costs of transferring services from preceding authorities to successor authorities in respect of each local authority reorganisation, including fire service reorganisation, in England in(a) 1995, (b) 1996 and (c) 1997; and what are the estimated transitional costs for each such reorganisation in 1998. [12939]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Resources in the form of supplementary credit approvals are made available to reorganising authorities under the local government reorganisation costs scheme. The supplementary credit approvals issued to each authority under the schemes for 1994–95, 1995–96, 1996–97 and the maximum amounts issued under the 1997–98 scheme are set out in the table. Figures for 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 include supplementary credit approvals issued by the Home Office to combined fire authorities.
  809

  £000s

  Local authority

  1994–95 outturn

  1995–96 outturn

  1996–97 outturn

  1997–98 initial

  Bid

  Allocation

  Bid

  Allocation

  Bid

  Allocation

  Bid

  Allocation

  South Gloucestershire1

  2,712

  2,712

  3,498

  3,498

  3,994

  1,000

  Combined Fire Authority

  55

  100

  County total

  14,918

  14,376

  14,390

  13,702

  14,070

  3,600

  Humberside

  4,592

  2,900

  Kingston Upon Hull

  3,865

  3,080

  3,625

  3,450

  4,264

  700

  East Riding of Yorkshire1

  4,708

  3,454

  8,342

  8,000

  5,035

  2,500

  North Lincolnshire1

  3,206

  2,992

  2,919

  2,919

  5,094

  700

  North East Lincolnshire1

  3,315

  2,950

  4,112

  4,112

  5,655

  700

  Combined Fire Authority

  55

  100

  County total

  19,686

  15,431

  18,998

  18,581

  20,048

  4,600

  North Yorkshire

  2,055

  1,400

  402

  402

  Ryedale

  0

  no bid

  0

  Selby

  685

  685

  69

  69

  York1

  3,912

  3,546

  3,145

  3,145

  2,360

  800

  Combined Fire Authority

  35

  50

  County total

  6,652

  5,666

  3,616

  3,666

  2,360

  800

  Total for 1995–96 Authorities

  3,514

  3,514

  60,915

  51,431

  51,361

  48,204

  48,093

  13,200

  Bedfordshire

  86

  0

  2,157

  1,900

  2,310

  700

  Luton

  128

  0

  5,014

  3,680

  7,563

  3,300

  Combined Fire Authority

  45

  50

  County total

  214

  0

  7,171

  5,625

  9,873

  4,050

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  no bid

  0

  Milton Keynes

  451

  0

  2,932

  2,932

  2,434

  2,200

  Combined Fire Authority

  0

  50

  County total

  451

  0

  2,932

  2,932

  2,434

  2,250

  Derbyshire

  0

  1,909

  1,900

  1,685

  900

  Derby City

  117

  0

  3,651

  2,850

  3,590

  2,600

  Combined Fire Authority

  45

  50

  County total

  117

  0

  5,560

  4,795

  5,275

  3,550

  Dorset

  0

  no bid

  0

  1,210

  400

  Bournemouth

  0

  3,005

  3,005

  7,129

  2,700

  Poole

  411

  0

  3,582

  3,250

  3,240

  2,600

  Combined Fire Authority

  45

  50

  County total

  411

  0

  6,587

  6,300

  11,579

  5,750

  Durham

  0

  no bid

  0

  650

  400

  Darlington

  237

  0

  4,430

  4,430

  1,662

  1,660

  Combined Fire Authority

  45

  50

  County total

  237

  0

  4,430

  4,475

  2,312

  2,110

  East Sussex

  0

  2,531

  1,850

  2,641

  1,700

  Brighton and Hove1

  158

  0

  9,172

  4,800

  5,034

  4,000

  Combined Fire Authority

  45

  50

  County total

  158

  0

  11,703

  6,695

  7,675

  5,750

  Hampshire

  0

  3,056

  2,200

  2,710

  1,400

  Portsmouth

  126

  0

  3,502

  2,950

  3,586

  2,600

  Southampton

  516

  0

  3,982

  3,050

  3,551

  2,700

  Combined Fire Authority

  45

  50

  County total

  642

  0

  10,540

  8,245

  9,847

  6,750

  Leicestershire

  0

  1,562

  1,562

  936

  800

  Leicester City

  75

  0

  3,875

  3,200

  3,114

  3,100

  810 811

  align="right">£000s

  Local authority

  1994–95 outturn

  1995–96 outturn

  1996–97 outturn

  1997–98 initial

  Bid

  Allocation

  Bid

  Allocation

  Bid

  Allocation

  Bid

  Allocation

  Rutland

  0

  998

  998

  1,265

  1,260

  Combined Fire Authority

  45

  50

  County total

  75

  0

  6,435

  5,805

  5,315

  5,210

  Staffordshire

  0

  5,238

  2,000

  605

  500

  Stoke on Trent

  147

  0

  4,109

  2,950

  2,923

  2,400

  Combined Fire Authority

  45

  50

  County total

  147

  0

  9,347

  4,995

  3,528

  2,950

  Wiltshire

  28

  0

  1,620

  1,350

  230

  80

  Swindon

  362

  0

  6,323

  3,000

  1,083

  800

  Combined Fire Authority

  45

  50

  County total

  390

  0

  7,943

  4,395

  1,313

  930

  Total for 1997 authroities

  2,842

  0

  72,648

  54,262

  59,151

  39,300

  Berkshire

  486

  0

  9,150

  1,100

  Bracknell Forest

  226

  0

  3,694

  2,100

  Newbury

  201

  0

  4,680

  2,400

  Reading

  150

  0

  4,081

  2,700

  Slough

  911

  0

  2,930

  1,900

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  349

  0

  4,550

  2,200

  Wokingham

  No bid

  0

  5,847

  2,900

  County total

  2,323

  0

  34,932

  15,300

  Hereford and Worcester

  no bid

  0

  2,090

  300

  Hereford City

  no bid

  0

  350

  100

  Leominister

  no bid

  0

  489

  150

  Malvern Hills

  no bid

  0

  1,100

  200

  South Herefordshire

  no bid

  0

  165

  50

  Herefordshire (shadow)

  0

  1,000

  Worcestershire (shadow)

  0

  1,000

  Malvern Hills (shadow)

  0

  1,000

  County total

  0

  0

  4,194

  3,800

  Devon

  no bid

  0

  5,090

  1,000

  Plymouth

  175

  0

  8,038

  2,600

  Torbay

  no bid

  0

  7,200

  3,000

  County total

  175

  0

  20,328

  6,600

  Essex

  no bid

  0

  5,504

  500

  Southend on Sea

  no bid

  0

  4,359

  2,100

  Thurrock

  423

  0

  5,215

  2,400

  County total

  423

  0

  15,078

  5,000

  Nottinghamshire

  no bid

  0

  4,860

  400

  Nottingham

  468

  0

  5,727

  2,700

  County total

  468

  0

  10,587

  3,100

  Cheshire

  no bid

  0

  1,188

  500

  Halton

  no bid

  0

  3,395

  2,200

  Warrington

  no bid

  0

  5,680

  3,000

  County total

  0

  0

  10,263

  5,700

  Shropshire

  no bid

  0

  2,556

  300

  The Wrekin

  no bid

  0

  7,690

  2,400

  County total

  0

  0

  10,246

  2,700

  Kent

  no bid

  0

  1,975

  1,000

  Gillingham

  no bid

  0

  1,060

  200

  Rochester

  no bid

  0

  1,184

  400

  Medway Towns (shadow)

  0

  1,000

  County total

  0

  0

  4,219

  2,600

  812 813

  align="right">£000s

  Local authority

  1994–95 outturn

  1995–96 outturn

  1996–97 outturn

  1997–98 initial

  Bid

  Allocation

  Bid

  Allocation

  Bid

  Allocation

  Bid

  Allocation

  Cambridgeshire

  no bid

  0

  3,220

  400

  Peterborough

  no bid

  0

  4,612

  2,900

  County total

  0

  0

  7,832

  3,300

  Lancashire

  no bid

  0

  4,104

  800

  Blackburn with Darwen

  348

  0

  5,240

  2,700

  Blackpool

  no bid

  0

  5,371

  2,700

  County total

  348

  0

  14,715

  6,200

  Total for 1998 authorities

  3,737

  0

  132,394

  54,300

  Grand total

  3,514

  3,514

  63,757

  51,431

  127,746

  102,466

  239,638

  106,800

  814

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

Lord Selkirk of Douglas
The Right Honourable James Alexander Douglas-Hamilton, QC, (commonly called Lord James Alexander Douglas-Hamilton), having been created Baron Selkirk of Douglas, of Cramond in the City of Edinburgh, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Crathorne and the Lord Renton.
Lord Lang of Monkton
The Right Honourable Ian Bruce Lang, having been created Baron Lang of Monkton, of Merrick and the Rhinns of Kells in Dumfries and Galloway, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Strathclyde and the Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane
James Stuart Gordon, Esquire, CBE, having been created Baron Gordon of Strathblane, of Deil's Craig in Stirling, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Healey and the Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill.

Gibraltar: Constitutional Status
2.48 p.m.
Lord Merrivale Lord Merrivale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What support they will seek, jointly with the Government of Gibraltar, from appropriate European Union governments towards the settlement of the future constitutional status of Gibraltar.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, any change in Gibraltar's constitution would of course be a matter for Her Majesty's Government and for the Government of Gibraltar. However, we seek to ensure that our European partners are aware of our policy and position on Gibraltar.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Does he agree that the support of certain European Union governments for joint UK/Gibraltar decolonisation proposals would carry weight in talks with the Spanish Government?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have always pursued this matter together with the Gibraltar Government. Clearly the Spanish dimension of these problems is an important one and arises from time to time in European
972
discussions. However, we do not think it is a sensible move to establish a counterbalance to Spain within the European set-up. We want to do a deal with the Government of Gibraltar and then cover the Spanish dimension on a bilateral basis.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, the Minister referred to doing a deal. Will the noble Lord confirm that the protocol preamble to the Act which set up the constitution of Gibraltar will not be touched in any respect without the consent of the people of Gibraltar?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that is absolutely the position. I said "do a deal" with the Gibraltar Government about any change in the constitution. We would not allow the people of Gibraltar to pass into any different constitutional state without their consent. That protocol in the 1969 constitution will be utterly upheld.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, what difficulties does the Minister anticipate from the Treaty of Amsterdam and the commitment to freedom of movement given that Britain has asked for the right to opt in to various aspects of the Schengen agreement and it will be a matter of unanimous votes as to whether Britain is allowed to opt in or out? The Spanish Government and the Gibraltar issue will no doubt have some relevance as regards that.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are two aspects. Contrary to some opinions expressed in Gibraltar and elsewhere, the Treaty of Amsterdam does not affect the right of Gibraltarians to free movement within the European Union, including across the border with Spain. Those rights are enshrined in the treaty and have in no way been changed by Amsterdam.
In relation to opting-in in the future to aspects of Schengen, while those matters are subject to unanimity from our partners any decision to exclude Britain or Ireland from opting-in to the Schengen provisions would be based on a Commission opinion and would be unlikely to be vetoed by any individual member state. Its direct effect on Gibraltar is therefore extremely remote. The treaty does not in any sense alter the rights of the people of Gibraltar.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, is it still the firm position of the Government to use the British veto at the December ministerial meetings to block Spain's integration into NATO's military command structure unless the current Spanish restrictions on the movement of military aircraft in and out of Gibraltar are dropped?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the discussions are continuing within NATO as they were at the Madrid Summit, and will continue bilaterally with Spain and within NATO. To use the term "veto" in NATO circumstances is not normal. We would hope that an agreement could be reached on that; certainly that would

973
be our intention. But our position has been made absolutely clear in relation to any Spanish encroachment on the sovereignty of the territory of Gibraltar.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, will the Minister give us some idea as to when a constitutional conference may take place on Gibraltar?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I understand it, the Gibraltar Government are making proposals. We have not yet received those proposals; they are not yet finalised. We do not envisage a conference in the sense to which the noble Lord refers. However, we shall consider seriously the initiative taken by the Government of Gibraltar. There are certain limits on the options in both the Treaty of Utrecht and the existing constitution.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Government view favourably a formula which would give Gibraltar a similar status to that of the Channel Islands?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government do not consider it helpful to talk of alternative models. Every territory is different. I repeat that we shall consider the proposals of the Government of Gibraltar when they are ready.

Suicides: Data
2.54 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, having regard to the information published in Australia concerning the number of people over 75 who committed suicide in the period 1990–94 and the means they used to kill themselves, similar statistics can be obtained for this country and, if so, whether they will collect and publish them.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, statistics on suicide are routinely collected as part of the death registration system. Data on the means used by people aged 75 and over to kill themselves are published for England and Wales by the Office for National Statistics (formerly the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys) in Series DH2. Statistics on individual causes of death by age are published for Scotland in the Annual Report of the Registrar General for Scotland, and for Northern Ireland in the Annual Report of the Registrar General for Northern Ireland.
I can give my noble friend the headlines of the information he requires, if he would like them. However, as I said, the detailed information is publicly available.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. However, do not the figures so far as we have them confirm that in this
974
country and elsewhere we are now enabling people to live beyond the age they wish to live? I am not yet in that condition myself, despite my vast age. But I and many people think it absurd that while doctors are known generally to assist people to depart, every now and then the law catches up with one and charges him with murder. That is absurd. Is it not time that we considered seriously this matter to enable a doctor under suitable precautions to enable people to do that which they wish when their wish is to leave this earth?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend has no wish to leave us. We certainly have no wish for him to leave us. In view of his rather gloomy universal point, I should indicate that in England and Wales, for which the precise figures are given, there were only 355 suicides in that age group in the last recorded year. That is perhaps too many, but that is out of a total of 326,558 deaths. Therefore I believe that one can feel it is not yet a major problem even though my noble friend is concerned.
As regards doctors giving medication or other support to people who wish to commit suicide, my noble friend will realise that the Government have no intention to promote the cause of voluntary euthanasia although we understand the vigorous public debate in that area.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Question asked by the noble Lord is germane to the wider debate as to whether a so-called advance directive which an individual may make when he or she is healthy should be legally binding when that individual becomes mentally incapable. To what extent do the Government think that there is a valid case for clarifying the existing law by introducing a Bill on this sensitive subject of mental incapacity?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as the House will be aware, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor gave notice last week that he was investigating these matters through a Green Paper on mental incapacity which followed the report of the Law Commission on this subject. The Law Commission took the view—it is one which the Government are now considering—that, as the noble Lord suggests, people should be encouraged and enabled to take decisions that they are capable of making when they have mental capacity. That includes the ability to plan ahead for a time when they have lost capacity to consent to or refuse medical treatment. But of course that advance directive could not include a requirement for an illegal act.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the Minister is always helpful, although she was unable to give a very helpful reply today. Is she aware that although I disagree with euthanasia, I believe that the time has come to think more sympathetically about the request made by my noble friend?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend who has raised this issue on several previous occasions in your Lordships' House. I believe that we have had helpful discussions about it.

975
We recognise that there are differing views about the range of responses which should be available to people at different stages of their life. Wherever possible patients should have some choice in their treatments and care. But the law does not permit euthanasia, and only requires that sometimes the level of medication necessary to control the overall symptoms in a patient may shorten life. It is a matter that we have discussed previously in your Lordships' House; it has the rather interesting title of the double effect. However, that is not an issue connected with voluntary euthanasia.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a new organisation has been set up in the past year to seek to help farmers who perhaps intend taking their own lives? I must declare an interest as a patron. If anyone wishes to have further details perhaps they will get in touch with me. I shall see them on their way!
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I must say the number of Members of this House who seem inclined to use a rather forward-looking description of their activities is rather intriguing. The noble Baroness will probably be aware, since she takes an interest in the subject, that the Department of Health has commissioned Professor Keith Hawton specifically to carry out research in the area of suicide among farmers. It is a matter that is of concern to us.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—as I am sure she is—that very recently this House set up a Select Committee to deal with medical ethics and the matters just referred to? Is she further aware that it had a most noble, learned and experienced membership?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing that out. I was indeed a member of the committee.

National Bus Company: Pension Fund
3.3 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to implement the ruling of the Pensions Ombudsman in September 1996 regarding the distribution of the surplus of the Bus Employees Superannuation Trust to employees of the privatised National Bus Company.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the Pensions Ombudsman's determination required the pension fund trustees to seek recovery of the surplus paid to the Department of Transport in 1990. The previous government offered, in November 1996, to fund an action to put these complex matters before the courts. The trustees accepted that offer. A writ has now been served and the statement of claim is expected shortly.
976
We are studying the legal and other background to the issue and will take legal advice on the claim when it is received before deciding the best way forward.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the rather thoughtful note in her final sentence. Is she aware that the Government, when in Opposition, felt strongly that the pensioners of the former National Bus Company—to use the words of the then Shadow Minister, now the Minister— were the victims of a squalid debacle? Would it not be wiser for the new Government, as my noble friend Lord Russell suggested in a debate on pensions the other day, to make a new start in this matter? Will they accept the view of the Pensions Ombudsman, call off the legal action—which will cost a good deal of taxpayers' money—and enable those pensioners to enjoy the surplus to which they are entitled while they are still alive?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I understand the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, and felt very strongly by the pensioners. In Opposition, we acknowledged those strong concerns. We are well aware that they are equally deeply felt at the moment. No commitment was made in terms of repayment of the surplus. The ruling of the Pensions Ombudsman related to the trustees themselves. This is a complicated issue. It has a long history and involves decisions taken under the previous government. We have to consider all the aspects carefully and take proper legal advice before coming to a view on how to deal with the problem that we have inherited.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the issue relate to who owns the surplus? If so, some clear legal ruling on it is long overdue.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the Pensions Ombudsman's direction was to the trustees to seek repayment of the surplus that had been paid over to the Government. We need to consider carefully, in the light of the writ that has been issued and served and the statement of claim, what the Government's response should be.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, this is a much delayed process. Will the collapse of the Stock Market have any detrimental effect on the entitlement of the pensioners concerned?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am always extremely nervous of making any comment on the ramifications of the Stock Market. The issue relates to the sum of money that was repaid to the Government. That should not be affected by anything that is happening in the Stock Market at present.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I welcome her more cautious approach to this issue than her party showed when in Opposition. Is not the problem that the ruling of Dr. Julian-Farrand flies in the face of the agreement made in 1986 indicating that after certain accrued

977
benefits had been paid to members of the pension fund, and the pension fund was inflated by more than the RPI, if there was any deficit the Government would make that up and any surplus would go to the Government? Surely it is those two aspects of this bargain that are important and appear to have been ignored by the Pensions Ombudsman.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I should not wish to suggest that those arguments, which have been advanced by the noble Lord in the past, were ignored by the Pensions Ombudsman. He came to a decision and made his ruling in full knowledge of the agreement that was made on the terms that the noble Lord described. The issue now is what the appropriate government response to that ruling should be. It is not at all unusual for the Pensions Ombudsman's decisions, because of their technical and complex nature, to be referred to the courts for clarification. That is one of the options to be considered.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am grateful for the careful language that the Minister uses. I should not wish to use any exaggerated language. However, in the case of the new Government, there is a certain question of honour involved. Does the Minister agree that, on examination, this is a rather unhappy story? When the privatisation took place and decisions were taken about the pension fund, the trustees who were appointed and who took the decision to hand the surplus over to the Treasury were government officials. Is the Minister aware that the lawyers dealing with the matter were on both sides of the case? It is an unhappy case and given the view that the Government took when in Opposition, they would be well advised to make a fresh start.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I understand the points that the noble Lord raises—although I must point out that the trustees who came to the arrangement described by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, were the original trustees of the pension fund. The strong feelings on that aspect are understood. As a new Government we are undertaking the responsibility of examining the issue—which is complex and involves a large sum of money—properly and in the round before taking a decision.

Low Pay Commission: Consultations
3.7 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What forms of consultation the Low Pay Commission has undertaken and what plans it has in connection with the consultations.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, the Low Pay Commission has invited a large number of organisations and individuals to submit written evidence
978
to it. It is also taking oral evidence. Last week it visited Scotland to hear evidence there and it will be visiting Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of England. Evidence gathered will be used during the formulation of the commission's recommendations to government about the statutory national minimum wage.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is a cause of widespread satisfaction that the Government have entrusted the role of providing advice to an independent body? Will he give an assurance that there will be no change in that principle for the rest of the investigation? I am grateful for my noble friend's remarks on consultation. However, will he say whether there have been any problems with the forms of consultation that have taken place so far? Is he aware—I am sure he is—that there is often disagreement on what constitutes real consultation?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the way in which he posed the first two questions, and indeed the third. The commission is an independent body. Its chairman has been widely applauded, even by supporters—few though they may be—of the party opposite. I can give my noble friend an assurance that we do not envisage any change in the principles that have been adumbrated.
Regarding the progress that has been made, the commission got down to work within 90 days of the election. It has approached over 600 organisations and individuals and invited them to give written evidence. Over 300 items of evidence have been received. On any account, that is a good response, given that the first invitations were issued in late August, with flexible return-by dates. I have heard no complaints about the procedures that have been adopted.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in the light of the comments by the Minister without Portfolio in another place, who said:
"I think there will be a differential. That is the view of the Government and the right course of action to take",
and the request made by the President of the Board of Trade that the commission should consider differentials, is it the Government's wish that the commission should consider exemptions from the minimum wage for 16 to 25 year-olds, and perhaps even for young people on Welfare to Work programmes?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the position that has been applied as far as the Low Pay Commission is concerned is set out very clearly in its terms of reference, which have been put before Parliament and clearly explained. They are, in essence, to recommend the initial level at which the national minimum wage might be introduced; to make recommendations on lower rates or exemptions for those aged 16 to 25; and to consider and report on any matters referred to it by Ministers. The commission has to have regard to the wider economic and social implications, the likely effect on the level of employment and inflation, the impact on the competitiveness of business, particularly the small

979
firms sector, and the potential impact on the cost to industry and the Exchequer. I believe that that sets out the position very clearly and I do not think that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has departed from it in any way.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us clearly whether the Government will necessarily feel obliged to accept every dot and comma that the commission recommends?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, of course they will not. The commission is considering the evidence. It will weigh the evidence in making its recommendations and then the Government will embark upon a full and comprehensive consideration of those recommendations. It is for the Government eventually to decide on the policy.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, can my noble friend give the House an indication of when he expects the commission to produce its report and make a recommendation to Her Majesty's Government? Is he aware that there have been some suggestions that it could be up to three years before such a report could be produced? Will he take this opportunity to make it clear that he expects a report to be produced far more quickly than that?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I gladly respond to that question. There is no question of three years. The commission has been asked to report to the Prime Minister by the end of May 1998 at the latest.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the United States of America raised its minimum wage to $5.15 last month? Is he aware that those of us who shop in both places know that $5.15 buys rather more in the supermarkets of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, than does £4 in Tesco's, Covent Garden? Are not fears of the minimum wage somewhat exaggerated?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, first, perhaps I may welcome my noble friend to these Benches.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Clinton-Davis: I have to confess immediately that his knowledge of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, exceeds mine. Having said that, I think the point he makes is well taken, although I do not wish to embark upon a discussion of the actual level. That is initially a matter for the Low Pay Commission to recommend.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in the light of the answer which the Minister gave to my question, did he agree or disagree with the honourable Member in another place, the Minister without Portfolio, when he said that that was the Government's view about differentials being applied to the minimum wage?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, if in fact my honourable friend made that assertion, I dare not disagree with him!

Business
3.13 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.

Magistrates' Courts (Procedure) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time.
Clause 5 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg) moved the amendment:
Page 3, line 18, leave out ("Section I extends") and insert ("Sections I and 3 extend").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this a minor consequential amendment, resulting from an omission in the drafting, to the amendment moved at Committee stage. It simply ensures that the references in Clause 5 to the other clauses in the Bill are correctly and fully identified. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord
Chancellor.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, this is a useful little Bill. I am sure noble Lords will agree that anything that achieves the result of making justice quicker and cheaper and administration more efficient will be welcome to this House.
I believe that this is the first Bill that my noble and learned friend has piloted through the House. Something tells me that in future he may be faced with a rather more difficult job of piloting than on this occasion. I am sure that those who participated in the debates in the course of the Bill would wish to join me in paying tribute to the courtesy and patience which he has shown.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mishcon is characteristically generous. His own long contribution to the cause of the reform of the law is well known. This is indeed my first Bill. I believe that it is accurate to predict that it will not be my last and it certainly will not be the most difficult.
It is a small Bill, but important in its way. It makes small incremental improvements which, added to future small incremental improvements, will bring substantial benefits in the long run.
The commendably economic progress of this small law-reforming Bill has been a model. I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed so supportively. The end result is the Bill that we are about to pass.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill
3.18 p.m.
Read a third time.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, that the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Hayman.)
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I said at Second Reading that this was not a Bill which we on this side of the House could support and I regret to say that the passage of the Bill has not led us to feel any differently about it. Despite the number of occasions on which the noble Baroness has talked about the Bill being for the purpose of building and improving houses, I think it is true that this is a Bill about more local government borrowing to finance revenue and increase public spending. It is not about the release of the accumulated receipts and certainly not about the release of future receipts. The amounts involved, at least initially, are very small compared with the hopes that have been raised; perhaps that is a good thing in view of the borrowing aspects.
Although we cannot support the Bill, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the courtesy and patience with which she has dealt with the points raised from this side.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, those who have followed the course of the Bill will realise that I am not my noble friend, for whose absence today I am here to apologise. We take a slightly different view of the Bill from that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. Broadly speaking, we support it, but we feel that it does not go far enough in allowing local authorities more freedom to invest their own money where they wish to invest it. That having been said, I am happy to see the Bill go through.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments made by the noble Baroness in the absence of her noble friend. I understand the reservations about the Bill not having gone far enough, but I am grateful for the support for what we have managed to achieve.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, for the second part of his remarks. The whole of the debate has been conducted with patience and courtesy and it was useful in terms of the amendment that we managed to discuss. I am disappointed, if not surprised, that the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, has, to the end, kept up what can only be described as a very carping attitude to the Bill.
The Local Government Finance (Supplementary Credit Approvals) Bill will provide the Government with the legislative foundation for a capital receipts initiative that can begin to reverse years of cuts to Exchequer support for housing. In that context, and in view of the undoubted distress, concern and ill health that bad housing causes in this country, I am sorry that noble Lords opposite cannot give their wholehearted support to such a move. The Bill is neither lengthy nor complex. In essence it will simply allow the
982
Government to distribute additional public expenditure in the form of supplementary credit approvals, striking a balance between the historic generation of capital receipts and need. This is far and away the most effective way to release the additional spending represented by set-aside capital receipts. I should also say that, despite the criticisms that have been made, it is the mechanism that has received the endorsement of the local authority associations, of individual local authorities and of key housing practitioners.
In 1997–98, in England, an additional £174 million will be released to local authorities, followed by a further £610 million in 1998–99. In releasing those receipts, the Government are fulfilling their manifesto commitment. We have brought forward the legislation needed to distribute the resources fairly and we consulted widely and openly on our proposals. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill passed.

Local Government (Contracts) Bill
Report received.

Public Processions etc. (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
3.23 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Over the past few years, tensions surrounding disputed parades have left deep scars on Northern Irish society, revealing unprecedented sectarian distrust and division and at times presenting a serious threat to public order. The tensions surrounding disputed parades threaten to overshadow the fact that the vast majority of parades are both uncontentious and peaceful. Of over 2,900, only a handful of parades are disorderly. Fewer than two dozen needed restrictions imposed on them this year. But those which have led to trouble have posed a serious problem which we are determined to tackle.
The task is all the more important given the current real prospects for political progress. For the first time in three-quarters of a century, we have an inclusive political talks process based on principles of democracy and non-violence and including representatives of all strands of opinion. We need to give the talks and the new structures which may emerge from them the best possible prospects of success. It is hard to imagine a more important contribution to that than tackling the tensions surrounding the marching season.
The parades issue is both complex and sensitive. It touches questions of rights and responsibilities which lie at the heart of our civil society. Balancing conflicting rights is always one of the greatest challenges in a democratic society. But the issue is all the starker in Northern Ireland given the strong emotions, entrenched positions and the sometimes dangerous consequences of friction. No provision can legislate those difficulties away. But the events surrounding parades at Drumcree and elsewhere have focused attention on the current

983
mechanisms for handling disputed parades. We believe that those arrangements are no longer either adequate or appropriate.
The Government took office earlier this year just as the tensions of the marching season were rising once again. Clearly, urgent action was needed. The Secretary of State, with her officials and the many people of goodwill, spared no effort to find an accommodation to head off potential disaster.
Although, as we now know, the very worst did not happen this year, local accommodation did prove impossible at Drumcree. The police were again placed in the no-win position of having to make decisions on public safety grounds—and enforce them—in a highly volatile atmosphere in which they were likely to be condemned no matter what action they took. The Secretary of State made it clear at the time that the chief constable had her full support in taking those difficult decisions. Subsequently, some courageous decisions were made. In particular, the Orange Order's decision to call off a number of marches on 12th July in the wider interests of tranquillity in Northern Ireland has rightly been widely applauded.
I am in no doubt that we are moving forward in Northern Ireland and that the political progress for which we will continue to strive could transform the atmosphere for the marching season next year. But we cannot just wait and hope. As the Secretary of State said when she announced the Bill, we need a parades policy which can win everyone's allegiance because it is based on clear principles, because it represents a threat to neither side and because it recognises the rights, aspirations and responsibilities of everyone.
After the events at Drumcree in 1996, the then government commissioned Dr. Peter North and two colleagues to produce an independent report on the parades issue. The Bill before your Lordships is the legislative expression of our commitment to that report. I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to Dr. North and his two colleagues for the enormous amount of work they put into producing their report, which deals in an admirably fair and balanced way with what is an extremely difficult issue.
Before coming to the substance of the Bill, I shall, with your Lordships' permission, briefly summarise the findings of the report. The North Report revealed major problems with the way in which public order legislation was working in Northern Ireland and recommended some radical and far-reaching changes. In particular, it concluded that current legislation, by focusing mainly on public order issues, provided a perverse incentive to those who threatened to act outside the law.
The North Report recommended setting up a new body, the Parades Commission, with the task of working to achieve agreement on contentious parades. It also recommended that that body should take over from the police the power to issue determinations when local agreement was not possible. In addition, the report recommended that the commission should take into account wider factors, including,
"the impact of the parade on the relationships within the community".
984
The North Report summarised the problem of parades as one of competing rights: the internationally recognised right to march; the right of local residents not to suffer intimidation in their own neighbourhoods and to be free of unreasonable disruption; and the right of all to be free from the threat of serious public disorder. The vital task of the Parades Commission will be to balance those rights, which may at times conflict.
The commission has already started its work under the limited mandate given to it by the previous government, and performed invaluable work throughout the last marching season. Under the dedicated and determined chairmanship of Alistair Graham, the members of the commission quickly got to grips with this most difficult of issues, making themselves known to the very many groups and individuals involved and working tirelessly to facilitate agreement. We owe Mr. Graham and his colleagues a debt of gratitude for their work, and I assure them of the Government's wholehearted support for the challenge ahead.
The commission has demonstrated in its work this year the importance of efforts to facilitate local agreement. While the commission will have power to make binding determinations, it will do everything it can to avoid having to do so. No decision-making process can match an amicable agreement on the ground. The commission will have wide powers to encourage and facilitate such agreement. In particular, it will wish to stimulate early constructive debate on particular parades and help to diffuse tensions, thereby making it more likely that local accommodation can be reached. It is therefore important to understand that the commission's powers to make determinations represent a final stage in that process—something of a last resort and in some senses a sign of failure. The commission will have succeeded fully in its task if the powers granted to it in this Bill never need to be used.
This Government have said all along that we would examine our commitment to implement North in the light of the experience of this year's marching season. We have done so, and we maintain our view that the implementation of the report's findings remains the right way forward. However, through that process of examination, we have identified some enhancements to the arrangements which are included in the Bill. I propose to draw your Lordships' attention to those in my summary of the Bill's main provisions, to which I shall now turn.
Clause 1 establishes the Parades Commission for Northern Ireland and refers to Schedule 1, which makes provision for its membership together with their term of office, remuneration, and other ancillary provisions relating to the commission.
Clause 2 sets out the functions of the commission in relation to parades. In particular, the commission will have the duty to promote greater understanding of issues concerning parades, seek to facilitate local agreement on contested parades, and make determinations with respect to those should local agreement not be possible. The clause also enables the commission to provide financial and other assistance, and commission research.

985
Clause 3 provides that the commission's remit could extend beyond parades to include the law and practice relating to other expressions of cultural identity which take place in the open air and which may have an adverse effect on relationships within the community. The clause exempts parades, which are covered by the provisions of the rest of the Bill, and also sporting events.
This clause is one of the provisions which augments the North recommendations and which will, we hope, further enhance the legislation. It stems from widely expressed concerns that a parades commission as envisaged by North would focus too narrowly on a method of expressing cultural identity which, in practice, is undertaken particularly by one side of the community. We listened to those concerns and took them into account in providing this potential extra role for the commission.
However, the commission will initially face the challenge of establishing how it will take forward its new responsibilities on parades, and it would not be right to divert it from that task in the initial stages. We do not therefore propose to commence this further remit into operation immediately on Royal Assent. The Secretary of State will, however, keep it under close review and hopes that it will be possible to activate the provision within a matter of months.
Clause 4 requires the commission to issue a code of conduct providing guidance to those organising a parade, and governing the behaviour of the organisers of parades and those participating in them.
Clause 5 requires the commission to issue a set of procedural rules on the practice and procedure it will follow in carrying out its functions. Those rules are drafted taking account of the North Report's recommendation that the new structures we are establishing must be as transparent as possible if they are to be effective.
Clause 6 requires the commission to issue guidelines setting out how it will interpret its powers in practice. The guidelines set out the various factors to which the commission will have regard in making determinations.
Drafts of those three documents were published for consultation purposes by the commission yesterday and copies have been placed in the Library. The commission has encouraged all those with constructive views to offer on the drafts to let it have them by the end of January. Following enactment of the Bill, the documents will be laid before each House and will be brought into effect by an order made under the affirmative resolution procedure. Your Lordships will therefore have an opportunity in due course to debate those documents.
Clause 7 deals with the advance notice to be given for a parade. It provides that the notice period be increased to 28 days, an increase from the 21 days provided for in current legislation and recommended by North. This slightly longer period of notice is considered appropriate in view of the procedures the commission will need to follow in considering contentious cases.
986
Clause 8 enables the commission to impose conditions on parades where it considers that appropriate, including conditions as to the route of the parade or preventing it from entering any place. This clause is the key provision of the Bill, and I have already referred to its significance. First, it transfers the power to make determinations on contentious parades from the Royal Ulster Constabulary and entrusts it to the Parades Commission. The power which the commission will have to impose conditions is broadly similar to that currently enjoyed by the RUC, but the key change is the basis upon which determinations will be made.
The clause sets out some of the conditions which the commission may impose and provides that it may, in accordance with the procedural rules, take the guidelines into account in issuing, amending or revoking a determination. It outlines some of the factors which will be covered in the guidelines issued under Clause 6 and to which the commission will need to have regard in reaching a decision. The factors the commission will need to take into account partially reflect current legislation, including any public disorder, damage to property or disruption to the community which may result from a procession. They also however include the new factor which North recommended of the,
"impact the procession may have on the relationships within the community".
The commission will also be able to take into account the failure of any specified person to abide by the code of conduct.
In addition, the provision endorses North's recommendation that, where the route of a parade is long-standing, that should be one of a range of factors the commission should take into account in considering its decisions. We hope that that will go some way to easing the fears of those in the loyal orders who may have believed that this legislation is designed to attack their traditions and even their identity.
Clause 9 enables the Secretary of State, on an application by the chief constable, to review a determination made by the commission and to revoke, amend or confirm it after consulting the commission, where consultation is practical. The North Report recommended legislative provision for the Secretary of State to reconsider a determination by the commission in cases where the chief constable expresses his concern. This clause enables the RUC to appeal a determination of the commission to the Secretary of State. In reviewing a decision by the commission, the Secretary of State will need to take all the relevant factors into account, however, not just public order.
Clause 10 retains the specific power of the police to take action to deal with or prevent a breach of the peace. This follows the report's recommendation that the police should retain the power to intervene on public order grounds where a determination of the commission is defied. As I explained, the commission will seek to make its decisions in advance of a parade, but should the public order situation deteriorate in the period between the decision and the day of the parade, or indeed on the day of the parade, we have included the

987
specific power recommended by North enabling the police to take whatever steps they consider necessary to protect public order and safety.
Clause 11 retains the Secretary of State's power to ban marches in certain cases. The clause restructures this power, however, introducing as recommended by North the new factor of the impact the parade may have on relationships in the community. It also reduces the maximum period of a blanket ban on all parades in an area from three months to 28 days.
Clause 12 confers the power on the Secretary of State to provide by order for the registration of bands. That would enable the Government to establish a court-based registration scheme in the event, which we do not expect, that the commission's powers do not prove sufficient to deal with the mischief that unruly bands sometimes cause. It would then be an offence to take part in a parade as a member of an unregistered band or a band that failed to comply with the conditions of registration.
Clause 13 empowers the police to require persons in the vicinity of a parade to surrender any alcohol they may have, re-enacting existing Northern Ireland legislation.
Clause 14 makes it an offence to hinder or obstruct a lawful public procession and Clause 15 confers on the police the power to arrest without warrant anyone suspected of committing an offence under the Bill. Both clauses re-enact existing law.
Clause 16 makes provisions about orders and regulations under the Bill and Clause 17 deals with the interpretation of the Bill. Clause 18 and Schedules 3 and 4 provide for amendments and repeals made necessary by the Bill. Clause 19 deals with the Bill's short title, commencement and extent.
Discussions are proceeding in the usual channels in relation to the appropriate form for the Committee on this Bill. I shall listen with interest to any comments your Lordships make this afternoon.
I believe that this Bill will go a long way to putting new structures in place which can deal with this vexed issue in a balanced, principled and effective way. The questions people want to know about our policy are obvious. How will it work on the ground? What sort of decisions will result? Who will take them, and when? Of course, setting up an independent body means just that. If I could give a fixture list for next year's parades and how the commission might treat them, there would be no job left for the commission. Nor would its independence look very credible. But these questions deserve to be addressed.
Our decision to implement North's recommendations was made on its merits. But it is fully in line with the firm position we have taken on rights both in opposition and in government. In particular, last week's White Paper, setting out our plans to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law, demonstrated once again the top priority we give this subject. Rights underlie our approach because they are the natural heritage of all, regardless of political
988
affiliation. But, also, we believe a system based on transparency and recognised rights stands the best chance of success, even in the vexed area of marching.
However, rights do not exist in a vacuum. They also come with responsibilities. Despite the continuing problems of the marching season, there have been many recent indications that people on both sides were prepared to recognise the value of compromise. The Secretary of State has already paid tribute to their courage and vision, which will enable us to build for the future. I hope the new structures we are setting up will make such gestures easier. In our rights-driven approach, a sensible decision not to exercise a right will not make it any the less real, or reduce the possibility that it can be exercised again in the future.
I have today outlined the broad approach to the parades issue which the Government are taking. There will be, I know, considerable debate and discussion of these proposed measures both in this House and in another place in the coming weeks. If the Bill achieves its aims—and I believe it will—parades will cease to provide a forum for intransigence and grievance and bitterness. It will therefore contribute immensely to the process to which we are all committed, the securing of a better future for all the people of Northern Ireland.
I look forward to the debate today and in particular to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cope. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Dubs.)
3.42 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, left to myself, I would not have pressed a maiden speech on your Lordships so soon after the agreeable ceremony of my introduction last week. But working Peers are here to do things and I am glad to be my party's spokesman on Northern Ireland matters. Having served as Minister of State in the Province, I find, like my noble friend Lord Mayhew (who made such an eloquent maiden speech last week), that you never get it out of your system and, indeed, that you do not desire to. The daily courage and the generosity of the people of Northern Ireland see to that. But there is also the challenge to us all of this beautiful part of our country torn apart by politics, with all the pain and grief to its staunch inhabitants.
Among that pain and grief, processions of various kinds have been the occasion of the most terrible clashes. The present troubles began with the civil rights marches of 1968 and 1969. The demands that those marchers made have all been addressed vigorously over the years, but there remains the underlying conflict about which country the Province should belong to. This Bill attempts, with that background, to make marches without trouble easier to achieve for all concerned.
The Bill stems, as the Minister said in introducing it, from the report of Dr. Peter North, Father Oliver Crilly and the Reverend John Dunlop. He was right to say that we owe them all a debt of gratitude for an exceptionally clear and thorough report. I should perhaps disclose to the House that I have known Dr. North for many years. In fact we were at school together at Oakham, which

989
was then a direct grant school. When the school decided in its wisdom to put on a Shakespeare play for the first time, it chose what actors call the Scottish play. Peter North played the part of Macbeth and I played the part of Lady Macbeth, in a long blonde wig. I understand that Dr. North's further education was alongside the noble Lord who is to speak for the Liberal Democrat Party today. That shows what coincidences life holds. However, the result of that, I suppose, is that it does not in the least surprise me that the North Report is a very thorough job. It is right that its main recommendations should be implemented in the Bill. I welcome a statutory basis for the Parades Commission and I also welcome the fact that the Government have put these provisions in a Bill and not in an order.
I have several rather more detailed points to put which, if they can be cleared up today, might even serve to shorten the Committee stage. Clause 2 permits the commission to provide financial assistance to any person or body it wishes, with the approval of the Secretary of State. I wonder for what sort of purpose and on what scale this money might be—not too much, I suspect, because such assistance is not mentioned in the Financial Memorandum.
Clause 3 goes wider than the North review was asked to go and provides for the commission itself, at some unspecified time in the future—though the Minister did say that it would be implemented within months—to make recommendations about the law and practice applying to other expressions of cultural identity. That is a valuable provision which will help to put the whole matter into context. "Within months" is a helpful phrase, but as far as I am concerned, the sooner this is able to be implemented the better.
The Minister also pointed out that sporting events are specifically excluded from this clause but did not say why. Sporting events can be very vigorous expressions of cultural identity in Northern Ireland. The existence of special sports belonging solely to one community ensures that that is so. It seems to me odd to propose to exclude them by specific law both from the possibility of regulation, which I understand, but also from future consideration under Clause 3 of the Bill.
In Clause 11 the Secretary of State is given the power to ban particular processions or indeed types of processions. That is basically the same power which the Secretary of State has now. In making the decision she will have regard to possible disorder and disruption, to the potential demands on the police and the Army and to the effect of the proposed march on relationships within the community. But curiously, as I read the Bill—I am no lawyer—the Secretary of State, in banning a march, cannot take into account two other matters which the commission will have to consider. They are, first, any failure of those involved to comply with previous regulations; and, secondly, so-called traditionality—the fact that a procession has customarily been held on a particular route. I would have thought that the Secretary of State should have regard to these matters too in taking a decision to ban a particular march.
990
Lastly, I hope the Minister can tell us why the Bill provides for stiffer penalties—up to two years' imprisonment—for organisers of processions who fail to comply with a regulation on a legal procession but smaller penalties—up to six months' imprisonment—for someone who organises an illegal procession without notice or someone who breaks up a legal procession or attempts to do so. That is an undesirable imbalance in the penalties provided for under the Bill. I suggest that your Lordships need to consider these points, among others, if we are to do our job as a revising Chamber. But it is also particularly important on Second Reading to consider the overall effect.
The Bill, when implemented, will lead to statutory mediation to try to deal with the problems in advance. It will also mean that regulations, both in general and for specific parades, will normally be settled by the commission and not by the police who have to enforce them. It will not insulate, however, either the police or Ministers from decisions on some of the most difficult parades.
The ultimate decision to ban is, rightly, not open to the commission. Sometimes those who wish to obstruct a legal march or those who wish to hold a march to mark an anniversary or to protest about something may set out to show the strength of their feelings by deliberately escalating events to the stage where the commission process cannot deal with them. There are precedents for that kind of thing happening in Northern Ireland. The buck will then stop with the police and Ministers.
The vast majority of people from both traditions in Northern Ireland are sorely tested, but they are ultimately people of good will. But in legislating we always have to remember that some are not and any new provision is likely to be tested by evil men. There is no escaping that unless at some time there is the settlement that we all long for. At present we all hope and pray that the talks will go ahead to a conclusion in a spirit of reason and democracy, even though recent statements by Sinn Fein/IRA do not encourage such hope. It seems to me that the Government keep conceding points to them—such as ending internment, the Prime Minister shaking hands etc.—without as far as we know getting anything in return. The Republican representatives do not yet give the impression that they have seen the truth, which has been evident for years, that neither Northern Ireland, nor Britain, nor any other self-respecting democracy can be bombed into submission to the will of terrorists. The Irish Republic itself, despite the obnoxious clauses in its constitution, stands for law, order and democratic decisions. If you have a good cause in a democracy the ballot box is enough.
This Bill will help to minimise the threats to law and order and, we hope, the genuine offence that can be given to people of both traditions by decisions on parades. But the Royal Ulster Constabulary will still need to hold the line, as it has done so gallantly over the years. It is an impartial force for law, order and justice, which are the essential foundations of democracy. I built up the highest respect for the RUC

991
while I carried responsibility, and we continue to rely on it. I hope and believe that this Bill will help the Royal Ulster Constabulary to keep the peace.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, it is my very pleasant duty, on behalf of the House, to offer the noble Lord, Lord Cope, first, our congratulations and then a welcome. First, on behalf of the whole House, I should like to thank him for an outstandingly cogent and eloquent maiden speech. Secondly, on behalf of a rather smaller group of your Lordships who normally meet at less salubrious hours of the day, often in the wastes of the dinner hour, to discuss Northern Ireland business when our numbers can be counted on the fingers of two hands, I offer him a welcome to a very important club. We shall be pleased to see him alongside us in the wee small hours.
The noble Lord has a wide range of experience in another place. He has extremely distinguished experience in government including, as he reminded us, a spell in the Northern Ireland Office, which is quite apparent from the ease with which he has picked up his old brief and gone straight to the heart of the matter in this important debate this afternoon. I had not realised that the noble Lord had had such wide experience of the harsher side of life. I knew that he had had a spell in the Whips Office of the Conservative Party. The problems of Northern Ireland need all the wisdom that we can muster and I know that your Lordships will join with me in appreciation of the fact that the noble Lord will be speaking in this House on Northern Ireland topics and, we hope, on other matters, too. We hope that we shall hear from him often in the days and years to come.
The author and his colleagues who produced the North Report deserve our thanks. Dr. North and his two colleagues did us proud. It is a good report. It is good to see that the Government are now acting on it, that is, after some delay because the report came out in January. I personally regret that action was not taken in the spring before the present Government came to power. I believe that when they were confronted with it they were probably right to leave it until this autumn to see how the summer went. In fact, the summer did not go too badly, largely because common sense obtained and also because a lot of people did a great deal of work behind the scenes including, it must be said, some leaders of the Orange Order themselves who made an outstanding contribution to a relatively peaceful resolution with no repetition of the scenes at Drumcree, which had done so much damage the previous year to relationships between the two communities and the police. It is always serious in Northern Ireland if the police and the communities find a distance between them as, indeed, at the time, did the two governments. This year has been much better. We on these Benches believe that the Government are now right to turn the North Report into this Bill.
There is such a gulf in Northern Ireland between the perspectives of the two main communities, not least on this issue. I am sure that the House appreciates that both positions are quite understandable, tenable and defensible. There are those who believe that they have
992
an inalienable right, derived from history and tradition, to assemble a march and that that right is being infringed for, as they would see it, political reasons. Equally, of course, there are those who believe that an assertion of superiority is being forced on them backed up by the might of the security forces. It is that gap in perception that causes the problem. I believe that the North Report did well in trying to align these perspectives. Some of the suggestions have already been enacted, I believe, successfully. The legislation that the previous government produced in their twilight weeks, which insisted on a notification period for parades, was instrumental in making this summer's parades markedly less troublesome than those of the year before.
The Bill takes the recommendations of the North Report further and we find that welcome. The central innovation, which is that of a Parades Commission, which is truly independent, is a major advance. I believe the fact that ultimately, as set out in Clause 9 of the Bill, the Secretary of State may reconsider the recommendations, is right and inevitable in the tense situation of Northern Ireland. I find it welcome to see a Bill with such a rounded group of measures. For instance, I am very glad to see in Clause 8 that those who incite others to break the proposed law are as liable as those who break it. Similarly, in Clause 14, clear sanctions are laid out for those who obstruct a march which has been allowed by the commission.
The Minister presented the Bill so clearly. Perhaps I may raise with him one or two points of concern. There are some aspects of the North Report which do not appear in the Bill and there are other items that were not pre-figured in the report but which are in the Bill. Perhaps I may briefly refer to them. I regret the fact that several parades cannot be grouped together in the way that Dr. North and his colleagues suggested. It would be helpful if the commission were able to say. "Well, we will let you have that march, but you cannot have that one". There is more scope for negotiation and compromise if groups of marches can be treated together. As the Minister knows, at the moment it is intended that the commission will treat marches independently.
There is the issue that the preliminary view of the commission is given informally. That is desirable because consultation in Northern Ireland is often very valuable. But there is a danger if the commission were to publish its preliminary view informally. Some people might imagine that they can change it before it becomes the formal view and they may even resort to threatening violence to get their way. The Minister might care to refer to this in his reply, but I believe it would be better if the commission consulted and then decided.
Finally, there is a matter which is of some concern to myself and my colleagues on these Benches. The Government's efforts to balance the Bill between the interests of different communities are clear and, on the whole, they are welcome. But I wonder whether one or two aspects have been put in for symbolic purposes in order to represent balance, whereas they may in fact diminish the effectiveness of the commission. In particular, Clause 3 gives the commission potential power over a wide range of activities far removed from

993
the question of marches. For that to be effective, there would have to be an assurance that the Government and the RUC would act. I wonder, therefore, whether Clause 3 is wise. My noble friends and I may want to return to this later as we further consider the Bill.
In conclusion, in supporting the Bill, as we do more or less unreservedly from these Benches, we still recognise that it can be no more than a facilitating measure. In the end, we are dependent on the growing confidence, a display of common sense, the ability to compromise and the recognition of each other's point of view. In the end, those are the keys to progress in Northern Ireland. This Bill can make a contribution, but we should not mistake it for a solution.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting
4 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. The Statement is as follows:
"Commonwealth Heads of Government met in Edinburgh from 24th October to 27th October, the first such meeting in Britain for 20 years. Labour was in power the last time the meeting was held in this country, and I am delighted that a Labour Government were able to welcome Commonwealth Heads back to Britain. Fifty-one member states attended the meeting, 43 represented by Heads of State or Prime Ministers—the largest ever gathering of Commonwealth Heads. We also welcomed Fiji back to the Commonwealth.
"I would like to thank the people of Scotland, and Edinburgh in particular, for the warm welcome they gave my fellow Heads of Government and their delegations and for their hospitality. I believe they helped to show a new face of Britain to the world.
"Her Majesty the Queen was able to address a Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting for the first time. The warmth of the welcome she was given was a tribute to the regard in which she is held by Commonwealth Governments all over the world.
"Also for the first time, a Commonwealth Business Forum was held immediately before the Heads of Government Meeting. It reflected the clear focus of the meeting on economic issues, in particular trade, investment and development. After an excellent debate we were able to agree the Edinburgh Commonwealth Economic Declaration on "Promoting Shared Prosperity". This demonstrates the unique role the Commonwealth can play in bringing together developed and developing countries in this area. This declaration, the first of its kind, sets out economic principles shared by the Commonwealth, to match the political principles on good government and human rights set out in the Harare Declaration of 1991.
994
"The declaration marks real progress in four areas: first, agreement that the Commonwealth should be a force for freer trade in the world. In particular, we supported the expansion of duty-free market access for exports from the least developed countries, the need for adequate successor arrangements for ACP banana exporters and a study of steps to increase trade between Commonwealth countries.
"Secondly, we recognised the important role the private sector has to play. We strongly supported the conclusions of the Business Forum, and in particular the decision to establish a business council to facilitate contact between businesses across the Commonwealth. We also agreed on the benefits international investment can bring and decided to finalise a code of good practice for Commonwealth Governments to encourage private investment.
"I attended the launch of a new South Asia Regional Fund in the margins of the meeting. The fund should provide some 200 million US dollars from the Commonwealth Development Corporation, countries of the region and others to promote investment in south Asia. I particularly welcome this example of regional co-operation. The Government also intend that the CDC itself should develop a new relationship with the private sector. This will give it increased funds for investment; and the proceeds from the sale of shares in CDC will be ploughed straight back into the development programme.
"Thirdly, we endorsed the target of halving the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015 and emphasised the importance of substantial and swift debt relief in achieving this. This built on the valuable work of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Mauritius Commonwealth Finance Ministers' meeting and the target of ensuring that every highly indebted poor country is launched on the process of debt reduction by the year 2000. The UK is willing to cancel aid debts of lower income Commonwealth countries totalling £132 million provided they follow sensible economic policies. We have already made formal offers to seven countries with debts of £18 million. Discussions have started with others.
"Fourthly, the meeting sent a strong message to the Kyoto Climate Change Conference in December that all countries, both developed and developing, will need to play a role in achieving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. In this context, I was able to announce that the Government will provide an additional £3 million for the Commonwealth's Iwokrama rainforest project in Guyana.
"On the political side, Commonwealth Heads reaffirmed their commitment to the Harare Principles on good governance and human rights and agreed that any future Commonwealth members must meet the Harare criteria. We agreed that the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group set up at Millbrook in 1995 should continue to deal with serious and persistent violations of the Harare Principles.
"The meeting spent some time discussing our approach to the Nigerian regime. We unanimously agreed to continue the suspension of Nigeria. This excludes Nigeria from all Commonwealth activity.

995
"The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group now has delegated power to invoke a number of specified measures, if the group decides these would further the process of transition and respect for human rights in Nigeria. These include visa restrictions, withdrawal of military attaches, the cessation of military training, an embargo on the export of arms and the downgrading of diplomatic missions and cultural links.
"In addition, after 1st October 1998, the action group will assess whether Nigeria has satisfactorily completed its transition programme. If this assessment is negative, Heads of Government will consider Nigeria's expulsion from the Commonwealth and the introduction of further measures, such as a mandatory oil embargo.
"I believe these measures, taken together, send a clear and strong message to the Nigerian Government from all the members of the Commonwealth: if they do not improve substantially their respect for human rights and move back to democracy, they face severe sanctions.
"Heads of Government strongly condemned the military coup in Sierra Leone and decided to continue the suspension of the military regime from Commonwealth meetings. We also called for the immediate reinstatement of President Kabbah, the legitimate Head of State, whom I welcomed to the meeting as my special guest.
"A final communiqué reflecting our discussions was issued at the end of our meeting yesterday morning. Copies of this and the economic declaration are available in the Library of the House.
"In conclusion, I am pleased to report to the House that there was a remarkable degree of agreement at Edinburgh on both economic and political questions. Many Heads said that it was the most harmonious CHOGM for many years. I believe that the Commonwealth is needed now more than ever. It bridges the gap between developed and developing and provides a forum for co-operation and joint endeavour; and it provides a strong moral lead in a world where basic human rights are too often under threat.
"I also believe that this CHOGM was a success. The Commonwealth has a new focus on economic issues. It is showing the rest of the world the way on environmental problems such as climate change. It is setting an example in the field of human rights—our action on Nigeria makes clear that the Commonwealth will not tolerate undemocratic behaviour and human rights abuses among its ranks.
"At Edinburgh, my fellow Heads of Government and I began a process of change to prepare the Commonwealth to face the challenges of the 21st century. A renewed Commonwealth will be a force for good in the world. I look forward to this process being taken further before our next meeting in South Africa in 1999."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.9 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement with his usual clarity and deliberation. There is very much in the Statement that noble Lords on this side of the House welcome, not least the apparent emphasis on the respect in which the Queen is held by the Commonwealth. We also welcome unreservedly the return of Fiji to Commonwealth ranks. We are particularly pleased that the Statement underlines the importance of economic issues and free trade. All of us know in our heart of hearts that trade rather than aid is usually more effective. Equally, we understand that if that is to work the rich countries, perhaps more than others, must sign up to the principles of access to their own markets by countries of the third world. We also welcome the South Asia Regional Fund and the Commonwealth Development Corporation's new relationship with the private sector. Equally, we are pleased to see what the Statement says about the message to the Kyoto Climate Change Conference. We also welcome the reaffirmation of the Harare principles.
The Commonwealth has always been held to be important in the rhetoric of governments of both parties. I do not emphatically make a partisan point when I say that sometimes it is perhaps more undervalued than the rhetoric suggests, as evidenced by the priorities in policy. I believe that the matters I have mentioned are a constructive move on the part of the Government, and we welcome them.
However, the Lord Privy Seal might regard my response as uncharacteristic if I did not carp a little. There is not a great deal that is new in what the Lord Privy Seal has reported to the House. That is very different from the Prime Minister's rhetoric. It is clear from the speech of the Prime Minister that the word "new" was an integral part of his rhetoric in Edinburgh as it has been since well before the general election. He has said:
"There is a new British identity: modern, enterprising, outward, open and compassionate … the new Britain is a meritocracy where we break down the barriers of class, race and religion",
etc., etc. One can compare this with the wording of the Labour manifesto:
"New Labour. Because Britain deserves better … I believe Britain can and must be better … We will modernise Britain … Under the Conservatives Britain's influence has waned … The tragedy of the Conservative years has been a squandering of Britain's assets and the loss of Britain's influence",
etc., etc. I admit to the Lord Privy Seal that that is entirely consistent. However, I ask the Lord Privy Seal to speculate and tell us what has happened in the past six months since 1st May when this remarkable transformation from a weakened and declining influence to a modern and enterprising power has taken place. If the Lord Privy Seal says that it is due entirely to the rhetoric of the Government I shall beg to differ from that diagnosis. I hope that he will be able to give a more convincing explanation than the one that I have just suggested.
I should like to put a number of questions to the Lord Privy Seal. First, is he disappointed that in spite of the recognition of the benefits of free trade that I have

997
clearly welcomed this afternoon there is no explicit endorsement of a new round of trade negotiations? Can he elaborate upon that? Can one look forward to something more concrete than that which is contained in the Statement? Secondly, in that context will the Government ensure that any transitional measures that may flow from these initiatives will not transmogrify themselves into protectionist measures, their transitional element somehow becoming lost in the protectionist instincts which all too lightly come out in initiatives of this kind? Thirdly, can the Lord Privy Seal inform the House how far the criteria to be used to judge Nigeria's return to the fold will apply also to other Commonwealth countries? Are we on the way to the achievement of a common standard for all countries? If the answer to that question is yes, how will that standard be applied?
The final part of the Statement expressly says that the conference was a huge success. I do not believe that it can be judged to be a signal success in every respect—perhaps not nearly as much as the Statement implies. Before it began one heard many fine words about the Government's good intentions. Unfortunately, that is becoming a depressingly familiar pattern. Yet again, words have not been matched by the application of appropriate deeds that are consistent with the rhetoric. I say "appropriate" because regrettably the conference was marred by a certain high-handedness on the part of the British Government, perhaps building on the no doubt invigorating experience of the Foreign Secretary in India. I do not wish to teach my grandmother to suck eggs. However, it must be obvious to the Lord Privy Seal that government-to-government meetings should be approached with due humility and a readiness to listen. Clearly, what happened in Edinburgh was something very different. It began with the Prime Minister's somewhat curious boast that he would create a new Commonwealth for the 21st century and the unedifying spectacle of the leaders of so many countries being treated to what was, frankly, a rather tawdry promotional video for Britain and New Labour. Would it not have been more tactful to remember that it was a Commonwealth Conference and not a Labour Party promotional campaign?
The conference ended with the Prime Minister being forced into another humiliating apology for the behaviour of his spin doctors who had, we are told, offended Commonwealth leaders by giving more attention to British domestic affairs than those of the Commonwealth in their press briefings and disclosing the contents of confidential bilateral talks between heads of government. It was depressing to hear representatives of some of this country's oldest and firmest friends in the Commonwealth complaining about the patronising and arrogant attitude of Britain. It does not altogether surprise us in our diagnosis of the shortcomings of this Government. Unfortunately, we have had to endure it since 1st May. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to admit that the Government got it wrong. I hope that in future he will pay greater attention to ensuring that the important details are got right and that less time is spent polishing the new Labour image.
998
The word "family" is most usually used in conjunction with "Commonwealth". Does the Lord Privy Seal accept that at successful family gatherings individual members of the family promote their own domestic agendas with the greatest restraint? This sad episode is yet another example of much good emerging from the Commonwealth Conference being in the end marred by the Government's incompetence born of inexperience.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join with the Leader of the Opposition in thanking the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Prime Minister's Statement in another place. I do not wholly join with him in his remarks about the character of the conference. I noted that the Prime Minister reported that other heads of government had declared the conference to be one of the most harmonious Commonwealth Conferences for many years. I freely concede that as someone who 20 years ago played a reasonably active part in connection with the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference held in the United Kingdom at that time. It was certainly a great deal more harmonious than the one I helped to plan.
Having said that, I express a sense of deep disappointment from these Benches that there was not a more decisive view taken on Nigeria by the Commonwealth heads of government.
I echo the words of the Leader of the Opposition. Will the Lord Privy Seal tell us something about what the heads of government did about human rights in other parts of the Commonwealth? I think, for example, of Kenya and the Cameroon. My other question on that front is to ask what was done and what rules were laid down about the applicants who are rather encouragingly queuing up to become members of the Commonwealth, but whose membership would present certain problems to us.
We welcome the fact that the Commonwealth Action Group is to be turned into what might be called a standing committee. I could call it a kind of Nolan Committee on human rights in the Commonwealth. It will be important for the British Government to give that action group the maximum support, because, in our view, the Commonwealth is nothing if it is not these days about human rights.
We support the thrust of the communiqué on world trade. I agree fully with what the Leader of the Opposition said on that matter. We welcome also the Government's initiatives on the relief of debt for the poorest of the Commonwealth countries. I hope that there will be, as mentioned in the communiqué, an effective special dispensation within the world trade pattern for the Commonwealth banana producers, and other similar groups, affected by the changes in the pattern of world trade.
I make two final points. The first relates to a matter that was raised on the margins of the conference; that is, the Lockerbie air disaster. From these Benches we support fully the Foreign Secretary's persistence in the view that those alleged in Libya to have had complicity in that disaster should face their trial in Scotland, where

999
the Scottish judicial tradition could assure the rest of the world that there would be an absolutely fair trial. I hope that we shall stand firm on that position.
Finally, I join with the Leader of the Opposition in his tribute to Her Majesty the Queen who, in my view—I speak as Britain's last separate Commonwealth Secretary of State—over the many years of her reign has done so much to keep the Commonwealth meaningful in a modern world—a multi-racial community of nations, promoting human rights and seeking to erode human poverty.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am obliged to the Leader of the Opposition and to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, for the partial welcome they gave to the Statement. I listened with great interest to the noble Viscount, as indeed I always do. I started by taking somewhat copious notes of what he had to say. Then predictably he said, "I must carp a little". If your Lordships will forgive me, at that stage I stopped taking such detailed notes of what he was saying, because, I am afraid, it was woefully predictable.
The fact is—the noble Viscount may not wish to recognise it—that not only do we think that this was a highly successful heads of government meeting, but all the other heads of government who were at Edinburgh thought that it was a highly successful heads of government meeting. The picture that the Leader of the Opposition painted of an arrogant British Government going around upsetting the rest of the Commonwealth, is frankly unrecognisable from what took place.
Viscount Cranborne: Did he apologise?
Lord Richard: My Lords, some solid achievements came out of Edinburgh. I am glad that in part of what he had to say the noble Viscount recognised that. I was asked three questions by him. The first was about further negotiations with the WTO. Surely the important fact is that the economic communiqué clearly endorsed moves towards freer trade. I am not here to disclose the details of the negotiations that led up to the communiqué. It would be foolish were I to do so. The noble Viscount saw fit to lecture us on how to conduct international conferences. I will say one thing to him: the way not to conduct international conferences is to disclose what goes on in the negotiations when conferences are concluded. There is a clear commitment in the communiqué towards freer trade. The noble Viscount asked that transitional measures should not be protectionist. I concur.
I was asked about Nigeria both by him and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. Perhaps I should read what was said in the communiqué about Nigeria. I was asked also about the terms of reference and operation of the CMAG. I shall deal with that first. The communiqué states:
"Heads of Government reviewed the composition, terms of reference and operation of CMAG. They decided that CMAG should continue its work as a standing ministerial mechanism to address serious and persistent violations of the principles of the Harare Commonwealth Declaration. They agreed that CMAG should, in the two-year period after the Edinburgh CHOGM, consist of the following countries".
1000
It is interesting to note the membership of that group:
"Barbados, Botswana, Britain, Canada, Ghana, Malaysia, New Zealand and Zimbabwe. They further agreed"—
and this, I think, is the answer to the noble Viscount's point—
"that in future CMAG's remit should extend to member countries deemed to be in serious or persistent violation of the Harare principles, on the basis of established guidelines. They decided that the Commonwealth Secretary-General, acting on his/her own or at the request of a member government, should bring the situation in question to the attention of the CMAG membership. which would then include it or otherwise in its work programme in the light of its guiding principles".
That is new. With the greatest respect to the noble Viscount, it is important. It means that the Commonwealth Secretary-General is being given, so to speak, an interventionist role which he did not have before to the CMAG which consists of that large and diverse number of countries.
I shall deal with Nigeria itself. What is it that we want to see so far as concerns Nigeria? I believe that it is clear. As a minimum, as my right honourable friend said in another place, we want to see the release of all political prisoners, including Chief Abiola, General Obasanjo and the others. We want to see the early resolution of the case of the 20 Ogonis facing the same charges as Mr. Saro-Wiwa and others. Most importantly, we want to see a free and fair transition to civilian democratic rule in a way that allows all those who wish to do so to participate. We will work closely with the CMAG and our EU partners to keep pressure on the Nigerian regime to reform. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said that we had not done enough. Perhaps he will forgive me if I describe what powers the CMAG now has in relation to Nigeria. The communiqué states:
"Heads of Government also empowered CMAG to invoke, in the period before 1 October 1998, Commonwealth-wide implementation of any or all of the measures recommended by CMAG if, in CMAG's view, these would serve to encourage greater integrity of the process of transition and respect for human rights in Nigeria. These included: visa restrictions on members of the Nigerian regime and their families; the withdrawal of military attaches: the cessation of military training; an embargo on the export of arms; the denial of educational facilities to members of the Nigerian regime and their families; a visa-based ban on all sporting contacts; a downgrading of cultural links; and the downgrading of diplomatic missions".
In other words, that is what can be done between now and 1st October 1998. The communiqué continues;
"Heads of Government agreed that, following I October 1998, CMAG should assess whether Nigeria had satisfactorily completed a credible programme for the restoration of democracy and civilian government. They further agreed that if, in that assessment, Nigeria had completed a credible transition to democratic government … then the suspension will be lifted and if not and it remained in serious violation of the Harare principles, Heads of Government would consider Nigeria's expulsion from the association and the introduction of further measures in consultation with other members of the international community… Such measures would include a mandatory oil embargo, a ban on air-links with Nigeria and the freezing of the financial assets and bank accounts in foreign countries of members of the regime and their families.".
With great respect, I believe that that is a sensible way to proceed. Certain sanctions can be applied between now and next October if, in the opinion of the ministerial action group, that would assist the transition to democratic rule. The heads of government have

1001
accepted that no such transition could well result in Nigeria's expulsion from the Commonwealth and the introduction of further sanctions.
I was asked a specific question about criteria for membership of the Commonwealth. It remains the same. There must have been a constitutional association between the country applying and one of the other members. In addition, there must be compliance with the Harare principles. As regards Palestine, if in accordance with the Oslo settlement it moves to independent sovereignty and there is such a thing as a sovereign Palestinian entity, an application to the Commonwealth from such an entity would be considered in accordance with the basic principles, just as any other applicant country would be considered.
4.31 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Lord Privy Seal agree—and I am sure that he does—that the Commonwealth Conference, with its emphasis on investment flows and market access, marks the continuation of the process which has evolved during the past two years of a steady upgrading in the Commonwealth of the priorities of British foreign policy? That is most welcome. Indeed, the process has evolved since a Select Committee in another place recommended that it should be the procedure and I am glad that that has been the response.
Does the noble Lord further agree that far from the Commonwealth being an outdated grouping it is quietly evolving as one of the most fascinatingly modern networks in modern world conditions? It provides a trans-regional set of connections and a common business culture which are not available from the United Nations or any particular trade bloc. That, too, is welcome.
Given the new opportunities and the fact that we are seeing the Commonwealth as a resource and not as an old-fashioned reunion, and given that we want Commonwealth members to speak up for us in the world's new trade groupings—for example, APAC and ASEAN—what are we doing to speak up more effectively for the Commonwealth in the European Union, as we have in the past and as I believe we should?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I share the noble Lord's views. The Government are conscious of the responsibilities that they owe to their fellow Commonwealth members. As regards negotiations inside the European Union, we stated in the communiqu… that we shall do everything we can to ensure that, for example, the position of the Caribbean banana producers is assured in the light of the rulings of the World Trade Organisation.
As regards the way in which the Commonwealth should now be approached, it is not often a chairman can say with conviction, "I was right", as the noble Lord can. His committee was right and I hope that we are continuing the process successfully.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I welcome the Chancellor's debt initiative. However, is there a plan not only to help
1002
countries with their economic policy but, following the Harare Declaration, to have broader policies of democracy and good governance? One of the ways in which debts can be reincurred is through bad governance. Is there any such hope either through the Commonwealth Secretariat or through Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am not sure that I totally understood the question. If my noble friend is asking me whether there are any proposals for encouraging democracy in individual countries, the answer is only in the most general sense of the word and through the existing Commonwealth institutions. It would not be sensible for the Commonwealth to embark on a democratic education programme of all the member countries. On the other hand, severe sanctions are available to it if a country is in persistent and serious breach of the Harare Declaration. On that the Commonwealth was totally agreed.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I, too, unreservedly congratulate the meeting on its economic agenda, in particular the debt and development issues relating to small states. Will the Government follow through issues relating to banana quotas, which I trust will continue to feature in a successor Lom… agreement?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I have made it clear that we will continue our policy in relation to banana producers. I hope that it proves successful.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, was there any discussion on accession to the Commonwealth of countries which are in the queue to join? Is there any procedure for accepting and acknowledging the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth and what functions are or might be implicit in such a procedure?
Lord Richard: My Lords, in order for a country to become a member of the Commonwealth three things must be in place. First, it must have had a constitutional association with another member of the Commonwealth. Secondly, it must have a regime which is consonant with the Harare principles, as set out in the declaration. Thirdly—and I omitted to mention it earlier—it must recognise the Queen as the Head of the Commonwealth. If those conditions are satisfied the application will be received and considered in the usual way.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I am obliged for that answer. Is there a formula whereby a newly acceding country recognises the Queen as Head of State? Is there a set formula or occasion for that purpose?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am not sufficiently "protocolaire" to know whether there is a precise sentence which the head of the incoming state Must utter. Certainly, the new state must accept the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, how does Mozambique fulfil the condition that there must have been a constitutional

1003
association with an existing member of the Commonwealth? Secondly, in the light of the interest which Members of this House recently showed in the remaining British dependencies, is there any prospect of them being collectively represented in future Commonwealth gatherings?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I know of no proposed mechanism whereby the dependent territories should be "coalesced" into one set of representatives at the Commonwealth Conference. If I am wrong I shall write to the noble Lord.
As regards Mozambique, perhaps the Commonwealth heads of government decided to admit it in the light of the conditions which were then prevalent and had been prevalent in southern Africa and the fact that there were a large number of Commonwealth countries in southern Africa. It was a practical and pragmatic decision which this Government would not wish to reverse.

Public Processions etc. (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
4.39 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I believe that I can speak for other noble Lords who plan to speak in the Northern Ireland debate today by saying that we in no way resent the injection of the Statement and the subsequent exchanges on Commonwealth affairs, given the fact that we in Northern Ireland are deeply concerned and interested in the well being of the Commonwealth in general.
I, too, should like to offer my sincere congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, on his impressive maiden speech; and, indeed, on his first speech from the Dispatch Box. That is an example of speedy promotion which comes as no great surprise to any of us who had the great privilege of working with the noble Lord during his very beneficial service in Northern Ireland. I should also like to point out that we are encouraged by the presence today of at least two former Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and of several Ministers who served in the Province.
With the intention of setting the debate and the Bill in context, perhaps I may mention that on 31st August, 1994, the day when the IRA declared—and it is worthwhile noting what was said—
"a cessation of military operations",
it was clear to me that other activities would continue. That afternoon, on my way to see the Prime Minister in Downing Street, I was asked by at least two of the 100 journalists there present what the next steps would be. I replied that I expected the terrorists would revert to the crowd scenes, which had served them so effectively some 25 years earlier. Recently Mr. Adams publicly explained that he and his colleagues had devoted two years to organising what they and other people term as, "concerned citizens groups", which caused serious disruption especially in 1996.
1004
As the Minister and the Liberal spokesman have said, the 1997 phase plainly failed because the organisers of traditional processions refused to play the enemy game. That avoidance of the traps, particularly in the 24 to 48 hours before 12th July of this year, threw the IRA/Sinn Fein into such confusion that, in a desperate attempt to regain the high moral ground, they called the current ceasefire. I do not complain about that; indeed, it is a bonus for everyone. I have outlined the background because in the remaining six weeks of the so-called marching season—that is, from the 12th July to the end of August—the entire situation was transformed and, as a result, the Province was, and is, well on the road to normality. In a sense that confirmed the view of the previous government that heavy handed legislation might not be the wisest course. They may have had in mind the Americanism, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". So I would absolve the previous Secretary of State of accusations of delay in such matters. I believe that he was wise to wait and see how the so-called marching season progressed.
When I accepted an invitation to tender my views to Dr. North and his review body, I advised against hasty measures of a permanent nature, explaining that the IRA always orchestrated a given target until success was achieved and then simply moved on to another target. I have to say with a great deal of sadness and regret that the IRA has now identified such a fresh target in the Province—the widespread Royal British Legion parades on Remembrance Sunday, when, like many of your Lordships, I shall be participating as a branch chairman in a truly cross-community, non-sectarian tribute which has been observed for 75 years. Over recent weeks certain bodies, not far removed from the so-called, "concerned citizens", have been going around expressing concern and opposition to those customary observances. For example, seeking assurances that Royal British Legion standards bearing a small element of the national flag in one corner should not be displayed; and, further, that no regimental colours or, indeed, Naval or Royal Airforce Ensigns should be carried.
There could be no doubt that this marks the beginning of a new phase of IRA activity which could not possibly have been foreseen by the North review body. Given the fact that the Royal British Legion is a United Kingdom organisation, I have to say that Her Majesty's Government should not ignore the possibility of an extension of those activities to England, Scotland and Wales of the IRA turning crowd scene tactics to Great Britain. I hope that the Minister will consider expanding and extending the Bill to cover the whole of the United Kingdom. The fact that such powers were on the statute books would be a real deterrent to any IRA sub-contractors planning various forms of disruption in Great Britain, based as they would be on the existing networks in this country which have sustained the bombing campaign far beyond Northern Ireland.
With the Committee stage of the Bill ahead of us, it is unnecessary to go into detail on the various clauses. Therefore, I shall confine my remarks to what I believe are the underlying issues. We shall need to look carefully at Clause 2 which gives the commission two

1005
apparently conflicting remits. First, it gives the commission a mediation role; and, secondly, it gives the commission power to issue determinations, thus taking over from the police in decision making. We clearly need to study that conflict very carefully.
There is a further inconsistency between Clauses 7 and 14 in the matter of penalties in regard to failure to comply with the law. When we come to the Committee stage, surely we ought to try to achieve a real balance between those who deliberately break the law and those who do their best to comply with it but may have found it difficult in certain circumstances to do so. Clause 7 also requires the giving of 28 days' notice, which will not greatly affect traditional parades because most of them are organised at least 12 months in advance. However, I wonder whether there is an infringement of civil liberties implicit in the clause. To me the only safeguard resides in subsection (5)(b) which provides for an exemption of a "class",
"specified in an order made by the Secretary of State".
I have to ask: would a procession arising from a sudden industrial dispute be specifically exempted on a given day, and how much notice of that event would be required? Further, how could that loophole prevent exploitation by, for example, a paramilitary body?
I believe that there is also need for a rethink on Clause 8, subsections (1) and (2), which give powers to the commission to issue determinations. Presumably those determinations will have to be enforced by the police. The police will therefore be exposed to censure, first, by the news industry and then, to some extent, by sections of the public who will misunderstand the real situation and the real powers of the commission. I have one suggestion which your Lordships may like to consider between now and Committee. Might it not be possible for two or three members of the deciding body—that is to say, the commission—to be physically present at the limited number of predictable flashpoints to make it clear that the decisions were theirs and to explain to television teams on the spot that the police had no discretion in the matter?
Finally, might it be possible to have clear guidance on the input of the Irish Government? That is not a hypothetical question because Irish Government Ministers have in the past stated—and, on occasions, boasted—that they have applied pressure on Her Majesty's Government in regard to decisions made on various processions. Until now that was the only identifiable channel between Dublin Ministers and Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office. However, it would be safe to assume that there could have been day to day communication via the joint secretariat, and no doubt that occurred.
However, this Bill alters the situation considerably. The key body in this whole operation is now the new commission which will in practice take the important decisions. Will the commission be subjected to direct pressure from the Irish Government or any other western government, or will all foreign influence be brought to bear on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who might then have difficulty in transmitting the foreign
1006
representations and who might even have difficulty in disclosing the source of the representations? That is an important matter. Given the dedication of the present Government to the principle of open government, it would seem consistent to apply that principle—a principle which, I am convinced, would do much to remove suspicion and more than anything else would constitute a confidence-building step and would be welcomed as such.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the Northern Ireland representatives in this House, who formerly were elected representatives for many years, still carry with them the baggage of their cultural identities. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Cope, to the Opposition Benches. He and I were Members of another place. He will know that in this House opinions are held but not with the same enthusiasm—for want of a better word—as those held by elected representatives who have to fight the next election. I am certain that the noble Lord will consider that everyone speaks sincerely in this House.
This legislation which has been brought before the House is controversial. As I have already said, we carry the baggage of our experiences in Northern Ireland over many years. The noble Lord who has just spoken and I are perhaps the two oldest former Northern Ireland elected representatives. I remember vividly a procession on the Longstone Road that was led by a Northern Ireland Cabinet Minister. It was one of the most contentious and controversial marches that took place at that time. That Northern Ireland Cabinet Minister, a Minister of home affairs who was in charge of law and order in Northern Ireland, led that unionist march much to the chagrin, fear and loathing of the minority community who lived in that area. I am happy to say that that Minister began, over many years, to realise that such demonstrations of his authority and superiority at that time were no longer relevant. Indeed he became a colleague of mine at the time of the Sunningdale Agreement. I refer to Brian Faulkner. Therefore changes have taken place but at that time that march engendered fear. People living in Northern Ireland, particularly those of my age, still carry memories of that march.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, spoke of human rights and liberties. I remember sitting in the old Stormont Parliament in 1953. At that time the unionist government, which represented the overwhelming unionist majority, brought to the statute book in Northern Ireland one of the most draconian, apartheid Acts of Parliament ever promulgated in Northern Ireland—the flags and emblems Bill. That Bill gave the unionists in Northern Ireland every right to march wherever and whenever they wanted. At the same time the Bill placed restrictions on the nationalist minority in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, said that he thought the civil rights movement began in 1969. However, that is not the case. I was there when it began in 1964 in the general election of that year. I was an agent in West Belfast. One of the candidates, Liam MacMillan, was a Republican candidate. On his platform there was an Irish tricolour to establish his cultural identity. The

1007
Reverend Ian Paisley was just entering the political arena at that time and he demanded that the flag be taken out of the election headquarters. He said that if that was not done, he would lead a march of 10,000 Protestants to remove the flag from the election headquarters. I was present when the police arrived. They broke into the premises in a vicious manner and removed the flag. That flag was a symbol of a candidate's cultural identity. That action led to a week's vicious rioting on the Falls Road in West Belfast. At that time West Belfast was not a Republican ghetto. Liam MacMillan, who was subsequently assassinated, only polled 3,000 votes at that election. There were only 3,000 Republican votes in West Belfast at that time, and yet the special powers Act was used to push through some most contentious legislation.
We still carry memories of those marches and of the people involved in them. It has been said that of the 3,000 marches that occur at the moment in Northern Ireland only 20 or 30 are contentious. That is quite true. I have anxieties about the Concerned Residents' Association, some members of which are genuine but some are bogus. Some of them are manipulated by Sinn Fein and the IRA. Their actions are not directed to help the interests of residents and tenants. Their actions are dictated by political objectives. However, most of the marches in Northern Ireland have taken place for many years and are non-contentious.
I should like to welcome the legislation that we are discussing, but I have reservations as to whether it will be effective. The commission may sit and perform its functions, but at the end of the day the RUC will have to police all the demonstrations. The RUC will be the body in the middle, as it has been for many years.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, expressed some reservations about Clause 3 of the Bill. I have many reservations about that clause. I do not understand why it was introduced at the last minute. The words "Public Processions etc." on the front of the Bill are a reference to the provisions of Clause 3. The Bill seeks to take account of expressions of cultural identity of the people of Northern Ireland. I wish to discuss further some of these cultural expressions. In unionist Protestant areas there are kerbstones painted red, white and blue, but in other areas kerbstones are painted green, white and orange. There are some gable walls depicting William crossing the Boyne and other gable walls depicting the Pope and the Virgin Mary. There are some gable walls depicting IRA volunteers and other gable walls depicting UVF volunteers. These are all expressions of the cultural identity of those areas. Are we to see members of the commission going from kerbstone to kerbstone, from gable to gable and from flagpole to flagpole giving their impressions of these items? The whole stance of Clause 3 is ludicrous. I am sure that by the time this Bill leaves this House that will have been recognised.
I believe that the commission's report was drawn up in its entirety by Dr. North. It pointed to the divisions which exist between the two cultures in Northern Ireland. When the recommendations of the commission start to bite, the marching season in Northern Ireland will be starting. That will be in March or April of next
1008
year. The present peace talks are scheduled to finish about May of next year. If there is a breakdown in the peace talks, if there is no resolution of the conflict which now exists and there is no attempt to bring about a power sharing arrangement in Northern Ireland which will satisfy the interests of everyone, this legislation will be absolutely worthless. In the event of a breakdown in the peace talks, the legislation will not be worth the paper it is written on. In these debates I try my damnedest to exude some optimism. However, given my experience of Northern Ireland I believe that that optimism is sometimes unduly placed.
The Bill refers to public expressions of culture identity, and states that these must be carried out in daylight. One cannot paint kerbstones in the dark. One cannot draw murals of King William, the Pope, or anyone else in the dark. So they will have to be done in daylight. Will a member of the commission watch? If he watches King Billy being painted on a gable wall, and makes any objection I would not lay too much money on his survival. We have to look at the reality of the situation.
We are still living with the past, with the flag and emblems legislation which created such a mindset among the minority in Northern Ireland. The incoming Labour Party abolished that legislation in 1966, and certainly not before its time. However, the existence of that Act in Northern Ireland created in the minds of the majority community the concept that, "We are the masters. We have the Government behind us. We will decide where we will march. But, more importantly, we will decide where you will not march". I talk only of the 50 years about which I can recall. It will be very difficult for all those involved in this legislation to get over that past history.
I believe that the personnel on the commission are responsible people. But they will have to be very aware of the sensitivity of both communities and must not appear to ban one community from marching, and then give the other community some scrap to keep it quiet. The people of Northern Ireland are not fools. The vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland wants to see the marches take place, as they have done over many years without difficulty.
I wish the talks that are now taking place every success so that this legislation may possibly be no longer necessary.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, at this Second Reading of the Public Processions etc. (Northern Ireland) Bill, I wish to say that I welcome the Bill. I commend the efforts of the Northern Ireland Secretary of State, Dr. Mowlam, the Northern Ireland Office and the newly formed Parades Commission for the speedy way in which the complex aspects of parades have been examined and the proposed legislative measures compiled. I support the declared principles of the Bill and will join in every way possible to expedite the essential parliamentary procedures in this House.
In the main, I believe that the measures proposed will help considerably to establish acceptable democratic procedures and practices for the organisation of and

1009
participation in public parades and marches. I believe that the measures will enable constructive and wholesome respect for rights and responsibilities in the organisation of and participation in public processions, parades, marches and public meetings. The measures will encourage wholesome respect for rights and responsibilities in our sadly divided community and will provide the means by which the basis may be formed for building trust and understanding on the principles of accommodating differences. I believe that the measures will help towards the building of public principles for the foundation of a peaceful settlement and a prosperous society in Northern Ireland.
I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley. I am pleased to see him here and compliment him on his maiden speech. With his understanding and experience of affairs in Northern Ireland, his opinion in this House will help with the growing awareness of the totality of affairs in the Province.
I listened with interest to remarks of my noble friend Lord Fitt on the role of the RUC. I share my noble friend's respect and join with his thanks for the way that the RUC has dealt in the past with the tremendous problems of marches. I join with my noble friend also in saying that 3,000 parades are held annually in Northern Ireland. About 20 of those cause trouble. Those troubles could be sorted out at their origin. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, has also had experience of Northern Ireland. He pointed out in a positive way that we must discuss the principles of the Bill in detail, and referred to the role of the commission.
My experience has not been that of an elected Member of the Northern Ireland Parliament but as a trade union official for over 20 years. I had to organise, arrange and be responsible for hundreds of marches, to Stormont, to my noble friend Lord Fitt and others lobbying against unemployment and for change in our community. There was always a sense of responsibility. The May Day parade in particular was welcomed by the public in general. I always received help from the RUC, and had every convenience made available to achieve success. I am sure that such help is always forthcoming when a parade is mounted with a specific need.
I do not wish to go into great detail on the Bill. There are many problems as regards the day-to-day operation of the commission. My noble friend Lord Fitt examined the detail of the day-to-day working of the commission. However, there is also the operation of the 28-day period. The police have to have notice of parades. The commission has to be referred to. The legislation provides that the commission presents an annual report. I am not sure that an annual report by the commission will help this House to understand the times in which the problems occur. It will probably be the responsibility of the Secretary of State and the Minister in this House to report on the experience of the commission.
Finally, I wish to deal with a few points that I believe may arise. I do not wish to detain the House with a half appraisal; we shall be occupied with the details at Committee stage. In my experience, problems arose not with members on the parades but from the hangers on,
1010
the people who accompanied the march. Those people were out to use the parade as a way to upset the general operation of law and order in the Province.
I refer to a point which perhaps should be conveyed to the commission rather than dealt with in the Bill. At this stage one wonders about the proper way to handle it, but it is important to draw attention to this fact. At what age should people agree to participate in a parade? I have seen hundreds of children in a parade. I have seen babies in prams and youngsters being carried. It makes for a sensitive area in which it is difficult to apportion responsibility. One is worried as to how the situation can be controlled if something happens.
My noble friend Lord Fitt mentioned the use in the Bill's Title of the term "etc." in relation to public meetings. Very often, following parades, public meetings are held. It is at those meetings that the flames are fanned and the difficulties arise. I am sure that the Minister will be called upon in Committee to deal with a number of these matters—how they should be conveyed to the commission, how they should be dealt with on the Floor of the House and what should be included in the Bill. Those are the problems that immediately arise. In any case, I wish to indicate to the Minister who will reply that he has huge support in many aspects of the very difficult job that he has to undertake.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for the conscientious and detailed way in which he outlined the provisions in the Bill. We have quickly come to recognise that approach as characteristic of the way in which he works and presents matters in this House, and we greatly appreciate it. Perhaps I may add my own word of welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, who made his maiden speech. I came to know the noble Lord when he served at the Northern Ireland Office. He was recognised there with some distinction for the solid, informed, conscientious and steady way in which he carried out his responsibilities. In someone who dealt with security matters in Northern Ireland, those characteristics were of enormous and reassuring importance. They were apparent in his speech today. We welcome the noble Lord, and look forward to his further contributions on Northern Ireland and other issues in this House.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, will know, the issue of parades, or indeed any other aspect of Northern Ireland life, tends to become quickly infected with the ancient feud. Over a long period of time parades have shown themselves to be susceptible to that infection. In Northern Ireland, it is not just a question of the past 20 or 30 years—or in the more extensive experience of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, 50 years. If we go back 100 years we find that governments were moved to ban all marches for a period of time because they became the occasion for violence, trouble and disorder.
That was not always the case. There were times, for example, when Orangemen went out not to march but, as they said, to walk. That distinction in terminology was significant. At times when the community was more

1011
placid and people genuinely merely wanted to express some cultural tradition, they went out to "walk". When people go out to march, and to parade, there is a military distinction attached to that terminology that is not without its significance. People go out to march around particular areas, to show that they are "their areas", and that they are in control of those areas. Very often, they want to do so in contra-distinction to others who may live there but to whom they may wish to say, "We are in control even though you may live here". That is what some of the distinction in terminology means.
More recently, those kinds of difficulties have come to infect the whole process. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, alluded to that, pointing out that there are those who wish to express objections to particular parades—in some cases parades that have gone on for a long period of time without significant disorder—because they want to make a political point that they are now in control of the particular area. There are some on the loyalist side who, knowing that significant demographic changes have taken place in an area and that it is no longer their particular area, nevertheless want to continue to hold their march, as though in some way they will continue to show that they have control. They often wish to do so at a time of greatest anxiety on their part that they are no longer in control. So in recent years the matter has come to the fore in a way that it did not previously.
In this regard the noble Lord, Lord Cope, will find a change in his experience. Previously, he had the good fortune to be in government. Now he will experience the enormous frustration of being requested by government to provide advice. Noble Lords may ask why it should be frustrating to be requested to provide advice. When one is first asked, one feels honoured. One gives consideration to the matter, consults widely, returns with the best thought-out plans that one can, presents them to the Minister, and then finds that one of two things tends to happen. Either the Minister refuses to accept the advice—that is the more fortunate possibility—or, less fortunately, the Minister accepts some of the advice and puts it into operation in such a way as to produce the worst possible result and the greatest possible frustration, and you receive the blame for having tendered the advice in the first place.
Dr. Peter North may well find himself in that situation, and to some extent at the hands of two succeeding governments. The first, the previous Government who asked for the advice, received it. Reading through it in detail at the time it was published and again more recently, I find the report remarkably good. I should not say "remarkably" in relation to Dr. North and his two colleagues; I should say, "expected" good report. I particularly expected it because so many of the matters that he included were based on advice that I and my colleagues had given to him. The first was that it would be good to have a commission to produce some kind of advice, mediation, and indeed determination if that were required.
Why did we make such a suggestion? We told the North Commission that it should make such propositions because we had already brought them to the previous Government in the previous year. After the
1012
trouble at Drumcree in 1995, we went to the Secretary of State at that stage—now the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, and we told him, "There is going to be trouble next year as there has been this year, and it will be much worse in 1996. We advise you to put in place a commission which can assist with mediation but which can make a determination if that is so required in order to ensure that the RUC, who are always piggy-in-the-middle in having to make a determination and enforce it, have that invidious position removed from them, and a rational discussion can take place on the matter". We further engaged his interest in the matter. He asked for some thoughts and advice, which we tendered—not in so much detail as in the succeeding year, but nevertheless we tendered it. But it must then have fallen foul of some of his advisers or colleagues, because it disappeared.
The next year, 1996, the whole Drumcree episode was every bit as bad as we had predicted it would he. So we returned with our proposals, newly burnished and expanded a little, with more detail, and this time with much greater support from all and sundry, who had begun to realise the trouble that was brewing. The North Commission was established and produced the report; and the Government, I fear, balked somewhat at it and felt it would be better to engage in what may be described as "wheelbarrow" politics; that is to say, you put the matter in front of you and wheel it along, not necessarily unpacking the burden at that stage.
So the commission was established, and with little power. Predictably, it was not able to do a great deal in terms of the summer period.
I support the Bill strongly; I wish to see it come into operation. However, there are two major problems. First, if there is to be negotiation between those who want to hold marches—they need not necessarily be loyal orders; they may well be nationalists—and those in the area who are at best unsure about the march being held, often a deal must be struck.
Given that there are usually a number of marches down any particular road over a period of a year, there needs to be some balance of the number of marches, the kind of marches, and what is expected over a period of time. Peter North recognised that. He referred to it in Recommendation 15, in Chapter 12 of his report. He states that the pattern must be viewed over the period of a year. It is clear that the current commission believes that to be a good idea. In the procedural rules published yesterday, it points out that in expressing a preliminary view it would like to examine any or all of the parades in a location. But if the provision is not clearly marked on the face of the Bill, I guarantee that there are those who will challenge whether the commission can enforce its recommendations; who will put the matter to judicial review, and so on. The last thing we need is for the commission to be dragged through that kind of situation where there is an uncertainty in its own mind and that of the community as to whether it really has the power to look at these matters. I hope that either the Minister and his colleagues will consider including a clause with appropriate wording that would not be incongruent with the European Convention on Human Rights or that they might be prepared to accept the views of some of the

1013
rest of us on that matter. It seems to me that, if deals are going to be done—as they must be—the pattern of parades over a period of time and their location will be important.
The second problem has already been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham; that is, the provisions of Clause 3 relating to expressions of cultural identity. I can only assume that the Orange Order, the Black Preceptory and the Apprentice Boys assumed that the purpose of the commission was to ban a certain number of marches—enough to appease those who did not want the marches. I have a different view. Where Orange marches or Apprentice Boys marches are inappropriate or insensitive and should be banned or re-routed, then so be it. But there could well be unreasonable requests by residents who are simply trying to stir up trouble. In such cases the Orange march should be allowed to go its course with legal backing; the police should not have to make the determination but simply ensure that the march went through. Unfortunately, I have the feeling that unionist people assumed that the commission was going to be anti-unionist and suggested to the Government that some balancing clause would need to be put in.
The term "cultural identity" tends to be one used more by nationalists in Northern Ireland, at least in the past. Therefore the connoting of other forms of cultural identity in the Northern Ireland context is the kind of language used to describe what unionists might think of nationalists and therefore something that could be banned on the other side.
In a previous debate in your Lordships' House I pointed out that the way forward was not to produce two sets of rights which would always have to be balanced one against the other because there would always be a dispute as to who was on the short end of the stick. The way forward is to produce one set of rights which applies to everybody: one commission for parades, no matter who sets them up, to adjudicate between the paraders and the residents, no matter which side of the community they come from.
When you introduce expressions of cultural identity, you do two things. First, you identify cultural identity with political allegiance. That notion has bedevilled politics in Ireland for the last 100 years: the insistence that if you are a Protestant you have to be a unionist and, at best, light on your Irishness; and if you are a Catholic you have to be a nationalist and certainly would put Irish at the top of the tree.
When we include in a piece of legislation a commitment that cultural identity will be some kind of balance to the commission on parades, which is mostly concerned with Orange parades, we fall into that very trap. It is a particular foolishness because, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, pointed out, while unionists, Orangemen and others might well think the commission will find itself applying cultural expression mostly to representations of Gaelic/Catholic/nationalist identity, I can guarantee that there will be those sophisticated enough in the nationalist community to say, "Here is another stick with which to beat unionists". And there
1014
will be a list of every Orange arch, not to mention all the gaily painted kerbstones, gable walls and other things. Outdoor concerts and goodness knows what else will be dragged into the whole business. The outcome will not be the one intended by the Government, not the one that I suspect was intended by those who promoted it from the unionist side, but rather something that will drag into the mire all kinds of other issues which are at this stage relatively less political and certainly way outside the remit of parades. The Parades Commission, instead of becoming something that helps to solve a difficult problem, will become mired down in it. No one will want to be a member of such a commission. It will be made into a kind of sin-bin, asked to solve all the impossible problems of defining cultural, political identity and nationalism.
I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will be prepared to look carefully at whether a clause such as Clause 3 adds to or enormously detracts from the possible success of the Bill, which otherwise, in its fullness and its congruity with the North Report, I fully endorse and heartily welcome.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, all the points which I intended to make today have been covered—and in most cases covered rather better than I could do—by other noble Lords and my remarks will therefore be brief.
I welcome this Bill as a serious attempt to find a better way forward. It will at least relieve the Chief Constable of the sole responsibility for permitting or banning parades or processions. He and his officers have in the past acted as mediators, arbitrators and then decision-makers where there have often been significant political implications. He has had an impossible job. The commission will have a difficult job, but at least the way it will operate will be laid down in a structured manner.
Several noble Lords have spoken of the 3,000 or more marches and parades which take place every year, 20, or even fewer, of which perhaps give rise to serious problems. We should not forget that walking or parading throughout the Province is on many occasions a social activity. Throughout the Province parades by Orange orders or the Ancient Order of Hibernians have often taken place in the same area with some understanding and mutual respect. It has not been uncommon for there to be co-operation, perhaps in the lending or borrowing of band instruments and so on. I hope that the scale of the structure to be imposed will not be totally out of line with these peaceable parades.
There are endless parades. What is a parade? Is it a small Church parade, a walk on a Sunday? Such things happen almost spontaneously. Care will need to be taken about the definition of a parade. There are all sorts of small gatherings and those involved would not think of giving 28 days' notice; they just happen. That must be made clear; otherwise there will be great confusion and tension.
Unfortunately, in some respects the parade problem has become worse in recent years. Most urban housing estates have now become polarised and mixed

1015
housing and mixed communities are no longer the norm. Some new estates close to the parade routes have been built, the residents of which are almost wholly nationalist. Both sides have been responsible at one time or another for the build-up of fear and bad feeling.
A recent and more sinister development is that Sinn Fein/IRA regards many nationalist areas as its territory and has actively encouraged resistance to parades by the loyal orders, perhaps under the excuse of culture but in fact to increase unrest and to prove that the police are not accepted and that it is the police who provoke riots in their areas.
The Sinn Fein/IRA objective is to prevent loyal order parades by threat of violence. On occasions this summer concessions were offered by loyal orders for some contentious parades but these did not meet with a positive response. In the past few days in Bellaghy in Co. Londonderry the residents committee objected to the traditional Armistice Sunday parade by the Royal British Legion, an entirely non-political organisation, because of the band that will be used. This clearly suggests the nature of the problem and the commission's task.
Reasonableness and mediation are not the answer where the Sinn Fein/IRA tactic is to cause trouble. If it bans traditional parades by the loyal orders because nationalists threaten violence, that will not be acceptable. If the commission determines that a parade cannot reasonably be objected to and permits it to take place, any breach of the peace will be another problem for the police. The commission's task is not an enviable one.
Clause 3 has been spoken of at length. It makes no sense to me. I know that it was added at the last moment to try to bring in the matter of cultural identity. I see nothing but trouble from it, and serious consideration must be given to abolishing Clause 3 or writing it in some way that makes sense. At the moment, it is a recipe for trouble. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, that any expression of cultural identity immediately starts apparently to favour one side or the other. That is quite the wrong way to go about it. The Bill must be written in a way in which the treatment will be the same and be fair treatment for all concerned.
Clause 7 requires notice of a parade. What is a parade? That question must be looked at very carefully. To go through such an enormous procedure for very small gatherings and walks will create an impossible situation.
The work of the commission has to be formalised with a code of conduct and procedural rules. But laying down a formal procedure for objections may—indeed, will—encourage objections and protests. It could become a shop for manufacturing grievances. That aspect must be watched because there are enough alleged grievances already in Northern Ireland.
I was encouraged and interested by a letter in last night's Belfast Telegraph. I quote from part of it. It starts:
"It is with great anger and indignation that I, as a Roman Catholic born, bred and still living in Crumlin, note the `coming out of the closet' of a so-called Nationalist anti-parades group".
1016
The writer goes on to describe his relationship with the Orange Order in his area and says:
"As for me, I'll still be out giving and receiving a friendly wave or two from my Orange neighbours, who are usually first in the line to bid me greetings on St. Patrick's Day".
He signs the letter "Concerned Catholic". He is one of many hundreds of thousands of sensible citizens, Protestant or Catholic, who identify and recognise just what is happening, where Sinn Fein or another organisation stirs up trouble in order to cause strife.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, several noble Lords have spoken on this subject with much greater authority than I could ever bring to it. Perhaps I may bring to this matter a different perspective, which I feel it is a duty to bring to the problem of Northern Ireland. After all, it is the problem of all of us, whether or not we live there.
First, as many noble Lords have said, out of the 3,000 or so parades, demonstrations and marches which take place, only a very few cause problems. It is only a very small number which has caused the major problems that we have seen on our television screens. That happened especially in 1995 and 1996, when there were two such episodes.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, said, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I say, "If it's broke, please only fix that part which has gone wrong. Don't replace the whole machine." We must understand precisely the way the commission has to operate. All parades are not at issue. All parades should not become an issue. All forms of expression of cultural identity are not in contention and we should not bring them into contention. It is very important that we concentrate on the two or three major "set piece" occasions (if I may so call them) which have in recent years become occasions for confrontation.
If that is the case, we must consider the work of the commission in a different way. One of the great problems in setting up commissions is that they want to have something to do. If they do not have anything to do they will invent something to do and it will become a huge industry. There will be lists of issues such as cultural identity, and so on, and they will go on for ever.
To me Clause 2 of the Bill is the crucial clause. Basically, it speaks about information and mediation in a much more open way than has been done so far. The duty of the commission is:
"to promote greater understanding.….to promote and facilitate mediation".
Also, it is very important that the guidelines issued by the commission talk about "local accommodation" in a very positive way. I believe that it is a problem of local accommodation and consultation between the citizens so far as possible without having to bring in the commission. Ideally, the commission should be an invisible hand—it should not actually be there. So far as possible it should encourage the local community to act.
In that respect, confusion often arises through defining the problem in much greater generality. I am always surprised when people discuss this matter or write reports on it. Excellent as this report is, it does not go into the laws of those countries in which communal

1017
conflicts are a major problem. Despite the recent Commonwealth heads of government meeting, we do not realise that in India, for example, there is a similar big problem between Hindus and Moslems. There is the same issue of cultural identity; there are parades and processions; and festivals and battles take place. It only matters if people are physically intimidated or harm each other. A bit of "aggro" is all right. What is of real concern is the breakdown of law and order—for example, in 1996 when the RUC was put into a position into which it should never have been put.
So I believe that this is not a problem of cultural identity or whatever. It is a problem of how one can stop a process before it becomes a seriously physically violent process. Everything else should be allowed to happen as it does. We shall not solve the whole problem by this legislation or any other piece of legislation. The problem may or may not solve itself, but that is another issue.
I see the commission's remit as centred very much around Clause 2—mediating, helping, informing and educating—rather than taking the route of determinations, where it will get into a very invidious position. People will ask, "Who does the commission represent? What power does it have?" Eventually, it will become a political body. Political power lies with the Secretary of State, and that is where it will end up. That will only devalue the commission. A tough decision cannot be taken by the commission; all it can do is solve problems which are suitable for resolution at a fairly friendly level.
It will be very important to see the commission as much more of a civil society organisation, helping other forces to achieve local reconciliation and local accommodation, than as a body which frequently takes the determination route, which I hope it does not have to do. That way lies trouble.
I also share the reservations of other noble Lords with regard to Clause 3, which I do not even understand. Certainly, if the intention is to open out to many more issues, I would suggest that either we stop now or, if there must be a Clause 3, then forget to implement it.
I say only one more thing, relating to what was said by my noble friend Lord Fitt. We more or less have a fixture list of major parades; we know the dates, and so forth. Therefore, as happened in 1997, one can take anticipatory action. The major problem arises from starting in March, while the talks process is at an extremely delicate stage. We may fix a deadline; but deadlines can be inciting.
I ask my noble friend to say to the commission—there are now only four or five months—"make sure the discussions start now", especially if the talks process either does not finish in May, looks as though it may be prolonged or—heaven forbid!—breaks down. There will then have to be a solid third line of defence because that is not the task of the commission. That is something we must anticipate early on.
1018
As has been pointed out, there are interesting inter-relationships between ceasefires and no ceasefires and civilian troubles in relation to marches. That interaction is going to be extremely important.
I welcome the Bill but hope that my noble friend will take on board the comments made this afternoon. The smaller and more accommodating a civil society the commission becomes, the better it will be. We do not want to get into a situation whereby more issues become contentious than is already the case.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I start from the distinctly unfashionable proposition these days that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a good thing and ought to be sustained. A prerequisite for that, in my opinion, is that there should be common rights and common duties throughout the kingdom, because it is right that there should be and because it helps to create a sense of common identity. For the same reason, laws ought also to be harmonised unless there is good reason for doing otherwise.
How does the Bill stand up to that test? Unlike some of my libertarian colleagues, I have never maintained that the right to demonstrate is an absolute and unqualified right. When people talk about the right to demonstrate, they normally mean mobile as opposed to static demonstrations like the rallies in Hyde Park. This Bill, first and foremost, concerns the right to demonstrate. Like the noble Lords, Lord Holme of Cheltenham and Lord Fitt, and others, I do not believe that one can take Clause 3 seriously. As a general principle—again on an "all United Kingdom" basis—the right to march must be balanced against the right of others to get from A to B without missing their trains, their flights, their job interviews and so forth. But to that end it should not be necessary to ban marches and parades altogether; merely to require some minor modifications to them. For example, people could be required to march no more than three or four abreast so that traffic can flow freely and, if the road is narrow, that could be reduced to two abreast. Nor would it be unreasonable to curb excessive noise.
What worries me about the Bill is whether the principle of absolutely minimal modification will be adhered to in practice under sustained pressure from Sinn Fein/IRA. We all know, though it is not spelt out, that the Bill is introduced above all to cope with Orange and other loyalist marches and, to a lesser extent, with Remembrance Day parades.
The strategy of Sinn Fein and its fellow travellers is to try continually to get the goal posts moved to the detriment of unionism in its widest sense and to destroy the morale of unionists, again in the widest sense of that word. To that end the members do their best to stir up a hostility to those traditional parades which rarely occurred in the past or, to the extent that it did, was only in a lukewarm, half-hearted form. It is as though national socialists—of a different ilk from the IRA—in England, taking advantage of the mild irritation felt by the residents of Notting Hill and Bayswater over the inevitable noise and litter associated with another

1019
expression of cultural identity—the Notting Hill Carnival—were trying to stir up the residents into physically blocking it.
There is certainly a good case for banning any parade which proposes to march through residential streets in the centre of a hostile area, though there are not many such attempts. But marching along main roads on the periphery of a hostile area is a different matter, and there is no case for banning processions in places which are merely in sight of a hostile area, like the walls of the old City of Derry. In borderline cases a reasonable compromise would be to require participants to march in complete silence and to carry no provocative banners. That should be good enough for anybody apart from the fanatics on both sides.
Remembrance Day parades should never be banned; after all, they are open to everybody and many members of the nationalist community died fighting the Kaiser and Hitler respectively—the latter at a time when the IRA was secretly negotiating with Ribbentrop, the Nazi foreign minister, as we learnt from a recent television documentary.
I enjoy a good marching tune as much as the next man. But even if I lived in Northern Ireland—which I do not—I could never consider joining anything like the Orange Order; it is simply not my cup of tea, for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, I can understand why so many people do so, which may seem surprising to those on the mainland who have never faced any genuine threat to their national identity.
We are constantly enjoined by republicans to look at everything from an all-Irish perspective. If one does exactly that and examines the history of the island of Ireland over the past 80 years, one will see that, though ethnic cleansing was certainly carried out by both communities (there can be no dispute about that), the overwhelming majority of those dispossessed were Protestants and unionists. The population statistics, the voting statistics and the abandoned churches in the South testify to that. The Spectator recently carried some interesting correspondence about the pogroms, as they were described, of 1921 and 1922 in the west of Ireland.
Evictions in the North have been fewer but bloodier. No less an authority than Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien has written of the systematic liquidation of unionists in the border areas of County Fermanagh. That perhaps helps to explain why many Orange parades (which, by all accounts, were genuinely festive and could be enjoyed by all and sundry, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice pointed out) have in recent years unfortunately taken on a much harder edge.
At any rate, the branding of those parades as "triumphalist" by those who disapprove of them seems wide of the mark; the description "survivalist" would be more accurate. That is why, if the Bill is accepted without amendment, one trusts that its provisions will be applied with the greatest tact and sensitivity and with a built-in predisposition towards allowing long-standing traditional parades to continue to take place with the minimum of restriction.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for taking part in the debate and for their valuable, interesting and well-informed contributions. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, on his maiden speech. We were both in the other place together, I for a shorter time than he. He has had a distinguished ministerial career, including a period in Northern Ireland where he is still well remembered and well regarded. I congratulate him on an excellent maiden speech. I am pleased to say that he was broadly supportive of the Government's position; woe betide us when the day comes that he is not. I hope that that day will not come in relation to Northern Ireland.
We know only too well the complexity of the problems Northern Ireland has faced for so long. The parades issue has proved in recent years to be one of the most complex. It is a microcosm, as many noble Lords have indicated, of the religious and political entrenchment which still, despite the invaluable progress we have seen, characterises society there.
One lesson that has been learnt down the years—many noble Lords referred to this point—is that imposed solutions cannot work. The source for an acceptable settlement must, by definition, be the people of Northern Ireland. So it is with parades. The central aim of the legislation, therefore, as I have set out for noble Lords, is to encourage agreement between those who are locked in confrontation. Although we have entrusted the new body with the power to make all important decisions on disputed parades, we want above all to create the conditions in which this power need not be used and instead agreement can be facilitated. That is the key aspect of the Bill.
We are committed to preserving the civil rights of all our citizens and our intention to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic legislation is a pledge of our commitment in that respect. Accordingly, our principle is equal treatment for both sides of the community in Northern Ireland. It is this principle which lies at the heart of our approach.
Many noble Lords made important contributions. I do not wish to get into details of what will be an interesting Committee stage. On the other hand, I want as much as possible to deal with some of the specific points that were raised and questions that were asked. If I do not deal with all of them, I hope noble Lords will accept that the Committee stage will be the next opportunity when they can, as it were, press their particular points.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, made a number of points. He asked about financial assistance in Clause 2. The commission has a duty to promote greater understanding of parades and to promote and facilitate mediation. The provision in subsection (3)(a) would be, for instance, to enable the commission to give financial assistance to any person or body which is engaged in the business of mediation and conciliation. As the noble Lord said, we do not envisage that the sums involved will be major—small sums of money but as part of a useful process.
The noble Lord also asked about the exclusion of sporting events in Clause 3. We recognise that sporting events can be a statement of community identity but we

1021
do not believe that anyone wants to take offence at this or to politicise sport. That is why we have decided to exclude such events from the extended remit as set out in Clause 3. There are events which people may or may not choose to attend. But there may be public order problems which can arise in connection with sporting events. Those may be the ones to which the noble Lord referred. They may have a sectarian aspect. However, we believe that these are straightforward policing matters with which the police have powers to deal and therefore are not relevant to this Bill concerning public processions. The existing powers the police have should be sufficient to deal with those.
The noble Lord asked a technical question—I call it technical—about the Secretary of State's power to ban marches and said that this does not require the Secretary of State to have regard to traditionality or the failure of those involved to comply with the code of conduct. The desirability of allowing a procession customarily held along a particular route to proceed along that route is relevant to the question whether the commission should impose a condition on that parade since one of the conditions the Government can impose relates to the route that that parade may follow. But it is not relevant to the overall power to ban a parade. That is a different matter. Once the power to impose conditions is considered inadequate, the route which it should follow is not therefore relevant to the question whether it should be banned completely. Therein lies the difference. The code of conduct is also relevant to the imposition of conditions but has no direct significance for the banning power. It would be too extreme to allow breaches of the code to result in a total ban. In the distinctions we have drawn here, to which the noble Lord referred, we have kept faithfully to the recommendations in the North Report.
The noble Lord also asked about different penalties for different offences under the Bill. This is a quite complicated point. It would seem here both that the possible penalties are maxima and that the authorities have a range of possible charges depending upon the circumstances. Some of these provisions re-enact existing legislation. But on the specific example given, I think it is reasonable that the maximum penalty in events where no notice has been given but no further trouble has resulted should be lower than in those cases where the organisers consciously decided to defy a legal ruling reached by the commission after due consideration. As for breaking up processions, if that is done with violence, there are a variety of other public order offences which can be put against those involved in such activities.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, asked a number of significant questions. He asked about 28 days' notice being required under Clause 7. He asked about those individuals who might wish to organise a parade which concerned, for example, an issue which arose at short notice—such as a trade union dispute. Under Clause 7(2) notice must be 28 days or as soon as reasonably practicable. Therefore, account can be taken of issues which have arisen so quickly that the 28 days' notice would not have been appropriate.
1022
A number of contributions covered the question of Clause 3 and what might be called the extended remit. I was asked what it would cover. It would be for the commission itself to consider—and make recommendations if necessary—the law and practice concerning other expressions of cultural identity. We have no fixed views about what it should look at, although the Bill will make it clear that we have excluded sporting events. Undoubtedly, the commission would receive representations from the public and others about those expressions of cultural identity which concerned them. However, the key point on this—I understand the different feelings in the House—is that, as originally conceived and based on the North recommendations, we felt that the Bill might be seen as not being even-handed across both communities and both traditions in Northern Ireland. We sought to redress that so that the Bill can be seen to be even-handed across the whole of Northern Ireland. To deal with that we felt that this extra provision would be desirable.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I hope he will address the point made by my noble friend Lord Alderdice that the concept of balance may be particularly inappropriate in the Bill. Do I understand the noble Lord to say that what is cultural identity is to be defined by the commission only and that the Government will give no more guidance than what appears on the face of the Bill?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, on the second point, I think it would be inappropriate for the Government to tell the commission how to act on this provision. We believe that it is for the commission to take this into account, bearing in mind that the powers of the commission are simply to give advice in this respect to the Secretary of State. The commission does not have any further powers than as envisaged in the Bill.
As regards the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, as to whether we are seeking too much balance, what we want is legislation that will be accepted by all the people in Northern Ireland. That is what we are aiming at. We want consent for the legislation. I believe that the attempt to achieve balance will help to get consent for the legislation. I hope that I can bring both noble Lords with me on this. I understand their concerns, but we believe that the effect of this provision will be to achieve balance and therefore the consent that is essential if the legislation is to have a fair run and if the commission is to be able to carry out its task.
Another key issue raised by a number of noble Lords is why we did not adopt the North proposals on what I might call a "package deal" covering a whole series of marches. Perhaps I may use that expression, inelegant as it sounds. That matter was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Alderdice, and a number of other noble Lords. It is clear that the package deal was a recommendation in the North Report. Indeed, it is one of the very few areas where our legislation does not implement the report in full.

1023
The commission will seek to facilitate local agreements over longer periods in the way that the report proposes. It will also have the power to express in advance its preliminary views on what the outcome for particular parades should be. We hope that that will go some way to achieving the assurance that the North Report was looking for.
However, we believe that there will be considerable practical and legal difficulties in giving the commission the binding powers suggested. The purpose of the package deal suggested would be to provide reassurance and certainty about the number of parades that will be permitted in any given area. But while in practice many parades are known about well in advance, others are organised at short notice. Overall rulings would not be able to take them into account. We are clear that the Parades Commission needs to make its decisions on the basis of all the facts surrounding an individual parade. If the commission had already made its decision in advance of knowing the full circumstances of the case, it would be vulnerable to the charge that it had fettered its own discretion.
The right to march is an important one and in the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights restrictions need to be justified on the grounds that they are necessary and proportionate to the circumstances of the case. The only way around that problem that we can see is either to give the commission an explicit power to set quotas for the number of parades which are acceptable in given areas, regardless of the circumstances, or to require parade organisers to give a much longer period of notice, perhaps six months or longer, to enable decisions to be taken in advance of the marching season. Both of those are radical suggestions and pose grave difficulties in ECHR terms.
We recognise the weight that some place on this particular recommendation of the North Report. While we see the difficulties we retain an open mind and will be happy to consider any suggestions put forward either in this House or in the other place. I hope that that will reassure those noble Lords who are unhappy about the specific point to which I have referred.
Perhaps I may deal very quickly with a number of outstanding issues that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, spoke about the Royal British Legion parades and his concern that there may be some problems about them. I share that concern. I believe that those parades are a tribute to the large number of people who gave their lives fighting for this country in both world wars, including many Irishmen, both Catholic and Protestant. They made a significant and valiant contribution, particularly to the 1939–45 war, alongside people from Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa, India, Kenya, Jamaica and many other countries. We see those parades as paying tribute to all those people who died and who came from all those countries. It would be most inappropriate and wrong in principle if anyone thought that there was something wrong with those parades. They are a right and proper expression of respect for the many people who died.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, asked about the position of the Irish Government. The Parades Commission is independent. It is meant to be
1024
independent of this Government as it is of any other government. It is that very independence of the commission which is central to what we are seeking to do and why we believe that this proposal ought to achieve consent across the whole community—precisely because of the independence of the Parades Commission. The noble Lord also suggested that members of the commission should attend flashpoints. I am sure that they will. I believe that some of them did in the last marching season. No doubt they will have heard the noble Lord's suggestions and will take account of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said that we all carry baggage. I have learnt that that is certainly true in Northern Ireland. He also said that at the end of the day the RUC will have to deal with the difficulties. That is so if all else fails, but if the commission's role, as defined in the Bill, is successful we will not get to the point where the RUC will have to pick up all the pieces.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, spoke about hangers on at parades and about young children taking part and the difficulties that that will cause. Again, these are issues which I am sure that the Parades Commission will take into account when dealing with any particular parade.
My noble friend Lord Desai spoke about the small number of parades that cause problems. I agree with that. He also said that not all expressions of cultural identity are in contention, and they are certainly not. He emphasised the importance of local accommodation. I agree fully with all of that. He also suggested that the Parades Commission should start its work now in anticipation of the next marching season. Again, I am sure that those words will have been heard by the members of the commission.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, spoke about threats of violence and said that they themselves might prejudice the holding of a parade. We have experienced threats of violence over the years in connection with parades and it is precisely to deal with that problem that we have a Parades Commission—in the hope that it will take all the issues into account and arrive at a balanced conclusion. I do not believe that the very existence of that commission will encourage more people to express grievances; at least I hope it will not. Indeed, we have had so many grievances expressed in Northern Ireland that I do not believe that one piece of legislation is likely to add to them, but one never knows for certain. But I do not believe that that will necessarily be the case. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, spoke about a number of situations where marches will be banned. But the essential point of the remit of the Parades Commission is that it will not ban marches but will deal with matters short of banning them such as affecting the route. If we get to the point of banning marches the commission will not have succeeded.
In conclusion, agreement on parades will transform the prospects for political progress. The difficulties are immense, as many noble Lords have indicated. But I believe that such agreement is achievable. Let us grasp this opportunity to set in place a vital building block on which we can base a secure and just settlement for

1025
Northern Ireland. I thank noble Lords for their very positive support for the Bill and ask them to give the Bill a second reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

The "Ministerial Code"
6.7 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what are the reasons for the new components and features of the Ministerial Code which has replaced Questions of Procedure for Ministers and was made public on 31st July.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Ministerial Code about which I am enquiring was made public on 31st July, the first day of the Summer Recess. I applied for this debate on the following day, 1st August. This is the earliest opportunity for me to raise the subject. The code replaces a document entitled Questions of Procedure for Ministers which has been updated from time to time and which has provided guidance for Ministers in both Labour and Conservative Governments for at least 45 years and perhaps considerably longer, but certainly for 45 years to my knowledge.
I have good reason to know because 43 years ago I was responsible, among other things, for ensuring that, in its latest version, it was received personally by every Member of the Government. In that earlier incarnation I was a public servant in what was then known as the Foreign Service. I had been assigned by the Foreign Office to work with the then Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, as Private Secretary to the Secretary to the Cabinet who was then Sir Norman Brook.
The Prime Minister's staff was extremely small then compared with later times and with today. When I moved back to Foreign Affairs after Churchill had retired, I handed over to my successor, who is now the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, who much later became Secretary to the Cabinet himself at a time, coincidentally, when I was a member of the Cabinet in the early 1970s. That was one of my later incarnations.
In those days, the document Questions of Procedure for Ministers was confidential, but several years ago it was decided to make it public, so the last edition of 1992 was public property, with a new paragraph 1 being inserted in November 1996, expanding on the general principles governing the conduct of Ministers. That paragraph has been repeated in the new code, with minor changes of wording. In fact, although renamed, the new code restates the principles set out in the previous document, mostly in identical paragraphs which have simply been lifted from its predecessor. That is what makes one particular change very significant.
Although some 130 paragraphs repeat virtually word for word the previous rules and guidance concerning correct conduct, financial implications and conflicts of interest, an additional paragraph. No. 88, is an astonishing new directive about contacts with the media.
All major interviews and broadcasting appearances are to be agreed beforehand with the Prime Minister's Office and records of all contacts by Ministers and officials with newspapers and broadcasters are to be made and kept. That raises questions. Will Ministers have to report on every chat over a meal or a drink with a journalist? Is the real object to reduce and restrict such contacts? I suggest that such centralisation must hamper the normal work of busy Ministers and their routine communication with the media. Must we assume that more is now to be done in briefing the press by the "spin doctors", an American term that I regard as an affront to the medical profession? They would better be described as "spidermen" as they spin yarns and weave deceptive webs.
How does that relate to recent reports that unattributable briefings are to be ended or radically changed? The misunderstandings and contradictions over EMU in the past few days have certainly illustrated shortcomings in the system which is now being used. When the new code appeared at the end of July a member of the Prime Minister's entourage was reported in the press as saying:
"It is the strategic and message discipline we operated in Opposition as translated to Government".
Even after three months in office, the Labour Party had not understood the constitutional and other differences between being in opposition and in government.
Presentation of government policy does, of course, need to be co-ordinated. This new decree goes much further in attempting to control centrally every part of the normally continuous relationship between the media and Ministers. The departure since 1st May of the heads of information divisions in several government departments—now thought to be as many as eight—is part of the general unease in the Government Information Service. Here I should mention a very recent case. One senior government information officer resigned a few days ago from his position in the Department for Education and Employment. The episode was widely reported, so I shall briefly remind the House that a junior Minister had tried to include in a government press release derogatory comments on the previous government's attitude. Rightly, the Permanent Under-Secretary insisted that the passage be deleted. I understand that it then went to the Labour Party's Press Office for issue.
That incident involved also the role of civil servants. The paragraphs on civil servants in this code and in its predecessor are identical—paragraph 55 in the 1992 version and paragraph 56 in this new code. I suggest that what must have gone wrong was failure to observe the clear guidance in paragraph 56 of the code or failure to interpret it in practice.
I have put some questions about new paragraph 88 to the noble Lord who is to reply from the Government Front Bench. I look forward to his replies and his explanation of that extraordinary addition. I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, especially as he is usually allotted the most difficult subjects on which to answer for the Government and he does so as well as is possible in those situations.
I move to paragraph 48 on "special advisers", a description that covers political advisers, spidermen and specialists in particular subjects. It expands upon the equivalent paragraph in the 1992 document, which was paragraph 54. Those advisers are not established civil servants and they hold temporary positions. One change in the new code is that each Cabinet Minister may appoint two special advisers. Can the noble Lord confirm the report that 53 political advisers have been appointed so far by the present Government, compared with 38 under the last government, and that the increase in the Prime Minister's Office has been from eight to 18?
The public were treated to a brief insight into the spinning methods of special advisers earlier this month when the Scottish Television film "We are the Treasury" was widely shown on television. In what was probably an unguarded moment, a spiderman admitted to acting in ways not consistent with a service to provide government information.
I turn to other changes. First, there is a foreword by the Prime Minister—an addition that was not in the equivalent 1992 document. In that short foreword we read the sentence:
"I have decided to publish this document because openness is a vital ingredient of good. accountable Government".
No one can argue with that, but the document that this replaces was also published. Of course, this code would have had to be published. There would have been an almighty parliamentary row if it had not been published, like its predecessor. The decision to publish had little to do with openness. It followed previous practice. I am sure that that sentence was not a facile attempt to claim credit for what was not a new departure; namely, publishing the document. However, I must point out that that is what it looks like.
Another change is that there are three new paragraphs on accounting officers—paragraphs 57 to 59. I assume that the reason for this relates to the latest procedures for the Select Committee on Public Accounts and I shall not say any more about that because I am sure that it is acceptable.
A further change comes in the sections on not accepting fees for speeches, writing or broadcasts. There is a new injunction in paragraphs 96, 100 and 104 not to divert fees to charity, with no dispensation to do so if no particular charity is nominated. When I was a junior member of the Government in the early 1960s and a Cabinet Minister in the early 1970s, I was able to steer fees to disability charities. Is there any ethical or other reason why that should now be expressly forbidden? Charities need all the contributions that they can get nowadays owing to competition from the National Lottery.
On acceptance of gifts, the limit rises with inflation. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, will recall the incident many years ago when the late Mr. Tony Crosland, then a Cabinet Minister, was presented with a coffee pot after performing an opening ceremony in this country. It was later discovered to be an unusually valuable pot. As a result, a figure was promulgated to be the limit in future for the acceptable
1028
value for a token of gratitude or a souvenir which it might seem churlish for a Minister to decline. Thereafter, Private Secretaries reminded Ministers in successive governments of the "Crosland Coffee Pot" and tried to advise potential donors behind the scenes beforehand to avoid any embarrassment.
As I have the time, I shall mention an experience of my own since it demonstrates that unforeseen situations can arise. In June 1970, I was appointed Secretary of State for Scotland. Among the many devolved subjects administered by the Secretary of State, his Ministers and the Scottish Office is agriculture. I therefore immediately made arrangements to relinquish the supervision of my farming operations at my home in my constituency in Northern Scotland. For four years a neighbour, who also farmed, kindly directed my farming and forestry. That was correct as I was, among other things, to be taking decisions on government grants in Scotland separately from the Ministry of Agriculture in England.
The unexpected situation arose more than two years later. In June 1970 no one could have foreseen that oil would be discovered in the North Sea in commercial quantities. There was no Department of Energy before 1974. In 1973 certain Labour MPs raised the question on the Floor of the other place as to whether Scottish Office Ministers owned shares in oil companies as the Secretary of State for Scotland was so much involved in the development of the new offshore oil industry. To avoid any suspicion of impropriety I directed the stockbroker concerned with the modest share portfolios of both my wife and myself to sell the shares in companies involved in the North Sea, including construction, engineering and shipping. The stockbroker's response was that the House of Commons must be mad. I corrected him and pointed out that the other place was not requiring me to part with those investments. It was my own decision to do so. As a large majority of the present Ministers have not before been members of a government, I hope that this reminiscence may be helpful in showing that they must be ready for the unexpected.
I will summarise my main points on the passages concerning special advisers, civil servants and the media. Ministers should separate making policy from spinning; and serving a party machine in opposition is very different from presenting the policies of a government.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for calling our attention to a document published at the beginning of the Recess which contains, among other things, the statement that important documents should not be published after the rising of Parliament. His account in the light of his own ministerial experience of how this differs from or complements the previous document which was also public is something that we may well wish to study in Hansard.
I have no such experience to share with noble Lords. My interest is a different one. During the period when the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, held high

1029
political office I had to teach about the British system of government. I have been all too painfully aware that that has been in constant change. Therefore, I look to a document of this kind to see what clues it may provide to the way in which government is at present conducted. From that point of view it is a very striking document because of the emphasis that is given to the presentation of policy rather than its formulation or implementation. For example, one of the matters to which it refers—it is not something for which this Government bears responsibility—is the pullulation of junior Ministers with particular aspects of their department confided to them and those aspects made public. That used not to be the case. It raises all kinds of questions as to what junior Ministers are supposed to do and how they fit into the presentation of government policy. As to that, the document is singularly unenlightening. The only positive statement that is made is that the Permanent Secretary retaining responsibility for the department at large is not subject to junior Ministers but, on the other hand, junior Ministers are not subject to his directions.
One can visualise some confusion when policy must be made and presented at very short notice. For example, one would have liked to know in greater detail—it may become very important as government legislation appears before us—the position in the Department of Social Security. We have a Secretary of State who is supposed to conduct that part of the Government's business and a Minister in the department who has been told to think the unthinkable. We have a Minister in this House who, presumably, has to mention the unmentionable. After all, the matter must be complete in some way. One would like to know how the balance is struck. It is not an academic question or one that has not already had some consequences.
I shall not rehearse what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has said about the confusion induced in the financial world by the antics of presentation of government policy regarding EMU. I take a different example. Noble Lords will be aware from the press that Her Majesty's visit to India, which is a very important event in her reign—earlier today we were assured how important was her position in the Commonwealth—was clouded by attacks on the part of the Indian press upon the alleged determination of the British Government to act in some mediating capacity in relation to the problem of Kashmir. How did that arise? It arose because at the Labour Party conference a junior Minister made a speech in which he precisely suggested that Britain could intervene favourably in this long-running conflict. It appears that he was unaware that among his audience were not merely Labour Party stalwarts but a representative of the Indian High Commission. As a result, India knew that at least one Minister—not, I hasten to add, the Foreign Secretary—was contemplating what for India was something that should never be contemplated, like it or not; namely, that the Kashmir problem was an international one.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, also drew our attention to the whole business of co-ordinating the presentation of government policy, in particular the quite extraordinary role that is allotted to an officer not
1030
new to government but clearly of great importance: the head of the No. 10 Press Office. When one reads of the importance that is attached to his assent to any communication between a Minister and anyone else one begins to understand why, so it is rumoured, the policeman in No. 10 Downing Street has been given instructions as to what to do if someone comes along—let us say a Korean—and says, "Take me to your leader". The policeman is told that he must ask that individual whether he is referring to the Dear Leader or the Great Leader. If he says, "the Dear Leader" he is conducted straight to the Prime Minister. If he says, "the Great Leader", he is allowed to enter the Downing Street press office.
It does not, as we have seen in recent weeks, altogether work. The trouble is that although the Labour Party believes that it has a mandate not merely from the electorate but occasionally from Heaven, and it talked at the last election as though the party manifesto was a combination, at the highest level, of the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount, there are voices, apparently even in the Labour Party, even of persons elected on a Labour ticket, who disagree, who have different views. It is hard to believe that even that great apparatus will, in the end, succeed in doing what, thankfully, no government have been able to do: silence the natural scepticism of the British public and British Members of Parliament. Even the Mandelson clones at the other end of the Palace have been unable to silence their natural scepticism and natural desire to speak out.
6.31 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for introducing today's debate. The Motion seeks clarification of the new components and features of the Ministerial Code. At the outset we should acknowledge that, at a variety of levels, these should have the potential of promoting within government the essential virtues of probity and integrity. There is nothing wrong with that. But the real question we should be asking ourselves here is what price is being paid for this benefit.
It is something of a truism, but things are not always as they seem. The code is no exception. It is symptomatic of the process whereby this Government's protestations about giving more power to the people are tempered by:
"parallel thrusts towards less accountability and a strengthening of the executive".—[Official Report, 14/10/97; col. 422.]
It could reasonably have been supposed that new Labour would have used the code as a mechanism to deliver greater democratisation. In this we cannot dispute that it does deliver a very much stronger framework of ministerial accountability. But it does not place this in the hands of the public. It does not even place it in the hands of Parliament. No, my Lords, it delivers it into the hand of the Executive as personified by the Prime Minister, and the No. 10 press office.
By way of illustration, I wish to focus upon Paragraphs I(iii), I(iv) and I(v). These represent a substantial re-working of the sense conveyed in

1031
paragraph I(iii) of Questions of Procedure for Ministers. I shall not weary your Lordships by reading the relevant texts in full.
Before embarking upon an analysis of the nuances of meaning between the two texts, some background is necessary. Your Lordships will recall that, in the wake of the recommendations of the First Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, a new paragraph I was drafted for insertion into QPM to buttress and, in a sense, replace the provisions concerning accountability of Ministers to Parliament as outlined in paragraph 27. At that time and in subsequent debate of the Scott Inquiry Report, both main parties of opposition expressed considerable concern at the phrase "knowingly mislead". Ann Taylor, in giving evidence to the Public Service Committee inquiry on accountability in 1996, noted that QPM would be rewritten if there were a Labour government and that "knowingly" in paragraph I(iii) would be removed. We now have a Labour government. We have the promised re-write, and yet, paragraph I(iii) retains the phrase "knowingly mislead". No doubt the noble Lord will wish to explain this apparent change of heart.
So to the revisions made to the text. The phraseology of QPM:
"Ministers must not knowingly mislead Parliament and the public",
may well have been imperfect. But the new code, while requiring Ministers to be "accurate and truthful" to Parliament, only imposes a duty of being "as open as possible" in their dealings with the public, a requirement that was, in any event, explicitly stated in paragraph I(iii) of QPM. By any measure that is a dangerous dilution of ministerial accountability and responsibility to the public. I ask the noble Lord to explain that apparent anomaly and to clarify how the Government reconcile it with the Prime Minister's:
"strong personal commitment to restoring the bond of trust between the British people and their Government."
We should not lose sight of the fact that the code is no more and no less than a Prime Ministerial edict as to the standards he expects his Ministers to live up to. The chain of accountability that it delineates is from Ministers upwards to the Prime Minister alone. This is exemplified by the phraseology that:
"They can only remain in office for so long as they retain the Prime Minister's confidence".
In effect breaches of the code and any sanctions that may be applied as a result, notwithstanding the possibility of an intervention from the Cabinet Secretary, vest wholly within the personal judgment of the Prime Minister. That was a particular criticism of QPM and its operation under the previous administration. As the Public Service Committee Report noted:
"It seems extraordinary to us that the only explicit statement of how Ministers are expected to discharge their obligations to Parliament appears not in a Parliamentary document, but in a document issued by the Prime Minister".
It went on to say that this:
"contributes to an illusion that the obligations on Ministers in relation to Parliament are derived from the instructions of the Prime Minister, and not from Parliament itself'.
1032
And yet, perhaps not so surprisingly in the context of this Government and despite all of their protestations about greater accountability, the Ministerial Code perpetuates, even strengthens, this centralisation of control and power in the hands of the Prime Minister.
Here I ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to give an authoritative and definitive statement as to the constitutional status of the code. In particular, I would ask him if it is the Government's view that the Resolution on Accountability of another place has primacy in this area. This bias towards centralisation is most apparent in the code's provisions with respect to the media and special advisers.
As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has already told us, it is in these areas that it has been most extensively revised. Here I do not dispute the desirability of co-ordination of government strategy and implementation, but the text is now framed almost to convey the impression that Ministers are not permitted to sneeze, particularly in front of the media, without authority from the No. 10 press office.
That desire of the centre to exert absolute control over all presentation of policy has about it the character of obsession. It lends credibility to the impression that this Government perceive policy exclusively in terms of its impact upon the electorate. Its presentation is deemed to be more important than its substance. That is dangerous. It does no favours for either good government or democracy.
There is merit here in seeking to review the operation of the code by reference to policy presentation in recent months. It is my understanding that the code was implemented on the first day of this Government. That being so, it is curious that the Chancellor, despite the provisions in paragraph 27 that:
"the most important announcements of Government policy should be made, in the first instance, in Parliament",
found it convenient to use the media as his preferred means to disseminate his intention to transfer control of interest rates to the Bank of England. There is scope for similar criticism to be levelled at the handling of various other major policy initiatives such as the Budget Statement and the publication of the Dearing Report.
Taken as a whole those examples demonstrate a certain disdain of this Government for Parliament. They are also technical, if not actual, breaches of paragraph 27 of the code, and yet, so far as we know, no sanctions have been applied to the Ministers concerned. No identifiable action has been taken to reprimand them. In effect Ministers have been able to by-pass their accountability to Parliament and the public. The chain of accountability has been diluted.
A charitable mind might infer that, despite previous lapses, the Chancellor's decision to withhold any policy statement on the single currency until yesterday is indicative of his and the Government's desire to be seen to be bound by their own code. Fair enough perhaps, my Lords. But this should not disguise or excuse the muddle of recent weeks or the damage that the Prime Minister has admitted it has done. As we all know, this was not a product of idle or irresponsible speculation by the media. No smoke without fire. It was a nudge here,

1033
a wink there, from this Government's serried ranks of special advisers indulging in their favoured pastime of off-the-record briefing on behalf of their ministerial masters.
This highlights the area of the code about which I have my most serious reservations. A recent Daily Telegraph article summarises the role of special advisers thus:
"[They] are, in Tony Blair's new Britain, at least as important as politicians. Gone are the days when Cabinet Ministers would ring editors on their direct lines to set the news agenda—these days leave it to the professional. Spin doctors are busily employed rebutting negative stories about their bosses … More significantly, advisers work by telling journalists, off the record, of the 'real meaning' behind seemingly mundane words."
Here I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the source of my quotation last week—that "You have to be economical with the truth sometimes"—was a senior political adviser to this administration speaking openly on television. The problem is that the Ministerial Code does not include them within its general remit, despite the fact that many of them are, to all intents and purposes, ciphers of their respective Ministers.
We are referred instead to "the Model Contract promulgated by the Prime Minister on 19th May, 1997". This, apart from some exceptions relating to impartiality and objectivity, requires them to act in accordance with the Civil Service code. But the only apparent and binding chain of accountability to which they seem to be subject is directly to the Minister by whom they have been appointed and whose interests they are in any event seeking to protect. This is "crony-ism" at its worst. What special advisers in this administration contribute to government is an essentially hidden, unaccountable and unelected tier of decision-making, operating within the machine, within the political and democratic processes, but outside—even, to an extent, actively flouting—the requirement for truthfulness, accuracy and openness. As the "unattributable" mouth-pieces of their respective bosses, they exist as a mechanism to allow Ministers to by-pass parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.
We can but hope that the Government intend to address this problem as a matter of urgency rather than falling back on the platitude of blaming the activities of their spin doctors on media speculation. In a spirit of helpfulness, I suggest that there would be merit in amending paragraph 48 of the Ministerial Code to create an explicit linkage of accountability between Ministers and their special advisers. This would bring the latter within the framework of proper accountability to Parliament and the public as well as binding them unequivocally to truthfulness, accuracy and openness.
In conclusion, as with so much with this Government, it is what lies behind the veil of the rhetoric that matters. The Ministerial Code is of a piece with this. It brazenly parades democratic virtue with one hand while furtively increasing the power and control of the centre and weakening accountability with the other.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for raising the Question today. Percipient commentators should always look carefully and critically at Government announcements slipped out by way of planted Written Questions on the last day before a long parliamentary Recess. That has not been unknown in the past, but in recent years the practice has been strongly discouraged by authority. I wonder why the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, was asked to plant the Question about a new edition of Questions of Procedure for Ministers at the last moment. It was not because the Question was of little importance. It was answered by no less a noble Lord than the Lord Privy Seal. Much more likely, the timing was chosen because of the high political significance of the changes made by No. 10 to the document, which is now renamed Ministerial Code: A Code of Conduct and Guidance on Procedure for Ministers.
Perhaps there was fear of embarrassment if Members of both Houses of Parliament could have picked over the document while Parliament was in Session. No doubt, the Government will deny any such shabby intention. But, to adapt a well-known phrase, "They would, wouldn't they?".
Peter Riddell of The Times, a widely-respected and distinguished political commentator, described the new Ministerial Code as:
"the most revolutionary publication produced by the Government since the election".
In his article on 1st August, he focused his comments, as do I, on paragraph 88, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. It relates to the co-ordination of government policy. I believe that the paragraph deserves to be read in full. It states:
"In order to ensure the effective presentation of government policy, all major interviews and media appearances, both print and broadcast, should be agreed with the No. 10 Press Office before any commitments are entered into. The policy content of all major speeches, press releases and new policy initiatives should be cleared in good time with the No. 10 Private Office; the timing and form of the announcements should be cleared with the No. 10 Press Office. Each Department should keep a record of media contacts by both Ministers and officials".
Of course I accept the need for proper co-ordination of government and ministerial announcements and speeches. No doubt on many occasions the previous Government could have done a lot better in that regard. But the essence of paragraph 88 goes well beyond sensible co-ordination and implies a measure of central control by the No. 10 Press Office which threatens the constitutional independence of Cabinet Ministers and their departments of state. There are real issues at stake which generate worry and concern.
In recent weeks, we have seen the attempts by the Prime Minister's Press Secretary to impose tight controls over Civil Service press officers of the Government Information Service. His actions have aroused a great deal of informed press comment and genuine anxiety that the political impartiality of civil servants may be at risk. I understand that the Select Committee on Public Administration in another place is

1035
taking a close look at the situation, which sits uneasily with the Government's proposed Freedom of Information Act.
There are also serious questions to be answered about the removal or departure of heads of information—they were referred to again by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy—from the Treasury, the Department of Social Security, the Ministry of Defence and other departments. Your Lordships will recall the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy on Wednesday 15th October. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was not at his best in answering that day, perhaps for the reasons so well described by my noble friend. The Minister's anxieties about his difficult task in defending the Government on the issue were exemplified by his response to the rather silly supplementary question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. The Minister suggested that he should look at what Sir Bernard Ingham had written in his memoirs about what happened to him in 1973 at the Department of Employment. I have my copy here, having read it a long time ago. The case the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, called in aid occurred almost a quarter of a century ago, although I well recall what happened because Keith McDowall, who was also involved, is a good friend of mine and perhaps of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
However, there is much more recent and relevant evidence available from Sir Bernard. I commend to the Minister the Parliamentary Monitor of October of this year and the article in it by Sir Bernard. The article was entitled "Spindoctors Prescribe Bitter Pill for Government Information Service". Now, Sir Bernard is a very firm supporter of the GIS. He certainly approves of Alastair Campbell's efforts to improve that service, both in ensuring that it has early access to information and in underlining to all policy makers, Ministers, the importance of presentation. No one with experience of government would deny that general issue, and I believe that Sir Robin Butler, the Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service, was also endorsing those same objectives in his evidence to the Select Committee on Public Administration in another place, as reported on the lunchtime news programme today.
However, Sir Bernard draws the line when Mr. Campbell commands the GIS to:
"Decide your headlines … Sell your story and, if you disagree with what is being written, argue your case".
Perhaps I may now quote Sir Bernard's response to that. He says that,
"the GIS is not there to sell stories. Its job is to present policy. Nor is it there to build Ministerial images. That is precluded by rule. And it most certainly is not there to dictate to a free press what should be written, how it should be written and to challenge its news judgement … The GIS also has to have some regard for its behaviour. Frankly, there would be no place in my GIS"—
that is, Sir Bernard's GIS—
"for Mr. Mandleson, Mr. Campbell, Labour Party communicator Dave Hill and the aforesaid lout Charlie Whelan on the evidence of their Mafia-style approach to news management from Nick Jones, the BBC's political correspondent, in his hook Campaign 97.
Recent television programmes, referred to by previous speakers, "We are the Treasury" about the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Charles Whelan, Ed Balls et al,
1036
together with the briefings and the counter-briefings about the EMU, clearly indicate what an awful mess the Government are in.
When Peter Kellner, not known for his antagonism to this Government, commenting in the Evening Standard upon the way in which the announcement about the extra £250 million, £250 million, and then, surprise, surprise, £300 million for the NHS this winter, was made, concludes that the Government,
"puts the demands of spin doctors ahead of the needs of real doctors";
and when Melanie Phillips warns of the dangers in a cogent article in the Observer of 12th October under the headline:
"Democracy is the biggest casualty when journalists are prepared to stand by and let Labour's spin-doctors engineer the news",
surely it is time for second thoughts on such matters. I wish that I had more confidence that journalists and the press barons would take appropriate and effective action. But I recall the old lines of doggerel:
"You cannot hope to bribe or twist,
Thank God, the British journalist
But seeing what the man will do
Unbribed, there's no occasion to."
6.55 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I believe that we are all more grateful than perhaps we suspected we would be to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for raising this matter in the form of an Unstarred Question. We have heard four speeches of very substantial merit. Not only did I enjoy listening to them but I will also want to read them more fully in Hansard to consider some of the very important points that have been made. However, I wish that we were not discussing such a matter on an Unstarred Question but that we were doing so on a more substantial occasion. The issues raised by the document under consideration do go to the heart of parliamentary government, whether we approve of the document on the whole or whether we are as critical of it, as some noble Lords have so far been.
However, looking back on my own ministerial experience which lasted for 11 years, I have to say that I am not quite as surprised at some of the points contained in the document as are other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. For example, he referred to paragraph 88 as being,
"an astonishing new directive",
and said that the real object was to hamper and restrict normal contacts with Ministers. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hayhoe, said that it was,
"a measure of centralised control",
threatening, as I understood it, parliamentary government.
As a Cabinet Minister, I remember very well that no Minister was expected to appear, for example, on the "Today" programme on the "World at One", on "The World this Weekend", on "Newsnight" or, indeed, on "Panorama" without reference to Number 10. The permission of the Prime Minister, which really meant that of his principal press officer, was always required by any Minister appearing on a major media event.

1037
Whatever the previous document may or may not have said, I find it difficult to believe that a very similar rule was applied by the previous Prime Minister. I believe that it is a matter of common sense.
There was a very similar convention, if not a rule, applied to the speeches of Ministers. I remember the trouble that we sometimes took to evade it. If it was a major one, we were meant to send a speech to No. 10 for approval. Indeed, all too frequently—and I can confess it now because the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, is absent from the Chamber this evening—if I was making a speech on a Friday night, I would send it to No. 10 when I caught the train and then I would be lost until the moment I delivered it. Those were the days before mobile telephones! I was prepared to risk the Prime Minister's wrath the following day, provided that I had had my say. However, the convention, the rules, were very plain. Therefore, I am not too surprised by what the document says, except for the boldness of setting it down.
Then there is the question of special advisers. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, drew attention to paragraph 48 of the document which contains a reference to two special advisers. As I understand it, that was the case in 1974–23 years ago. I had one special adviser and I thought that that was quite sufficient. But certainly my colleagues in the Cabinet at that time could have none, could have one, could have two; but not more than two. So I am not too surprised that that has been embodied in a very open way in the document before us this evening.
The noble Lord also referred to the acceptance of gifts. I very well remember the case of Anthony Crosland and a coffee pot. But if we are concerned with the probity of government, paragraph 126 of the document corresponds very closely indeed with paragraph 83 in my document which dates from 1966. I am sure that I should have given it back, but I retain it to this day—No. 108, marked "Confidential".
Therefore, looking at the document before us—I read it carefully at the time of its publication; and I do not dissent from the view that it ought to have been published not on the eve of the Recess, but at some other time—I do not get quite as upset as have other noble Lords. However, I agree that Ministers should be more able and feel themselves freer to make statements on their own account. Indeed, we should have a great deal less of spin doctors than we have been having in recent months.
There is no doubt at all—and here I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Northesk said—that the muddle of recent weeks leading to yesterday's Statement was damaging and that that was principally the work of spin-doctors. I further agree that there is a very real danger of centralisation in No. 10. However, do not tell me that that is a new phenomenon. Let us not forget the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. She of all Prime Ministers centralised things at No. 10. If she is a model for the present Prime Minister, I regret it; but those who laboured and sometimes suffered under her regime should not now seek to be critical of a Prime Minister who may, to a large extent, follow in her footsteps.
1038
I, too, believe that the system will break down. Methods that are appropriate to campaigning in opposition are totally inappropriate to the running of a government. Sooner or later, if a kitchen cabinet at No. 10 becomes dominant, we shall see the disintegration of this Government. We shall see the unhappiness and the difficulties in which Harold Wilson found himself in 1967, largely as a result of relying more on a kitchen cabinet than trusting his Ministers. The principle of Cabinet government is that the Prime Minister chooses the Cabinet Ministers and they get on with the job. If they are shackled either by No. 10, or more particularly by spin doctors, this Government will be a worse government than I, among others, would like them to be. It is right to issue a warning, and there is nothing wrong in using the document that we are discussing as a text.
Like other Ministers of my era and since—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has reminded us, the document has provided guidance over a period of 45 years—I was guided, restrained and occasionally irritated by Questions of Procedure for Ministers. Indeed I chafed a great deal more as a parliamentary secretary than as a Cabinet Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, made an interesting point about the role of junior Ministers today. That has changed. We must recognise that the structure of government must change, and often for the better. Junior Ministers have a great deal more responsibility than they did 30 years ago. Herbert Morrison wrote a book in, I believe, 1950. It was the only text at that time on the subject of how governments had to work through the actions of Ministers. It is fascinating to note the extent to which he considered that parliamentary secretaries were appointed—not by the Prime Minister but by the Cabinet Minister—essentially as dogsbodies for whom work had to be found. No parliamentary secretary is a dogsbody today. They often have important responsibilities.
However, I find it difficult to accept the extent to which junior Ministers—I refer to parliamentary secretaries in this Government, but also very much in the previous government—have often referred in Parliament to decisions as their own, using the first person singular, when they were clearly not, nor should have been, their own decisions. They were decisions made by reference to their parliamentary head, their Member of Cabinet, and yet they have been referred to in a personalised sense. I do not believe that is good for government and it certainly does not accord with my concept of collective responsibility. On the whole I think that Ministers who know their way around should not need this guidance. Indeed some of it strikes me as assuming that Ministers are a great deal more naïve than most of them turn out to be. Those of us who have been involved in public life have a sense of what is proper and those of us who are attached to Parliament know that that is where we should often be.
If there is something which is missing in this document which I believe should be included, it is an emphasis on the obligation of Ministers to Parliament and the need for Ministers to be in Parliament, and not only to make Statements or answer questions from time

1039
to time. Those who have been Ministers know how easy it is to be seduced by the responsibilities and authority of ministerial status and also to be seduced by one's civil servants. A Minister may start off by believing that he ought to go to the House of Commons, but his civil servant may say, "But, Minister, you have a meeting at three o'clock". The Minister says to his private secretary, "But I would like to go to the House". The private secretary then says, "But, Minister, what business have you in the House today"? The Minister says, "I should like to hear other Ministers' replies to questions". The private secretary finds it extremely difficult to understand that, and too often Ministers succumb; they do not go to Parliament except when they have specific business to carry out. It is then that they become out of touch not only with Parliament but also with their own Back-Benchers. In the long run that is another recipe for bad government, whichever party is in power. I should have liked to see in the document a reference to remind Members and Ministers that Parliament comes first. I think that item is as necessary as some items that are included in the document. They are Members of Parliament, whether of this House or another, before they are Ministers. They should never forget that.
The document contains some interesting items which certainly did not appear 30 years' ago. There is a reference, for example, to air miles. Air miles are such new phenomena that I still do not understand them. I think that a reference to air miles in this document is possibly a bridge too far. There are references to special advisers. We all agree that that is necessary. There are no significant changes in the number of areas mentioned. There are no significant changes in the references to civil servants and party conferences. There are no significant changes in the references to spouses.
I remember when I took my spouse—as I am obliged to call her—to a conference in Lille. She did not have to attend, but it was thought a good idea for her to attend. I had to refer to the Treasury the additional cost to the public purse. I understand that an insistent secretary laboured long and hard for up to six months before making a submission to the Chancellor that my wife should be charged the cost of the sandwiches that she ate. We were happy to pay that. I believe that was an extravagant interpretation of what I believe is now paragraph 83 in this document. However, the principle is important; namely, that spouses should not constitute a charge on the public purse unless they are performing some proper function.
I note that paragraph 77 concerns Ministers who may be recalled from abroad. I well remember driving on holiday across France and Switzerland to my holiday home in Italy. Someone came out and told me that the Chief Whip was on the telephone. The Chief Whip told me on the telephone, "I have to tell you, Bill, there is a vote tomorrow night and we need you". I replied, "You may need me, but I do not really want to come". The Chief Whip said, "I totally understand and if I were in Tuscany I would not want to return home". We all went to Tuscany, even 30 years ago! That Chief Whip is now a Member of this House. I told him on the telephone, "I do not think that I shall come". He replied, "I totally
1040
understand but I suggest that you tell that to the Prime Minister. He is at Chequers. Here is the telephone number and perhaps you could ring him up and tell him that you do not think you can be present tomorrow evening because you are on the beaches in Tuscany". I caught the 'plane early the following day and went to the House of Commons. The Government had a majority of six, which in those days was quite substantial. Therefore I have been a victim as well as a recipient of good advice from this document.
I wish we had more time in which to speak. I entirely agree with what has been said about the Civil Service and about keeping it impartial by treating it fairly. It would be foolish to alienate the Civil Service or seek to differentiate between individuals on political grounds. I am disturbed by a degree of restlessness that I detect, particularly in the Treasury, on the part of career civil servants who feel that somehow they are being superseded. Although in some cases this evening as regards the comments that were made on the document, it was a case of the pot calling the kettle black, I welcome this discussion because if there has been a fault it has been a fault on the right side.
7.9 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my purpose in rising to speak at the end of the debate on the Unstarred Question is to bring together the threads of the discussion on behalf of the Opposition. I wish to convey in particular the real depth of concern that I perceived in listening to the speeches of my noble friends and to some extent that of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, about how the Government are reacting in their early months in government. I refer to their role, their accountability to Parliament and to the accusations made in some quarters that they are treating Parliament with contempt, using their enormous majority in another place to rush through legislation and to make announcements when Parliament is not sitting, quite deliberately, bringing to life what my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham famously called the "elective dictatorship".
First, I very much welcome the opportunity to have this debate. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy always brings to this House lively and interesting subjects for discussion and has done so again today. I agree with him. The Government's start on this issue was not good. They issued this document on the last day before the Summer Recess—incidentally, before the longest Summer Recess for another place in living memory. My verdict on the Government's record so far as regards their desire for openness and accountability is that it is pretty pathetic. As I said earlier, there is a real sense of disappointment. I believe that there is a serious failure on the part of the Government to take many of what I was going to call the platitudes—I think that many are not platitudes—or many of the phrases laid out in the code seriously.
I wish to ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, a series of questions. The most important in many respects is this. Can he tell the House whether all Ministers have been required to have read the document and to sign a document saying that they have done so,

1041
so that it is beyond any real doubt that all Ministers in the Government have read the document and clearly understood the procedures laid out?
One of the chief new features of the document is a foreword by the Prime Minister. It is of great interest. In his foreword, the Prime Minister states:
"We will extend openness further through a Freedom of Information Act".
I shall be delighted if the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is able to tell us when the Bill will be forthcoming, what stage the ongoing discussions with his colleagues in Government have reached, and when we may expect a Bill.
The Prime Minister continues:
"We should be absolutely clear about how Ministers should account, and be held to account, by Parliament".
I very much welcome the clarity of that statement. Yet since 1st May of this year we have seen an enormous number of announcements given to the press rather than to Parliament. To some extent that must always happen in any government. But these are major announcements from a Government who always pledged themselves in Opposition to take Parliament seriously. I know how often the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, pledged himself to that aim. That is why I welcome the fact that he will reply to the debate.
Let us consider some of the examples. The change to Prime Minister's questions was announced to the press. So were the issues of the operational independence of the Bank of England, the Joint Cabinet Committees with the Liberal Democrats, the changes to the contract for the millennium dome project, new guidelines on arms sales, changes to immigration rules, and the now infamous case of the briefings on new policy positions on the single currency. I wonder whether the noble Lord who will reply thinks that these first few months of Government have been a success.
As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy pointed out, the Prime Minister draws specific attention to paragraph 1 of the code, which inter alia states:
"They"—
that is Ministers—
"must not ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Code".
A number of noble Lords raised the issue as regards Jonathan Haslam. It was reported on 17th October that Jonathan Haslam, the senior information officer of the DEE resigned when Mr. Stephen Byers, the Minister in that department, tried to force him to write a press release that explicitly criticised the previous government. Can the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, confirm or deny this report? If it is true, will disciplinary action be taken against the Minister concerned, or has it already been taken? There is a serious charge attached to this. If the code is to be taken seriously by Ministers, the Prime Minister's office must have some form of retribution; or is the code just regarded as pious words?
Since 1st May, seven chief information officers have been removed. They are going at the rate of one every three-and-a-half weeks—about the survival period of a
1042
subaltern on the Somme in the First World War. How many more does the noble Lord expect to lose between now and Christmas?
In paragraph 48, the new Ministerial Code explicitly increases the number of special advisers, allowing every Cabinet Minister a quota of two publicly financed advisers. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy mentioned this point. I understand that even in the House of Lords we have two special advisers when one sufficed before. Their numbers far exceed those under any previous government. It is an embarras de richesses, or, in the light of recent events, perhaps it is just an embarrass.
I turn now to paragraph 88, about which many noble Lords have spoken at length. I agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and others that this paragraph is the most significant change that has taken place in this new ministerial code. It is a most extraordinary paragraph. I did not entirely agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. Yes, of course all Government Ministers need to ask permission when they go on a national medium such as the "Today" programme, the "World at One" or "Newsnight". But I am not sure that that is what the paragraph deals with. The last sentence states:
"Each Department should keep a record of media contacts by both Ministers and officials".
That places the responsibility not just on the Minister but on the Private Office within the department itself.
The new paragraph states:
"All major interviews and media appearances, both print and broadcast, should be agreed with the No. 10 Press Office before any commitments are entered into".
I believe that this is evidence of the desire of the Prime Minister and his close coterie to control every minuscule aspect of government. It means that everything that is said or done by Ministers can be laid at the door of the Prime Minister. There is no air raid shelter for him when the flak begins to fly. I believe that he will regret many aspects of paragraph 88.
I return to a subject that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, knows well: the debacle that we saw over the policy on EMU. Perhaps I may ask him to elucidate as to who said what to whom. In the spirit of the Prime Minister's statement in the foreword to the code that,
"openness is a vital ingredient of good, accountable Government",
will he agree to have published the media contacts of Treasury officials and Ministers in the past month; and most particularly in the 48 hours before the infamous Financial Times report disclosing the Government's positive stance on EMU?
The paragraph also demands that Ministers should clear all their speeches with Number 10. Yet I know that during the Summer Recess the Foreign Secretary made a speech to the Trades Union Conference where he announced that reforms would be made to this House and that a Bill would be brought forward in the next Queen's Speech, in the autumn of 1998. Given that I assume the Foreign Secretary cleared that with the Prime Minister's Office, will the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, now confirm whether that is to

1043
happen? If the Foreign Secretary, as subsequent press briefings seemed to indicate, has gone beyond his brief, was he disciplined; and if so, how?
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will resist the temptation to lay all the blame on the previous government. We are very proud of our record on openness. It was the former Prime Minister himself who first published our own version of Questions of Procedure for Ministers.
Already this Government have shown that there is much to be worried about. But anybody who is interested in Parliament and the way it operates will be interested to read this debate. It is one that I have very much enjoyed. I have taken up too much of your Lordships' time and I look forward to listening to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
7.21 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, let me agree wholeheartedly with what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has just said. I very much enjoyed the debate. It has quite properly ranged more widely than the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and is all the better for that. I have no difficulty in answering in a few minutes the literal Question that he asked about the nature of the changes and the reasons for them. I hope that I shall have time to go rather wider and deal with the substantive issues raised by noble Lords. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. I recognise his peculiarly lengthy qualifications for introducing such a debate. The House is grateful to him.
I begin with an apology, for which I shall no doubt get into trouble. I believe it was a mistake for the new ministerial code to be published on 31st July. I am sure the reason for that was that the Prime Minister was determined that it should go out before Parliament went into Recess. I am sure that the reason was utterly practical, in that the production and drafting had not been completed until the last minute. However, we ought to have done better. I hope that we will do better. I accept the criticism made, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, on that point—although I have to say to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, who referred to paragraph 27, that the paragraph is preceded by the phrase,
"when Parliament is in Session",
which qualifies the other quotations that he made.
Having apologised for the timing of the document, I have no apologies to make for the document itself and for the changes that have been made to the previous Questions of Procedure for Ministers. The code has been expanded to take account of the recommendations of the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life. It is included in the wording of the resolution on ministerial accountability—I shall return to this matter when referring to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk—adopted by the House of Commons on 19th March 1997—in other words, just before Parliament was dissolved.
1044
The Government are determined that Ministers will accept their proper measure of responsibility for their conduct and for the actions and conduct of their department. That is in line with our manifesto commitment to,
"review Ministerial accountability so as to remove recent abuses".
We have amended the rules on ministerial appointments to non-departmental public bodies to reflect the report by the Nolan Committee and the guidance given by the Commission of Public Appointments under Sir Len Peach. As was mentioned, we have highlighted the role of accounting officers in ensuring the efficient and effective use of public resources in departments. We have clarified the rules on civil servants attending party political events: basically, they do not, and should not. We have greatly clarified the guidance provided on Ministers' private interests to show how a conflict of interest can arise and steps that can be taken to avoid a conflict. We have also published separate guidance on the work of the Government Information Service. It is the first time that any government have had a single, self-standing note covering the entire range of the Government Information Service's work.
I have made a list of all the amendments made. I should very much have wished to have time to refer to all of them. However, in those few minutes I have given enough of a summary of the significant changes that have taken place. I emphasise that in other respects the ministerial code, despite a change of name, isidentical with Questions of Procedure for Ministers, which was rightly and properly published by John Major when he was Prime Minister in May 1992. I pay tribute to him for doing that for the first time.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, seemed to think that the Prime Minister was claiming credit for the first publication of the code. He was not doing that. He was introducing the next section referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about extending openness further through a freedom of information Act. If I may deal with the noble Lord's question out of turn, the freedom of information Act is not in this Queen's Speech; it will be in the next Queen's Speech. We have made that clear. There will be a White Paper at the turn of the year and a draft Bill thereafter, so that the Bill can be considered fully and properly by Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, prefers the word "spidermen" to "spin doctors". I rather agree with him. However, I do not think that it will catch on. We had better recognise that we are stuck with "spin doctors". The noble Lord is right, as is the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, to say that it would be dangerous, and probably short-lived, were we to continue to think of importing into government Labour Party practice in Opposition. I happen to think that our publicity machine in Opposition was brilliant. But I recognise that it is not the same as the responsibilities of an information machine when in government. I am sure that, as time goes on, the responsibilities of government will stop whomsoever said that we should continue with our previous practices.

1045
We were told by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that there is a general unease in the Government Information Service. I have met quite a number of members of the Government Information Service and I do not find that unease. I do not find any feeling that there is politicisation of the Government Information Service—simply that there is a better definition of its role. As the ministerial code and the guidance makes clear, there are a number of matters which government information officers cannot do and which political information officers must do. That is what has happened in the first six months as a result of these publications.
I was asked specifically about a number of resignations from the Government Information Service. As I said before, these issues are largely between the individuals and their departments and it would be improper for me to comment. I would just say, on a question of fact, that Jonathan Haslam, the Department for Education information officer, had indicated his intention to move before there was any question of a possible dispute with Stephen Byers.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, about numbers. I confirm that there are now 16 full-time and two part-time advisers in No. 10, making a total of 54 full-time and eight part-time advisers.
The noble Lord asked me about donations to charities. I take his point, but some people gain treasure in heaven by giving to charities. If they are accepting too much payment and giving it to charities, maybe they are doing themselves some good as well—and perhaps it is a good idea to restrain it.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred to his difficulties in teaching about government when governments are so secretive, and I certainly understand that. But I do not think that he has a point when he criticises the fact that there are specific responsibilities for junior Ministers and points out that the permanent secretary is not responsible to junior Ministers. We know from statements of ministerial responsibility, not just from this Government but from the government who preceded us, that the Secretary of State is responsible overall for the work of a department. I do not believe that that is the problem. I say that also to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, who reminds me of Morrison's book Government and Parliament, which was a textbook for me in my time. I accept that it is not merely an academic question but also a practical one. I think it is efficient to have a division of responsibility between junior Ministers and not to treat them as dogsbodies.
The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, concentrated his criticism on paragraph 1 of the code. The elements of that paragraph which he criticised so forcefully are not those of the Government but of a Resolution of the House of Commons of 19th March 1997 in the last week of the previous government. That applies to subparagraphs (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) of paragraph 1 of the code, which were the ones to which he took especial objection. They were the result of a resolution of the House of Commons in the time of his government—not ours.
1046
I was asked about the primacy of the House of Commons Resolution on accountability. I confirm that it is in force and current unless and until it is amended.
I do not take too seriously suggestions that Ministers are not allowed to sneeze, and I do not worry about the metaphor. Certainly most of us have not had any difficulty in expressing ourselves in public and in private in the last six months.
I was interested in the discussion about the role of special advisers and the comment on the model contract for them. I would remind your Lordships that the model contract for special advisers insists that they are servants of the Crown and bound by the Civil Service Code. The Civil Service Code refers to integrity, honesty and objectivity. It is our intention that the Civil Service Code shall, for the first time, be made statutory.
When noble Lords opposite criticise the model contract, they ought to remember that in the past special advisers were employed on a letter of appointment, which was not made public. Surely there is a gain in open government in that respect if no other.
I turn to the important point made by noble Lords about paragraph 88 and relationships with the press. There were no other recent Ministers, other than the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who abstained from comment on this to confirm or otherwise what the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said: that these provisions in paragraph 88 are not new but have happened all the time, as the noble Lord graphically explained. These provisions refer to major interviews. Not all interviews and media appearances should be agreed with the Number 10 press office. That has always been the case, under Conservative and Labour Governments. The purpose is to secure collective responsibility, which is why, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I am certainly not going to publish the list of Treasury contacts with the press. That is not the purpose. And I am certainly not going to comment on the Foreign Secretary's speech to the Trades Union Congress. The purpose of this and the detail of it have been well precedented in previous governments, Labour and Conservative, as we have been reminded, and we have no reason to be in any way apologetic about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, did not like Ministers saying "I". I rather agree with him; I think it is dangerous. I find myself tempted to say "I" when I agree with what I am saying and "we" when I do not. I think I ought not to be tempted in that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked me whether Ministers sign to indicate that they have read the code. No, they do not, and they did not do so previously. The noble Lord did not do so previously and he knew perfectly well the answer to that question.
On the question of the ultimate responsibility of the Prime Minister, of course the noble Lord is right, and that is exactly the way it should be.
I have run out of time. I agree with all noble Lords who say that substance is more important than presentation. If we have advanced towards a common understanding of that, then the debate has been worthwhile.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before eight o'clock.

  Mr. Reginald Buckland: Court Documents
  Mr. Reginald Buckland: Court Documents
  Central and Eastern Europe: Military Training Assistance
  Central and Eastern Europe: Military Training Assistance
  RAF Bentwaters and Woodbridg: Nuclear Weapons Allegations
  RAF Bentwaters and Woodbridg: Nuclear Weapons Allegations
  Prisoners Detained During Her Majesty's Pleasure: Parole Board Rules
  Prisoners Detained During Her Majesty's Pleasure: Parole Board Rules
  Prison Service Business Plan 1997–98
  Prison Service Business Plan 1997–98
  Prisoners: Transfer Provisions
  Prisoners: Transfer Provisions
  Director of Transport's Annual Report
  Director of Transport's Annual Report
  Equestrian Establishments: Rating
  Equestrian Establishments: Rating
  "Canberra"
  "Canberra"
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  Working Time Directive and the Fishing Industry
  Working Time Directive and the Fishing Industry
  Agriculture Councils
  Agriculture Councils
  Northern Ireland Border Areas: Return to Vacated Property
  Northern Ireland Border Areas: Return to Vacated Property