Sitting of 17 December 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  The Minister was asked—
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Farm-fresh Turkeys
    Judy Mallaber: If he will make a statement on the marketing of farm—fresh turkeys. [62985]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The number of traditional outlets available to the trade has declined over the years but the traditional farm-fresh turkey sector does have a loyal base of customers who continue to look for high-quality fresh birds. Farm-fresh turkeys give consumers a choice and the Government would like to see that traditional production continue.
    Early this morning, I visited a traditional farm-fresh turkey farm to see the production methods at first hand. To avoid any doubt, I can tell the House that the writers of recent press stories in The Times, the Daily Mail and the Evening Standard were all guilty of telling porkies about turkeys. Farm-fresh turkeys are not under threat and their production and marketing have our full support.
    Judy Mallaber: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I am very much looking forward to eating traditional Welsh turkey on Christmas day. Will my hon. Friend explain exactly how those press reports arose and why there was confusion about whether European Union regulations would mean that farm-fresh turkeys would not be allowed? Will he confirm absolutely that the traditional British turkey is safe?
    Mr. Rooker: Farm-fresh turkeys, marketed correctly in the traditional way, are a very small share of the turkey market, but customers can be assured that traditional farm-fresh turkeys are all British; they are never frozen; there are no added chemicals; they are dry plucked with no water drenching and, furthermore, they are not found on sale in supermarkets—customers go to a proper, traditional butcher to buy them.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the Minister tell the House what representations he has received from the turkey industry about the poultrymeat hygiene regulations and his efforts to gold-plate them? Will he tell
    1080
    the House what proportion of turkeys are now imported instead of being produced in this country, as a result of the excessive regulation that he is now making worse?
    Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman has it completely wrong.
    Mr. Jenkin indicated dissent.
    Mr. Rooker: No, the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. Unlicensed farm-fresh turkeys, under the limit of 10,000 slaughtered a year, are not affected by EU regulations. They are not affected, we have no proposal to bring them under EU regulations—indeed, we have no proposal to introduce further regulations for small producers on farms.
    We are holding consultations about an issue that was left unchecked by the previous Government: the small, unlicensed slaughterhouses, mainly in urban areas, of which there are only about three dozen. Those slaughterhouses are not covered by the regulations, although they should be. The Conservative Government neglected to deal with that matter and that is why we are holding consultations. The traditional farm-fresh turkeys that are the subject of the question are not affected in any way by any change in the regulations.

    Genetically Modified Foods
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: What safeguards his Department has introduced to ensure that consumers have adequate information on genetically modified foods. [62986]
    Mr. Tony McNulty: What steps the Government are taking to ensure the clear labelling of genetically modified foods. [62998]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The Government are committed to providing clear information to enable consumers to make informed choices about genetically modified foods, including the labelling of all foods containing genetically modified material.
    Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Will he assure me that all genetically modified food products are clearly labelled so that consumers can make the informed choices that they want about the food that they eat? In the light of public concern, will he reassure the House that he will keep the quality of such labelling under review?
    Mr. Rooker: Yes, most certainly. There are only four genetically modified products on sale in this country at present: maize, soya, tomato paste and vegetarian cheese. They all have to be labelled if the ingredients are genetically modified. We hope to co-operate with our European partners in getting additives covered over the next 12 months, but that will require EU regulation.
    Mr. McNulty: May I assure my hon. Friend that Harrow is not the centre of genetically modified food in this country? It is a pure coincidence that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) and I have tabled questions on that subject today.

    1081
    Given the conflicting scientific advice, will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will stick firmly to the precautionary principle and ensure that, in terms of both debate and advice, the public are informed as much as possible, and will he resist those who scaremonger irresponsibly on the issue?
    Mr. Rooker: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. We have opened up the meetings of the advisory committees that advise the Government on the issue and their minutes are now published. The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes held its second open meeting a few days ago to discuss how we can take forward long-term monitoring of genetically modified foods once they are more widely available on the market. On 21 October, a new Cabinet Committee on Biotechnology and Genetic Modification was announced and that Committee has now met. This morning, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office announced a Government review of the framework of all the advisory committees on biotechnology so that we ensure that we have the right pattern of advice to the Government.
    Mr. John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that, although it is desirable to provide information, labelling and, if necessary, a monitoring system, it is important to retain a sense of balance? Will the Minister, who, by the standards of Labour Ministers, has always struck me as a relatively normal individual—[Laughter.] I realise that I have probably already inflicted grave damage on the hon. Gentleman's reputation with that observation. Will he confirm that, while he is a Minister and responsible for these matters, the cause of information will not be overtaken by politically correct fetishists with a hostility to the British food industry?
    Mr. Rooker: I note that the hon. Gentleman speaks under the protection of parliamentary privilege in respect of his first comment. I understand the tone of his question and, by and large, the answer is yes. We will conduct this policy on the basis of the best science available. We will not shut out from our deliberations any scientists who are not in the loop and who have other views about this issue. We will listen to them. We will operate the precautionary principle and ensure, for example, that, as the crops begin to grow, they will be introduced in a managed way. It will not be uncontrolled. To that extent, we will work using the best science and be as open and transparent as possible.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Does the Minister agree that the fact that one in five of the official Government sites for genetically modified crops is breaking the regulation governing the trials is undermining public confidence in a potentially valuable method of food production and fuelling suspicions that the advocates of the rapid expansion of genetic modification are motivated by commercial pressures and ready to ride roughshod over legitimate public fears?
    Mr. Rooker: The short answer is that we are taking the regulation of those crops so seriously that the Health and Safety Executive is prosecuting two agricultural companies, Monsanto and Perry Field Holdings, following a routine inspection of a trial site at Rothwell on 5 June this year. The case will be heard on 17 February next year. The regulation of the science and the industry is taken very seriously.

    Meat Hygiene
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: If he will make a statement on the promotion of meat hygiene in abattoirs. [62987]
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: If he will make a statement on the promotion of meat hygiene in abattoirs. [62994]
    Mr. Rooker: The safety of food and consumer protection remain among the Government's highest priorities. We have therefore put in train a series of measures designed to raise hygiene standards in abattoirs and have instructed the Meat Hygiene Service to take rigorous enforcement action to ensure compliance with legislative requirements.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Are those in abattoirs who breach the regulations being prosecuted?
    Mr. Rooker: The short answer is yes. If prosecution is required, it will take place—in fact, there have been 19 prosecutions since the middle of 1996. Each prosecution is known and open and they are all reported in the Meat Hygiene Service enforcement bulletin, a copy of which is placed in the Library every month. If hon. Members wish to be on the mailing list—as the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) is—they have only to write to my Department and they will be added to it.
    Mr. Pike: Will my hon. Friend confirm that his Department is at present consulting with regard to the enforcement powers of meat hygiene inspectors? Will he confirm also that any intimidation of those inspectors is not acceptable and will not be tolerated?
    Mr. Rooker: There are two issues involved in this matter. We do not need to consult about the powers of hygiene inspectors regarding the intimidation of public staff. The Meat Hygiene Service has been told—and the advice has been clarified—that, if there is verbal or physical intimidation of staff, it has the power to remove inspectors from the part of the plant concerned. That would effectively close the plant, so the service has that power. There have been two successful prosecutions this year regarding the abuse of meat hygiene staff. Those cases have been highlighted and one was the subject of an early-day motion in the House.
    As regards inspectors' other powers, we are about to consult to give them greater control, particularly over hygiene in abattoirs as opposed to meat hygiene. That would allow quicker action to be taken regarding cleaning in abattoirs, abattoir walls and other structural issues. We could then take quicker action in the case of an unsatisfactory performance.
    Mr. Robert Key: Does the Minister agree that most members of the public regard abattoirs as a taboo subject? That makes it even more important for Members of Parliament to see at first hand how they

    1083
    operate. For the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister tell the House how many abattoirs he has visited and when he next proposes to visit one?
    Mr. Rooker: I have visited three cattle abattoirs and a sheep abattoir. Last Friday, I visited the pig abattoir that is the family business of the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who is my Pair in the House.
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food visited Welshpool market and was apprised of meat hygiene inspection issues? Is he further aware that many abattoir owners think that the cost of inspection is unnecessarily high? Will he make a commitment to re-examine those costs to find out whether savings can be made?
    Mr. Rooker: We have no intention of overburdening abattoirs, particularly small owners and operators, but there is no opportunity for derogation within the EU guidelines. There is an EU requirement that abattoirs be visited and inspected. If there are allegations that we are being too onerous, we will consider them. As I have already said, if there are allegations that the same rules do not operate in the rest of the European Union, the evidence should be given to us and we will take the matter up with the Commission, which is responsible for checking abattoirs in the rest of the EU.

    Rural Economy
    Ms Christine Russell: What steps he has taken to promote sustainable rural development. [62988]
    Mr. Michael J. Foster: What measures have been taken to promote the rural economy. [62991]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The Government have provided a broad range of support for the rural economy since May 1997, including £112 million available for agriculture-related rural development projects under the objective 5b programme, an additional £50 million a year for rural transport, and aid—amounting to over £270 million—to support the livestock sector. Those measures are in addition to the support for agriculture under the common agricultural policy which is worth, on average, £3 billion a year.
    Ms Russell: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that a number of local authorities are doing their best to bolster the rural economy by innovative schemes such as grants to small rural businesses and village shops and grant aid for the re-utilisation of redundant farm buildings. I know that there is excellent joined-up government work between the Ministry and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. My former planning authority has asked me what the relationship is between the review that my right hon. Friend announced last month into the long-term strategy for the rural economy and the rural White Paper, which I know is in preparation. Can my right hon. Friend help?
    Mr. Brown: The two examinations are being conducted in parallel. The work between my Department
    1084
    and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is very important. We are working together on the joint White Paper for rural Britain. There are also areas of overlap between several schemes that are administered by my Department and the Department of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. We are trying to ensure that we get the maximum return for public expenditure.
    Mr. Foster: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new Countryside Agency will create a new and more integrated voice for rural England?
    Mr. Brown: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that my Department and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions work closely on those projects and keep our objective clearly in mind. That objective is to reshape the CAP, so that it provides, among other things, a broader support mechanism for rural England, and to ensure that the work in my right hon. Friend's Department complements our projects.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Farmers in the Vale of York, particularly those in the uplands area, have benefited through objective 5b and the subsidies to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Will he give them an assurance that they will continue to benefit—not perhaps to the same extent, but in large measure—particularly in the transitional phase, from the moneys that they have enjoyed in the past? They are still in the middle of a farming crisis and would appreciate such an assurance.
    Mr. Brown: I agree with the thrust of the hon. Lady's question. It is my intention that the rural support measures that come under the first pillar of the CAP and what we hope will be a strongly developing second tier are specifically targeted at farm businesses. Small and medium businesses are particularly at the forefront of my mind. They are of enormous importance to the rural economy, and the hon. Lady is right to make her point.
    Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that his colleague the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) has devoted all his energy in this, his first and last Parliament, to abolishing fox hunting, the effect of which would be the loss of 16,000 jobs in the rural economy and the removal from that economy of something in the region of a quarter of a billion pounds? Does not the fact that the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends will be trooping through the Lobbies to abolish fox hunting at the next opportunity show that class hatred and urban intolerance are every bit as prevalent under new Labour as they were under old Labour?
    Mr. Brown: I do not care very much for class issues. It is what a person is that counts, not what his ancestors did. As for fox hunting, I shall vote to abolish it if the opportunity arises. The idea that the Home Office is currently considering—that of balloting on the issue, county by county—is worthy of exploration, and we shall see what the outcome of that is.
    The hon. Gentleman asked whether I understood the impact of abolition on the rural economy. Of course I do. It was implicit in the answer that I gave the hon. Member

    1085
    for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) that not only do I understand the impact but the Government are trying to do something about it.

    Beef on the Bone
    Mr. John Greenway: When he expects to end the ban on beef on the bone. [62989]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): I am afraid that I am not going to be able to give the hon. Gentleman the reply that he is probably hoping for, so he will have to be content with this one. I am currently awaiting advice from the chief medical officer. When I receive that advice, I shall give it full and urgent consideration in consultation with my ministerial colleagues, and make an announcement as soon as possible. I am afraid that that is the best I can do for the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Greenway: In the same spirit of good will, may I first thank the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of Ryedale beef producers for his efforts in getting the beef export ban lifted? We appreciate what a difficult task that was. I suspect that, had he been able to do so, he would have liked to give me the answer that I was hoping for. Notwithstanding that, does he recognise that the continuation of the ban of beef on the bone is not helping in the task of persuading European consumers to choose to buy British beef, and that consumers in Britain simply want the opportunity to choose to buy not just British beef but British beef on the bone?
    Mr. Brown: Once the date-based export scheme is up and running, the beef that we will be able to sell in Europe is deboned beef. It is that beef which is specifically covered by the scheme arising from the agreement made at Florence. As for the domestic market, surely the most important thing is consumer confidence. As I have said before, I never expected the domestic beef-on-the-bone ban to endure for ever—it was not intended to do so. However, when it is lifted—this is the source of the disagreement—it must be on the basis of medical advice, not on the basis of political decision making.
    Mr. Eric Martlew: I look forward to the beef-on-the-bone ban being lifted, but may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a wholly unjustified ban, namely the ban on dairy products, mainly by some countries in the middle east? That ban was a major factor in the loss of 40 jobs in my constituency last week. Will he make urgent representations to those countries to have that ban lifted?
    Mr. Brown: I understand that the particular country to which my hon. Friend refers is Saudi Arabia. We are making urgent representations to that country on that matter.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as and when he receives satisfactory reports and is able to bring to the House the necessary measures to lift the ban on beef on the bone, there will undoubtedly be all-party support for such a move, in a way that there certainly was not for the imposition of the ban, even though there was
    1086
    a hint of it when the former Conservative Minister supported it—something that those currently on the Opposition Front Bench like to forget? As and when the ban is lifted, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to publish a breakdown of the local authority and court costs to the public purse of the prosecutions achieved or just pursued, so that we can put into not only a political but a financial context just what a farce this entire ban has been?
    Mr. Brown: I cannot accept the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question. It is important that regulations pertaining to food safety and food standards are enforced. I cannot enforce just the ones with which the hon. Gentleman agrees and turn a blind eye to those with which he does not agree. He may discover the information that he requires by tabling a parliamentary question; there are no secrets in this matter. While the ban is imposed, my Department is obliged to enforce it.
    Mr. David Drew: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to insist on medical reasons for lifting the beef-on-the-bone ban. That is the only way in which foreign customers will be encouraged to buy British beef. In the meantime, will he ensure that EU inspectors are able to see the different means by which we are able to export, so that exports can be reinstated as soon as possible?
    Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The date-based export scheme is of course subject to a Commission inspection. In bilateral talks with different Agriculture Ministers in different countries in order to talk them through what the Government are doing not only to get the scheme up and running but to protect public health in this country, I have invited Ministers or their officials not only to come to this country but to join technical discussions with my Department's officials. We have absolutely nothing to hide. The date-based export scheme will put on international markets beef that is among some of the safest in the world.
    Mr. James Paice: Will the Minister confirm that the ban on the export of tallow was lifted at the Florence summit, subject only to inspections by the Commission? Is he aware that those inspections have still not taken place—some two years later? What will he do to make absolutely sure that inspections necessary for lifting the export ban occur, so that a reasonable timetable can be met for re-exporting the high-quality beef, which he rightly praises?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that questions relating to tallow are still under discussion with the Commission. We are proceeding on a pretty set timetable for the date-based export scheme. I am determined that it will be up and running by the spring. From discussions that my officials have had with the Commission, we have no reason at all to believe that there will be any delay in the Commission inspection, which, as he rightly points out, is crucial to getting the scheme up and running. There is no need for any further political clearance; the issue does not have to go back to the Council of Ministers—and I am pleased about that. However, it is necessary that the Commission reports that

    1087
    the scheme is up and running, as we said it would be. I am certain that we can get through the inspection, although, of course, the matter must not be taken lightly.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Were not the only alternatives to the swift and decisive action that the Government took in banning beef on the bone either to try to sweep the matter under the carpet or to let it drift on, week after week, inviting speculation about the safety of beef on the bone, and thereby undermining confidence in the entire beef industry—in fact, the sort of fiasco that occurred under the previous Government, which is being revealed in the BSE inquiry? Did not such swift and decisive action help us achieve the removal of the worldwide ban on British beef?
    Mr. Brown: Having seen the papers that were put in front of my predecessor before he made his decision to impose the beef-on-the-bone ban, I do not think that he had very much choice in the matter. I think that the decision was right. The Government are absolutely determined to put the safety of the public at the forefront of decision making in this area. It was never intended that the ban would be for ever. When it is raised, it will be as a result of medical advice and not political decision making.

    Food Safety
    Mr. Richard Spring: If he will make an assessment of existing UK food safety legislation. [62990]
    Angela Smith: If he will make a statement on the measures he is taking to promote the safety of food. [62992]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): We have taken a range of measures to promote food safety across the food chain and keep all food safety controls under general review. We are also fully committed to establishing a food standards agency as soon as possible.
    Mr. Spring: Does the Minister agree that, for British food safety, it is absurd that EU-imposed rules on antibiotics do not to apply to food imported into this country? Does he accept that that is bad not only for our farmers, who are already in a crisis, but for our consumers, and that there is a potentially dangerous situation ahead? What does he propose to do about that situation?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman's question has two parts. On the part with which I disagree, I do not think that the EU decision is bad for consumers because, by having a European Union wide ban, European consumers' exposure is dramatically diminished.
    On the question whether the ban is bad for producers, the hon. Gentleman is on to a much better point; I made that point myself at the Council of Ministers on Monday, when the matter was discussed. Obviously, from a producer's point of view, it does seem unfair—and certainly the market is not even—if products that can be used in the rest of the world are not allowed to be used in the European Union. I have asked that the Commission take up that point and come back to the Council of
    1088
    Ministers with a response to it. The further scientific investigations that the Commission has reported to the Council of Ministers offer a way forward on what I accept is an important point.
    Angela Smith: Although I warmly welcome the Minister's comments on the food standards agency—which I hope will be set up very soon—I remind him that consumers and retailers alike regard it as crucial to have confidence in food safety. What action does he feel able to take in, one hopes, the very short term, while we are awaiting the food safety agency, to reassure the public and retailers?
    Mr. Brown: I can do better than that. The Government remain committed to setting up the food standards agency, following the proposals outlined in the White Paper "The Food Standards Agency: A Force for Change". We have said that, should additional parliamentary time become available—here we are slightly in the hands of the Opposition, both here and in another place—we hope to make progress on the necessary legislation in the present Session. In the meantime, the House will want to know that, following discussions with colleagues today, I can announce that we shall publish the food standards agency Bill in draft, for public consultation, in January 1999. The draft Bill will be available for pre-legislative scrutiny by the House. At the same time, we intend to publish a document for consultation on the Government's proposals for financing the additional costs of the agency.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: As the Minister tucks into his Christmas dinner, I am sure that he will be aware that, year on year, the incidence of food poisoning at this season has increased. I hope that he will take note of that. May I, in that context, welcome very warmly indeed the announcement that he has just made? As he will be aware from experience in his former capacity and his present capacity, the Liberal Democrats have been urging that the food standards agency be established as quickly possible, to restore confidence in British food.
    I also very much welcome the announcement that the Minister has made of the procedure that he and his colleagues intend to follow. That will be very helpful. However, I draw his attention to the fact that it seems that the legislative logjam in the other place has now been removed, and that the kamikaze behaviour of some Conservative peers seems to have ended. In that context, he has my full support for placing the food standards agency at the head of the queue to be legislated for in this Session.
    Mr. Brown: The agency is one of the Government's two priorities for legislation, should extra legislative time become available. In any event, I hope that the announcement that I have made today about the Bill's early availability and the potential for pre-legislative scrutiny—perhaps a Select Committee procedure here in the House—will speed the passage of the legislation through the House when we move to First and Second Reading. I hope that it will be possible to proceed on a broadly bipartisan basis, because this is an important public protection measure.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: In the meantime, would my right hon. Friend like to spend

    1089
    some of his money, and perhaps some of that of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, on a straightforward but energetic publicity campaign, teaching both men and women how to cook? Some of the simple rules of hygiene might protect a lot of the people who get themselves into trouble at present.
    Mr. Brown: I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's question about public hygiene and ensuring that simple, easily understood information relating to public hygiene is available. I shall act on her suggestion.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Notwithstanding the Minister's answer to my hon. Friend, does it not remain true that the latest ban on antibiotics is only an empty gesture in terms of food safety, because consumers will continue to buy imported and unlabelled food from countries where those drugs have not been banned? Is it not the case, as I think that he has now acknowledged, that, unless he and the other Ministers on the European Council act quickly, the decision represents further proof that they do not really care about how far British poultry and pig farmers are placed at a disadvantage? It is only through campaigns such as the Opposition's "fair deal for farmers" and the Yorkshire Post's "save our farmers" that anyone is sticking up for the British farmer.
    Mr. Brown: I meet the groups that lobby on behalf of the British farmer and I am trying to work co-operatively with them. The suggestion that the hon. Gentleman has condemned was made to me and other Ministers by two all-party Select Committees. The idea that I am doing something that is discordant with the wishes of the House is just wrong.
    The hon. Gentleman is on to a good point on the issue of competition, on which I responded to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) earlier. I do not accept what he says about public health. The EU-wide ban will substantially diminish the exposure of European peoples to antibiotics because much of the food that we eat is of EU origin.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Ms Chris McCafferty: If he will make a statement on the time scale for reform of the common agricultural policy. [62993]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): On 23 and 24 November, the Agriculture Council issued a report to the Vienna European Council which identified the main outstanding issues of the CAP reform proposals and expressed its determination to reach conclusions on the package as a whole by March 1999.
    Ms McCafferty: I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees that the Agenda 2000 proposals for reform of the CAP will bring economic benefits and will be good news for consumers in the United Kingdom. Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the overall impact that reform of the CAP will have on UK consumers?
    Mr. Brown: There will be substantial benefits for consumers if we are able to achieve even the Commission's package. Further down the line, there are
    1090
    substantial benefits for taxpayers as well. The benefits for consumers will derive from cheaper food and the benefits for the taxpayers will derive from a diminished subsidy regime.
    Mr. Michael Jack: One of the changes to the CAP that the Minister may well be considering is new requirements for record keeping and identification of sheep. Is he aware that, in the north-west of England, there is great concern about the speed with which he wishes to embrace the proposals, especially as sheep producers have already agreed to a voluntary arrangement to improve the identification and marking of sheep? Will the Minister consider carefully the representations from the National Farmers Union in the north-west on that matter? What room for manoeuvre is there to make the new requirements compatible with the United Kingdom sheep industry?
    Mr. Brown: I always consider representations from the NFU carefully. I am keen to establish a good working relationship with it and others who represent the interests of the farming community, the food industry and the broader interests of rural Britain. It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman is not following the Agenda 2000 discussions quite so closely as I thought that he was, because the sheep regime is outside the scope of the Agenda 2000 proposals.

    Food Marketing
    Dr. Brian Iddon: What measures his Department is taking to improve the marketing of food to the benefit of both producer and consumer. [62995]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The Department pursues a number of measures to improve marketing both for producers and for consumers. On 29 November—the first day of the Smithfield show—we announced a joint initiative with the National Farmers Union to encourage collaborative marketing among producers.
    Dr. Iddon: My family have always been involved in the food production industry so I know that the producers often take the largest risk in the food production chain yet take out one of the smallest commensurate profits. What is my hon. Friend doing to redress that balance?
    Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right. That is why the collaborative marketing approach, which does not force producers into co-ops but enables them to produce on a small scale while still supplying the large suppliers on a large scale, is best. They can then produce both scale and quality. Of course, the big buyers want consistency of supply. Small producers cannot always provide that on their own, but they can do so in collaboration with other producers. We want to encourage the NFU and other producer groups to go down that route. My hon. Friend is right about who takes the biggest snatch in the food chain.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Does the Minister agree that it is galling if producers co-operate in the interests of the highest food standards and marketing development, yet imports enter the country and readily circulate without

    1091
    the benefit of the precautions and high standards of British producers? Is it not important that the Minister should examine the entire supply chain from plough to plate, to try to ensure that it operates with maximum openness and in the interests of British consumers as well as British farmers?
    Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman is right. We want to build on the assurances that we received recently from the British Retail Consortium regarding its members. That is a major step forward and will help to ensure that British producers who, for example, maintain much higher animal welfare standards than our European partners, do not suffer because of that. We must find a mechanism for our buyers to force or encourage our European competitors to operate to the same high standards that we operate in this country.

    Beef Export Ban
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What steps he is taking to end the export ban on beef. [62996]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The Commission decision providing for exports of deboned beef from the whole of the United Kingdom under the date-based export scheme—DBES—was adopted on 25 November. That was a major breakthrough reflecting months of dialogue within the European Commission and with our European partners.
    We are now pressing ahead with arrangements to implement the scheme. We issued plans for the operation of the scheme on 14 December, seeking views from the industry. For hon. Members who are interested, I have placed a copy in the Library.
    Mr. Chapman: The decision to lift the ban was indeed important and welcome, but it does not of itself put money into beef producers' pockets. In addition to the DBES, there is a need to restore confidence in overseas markets generally, and for our exporters to re-establish themselves in those markets. That will take time. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to help British beef producers re-establish themselves, and when does he expect substantial beef exports to take place?
    Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right in his analysis of the situation. Officials in my Department and Ministers are working closely with representatives of the beef industry and in particular those who want to come into the date-based export scheme as suppliers or producers, to make sure that we get the scheme up and running as soon as possible. I anticipate that we will be able to start exporting deboned beef by the spring of next year. Markets will take time to grow, but it is a premium product for which we can find a place in international markets early on. The Government will stand behind producers and exporters to help them to regain market share.
    Mr. William Thompson: How soon after the lifting of the ban on beef on the bone in the United Kingdom does the Minister expect it to be lifted in Europe, so that exports of such beef to Europe can begin?
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is speaking about two separate schemes. The ban in the United Kingdom
    1092
    is a domestic ban, which was put in place for consumer protection reasons. Discussions are going on in the European Union about Europe-wide specified risk material regulations. Separately, there will be continuing discussions with our partners about the export of boned, rather than deboned, beef. I am afraid that, because of the terms of the Florence agreement, an announcement on that matter is still some way away. I do not want to raise the hon. Gentleman's hopes by implying that it might be early.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: Further to the Minister's reply, there is a direct link. The new conditions require that meat companies dedicate whole abattoirs entirely to the export business. The most lucrative business before the ban was that of beef on the bone for whole roasts to Europe's highest-quality restaurants and meat distributors. I do not know of a single meat business that is prepared to commit itself to dedicate an entire abattoir until the beef-on-the-bone ban is lifted.
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. After discussions with the industry, we are certain that we shall be able to get producers and abattoir operators into the scheme so, under the terms of the agreement, a volume of deboned beef will be available for export. The hon. Gentleman's question goes wider than the answer that I have just given and criticises the initial terms of the Florence agreement. All that I can say on that is that it was made by his Government.

  The Attorney-General was asked—
  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Sentencing
    Mr. Tim Collins: How many unduly lenient sentences he has sought leave to refer to the Court of Appeal since 1 May 1997; and what has been the outcome of such referrals. [63015]
    The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): Since 1 May 1997, leave has been sought in respect of 137 offenders; 101 applications have been heard; leave was granted in 97 applications; and the sentence was increased in 84, which is 83.2 per cent. of references which have been heard.
    Mr. Collins: I am delighted to hear that the new Government are continuing to use that power granted by the previous Government. Does the Attorney-General now regret the fact that the Labour party in opposition opposed the introduction of that power?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; I am continuing on the same basis that my predecessors submitted cases to the Court of Appeal. The hon. Gentleman was not in the House when the matter was debated. There was a great deal of concern, not confined to one party alone but apparent also among many of the judiciary, about the proposal. The basis of the fears was that individuals would be placed in double jeopardy. Fortunately, the courts have interpreted the

    1093
    legislation to take account of double jeopardy, and that is not in the legislation. In the circumstances, I am more than content that the machinery is working properly.
    Mr. Geraint Davies: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the way in which he refers cases for reconsideration, in particular those so serious or appalling that they generate widespread public concern. I am confident that the Court of Appeal will look closely at such cases. The people of Croydon are particularly grateful for cases of local concern which have been referred.
    The Attorney-General: I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern about a local case which caused great anxiety. A petition was submitted and there was a great deal of press interest. I know the concerns of many in many localities when sentences are out of line with guidelines and the practice of the courts. In those instances, it is important to maintain public confidence and to refer cases, which are few against the total number—about 0.5 per cent.—to the Court of Appeal to ensure that public confidence is maintained.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: What new proposals he has to discourage apparently lenient sentences. [63018]
    The Attorney-General: The Government are actively considering how best to implement our manifesto commitment to extend my powers to refer cases to the Court of Appeal for review when it appears to me that the sentence is unduly lenient. The Government hope to be able to announce proposals early next year.
    Mr. Flynn: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall a recent case where a driver, who demolished a wall while being three times over the breathalyser limit, escaped without fine or ban; another case in which a defendant, who was accused of a £1 million mortgage fraud, was excused a retrial on the ground that he was suffering stress; and a third case in which a driver, who admitted to being responsible for an accident in which a young woman was injured and will probably lose her eyesight, suffered no prosecution, ban or penalty points and was advised to take extra driving lessons? Is it not extraordinary that, in those three cases, the people involved were all High Court judges? Is there one rule for judges and another for the rest of us?
    The Attorney-General: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is the same rule, and the rule of law prevails for each and every one, from the highest to the lowest. Any decision that I have to take is no less fair for the highest than for someone who may, apparently, be less important in society. Everyone is treated in exactly the same way.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Does the Attorney-General agree that there might be a case for better instruction of judges in sentencing principles and guidelines?
    The Attorney-General: As a rather long-established recorder until fairly recently, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that potential judges, assistant recorders, recorders and judges attend courses in order to ensure
    1094
    cross-fertilisation of knowledge, experience and practice. Over the years, the Court of Appeal has issued a substantial number of guidelines which have assisted judges in the difficult task of sentencing.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: In pursuing the same line as the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), may I ask the Attorney-General to speculate on whether judges are given proper instruction in the declaration of their interests?
    The Attorney-General: I cannot comment on a matter that I understand is sub judice at the moment. As regards the decision made today, it would not be right for me to do so.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: When a prosecution has been stayed or a trial discontinued because the defendant was apparently suffering from an incurable disease such as Alzheimer's, but he then makes a miraculous recovery, is there not a good case for the prosecution to revisit that case and bring it back to trial?
    The Attorney-General: That can always be considered if there is a change in the legislative position. However, it is not the position now and I have to administer the law as it stands.

    Human Rights Act
    Mr. Alan Clark: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Home Affairs concerning declarations of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998. [63019]
    The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): The contents of the Human Rights Act were discussed extensively among Ministers in the preparation of the Government's White Paper, in the process of drafting the Bill and during debates in Parliament. The provisions relating to declarations of incompatibility, although complex, are an important and central part of the legislation. Ministers are satisfied with the Act and in particular with the provisions relating to declarations of incompatibility.
    Mr. Clark: That does not really take the matter any further. One of the primary functions of the Attorney-General is to ensure that Ministers and the Government stay within the law. The Home Secretary only recently told the House that a declaration of incompatibility does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the provision in respect of which it is given and is not binding on the parties to the proceedings in which it is made. Leaving aside the implicit contradiction between two senior Ministers, what advice would the Solicitor-General give to successful or potential litigants?
    The Solicitor-General: This country has been an adherent to the European convention on human rights since 1951. All Governments have complied with their international obligations. The legislation that they have introduced has in their view been compliant with the law. Occasionally, courts may decide that there is non-compliance and in future there may be declarations

    1095
    of incompatibility under the provision but, on the whole, we take the view—as did the Government in which the right hon. Gentleman served—that we comply with our international obligations and so does our legislation.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: Do the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General realise that there is a serious problem and unfinished business under the Human Rights Act 1998? Where the courts have declared our law to be incompatible with the convention, the Act provides under section 4(6) that the law none the less remains the same until it is changed by Parliament. However, supposing the Government disagree with the House of Lords and wish the matter to be resolved by Strasbourg so that our law is not out of kilter with that which applies in the rest of the Council of Europe. What would happen then? Which law would apply? Would it be the law before the ruling of the court or after the ruling of the court? Technically, it would be the law that applied before the ruling but, unless the Government make their position clear, neither the citizen nor our courts will know where they stand.
    We suggested a mechanism so that citizens and courts would know whether the Government would take the matter on to Strasbourg or force the other party to take it on to Strasbourg. Will the law officers and the Home Secretary find a sensible mechanism to resolve that serious potential problem, and will they or the Home Secretary announce it to the House?
    The Solicitor-General: That section was a neat solution to the problem of parliamentary sovereignty—it retains parliamentary sovereignty. The courts cannot strike down legislation under section 4. Obviously, we are still obliged to comply with our international obligations under the convention, and we shall do so.

    Rights of Audience
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What representations he has received on the extension of the rights of audience of banisters and solicitors employed by the Crown Prosecution Service. [63021]
    The Attorney-General: The Solicitor-General and I have discussed the matter with the Director of Public Prosecutions, others in the Crown Prosecution Service and members of both professions. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has recently introduced in the other place a Bill that will reform rights of audience and permit Crown Prosecution Service lawyers to exercise full rights of audience in the higher courts. I support his proposals and welcome the introduction of his Bill.
    Miss McIntosh: I am grateful for that reply. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman considered extending the same rights of audience that he has just explained to the House to in-house barristers working for companies in parallel with the Crown Prosecution Service, so that they can enjoy the same rights of audience under the Bill?
    The Attorney-General: Before the Bill comes into effect—if it is approved by both Houses—the position of
    1096
    in-house banisters is subject to the machinery under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. The matter is being considered, and I hope that an early decision will be made.
    Mr. John Burnett: Does the Attorney-General really believe that having the state as both prosecutor and defender is in the interests of a fair and independent criminal justice system?
    The Attorney-General: I do not think that there is any difficulty. The state has been the paymaster of the prosecution from time immemorial. Since a Labour Government in the 1940s set up the legal aid system, the state has also been the paymaster of the independent Bar and solicitors who have appeared in court on behalf of defendants. I see no difficulty in extending that principle if it becomes appropriate.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on his assessment of the effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service. [63023]
    The Attorney-General: Sir Iain Glidewell's report on the Crown Prosecution Service made a number of recommendations aimed at improving the effectiveness of the CPS. On 30 November, I placed in the Library of the House a chart setting out the action that the CPS has taken to consider and implement those recommendations. I am pleased with the progress that the CPS is making under its new Director of Public Prosecutions and chief executive. I am confident that that provides a sound basis for the CPS to proceed as a national but decentralised service with effect from April 1999, obtaining maximum benefit from the "fresh start" advocated in the Glidewell report.
    Mr. Bercow: I thank the Attorney-General for that helpful reply. Is it not crucial to improved performance by the Crown Prosecution Service that the administrative support units that help to prepare cases for it are led and guided by the highest-calibre lawyers and police officers? Should not the emphasis of their work be on the expeditious handling of paperwork and on ensuring that they get it right the first time? What specific measures are being taken to facilitate that important objective?
    The Attorney-General: I am happy to tell the House that, as regards the necessary priorities, the hon. Gentleman has got it right too. What he has described was one of the fundamental recommendations of the Glidewell report that is now being considered. I hope to report to the House later on the new unit appropriate for ensuring that prosecutions are handled effectively. As a major step in that direction, the advertisement has now gone out for the appointment of chief Crown prosecutors in each area. That is an important plank in building the type of system that both the hon. Gentleman and I agree is necessary.

Iraq
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, I will make a statement on Iraq.
Yesterday, I authorised the participation of British forces in a substantial US-UK military strike against targets in Iraq. As the House knows, this attack began last night, to maximise surprise through the use of sea-launched cruise missiles and precision bombing by navy-based manned aircraft. The operation is now continuing and, as I speak, British Tornado aircraft are engaged in action. I spoke to their commander last night and congratulated him on the bravery and professionalism of his forces. I know that the whole House will join with me in wishing them well as they risk their lives to help ensure peace and stability in the middle east and more widely. We are proud of them.
The objectives of this military operation are clear and simple: to degrade the ability of Saddam Hussein to build and use weapons of mass destruction, including command and control and delivery systems, and to diminish the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his neighbours by weakening his military capability.
Those objectives are achievable and the action is proportionate to the serious dangers Saddam Hussein poses to his immediate neighbours, the middle east region and the international community more widely. The targets, throughout Iraq, have been very carefully selected to reflect these objectives. We are taking every possible care to avoid civilian casualties or damage to ordinary civilian infrastructure.
The House will forgive me, I hope, if I say no more about operational details at this stage. To go further could endanger the lives of those involved. However, first reports from last night's operations suggest that they were successful and inflicted the kind of military damage we were seeking.
When I spoke to the House on 16 November, after we and the Americans had stayed our hand because of a written Iraqi promise of full co-operation with the UN weapons inspectors, I set out in some detail why we had come to the brink of military action. The House, I hope, will forgive me if I once again set current events in their proper context, because it is vital that people understand that the threat from Saddam is not theoretical—it is real.
Our policy has always been to seek genuine Iraqi compliance with the demands of the Security Council. After the Gulf war had revealed the extent of Saddam's arsenal, Iraq agreed in April 1991 to accept the destruction of all its weapons of mass destruction and not to develop such weapons in the future. Iraq also agreed to a special commission to monitor and oversee the process. That was the price that Iraq was made to pay for the cessation of hostilities. The capability that Saddam had at the outset of the Gulf war included a nuclear weapons programme only two years away from producing an effective bomb; long-range missile stocks able to threaten all his neighbours; a chemical weapons arsenal of huge proportions, which he had already used on the Iranians in the 10-year war that he started on Iran, and on his own people; and a biological weapons programme capable of producing enough deadly toxins to destroy the population of the globe several times over.
1098
It was then expected that the special commission, together with the International Atomic Energy Agency, would complete this process in a few months, but it was not to be. What no one fully foresaw at that time was the huge effort that Iraq would put into blocking it. The inspectors have been constantly harassed, threatened, deceived and lied to. A special and elaborate mechanism to conceal Iraqi capability was put in place involving organisations close to Saddam, in particular his Special Republican Guard.
Despite that, the United Nations Special Commission achieved a huge amount, particularly after the defection of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, later murdered by Saddam. UNSCOM destroyed, for example, more than 38,000 chemical weapons munitions, 48 Scud missiles and a biological weapons factory designed to produce up to 50,000 litres of anthrax, botulism toxin and other deadly agents. But much—too much—remains unaccounted for. Iraq has consistently sought to frustrate attempts to look at the records and destroy the remaining capability—and let us again be clear: Saddam still has capability in this area, not least to develop more weapons in the future. Let me give just one example: more than 610 tonnes of precursor chemicals for the nerve gas VX have not yet been found or accounted for.
Meanwhile, Saddam's conventional military capabilities remain at a very high level. He has more than 1 million men under arms, including 75,000 in the Republican Guard and 15,000 members of the Special Republican Guard. Saddam attaches importance to only one thing: his ability to dominate his people and his neighbours by military force. He wants to retain all the weapons that he can, including weapons of mass destruction. He has used them before, and I am in no doubt of his readiness to use them again if he has any opportunity. His brutality and ruthlessness are too well documented for there to be any doubt of that. The UN special rapporteur on human rights issued a new report on Iraq in October; it bears studying. He documented massive and extremely grave violations of human rights, including the widespread and systematic use of torture, a new policy of penal mutilation and amputations introduced by Saddam's son, Uday, and innumerable and illegal political executions.
After the full extent of the weapons programme was uncovered in 1996 and early 1997, Saddam began to obstruct in real earnest. He cast doubt on the independence of the inspectors. He sought to exclude US and British members of UNSCOM. He sought to declare certain sites out of bounds, on the ground that they were personal palaces. That led to a series of crises with the Security Council and the international community, and a recurring threat of force, first in October 1997—when he eventually backed down—and then in February this year. The House will recall that that was eventually resolved by the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, going to Baghdad and concluding a binding memorandum of understanding with the Iraqis. In it, Saddam undertook to co-operate fully with UNSCOM and the IAEA, and confirmed that that meant
"immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access in conformity with Security Council Resolutions."
But the pattern continued. Then Saddam broke altogether the agreement with Kofi Annan. In August he suspended co-operation, and on 31 October he ended it. That was why, on 14 November, I gave authority for

1099
British forces to participate in a United States-United Kingdom strike against Iraq, which, as we know, was averted only by another offer from Saddam. The Iraqis again agreed, in terms that spoke of a
"clear and unconditional decision of the Iraqi government to resume cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA".
They said:
"UNSCOM and the IAEA could immediately resume all their activities according to the relevant Resolutions of the Security Council."
I remind the House that those resolutions call on Iraq to comply unconditionally with the demands of the Security Council to give up all weapons of mass destruction, and to co-operate fully with UNSCOM and the IAEA. Resolution 707 of 15 August 1991, for example, passed after the first evidence of Iraqi non-compliance, demanded that Iraq should
"provide full, final and complete disclosure … of aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction",
and that it should allow UNSCOM and the IAEA
"immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any and all areas, facilities, equipment, records, and means of transportation which they wish to inspect".
There were some who thought that we should have taken military action on 14 November. But, despite our severe doubts, we went that extra mile. We gave Saddam that last chance. Even at the risk to our own credibility, we were determined to avoid, if we responsibly could, the use of force. At the same time, we and the Americans also gave the clearest possible warning that, should Saddam break his word once more, there would be no further warnings or diplomatic arguments. I told the House on 16 November that, if he again obstructed the work of the inspectors, we would strike. No warnings. No wrangling. No negotiation. No last-minute letters.
President Clinton also set out what Saddam had to do: allow unfettered access for UNSCOM and the IAEA and abide by all the relevant Security Council resolutions; otherwise, he said, the US stood ready to act without further warning.
Saddam Hussein is a man to whom a last chance to do right is just a further opportunity to do wrong. He is blind to reason. We were not unconscious of that, but we wanted to show for our part that reason, not vengeance, motivated us. So, acting on that promise of unconditional access, Richard Butler was asked to put his inspectors back in immediately and carry out the full range of his tasks, and then to report back to the Security Council. He said that he would do so within a month. On Monday, a month later, he did so. That report was clear and damning. Copies were placed in the House yesterday. Butler summarises UNSCOM's experiences: limited co-operation in some areas, yes, but otherwise a clear pattern of obstruction—over documents, access to Iraqi personnel and, above all, the surprise inspections of suspect sites so vital to UNSCOM's completion of its task. Co-operation, as the report says, has indeed been less good in some areas even than in the difficult times of the past.
The evidence is clear, as set out by Butler. Important and relevant documents have not been handed over. Their existence has even been denied in many cases, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The documents are vital because they would reveal how many weapons Iraq had and has and where they are or may be located.
1100
We know that the Iraqis have deliberately destroyed as many of these documents as they can, including in the second half of this November as UNSCOM was resuming its work.
The Iraqis have also blocked legitimate inspections including one to the Ba'ath party headquarters. This visit was not an idle provocation, but because there was reliable evidence of relevant material at that site. In another case, an inspection of the former headquarters of the Special Security Organisation was eventually allowed to go ahead, but only after the building had been emptied, not only of any relevant material, but of its furniture and all equipment of any kind.
Butler's conclusion is clear and unequivocal:
"in the light of this experience, that is, the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the Commission is not able to conduct the substantive disarmament work mandated to it by the Security Council and, thus, to give the Council the assurances it requires with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons programmes."
Anyone who has followed at all the pattern of events in Iraq in recent years must come to the same inescapable conclusion. Whatever the arguments about particular incidents, Saddam's attitude to the inspectors and their work cannot remotely be described as full co-operation. It has instead been as much deliberate obstruction as he thought he could get away with. Moreover, he has also consistently sought in the past 18 months to use this obstruction deliberately to try to blackmail the international community into lifting sanctions—a step which we support when he has complied with his obligations but which is quite unacceptable before he has done so, and while the threat remains.
In those circumstances, we had a stark choice. Either we could let this process continue further, with UNSCOM more and more emasculated, including its monitoring capability, Saddam correspondingly free to pursue his weapon-making ambitions, and this one-sided, unjustified bargaining over sanctions continuing, or, having tried every possible diplomatic avenue and shown endless patience despite all Saddam's deception, we could decide that, if UNSCOM could not do its work, we should tackle Saddam's remaining capability through direct action of our own. In the circumstances, there was only one responsible choice to make.
We are acting now because Butler's report—delivered on time—was so clear and because, if we were going to act, it was obviously better that we should do so without giving Saddam unnecessary time to prepare his defences and disperse whatever he could to new locations. In particular, we were immensely sensitive to the imminence of Ramadan and very reluctant to have to start a military campaign during Ramadan, out of our respect for Muslim sentiments. On the other hand, waiting until after Ramadan would have given Saddam a month to prepare. It would have been highly risky in military terms and likely to reduce significantly the effect of our attacks.
I want to deal with one thing straight on. There are suggestions that the timing of military action is somehow linked to the internal affairs of the United States. I refute this entirely. I have no doubt at all that action is fully justified now. That is my own strong, personal view. I know that President Clinton reached the same conclusion for the same reasons. Had he acted differently, out of regard to internal matters of US politics, that would have

1101
been a dereliction of his duty as President of the United States. Instead, not for the first time, he has shown the courage to do the right thing, and he has my full support.
Other questions arise about this military operation. Let me deal with them as briefly as I can. Is it a specific objective to remove Saddam Hussein? The answer is: it cannot be. No one would be better pleased if his evil regime disappeared as a direct or indirect result of our action, but our military objectives are precisely those that we have set out. Even if there were legal authority to do so, removing Saddam through military action would require the insertion of ground troops on a massive scale—hundreds of thousands, as the British Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Charles Guthrie, made clear this morning. Even then, there would be no absolute guarantee of success. I cannot make that commitment responsibly.
What will happen once the military operation is over? The answer to that depends at least as much on Saddam as it does on us. I hope that he will finally come to his senses and recognise that the only way to find support in the international community and light at the end of the tunnel is full compliance with the Security Council's requirements. UNSCOM must remain ready to resume its work and to accomplish the task set by the Security Council and agreed to by the Iraqis.
Alternatively, if, as is likely, Saddam will not see reason, then after this military operation is concluded, we will ensure that Saddam's weakened military capability cannot be rebuilt and that the threat he poses is fully contained. We have the ability to do so, even without UNSCOM, if necessary. We will certainly be better placed after this military strike than if we had to go on dealing with a Saddam Hussein whose military capability had not been weakened and with an UNSCOM increasingly impeded from doing any serious work. We will maintain and enforce rigorously the existing sanctions. If necessary, and if we have serious evidence from our intensive surveillance or from intelligence that his capability is being rebuilt, we will be ready to take further military action. Saddam should have no doubt whatever of our continuing resolve on that point.
We shall in any case do all we can to ensure that the present arrangements of oil sales for food and medicine can continue. I trust that, this time, Saddam will allow the mechanism to work properly, for the benefit of his people, rather than continue to spread lies about the effect of sanctions. He has the means to care for his people, if he chooses to use them.
Again, let us be clear: the Iraqi authorities can import as much food and medicines as they need. If there are nutritional problems in Iraq, they are not the result of sanctions. Let us not forget that Iraq is continuing to export food to her neighbours. We also constantly look at ways in which we can do more to help alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people, for example, whenever we review the workings of the sanctions and oil for food regimes, and through our own aid effort.
The decision to take military action against Iraq was taken with great regret. It is a heavy responsibility. There will be casualties in Iraq, despite all our efforts, although I hope that all concerned will be fully alert to Saddam's very well-documented modus operandi of fabrication of evidence.
1102
I am encouraged by the international reaction: most of our allies have offered full support, and others who have felt unable to do so have shown their understanding. I believe that, among the Arab countries, the view expressed at their meeting in Doha in November, that Saddam must bear the responsibility for what happens, holds good.
As I said last night, we have absolutely no quarrel with the Iraqi people. We have no desire to jeopardise the territorial integrity of Iraq. Indeed, we look forward to the day when Iraq will have the Government its people deserve and will once again be a great country. We have the deepest respect for Islamic sensibilities, here and in the region. We have acted because we must act to counter a real and present danger from a tyrant who has never hesitated to use whatever weapons are to hand.
I would rather that we had not had to do this. I am aware of the risks that we are asking our forces to face. I do so, not lightly, but with a profound sense of responsibility. However, I do so confident they will achieve our aims and convinced that we have taken the right course of action. Whatever the risks we face today, they are as nothing compared to the risks if we do not halt Saddam Hussein's programme of developing chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. I ask the House for its support.
Mr. William Hague: May I express, on behalf of the Opposition, our full support for the action that has been taken by the Government and the United States, while regretting that it has been made necessary by the persistent failure of the Iraqi leader to keep his word or honour international obligations?
The Opposition share the Prime Minister's view that he and the President of the United States had no alternative but to order a military response to the continuous deceit of Saddam, his refusal to meet his international obligations, his repeated testing of western resolve and his determination to develop weapons of mass destruction. We support the decision that the military operations should not only strike at his ability to develop such weapons of mass destruction, but diminish the military threat he poses to his neighbours. We also support the Prime Minister in making it clear that the operation—the necessity of which we all regret—is directed not at the Iraqi people, but at their leader.
We recognise that the Prime Minister cannot give details of the operations at this stage, but, with British forces now in action, will he confirm to the House that clear and agreed rules of engagement have been confirmed with our United States allies? Can he inform the House of who has taken overall command of the operation, including the British role in it? What action are the Government taking, in parallel with the military operation, on the diplomatic front, especially to redouble efforts to maintain good relations with our many friends, allies and partners in the Gulf?
Will the Prime Minister further inform the House what support he has received from our allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the European Union? Given the obvious risk of retaliatory measures of some kind, will he confirm that the Government have taken all possible steps to safeguard British lives and property at home and abroad? What does the Prime Minister envisage happening immediately after the completion of the military action? For instance, what future does he now foresee for the UNSCOM mission?

1103
Our priority today is obviously the military operation. However, will the Prime Minister comment further on the long-term strategy behind it? The evidence now suggests overwhelmingly that Saddam Hussein cannot be trusted to meet his international obligations in any serious way. Does that not lead us to the conclusion that a prime objective of western policy, to which this kind of action can make a contribution, must be to bring about his removal? As President Clinton said last night:
"the best way to end that threat to peace once and for all is with a new Iraqi government".
Britain is very fortunate in having the finest aircrews in the world. We can have no doubt that they and the excellent ground crews who support them will give a good account of themselves in whatever they are called on to do. We express our complete support for this operation and for all that our armed forces will do in the coming hours and days.
In addition, we believe that the overall objective of our policy towards Iraq should be to remove Saddam from power rather than temporarily checking his ambitions. None of us wants an outcome that would mean that we find ourselves in the same position, faced, year by year, with the same threat and forced again to take the same action.
The Prime Minister: First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support. I agree entirely with what he said, particularly that this action is directed not at the Iraqi people, but at the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.
Yes, of course there are clear and agreed rules of engagement with our US allies. On the diplomatic front, we are obviously working very hard throughout the entire world—in the Gulf, the European Union and elsewhere. A large number of countries have already indicated their support: among them, Germany, Japan, Australia, Austria, the Netherlands, Spain and Canada. It is obviously important to bring home to people the simple choice that we faced: we could either let the inspection regime effectively disintegrate or take action.
We have done all that we can to safeguard British lives and property. Our long-term strategy is to secure compliance with the United Nations resolutions either through UNSCOM or through direct military action. I agree entirely that a broad objective of our policy is to remove Saddam Hussein and to do all that we can to achieve that. However, I was reluctant to commit myself—I do not think that we could do so responsibly—to that outcome as an actual objective of this military action.
Of course, it is correct that we face a danger in this world while Saddam Hussein remains, as anyone who looks at the history will know. I have a lot of material with me—much of which could be made available to hon. Members without creating any security problems—which details what the weapons programmes were, how difficult it was to gain access and the chronology of all the bits of obstruction that occurred. One problem is that people find it hard to contemplate in this day and age that someone could act in this evil and brutal way. However, I am afraid that there is such a person and he cannot be allowed access to those weapons. If we can possibly find the means of removing him, we will.
1104
However, our objectives for this military action are those that I have set out. I believe that they are achievable. I think that we will significantly degrade and diminish Saddam as a threat to his neighbours and his weapon-making capability, which is what we should do.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: These are anxious and sombre moments for the House and the Prime Minister, as he has just demonstrated, but most particularly for the Royal Air Force aircrew and their families. They ought to be uppermost in our thoughts.
Does the Prime Minister understand that he enjoys Liberal Democrat support for the action that he has taken in deploying British forces against Saddam Hussein? Does he agree that the need to use military force against Saddam Hussein should be regarded not as a cause for celebration or satisfaction but as a painful necessity and last resort to which we have been driven when all other options have been exhausted? Is it not worth repeating yet again that, but for Saddam Hussein's repeated defiance and deception, the issue of compliance with United Nations resolutions could have been resolved several years ago?
The Prime Minister rightly acknowledged the importance of minimising civilian casualties. Does he accept that it is essential to be stringent in the selection of targets? Will he give instructions that, where there is any doubt, the presumption will be against attack?
Finally, in a wider sense, does the Prime Minister understand that there are many who support him on this occasion but remain concerned to ensure that he uses all his endeavours to persuade the United States of the importance of being even-handed throughout the middle east?
The Prime Minister: Once again, I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for Liberal Democrat support. One of the reasons why, in the statement, I set out at so much length the background to the situation is so that people outside the House understand how we came to this point. Having debated the issue on many occasions, we are all familiar with the facts, but many people are not and wonder why it is necessary to take action now. It is important to set out that background.
I agree that the action is not a cause for celebration; it is a terrible thing to have to do. It is a grim necessity and should never be expressed in any other terms. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that I feel that myself keenly.
The hon. and learned Gentleman's point about compliance with UN resolutions is right. At the end of the Gulf war, following the ceasefire, Saddam remained in office and it was predicated as part of the agreement that was made that UNSCOM would go in and do its work. Saddam agreed that he would co-operate fully. We have had seven years of prevarication.
The targets are, of course, extremely carefully chosen. We make every effort to do that as responsibly as we should, and I hope that we act in these circumstances with a responsibility that Saddam Hussein would never contemplate.
The US is acting even-handedly, as President Clinton's visit to Palestinian territory the other day demonstrates. This action has nothing to do with anything other than a

1105
quarrel with Saddam Hussein and a weapons capacity that simply has to be diminished for the sake of the safety of the world.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Building on the question from the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) about the need to keep civilian casualties to a minimum, does the Prime Minister recall from his wide reading how German troops entered the Rheinland in 1936 without let or hindrance from the international community and in violation of international agreements? Did not Adolf Hitler that day sign the death warrants of some 20 million people in the ensuing war? Is it not the case that, if Saddam Hussein were allowed to continue to build his biological and chemical weapons without let or hindrance from the United States or the United Kingdom, he would be allowed to sign death warrants for people in the middle east who are alive and well today?
The Prime Minister: I fully agree. There are records of some 20,000 people unaccounted for in Iraq's internal regime. Saddam has used chemical weapons on the Kurds, invaded Kuwait and developed an entire weapons capability. He cannot safely be allowed to take such actions. My hon. Friend is absolutely right—the question is not what price we will pay if we act now, but what price we will pay if we do not.
Mr. Tom King: I endorse the Prime Minister's statement, as I recall personally that it was in direct response to the ceasefire that the most solemn undertaking was given on behalf of Saddam Hussein to General Schwarzkopf and General de la Billiere that Iraq would not only undertake to allow the destruction of its weapons of mass destruction but no longer pursue a programme of their production. Faced with Saddam Hussein's continuing obstruction, including his refusal to recognise the final warning, the Prime Minister and the President clearly had no choice. None the less, as the Prime Minister said, it is a very heavy responsibility to commit our forces, and American forces, to what is a most difficult undertaking, and one of which we cannot be sure of a successful outcome.
Against that background—I draw modestly on my own experience—may I say that these events will be accompanied by a media frenzy in which rumour will fill any gaps in the available information, in which the sensitivities of neighbouring countries will be crucial and in which it will be vital to maintain the closest possible communication and commonalty of objectives between the United States and ourselves and the closest possible communication with our friends and allies in the region?
The Prime Minister: That is right. It is one reason why I wanted to set out the background in such detail and give people full information. It is important that they understand. It is also important for us constantly to be in communication with our allies out in the Gulf and in the Islamic world, and, of course, with others. It is one of the reasons why we established a limited set of military objectives, which are clear and specific. We believe that we can attain those objectives, but I agree that it is
1106
important that what we say we are going to do, we do, and that we keep in the closest possible communication with our allies in helping us do that.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: My right hon. Friend referred to the internal situation in the United States. Is he aware of the nausea felt by many of us in the House at the fact that when, with the clear authorisation of specific United Nations Security Council resolutions, he takes the awesome and proper decision to bring our troops into action and to risk their lives, some people say that what he is doing is some kind of cronyish favour to the President of the United States? When our men are being asked to risk their lives, that is a despicable thing to say.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although some people point to the fact that this action, even though taken under Security Council resolutions, was taken by Britain and the United States only, and imply that we are somehow isolated, Britain has taken action before, in 1940 when we stood up to the Nazis, and it was a matter of pride because we were doing the right thing, as we are doing the right thing now?
Will my right hon. Friend confirm, in line with what he has told the House this afternoon, that we will keep on, that we will retain sanctions and that, where necessary, we will continue military action until Saddam Hussein has either learned to behave or been removed?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Madam Speaker. I thank my right hon. Friend for his support. I believe it to be in the best traditions of this country and its history to stand up and do the right thing, not just for this country but for the greater peace, stability and security of the world.
As I said in my statement, my own strong personal view is that this action had to be taken now because we said back on 14, 15 and 16 November that, if there was any further refusal to co-operate, we would take action immediately. The Butler report was due in a month, and came out almost a month to the day that we made that statement. The report said that there had been no co-operation—in fact, in some respects there was less co-operation than there had been before.
My judgment was that it was obvious from that point that we were going to have to take action. To have delayed taking action—let us also assume, rightly, I think, that it would have been wrong and offensive to begin that military action in Ramadan—would have given Saddam Hussein five or six weeks in which to prepare his defences and disperse his capability. Of course, it would then have been harder for our people to fulfil their functions. I have absolutely no doubt that now is the right time to act.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Prime Minister will be aware that the RAF Tornados in action all come from RAF Lossiemouth in my constituency. Therefore, with that very strange mixture of pride in their professionalism and fear for their lives, which I think the House would endorse, my thoughts are immediately with the aircrews and their families. May I, over the next few hours—I hope that it will be hours rather than days—be kept fully informed of all relevant constituency information?
Is the Prime Minister satisfied that all possible international negotiations and consultation took place before the decision was taken to launch the attack?

1107
We have all heard and read very many different reports. Is he convinced that the action, which is putting at risk many people's lives, will guarantee his hope that the ultimate outcome will be no remaining opportunity to do further wrong?
The Prime Minister: I agree, of course, that the pilots who are taking the action are immensely brave people, as I said in my statement. We are happy to keep the hon. Lady informed of any developments. She asked whether negotiations and consultation had been properly in place. It is seven years since the original undertaking was given. The past 14 months have been just a game of to-ing and fro-ing for Saddam Hussein. There is agreement right across the international community that compliance with UN resolutions and unconditional, unrestricted access for inspectors to find and destroy the weapons are necessary. That is not in any dispute. There is agreement, too, with UN inspectors' conclusions that Saddam Hussein is not providing such unconditional, unrestricted access. The question is what do we do. Either we decide that he can carry on impeding their work, effectively negating the first thing that we said that we had agreed—that it is necessary to secure compliance with the resolutions—or we take action.
I assure the hon. Lady that it has taken so long to take this action precisely because of our desire to avoid it—if at all costs we could do so. That was the reason why we decided at the last moment on 14 November, even as planes were in the region and ready to take action, that we would call it off. I remember people at the time who said, "You should have gone ahead, in any event. What store can you set by Saddam Hussein's words to you?" But we said, "Let us give this one last chance to work." I do not think that anybody can reasonably complain about the length of time that we have spent trying to achieve a peaceful, diplomatic solution.
Unless force is always ruled out, it is difficult to find any other reasonable conclusion if there is no chance of preventing the development of such a capability without the use of force. That is why we have done what we have done. I assure the hon. Lady that the decision was made only after a great deal of thought and painstaking negotiation and consultation over months. I am afraid that there comes a point when one must face reality. The reality is that either we let Saddam Hussein develop weapons—effectively allowing him to disintegrate the weapons-inspecting regime—or we act with military force. That was the honest, true choice that we faced. I believe that we made the only choice that we could responsibly make.
Mr. George Galloway: The Prime Minister twice mentioned the words "diminish" and "degrade". I wonder whether he thought, as I did at lunchtime, as bleeding women and children were carried into hospitals, that those who were diminished and degraded were not the Iraqis, but us? We are diminished and degraded by being reduced to the tail on this verminous and mangy Desert Fox. [Interruption.] This is a free Parliament and I will have my say in it.
The Prime Minister mentioned Ramadan. He thrice said that it would have been wrong to begin military action during Ramadan, but he has not said that it will not continue during Ramadan. Will he assure the House on that point?
1108
What does the Prime Minister think opinion in the 1,000 million-strong Islamic community around the world will be as it begins Ramadan this weekend—that an Arab Muslim capital is in flames at the hands of a new crusade, but this time led, not by Richard the Lionheart, but by Clinton the liar? And why did he not find time to mention that three of the five members of the Security Council, including our sister socialist Government in France, have condemned this escapade, and that the General-Secretary of the Arab League has today, on behalf of the Arab League—the Arab countries—denounced it as an Anglo-American aggression?
The Prime Minister: First, if I may point out factually, the French have not condemned it. Secondly, the Gulf Co-operation Council of Arab states made it clear in its statement a short time ago that it believes that the responsibility lies with Saddam Hussein for not having abided by the agreement that he entered into. Of course my hon. Friend is quite right—this is a free Parliament, and he is entitled to have his say. That is part of living in a democracy. It is not, of course, something that he would have, were he living in Iraq.
I simply want to say to my hon. Friend—to be honest, I think that I am sort of past anger—that I find it curious that he should attack President Clinton personally and mention not a word of condemnation of Saddam Hussein. He has a curious sense of priorities. I do not believe that people in the Muslim world or the Arab world are in any doubt, and it is our job to go out and show them, as I said so clearly, that the enemy of the Iraqi people is not the British or the American Government; the enemy of the Iraqi people is a dictator who has repressed that people for years and years and years. Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed, however, to threaten the rest of the world, and I find it extraordinary that anyone from my own political party—from my own background and beliefs in the Labour party—could actually make a statement without condemning once the things that he has done: the killing of those Kurdish people, the fact that 20,000 people are unaccounted for, the political executions that happen in Iraq every day, the invasion of Kuwait, or the development of weapons of nuclear, chemical and biological warfare.
It is possible—and quite right in this free democracy of ours—for people to get up and say, "Look, this is the wrong thing to do. You should not do it." I understand that argument. But let us at least agree that this man is an evil dictator, and that any attack on us for what we have done should never ever be seen by the outside world as some support for him.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the House would agree that the removal of Saddam Hussein would be a very desirable outcome of what has happened. One of the tactics that the Americans and British Government might seek to employ would be to encourage the Shi'a in the south of Iraq, or the Kurds in the north of Iraq, to rise up against Saddam Hussein. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, unless the United States Government and the British Government were to offer very substantial and effective military assistance, the probabilities are that the Shi'a and the Kurds would be crushed, with great loss of life? Does the right hon. Gentleman therefore agree that, unless the United States Government and the British

1109
Government are willing to provide substantial and effective military cover for the Shi'a and the Kurds, they should not be encouraged to rise up against Saddam Hussein?
The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last point. It is important that we do not encourage anyone to do things if we are not in a position to give them the protection that they need. At this stage, we simply cannot assess what the impact of the action that we have taken on Saddam Hussein will be. Obviously, if he were removed, it would be to everyone's benefit. Partly because I believe that it is important that we get the maximum possible support in the rest of the world, I have been hesitant and anxious throughout not to make a commitment beyond a commitment that I believe that we can achieve.
Mr. Clive Soley: May I tell my right hon. Friend, as someone who represents in his constituency a large number of Muslims, Arabs and Iraqi refugees, that he will have far more support in those communities both here and around the world than is readily apparent? It is false to imply that the people of the Islamic religion, especially those who have suffered at the hands of the Iraqi dictator, believe that Saddam Hussein's behaviour is acceptable just because they happen to have a disagreement with Israel. Israel is another matter. Many of them would agree with me that the dictators who have so disfigured the face of the 20th century need to be stopped. When we cannot stop them here and now, we need to be able to put them on trial before the International Criminal Court when they lose power, as we will eventually do. Let us go forward into the 21st century proud of the role that we have taken, difficult though it may be. I assure my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that the support is there in all communities.
The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I am sure that he is right in what he says about the Muslim community, which contributes so much to this country and represents all the best instincts of peace and stability. It is also right to draw attention to the need for the international community to recognise that we live in a different set of circumstances today. The technology exists to develop weapons that are horrific. That is one of the reasons why it is so important that Britain remains engaged in all the international conventions on nuclear weapons and weapons of chemical and biological warfare. I am afraid that there is a sense in which there must be some point at which today's international community acts in order to stave off a potential threat to the world. This is such a situation.
Rev. Martin Smyth: May I assure the Prime Minister from this Bench that the greater number of people in Northern Ireland support the attacks whole-heartedly? He mentioned oil for food and medicines. There are those who think that that is an American attempt to get oil. May we have an assurance that attempts are being made to ensure that Saddam does not simply feed his soldiers and supporters, rather than deal with his people who are in need? May we have a
1110
repetition from the Prime Minister that Saddam's palaces are not country houses but large estates that cover acres of territory, which makes it more difficult to inspect them?
The Prime Minister: That is right. Part of the difficulty has been that Saddam has siphoned off any money that he can into his weapon-making capability. From memory, I think that he has spent about $1.2 billion on the presidential sites and related military capability. We try to put in place as tough a regime as we possibly can, but we are desperate at the same time to allow Saddam to sell oil in order that the Iraqi people are fed and have the medicines that they need. Saddam could do so much more. There is no need for any people to suffer nutritional deficiencies in Iraq. That cannot be said often enough. People can be fed if Saddam will allow it, but for his own reasons and his own propaganda, he does not. We are always looking at ways of improving the regime, but there is no reason why he cannot feed his people properly and give them the medicines that they need, except the fact that he refuses to do so.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware of the difficulty that on the condemnation of Saddam Hussein there is overwhelming unanimous world opinion, while on the decision to take military action he and the United States have been unable to persuade the Security Council, which requires the support of the five permanent members, which means that this military action is a flagrant breach of article 46 of the charter of the United Nations? The Prime Minister said that something must be done, but that was tried seven years ago when 200,000 Iraqis were killed, many of them innocent, and Saddam Hussein was left stronger than before. There are many people in the world, and I am one of them, who believe that what was done yesterday is deeply immoral and contrary to an ethical foreign policy, of which we boast. For that reason, I shall take the limited opportunity open to me to vote against the war by calling for a division on the Adjournment of the House at 10 o'clock tonight.
The Prime Minister: I have no doubt that we have the proper legal authority, as it is contained in successive Security Council resolution documents. I respect the fact that my right hon. Friend takes a different view, but he also condemned the action that we took to drive Saddam out of Kuwait. Does anyone believe that, if we had not taken military action in the Gulf war, Saddam Hussein could have been negotiated out of Kuwait? That is not credible.
I accept that not all the international community will endorse the action, but the entire international community agrees two things: first, that Saddam's building of weapons of mass destruction must be stopped and, secondly, that he is in breach of his obligations to deliver up all the documents and ensure that the inspectors can do their job properly. At some point, either we decide to carry on in endless negotiation—with Saddam able to destroy the records of where the weapons are, prevent the inspectors from doing their job and build up his weapon-making capability again—or we decide to use force.
Unless people take a pacifist view and argue that force should never be used, irrespective of the circumstances, I do not know how, after seven years, they can reasonably

1111
say, yes, we agree that Saddam must be prevented from developing those weapons, but, no, we are never prepared to use force to stop him.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: First, when these matters have drawn to a conclusion and UNSCOM is able to go about its business again in Iraq, and given that the Prime Minister agreed with me the other day that UNSCOM's work following the Annan agreement had become heavily compromised, will he give consideration to a new and better system for UNSCOM to do its work in Iraq, so that it can go about its business without outside interference from people claiming to be a liaison between it and the Government of Iraq?
Secondly, will the Prime Minister take under his own wing the responsibility to ensure that our allies and friends in the Gulf are kept informed, at the highest level, of the reasons for the actions that he has rightly undertaken?
The Prime Minister: On the latter point, we are in constant contact with allies and friends in the Gulf at the highest level.
Of course, we always look at how we can improve the UNSCOM regime. There have been many attacks on Richard Butler, the head of the special commission. Richard Butler was a former ambassador to the United Nations. He used to work for Gough Whitlam and was appointed by the previous Labour Government in Australia as ambassador to the UN. He is deeply committed to the UN. The views that he presents in his report are not just his views; they are the views of all the inspectors. It is important for us to remember that. The idea that a man with such a track record and those beliefs is some stooge of the Americans or the British is entirely false.

ROYAL ASSENT
Madam Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act 1998

Iraq
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
4.28 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We have just had a statement on Iraq, and we are to have a debate on Iraq. Would it not have been more usual and have saved time if the Prime Minister had introduced the debate? Would that not have been a better procedure?
Madam Speaker: That is not a matter for me.
Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has been pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that there is no opportunity for a vote at the end of the debate, except on the motion for the Adjournment. Early-day motion 148 could fruitfully be used as the basis for a debate now, so that we could have the proper vote at the end.
Madam Speaker: I do not have the powers to change the business. Would that I were so powerful.
4.29 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): We have arranged for this debate in the House at the first available opportunity after military action to give hon. Members the opportunity to debate that action and the background to it.
All hon. Members will wish to remember that we debate this matter in the security of our Chamber while British service men are in action in circumstances of some danger. At the outset, I follow my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in recording the appreciation of all in the House for their courage and professionalism. I open the debate by setting out why we had to call upon them to take that military action.
My starting point is the report submitted by Richard Butler to the Security Council. That report could not make it more clear that Saddam has not kept the commitments which averted military action only last month. The report details the familiar pattern of obstruction, delay and deception.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cook: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in a moment if he allows me to continue with this passage.
Since the work of the United Nations Special Commission resumed, it has requested 12 sets of documents that could answer crucial questions about Iraq's chemical weapons and missile programmes. Iraq has responded to only one of those 12 requests.
The Iraqi authorities have blocked attempts by UNSCOM to carry out site inspections. Only last Wednesday, a team of inspectors was refused entry to a storage facility on the ground that it was a political headquarters of the Ba'ath party.

1113
Let me describe to the House the precise nature of the building in question. It is a large rectangular warehouse. A thick steel trap-door, 3 m2, gives access to a cellar beneath the warehouse which is of the same size. The shed is guarded by members of the interior security service, commanded by an officer with the rank of lieutenant colonel. Let us be frank. This lieutenant colonel is not on duty to safeguard political election posters, even if elections were allowed in Iraq. Baghdad's pretence that the warehouse and its underground cellar are political offices is only another of the empty pretexts with which it has persistently sought to hinder the work of the UN inspectors.
Mr. Corbyn: Can my right hon. Friend explain when Richard Butler's report was received by the Security Council, and what steps were taken by the British or American Governments to call a special meeting of the Security Council to gain its authority before any military action could be taken? Or was the action taken without the Security Council's authority after the production of the report?
Mr. Cook: The action has been taken with the full authority of repeated Security Council resolutions, supported by all members of the Security Council. Let us not forget that the lead-in time for this military action is not the day or so since Richard Butler's report; it is the 10 months since Saddam first threw out the inspectors last February. It is during that period that two successive resolutions have given us the authority to carry out this action.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
Mr. Cook: I shall give way on this occasion, but then I must make progress.
Mr. Leigh: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that aerial bombing will not destroy Saddam's capability, only degrade it, and nor will it remove him from office? Will he confirm that it may be difficult for UNSCOM to return once the bombing stops? Given that military action on the ground is ruled out, what is the right hon. Gentleman's and the Government's game plan for the future? How do they intend to resolve the crisis? Or are they asking the House to support military action again and again, which may well be necessary?
Mr. Cook: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene at such length with so many different questions, he can take full part in the debate. The Prime Minister has already made it perfectly clear that to displace Saddam Hussein would require a commitment of tens of thousands of ground troops and the acceptance of casualties well beyond anything that we are asking the House to accept. We have clear objectives, which I will deal with in my speech, both substantially to set back Saddam's weapons programmes and to diminish the military threat that he
1114
poses to the region, and we are confident that this aerial strike can achieve those objectives. I shall lay them out before the House in my speech.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cook: No, I must return to my text, but my hon. Friend will have other opportunities to intervene.
In two further cases, in addition to the one that I have described, inspections were delayed after Iraq declared the sites to be sensitive. When the inspectors were finally granted permission to enter, they found that the building had been swept clean.
Such attempts to hinder and obstruct the work of UNSCOM have been standard practice in Baghdad ever since the inspection regime was imposed by the United Nations. Given Saddam's undertaking last month that UNSCOM would have unconditional and unrestricted access, it is to be deplored that Baghdad still practises the same sustained web of deceit and deception. Saddam still avoids answering questions and prevents UNSCOM from finding the answers.
I must also tell the House that, in the period since Saddam gave his undertaking to co-operate, he has introduced new, fresh restrictions on the work of UNSCOM. The Baghdad authorities have demanded a formal letter of request for the inspection of a sensitive site, including details of what was sought at the site—presumably in order that they could more easily remove any such documents and material from the site. Until August, UNSCOM had provided data on Iraqi missile tests and engines. Since UNSCOM went back in November, Iraq has refused to release such data. Until August, UNSCOM was allowed to carry out its own study on the engine components of missiles to establish their range. Since November, UNSCOM has been denied the removal of missile components for analysis.
Since Saddam pledged full co-operation in November, UNSCOM has experienced no greater co-operation than before. On the contrary, it has been subjected to even greater deception and obstruction. That is why the conclusion of Mr. Butler's report is stark and unequivocal. The inspectors are not able to carry out the disarmament work which they are mandated to do.
Mr. Butler has received the full wrath of the Baghdad propaganda machine. I share the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as I have known Mr. Butler for a number of years. I first met him long before he became the head of UNSCOM. I know him to be a man of great independence of mind and integrity. He is also whole-heartedly dedicated to the United Nations and the international rule of law. Nor is his report the report of one isolated individual. It would be overwhelmingly endorsed by all the inspectors who know from experience the repeated obstacles that have made their job so frustrating.
Mr. George Galloway: If Mr. Butler is such a paragon of virtue, why did Mr. Prakash Shah, the special envoy of Mr. Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, describe him to me, on the basis of more than 20 years' knowledge, as a congenital liar?
Mr. Cook: We must all speak from our own experience. As Mr. Butler is not in the Chamber to defend

1115
himself against the grave charge that my hon. Friend has made against him—a charge that we are not permitted to make against each other—I will vigorously rebut that charge and say that throughout the period in which I have known Mr. Butler, not just as a colleague but as a friend, he has shown himself to be consistently honest and dedicated to international and political ideals that in other circumstances my hon. Friend would share. It is, therefore, important for all of us to remember, when we read propaganda against Mr. Butler, that he is so unpopular in Baghdad not because he is a liar or deficient in his job, but because he does his job only too well.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving way. Does he remember that Mr. Butler's predecessor was Mr. Rolf Ekeus, a Finnish diplomat of considerable distinction, whose experience at the hands of Saddam Hussein was exactly the same as that of Mr. Richard Butler?
Mr. Cook: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a fair point. No leader of UNSCOM who has done the job effectively has been able to earn any reception or good word in Baghdad. Perhaps we should worry if he did receive a good word in Baghdad.
Mr. David Winnick: When we listen to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway), who has spoken twice today, should we not bear it in mind that, on a visit to Baghdad in 1994, he was widely quoted as saying to Saddam Hussein face to face:
"Sir, I salute your courage, your strength and I want you to know we are with you until victory"?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. That intervention was far too long.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) will no doubt wish to respond to that point later in the debate. In the meantime, I strongly urge the whole House to remember that, when Baghdad tries to turn this matter into a confrontation between the west and the Muslim world, every single one of those who have been killed by Saddam Hussein over the years has been a Muslim, whether Iranian, Kurd or Shi'ite. We must not fall for the idea that, in standing up for international law and halting the use of weapons of mass terror against Arab neighbours, we are somehow taking part in a war against the Muslim world.
Mr. Butler's report compelled us to decide, with great reluctance, that there was no alternative but to take military action against Iraq. I remind the House that we have made every effort to avoid this outcome. If we have erred, it has always been on the side of caution. Throughout the whole of this year, we have given Saddam Hussein repeated opportunities to comply with his obligations to the United Nations. Last February, the permanent members of the Security Council—all five of them—mandated Kofi Annan to travel to Baghdad to seek a diplomatic outcome. Saddam Hussein then entered into an undertaking with the Secretary-General that he would allow UNSCOM to get on with its job. That undertaking was endorsed by a resolution of the Security Council, backed by all its members, which warned Saddam that,
1116
if he broke the agreement, there would be "the severest consequences". Six months later, he went back on the agreement and stopped all new site inspections.
Only last month, we again gave Saddam another chance to prove that there was an alternative to military action. We could not have been clearer about what would happen if he did not keep his promise. The UN Secretary-General said:
"I am not sure, if there is a next time, if we will have time for further diplomatic initiatives",
yet, once again, Saddam has broken his promises.
No Foreign Minister can be satisfied when events compel the need for military force. The aim of diplomacy is to avert the need for such actions, but diplomacy can work only if the other side is prepared to negotiate in good faith. With Saddam, diplomacy has not worked because he has entered into agreements with cynicism and broken them with contempt. At stake is not an abstract principle of diplomacy, but the real threat posed by Saddam's capacity to produce weapons of terror.
Saddam has not accounted to UNSCOM for 600 tonnes of the chemical precursors for the VX nerve agent. That would be sufficient to produce 200 tonnes of the VX nerve agent. One plane load of VX would be enough to devastate the population of any of the smaller states in the region.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cook: I shall give way in a moment to my hon. Friend and neighbour.
UNSCOM also estimates that Iraq has the equipment and the growth agents to produce 350 litres of anthrax a week—enough to fill two missile warheads a week. One warhead would wipe out any of the larger cities in the region.
Mr. Dalyell: On the assumption that those 610 tonnes exist, has the Foreign Office given the Foreign Secretary an assessment of the environmental consequences if there were a direct hit on such a chemical or biological arsenal?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend asked the same question during our debate in February and the response that I gave then remains valid—that, in our targeting plans, we have taken great care not to release into the atmosphere chemical or biological weapons that may be complete. With Saddam, we face not an arsenal of completed weapons, but the capacity and potential to produce completed weapons within months if we turn our backs on him. That is why we can interrupt the supply chain to the final product with no danger of the final product being released into the atmosphere. Our objective is to ensure that we set back by several years Saddam's attempt to produce those weapons.
The Opposition have asked, perfectly properly, for the precise and clear objectives of this military action. We have two clear objectives. The first is to defeat Saddam's ambitions to continue to develop such weapons, with which he could terrorise his neighbours. We want a peaceful outcome, but we know that an outcome that left Saddam able to develop those weapons without hindrance would not be peaceful; it would be a guarantee that those weapons would be used. Saddam used chemical and

1117
biological weapons against his citizens when he wiped out the entire town of Halabja. He has used the weapons before, and he will use them again if he is allowed to keep them.
In the course of today, an increasing number of statements from Governments around the world have expressed their understanding of that case and the need to take this action to halt Saddam's weapons programme.
Mr. William Cash: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain why the French appear not to be giving the support that we might have expected in the circumstances, particularly given the joint declaration on defence made only a week ago, which refers to international responsibilities and the fact that our two countries should take joint action in such international matters?
Mr. Cook: Given the gravity of this international crisis, it is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman should trot out his own King Charles's head on Europe—[Interruption.] If hon. Members will listen, they will hear that many European countries have backed what we have said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am going to answer the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will listen.
The Prime Minister of France has made it clear that the action was provoked by the steps taken by Saddam Hussein. Compared with the position that France took on the previous crisis, on this occasion, France has shown restraint. It has not wished to get involved in open hostility to the action that we have taken. Earlier today, I had a successful conversation with the French Foreign Minister, in which we agreed to work together in the future, particularly in relation to Iraq.
Chancellor SchrOder's spokesman said:
"The Iraqi leadership was warned and had to assume that the international community could not stand by and watch."
This morning, the Austrian Foreign Minister, who currently holds the European Union presidency, said:
"We must make Saddam Hussein fully responsible for this".
He recognised that the Iraqi leadership had been given ample opportunity.
The Foreign Minister of the Netherlands described our actions as "unavoidable". The Spanish Defence Minister described military action as "inevitable". The Finnish Prime Minister said:
"We are involved in this together—the United Nations versus Iraq."
Mr. Quentin Davies: The right hon. Gentleman brushes aside rather too lightly the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). Is it not extremely serious that different members of the European Union are sending discordant signals to a proven aggressor, thereby encouraging him to believe that we can be played off one against another? Is it not time that the Government made some progress—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are making speeches rather than interventions.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman should not generalise from the case of one country. I have quoted half a dozen
1118
European countries that are with us in the action that we have taken. Let me add another. In a statement today to the Italian Senate, the Italian Foreign Minister said:
"The use of force … arose above all from the behaviour of the Baghdad Government … The possession of weapons of mass destruction constitutes not only a violation to the UN but also a permanent threat to neighbours."
We have taken this action with the overwhelming support of our close allies, our friends around the world, and the overwhelming majority of the UN Security Council.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Cook: No, I wish to proceed with my speech. Our second clear objective is to reduce the threat to Saddam's neighbours by diminishing his military war machine. Our targets are precise and are confined either to facilities that are part of his weapons programmes or to his military power base.
It is, of course, military power that keeps Saddam in power. We are not in conflict with the vast majority of the Iraqi people, with whom we have a common enemy in Saddam. Only last October, the UN rapporteur on human rights in Iraq, Max van der Stoel, published his latest assessment. It is an appalling catalogue of human rights abuse, which includes the mass execution of 62 detainees without trial, the assassination of senior and respected Shi'ite scholars, and the use of amputation as a punishment.
The same UN rapporteur also holds Saddam primarily responsible for the shortages of food and medicine for the Iraqi people.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: We would all like to get rid of the ruthless dictator Saddam Hussein, but there is concern on both sides of the Atlantic that the American-British military operation—and its timing—may have more to do with keeping President Clinton in office than with getting Saddam Hussein out of office. Why should the lives of British service personnel be put at risk—and why should innocent men, women and children in Iraq be sacrificed—in what appears to be a desperate attempt to save Clinton's skin?
Mr. Cook: The Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet would never ask our airmen to go into action for such a purpose. We have not done so on this occasion. We have asked them to go into action to preserve the rule of the United Nations resolutions, and to prevent Saddam from developing those weapons of terror that I have described to the House. My hon. Friend would have to have an extremely exaggerated sense of conspiracy to imagine that the timetable of the UNSCOM inspections and of the report from Richard Butler was arranged six weeks ago so that it would come to fruition at this particular moment.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Is not the reality the exact opposite of the point made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)? Is it not Saddam Hussein who calculates when he believes that the west is distracted, and who chooses moments such as this—when the domestic circumstances in America are helpful to him—rather than the other way around?
Mr. Cook: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a fair point about the calculations of Saddam Hussein but,

1119
equally, we should all recognise that anyone who employs brinkmanship all the time sometimes mistakes where the brink is. He could not have been given clearer warnings on this occasion: he has chosen to ignore them.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cook: This will be the last time.
Mr. Bayley: I am most grateful. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when it came to timing, to delay action would have endangered our military objectives and our service men, who are committed to achieving those objectives? Would not delay have allowed the Iraqi regime more time to prepare weapons to use against them?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. The longer the build-up to and expectation of an attack on Iraq, the greater would have been Iraq's preparations for it. The result would have been a greater risk to our service personnel. Had we been obliged to delay such action until the end of Ramadan, Iraq would have been able to take advantage of a very long period in which to prepare for any attack.
It is because of Saddam, not sanctions, that people in Iraq are short of food and their hospitals are short of medicine. Indeed, at the very time when children in Baghdad go hungry, Saddam has been caught exporting convoys of wheat and barley to Syria and Jordan to earn the revenues that keep him and his elite in comfort. Iraq has even sold for export food donated by the rest of world for the needy in Iraq.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, it is not an objective of our military action to bring about the downfall of Saddam. It is, though, our objective to weaken the military machine with which Saddam terrorises his own people and protects himself from their need to be rid of him.
For as long as Saddam remains in power, we will remain resolute in our determination that he will not be allowed to fulfil his ambitions to develop weapons of mass terror. The present military operation must bring it home, even to him, that we will not let him get away with his strategy of deceit and obstruction. It would be far better for him, for his regime, for Iraq and for the international community if he now accepted full inspection by the United Nations to carry out the disarmament on the ground that we have been obliged to do from the air.
None of us who have taken part in the decision to take military action has found it easy. It is a decision that we have taken with great reluctance and real regret. However, I am clear that it was the right decision. The regime in Baghdad has demonstrated appalling brutality towards its people. It has demonstrated consistent dishonesty in its promises to the people of the rest of the world. It has persisted in an extensive programme to acquire weapons of terror and the missiles to fire them, for no other reason than to terrorise the rest of the region and beyond.
Military action must be used sparingly and with reluctance, but there are times when we are confronted with such brutality that military force is the only response.
1120
This is one of those times. We have shown the resolve to respond. We ask all parties in the House to show the same resolve by giving us their support.
4.56 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for giving me advance sight of his speech.
The House has debated the crisis in Iraq on many previous occasions. This year alone there have been four statements—two by the Prime Minister and two by the Foreign Secretary—two private notice questions and six previous debates. On each of those occasions, the whole House was united in the hope that the grave situation that exists in Iraq could be resolved without military action.
Those hopes have finally been dashed. The responsibility that rested on the shoulders of the Government yesterday, and rests on them today, is awesome. No one who has taken part in a Cabinet decision to authorise military action can be insensitive to the very difficult judgments that have to be made. No burden on Government is more onerous.
Conservative Members offer the Government our support for the action that they have taken. We join with them in the concern that we must all have for the safety of our service men and women who could be in action at any time—indeed, we are told that they are in action as we speak.
We agree with the Government that the cause that they are fighting to uphold is just. What is that cause? It has its roots in the Gulf war. That war was a great achievement, in which British Governments, under the leadership first of my right hon. Friend Baroness Thatcher and then my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), played a critical part. It owed much to the skill and valour of British forces, and it was a war in which, once again, they proved themselves to be without equal.
Yet it was an incomplete achievement, because it left in place the rogue regime that had invaded Kuwait and had behaved—and would continue to behave—with such great brutality to its citizens and to others in the region. It left in place a regime that continued to pose a threat to the peace of the region and to humanity.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman feel a sense of guilt at the fact that he was a member of the Government of Baroness Thatcher who, throughout the war between Iran and Iraq, were supplying arms to Saddam Hussein?
Mr. Howard: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. However, nothing could give Saddam Hussein greater comfort than the House of Commons spending the afternoon debating what may or may not have happened in those years, rather than discussing the cause to which the Government have committed our troops to action today.
At the time of the Gulf war and its aftermath, when that incomplete achievement was in place, the threat posed by the Iraqi regime was something to which the international community was not oblivious. The international community did not simply walk away. The United Nations Security Council passed a resolution to deal with that threat.

1121
Resolution 687, adopted on 3 April 1991, dealt with the questions that remained to be resolved in the aftermath of the Gulf war. Foremost among them was the need to ensure that Iraq did not use, develop or acquire any weapons of mass destruction, and that any stocks of the materials necessary to create such weapons were eliminated. Iraq, indeed, gave unconditional undertakings to that effect.
The unhappy story of the past seven and a half years has been the story of how the regime of Saddam Hussein has sought at every turn to renege on those undertakings. The consequences are not academic or abstract. The inventory of Scud missiles, chemical missile warheads and live chemical agents, and the capacity to produce biological weapons, testify to the real, practical nature of the danger. Those weapons could destroy whole populations, and the record of this regime is such that it might well use them to destroy whole populations.
It was precisely because the international community was alive to the danger that resolution 687 was passed. It is in that resolution—and in resolution 678, which it expressly affirms—that the basis for the use of force to deal with the danger lies. Those resolutions embody the determination of the international community to hold Saddam Hussein to the undertakings that he gave in 1991. He has repeatedly given solemn pledges that he will honour those undertakings; he has repeatedly broken his pledges.
In October 1997, and again in January 1998, Saddam announced openly his intention to break the agreements made at the end of the Gulf war. Then, in February, he gave a binding commitment to comply. In August this year, he broke that as well, and suspended all but the most routine monitoring. In October, he ceased co-operation entirely.
It was in order to verify the extent to which those undertakings were being kept that UNSCOM was established by the international community. Last month, Saddam Hussein gave a clear and unconditional undertaking to co-operate with UNSCOM. The latest report from the inspectors, however, is indeed a damning document. It makes it clear that the unconditional co-operation that the inspectors were promised barely a month ago has not been forthcoming, and sets out new ways in which their work has been obstructed. Its conclusions were quoted by the Prime Minister and touched on by the Foreign Secretary, but they bear repetition:
"It must regrettably be recorded again that the Commission is not able to conduct substantive disarmament work mandated to it by the Security Council and, thus, to give the Council the assurances it requires with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons programme."
If, in the face of that conclusion, nothing was done, what would the consequences be? What would the consequences be for the middle east? Would not Saddam Hussein feel able with impunity to ignore all the undertakings that he gave in 1991, and what would the consequences of that be for the safety of the millions of people who inhabit the countries that are neighbours of Iraq? What would the consequences be for the safety of the rest of the world? If one unscrupulous dictator is allowed to treat the international community with such blatant contempt, what authority will remain to deal with
1122
others? That is the nature of the choice that the Government faced yesterday, and that is why we support the choice that they made.
It is true that there are bound to be innocent casualties, and no one should be insensitive to the suffering that will occur; but the Iraqi people are already suffering at the hands of Saddam Hussein, and there are times when action of the kind that was taken by the Government is necessary to avoid much greater suffering at a later date.
Inevitably, there are questions that need to be answered. While we understand the inhibitions that exist on the provision of detailed information, I hope that, when he winds up the debate, the Secretary of State for Defence will tell us a little more about the relationship between the military action that is under way, and the objectives that the Government intend to achieve. Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to be a little more forthcoming about what the Government hope to accomplish, and how? What are the criteria by which they will measure success? What can the right hon. Gentleman tell us about the Government's long-term strategy—a question which, when it was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), the Foreign Secretary signally failed to answer? Does he agree that the removal of Saddam Hussein from office should be an objective of western policy? Can he tell us about the command arrangements? Will British forces defer to overall United States command? Will there be a right of access to a higher political level, as there was during the Gulf war?
The Foreign Secretary told the House of the welcome support that has been given by other Governments. Can the Secretary of State for Defence tell us what diplomatic efforts have been undertaken to build up support from, particularly, the Arab states? Does the Austrian presidency of the European Union intend to convene a meeting of the General Affairs Council? What action has been taken to protect British citizens and assets that might be subject to attack?
Those are legitimate questions, and I hope that we shall have answers to them that are as full as may be consistent with the requirements of national security. Conservative Members, however, offer the Government support for the action that they have taken. Our thoughts are with our service men and women in the field. They are fighting in a just cause, and they have our full support.
5.7 pm
Mr. Bruce George: This really is deja vu all over again. We have had debates in the Chamber following earlier crises, and we have seen a pattern of recidivism in the regime in Iraq, against international law, which takes the form of the thwarting of UNSCOM's efforts. UNSCOM has the legitimacy conferred by United Nations Security Council resolution 687 of 1991; it goes about its work; then, as the Prime Minister said, that legitimate work is thwarted.
Then there is the threat of military action. Coalition building takes place; the United Nations intervenes; Kofi Annan goes to Iraq; others sup at the table of the dictators, listening to what they say and believing them. Next, there is the threat of bombing, which, at the last moment, is terminated because Saddam Hussein makes concessions. Many people are then relieved that war has been averted, but those who have studied Saddam Hussein over the years know that this is but a tactical adjustment by a dictator.

1123
Then we start the whole process again, and reach the inevitable point of military threat, followed by the withdrawal of that threat after promises. Again, we are drawn into the same process. I am reminded of the Greek mythological character Sisyphus, who must pursue the endless task of pushing a rock up a hill, pushing it down, pushing it up again and pushing it down again.
Here we are again, but this time the United States and the United Kingdom have the support of others. That support ranges from reasonable enthusiasm to tacit support or, in some cases, the attitude is, "Please carry on. We are delighted that you are doing what you are doing, but do not expect from us either endorsement or military support. We are glad that you are doing it and not us."
Saddam Hussein is very shrewd; however, if he were totally shrewd, he would not be ruling over a country broken not militarily but economically, with a starving population cowed into submission. So, he is not that shrewd, but he is shrewd enough to know how to divide and rule. His goals are simple. One of them is survival—he is a great survivor—and another is that of regional domination and the elimination of any opposition to him, real or imaginary, including those within his own family. He has used trade to sustain support from countries he might need—France and Russia are two obvious examples.
As we have heard, Saddam Hussein has been shrewd in thwarting UNSCOM over the years. Also, despite the sanctions and the international hostility, he has been successful in rebuilding his conventional military capability and in building up and retaining the weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons are not just a threat to Iraq's immediate neighbours, many of whom are not joining any international coalition to protect themselves, but are using surrogates to do the job for them.
Saddam's bluff has been called. It is possible that he thought—this view is shared by people here and in the United States Congress—that the American President was weak and that he could exploit that weakness. There are those who have argued in Congress and outside that there is a crisis, but that the President's first priority is to face his critics at home. I reject that argument.
The critics say that there is no legitimacy for this action, but I believe that it exists. It may be that we have not secured the support of Russia or China, but are we seriously going to say that, although international legitimacy is important, the only time we can take military action, whether it is bilateral action by the United States and the United Kingdom or any potential action by NATO, or, even—I doubt whether this would happen—unilateral military action by the United Kingdom, is when the Security Council in the form of Russia, China or even France give us the go-ahead? I would argue strongly that it is not incumbent on us to wait for that legitimacy. Quite frankly, it has been bestowed anyway.
In case there are any doubters in our midst, I would argue strongly that the speech this afternoon from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the supporting speech from the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) should have convinced most hon. Members and those outside of the legitimate reasons why the United States Government and the United Kingdom have pursued this course of action.
1124
I do not believe that there are many people here or many in the military who see the prospect of risking death as something to be pursued with high enthusiasm. It would not be wise if, in a cavalier manner, we authorised our armed forces to go into a dangerous military environment for a political and military adventure. We must only risk the lives of the men and women in our armed forces for a cause that is just and in the interests of the international community and the United Kingdom. I believe that those who are not available to be persuaded will never be persuaded, but I believe strongly that there is overwhelming support in the House, if not unanimity, for the Government's actions.
I very much hope that the activities will be terminated in time for the beginning of Ramadan because, like many hon. Members, I have a substantial Muslim minority in my constituency. There is a danger of terrorism and we must all be wary of that, but the point must be made forcefully that the immediate threat posed by Saddam Hussein is not to the United Kingdom or the United States. The immediate danger is posed to Muslims in the region surrounding Iraq. I would not always regard the Governments in those countries with high enthusiasm and I sometimes feel rather disgruntled that we are supporting their survival. They are not necessarily very nice and they are certainly not democratic; however, regional stability is in our interest as well as theirs and it is necessary to take military action.
Of course, it is better if we can threaten action but not use it. However, the ability to threaten diminishes if one is provoked incessantly but force is not used. I suspect that the credibility of the United States, the United Kingdom and the international community which supports our action would have been in tatters if we had not taken action after the violation of agreements signed by Saddam Hussein and after he had, once again, unilaterally discarded them.
Who in their right mind would have regarded anything signed by the Iraqi regime as anything other than tactical, temporary and scheduled for breaking as soon as possible? If there had been a long period of negotiation with our European allies, the Security Council and anyone else concerned, two or three months might have elapsed before any action had been taken. The press and the public would then have said that we were paper tigers—threatening but not delivering. I believe that it was essential to do what we had threatened to do after the last occasion on which UNSCOM's role was made impossible. We said that we would take action without warning or consultation and that is what has happened.
Of course, there are risks, but I believe that it was expedient to take them. I remember being part of a small study group in 1991 after the Gulf war. We produced a book called "Military Lessons of the Gulf War". In that book we said:
"Another lesson is that wars with limited military aims do not necessarily solve the root problems that brought them about."
I believe that that is as apt today as it was then.
It would be unwise for hon. Members or members of the public to see military action as risk free. There will be a reaction against what has happened, but we must consider the alternatives. It would have been far worse to do nothing than to have pursued the goals for which we are working.

1125
I shall conclude because many hon. Members want to speak. We have historical experience to justify the view that not taking action in the face of threats, violence and breaches of international legitimacy can have devastating consequences. As was said earlier, if the United Kingdom and France, which had the military power and capability to stop Hitler entering the Rheinland in the mid-1930s, had had the will, many of our fathers' lives would have been spared and millions of Jews would have lived. Millions of Germans, Americans, Frenchmen, Belgians and people from all over the world would have enjoyed the rest of their lives, if only the Government at that time had decided that a point had been reached and there was sufficient evidence available to take action to stop Hitler. The consequences of their inaction were devastating, in terms not just of the loss of life and property in the second world war, but of the chain reaction from that war, which created the cold war and the misery and threat of international conflict for decades thereafter. I am not arguing that events in the middle east are necessarily of international proportions, but we have enough experience to know that regional crises can burst beyond that region.
The Government have pursued their goals wisely. Once again, the British armed forces are being called on to support their political masters. It must be said, however, that our armed forces are undergoing further reductions and reorganisation yet again, and are seeing their gross domestic product falling once again. I remind the House of what the last Select Committee on Defence and the present Select Committee, which I am proud to chair, so honestly said: if the House and the Government continue to place demands on our armed forces and to mobilise them into action whenever we decide, and if we decide as a nation to spend less than currently projected on defence, they will not be able to discharge and perform what we task them with.
I greatly hope that we can send a signal to our armed forces, our constituents and the public as a whole that the Government's decision commands wide support. We must be prepared for setbacks and reactions against the decision. I believe that most rational people who stand back coolly and consider the alternative of doing nothing will agree that the consequences of that would be infinitely worse than the action taken yesterday evening, when we asked our armed forces to participate in trying to bring this evil leader to his senses or, at least, severely to constrain his military capability to pursue his objectives.
5.24 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, introduced an interesting historical dimension to our debate. I suspect that there will be few new arguments because, in truth, as the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) pointed out, we have dealt with this issue in the House on many occasions this year.
Today we are concerned not so much with the arguments as with the exercise of a judgment. I have already said today that the military action on which the Government have embarked has Liberal Democrat support. I see it as a painful necessity and a last resort when all other options have been exhausted.
1126
None of us has the right to endorse military action as if it were a matter of routine. We must search to be satisfied that military action is justified. In the context of our debate there are two areas in which that search must be carried out. The first is the conduct of Saddam Hussein. Both in the Prime Minister's statement and, to some extent, the Foreign Secretary's speech, and again in the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkstone and Hythe, there was set out the myriad opportunities that Saddam Hussein has had to implement the obligations imposed on him at the end of the Gulf war and to carry out his promises over the approximately eight years since the war ended. If Saddam Hussein's conduct is a reason for military action, we could argue, to adopt the argot of the courtroom, that the case has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
The second issue concerns the legal basis for the action. Some say that there is no proper legal basis because there is no single resolution of the United Nations Security Council that authorises the action taken during the past 24 hours. To them I say that, when considering the legal basis of the action, one must have regard to resolutions 687 and 688 with which the Gulf war was brought to an end, to the fact that they reflect voluntary undertakings freely entered into by the Iraqi Government to help bring the war to an end and that since then no resolution of the Security Council in respect of these matters has been anything other than entirely consistent with those obligations. When considering the legal basis of the action we must look at the body of resolutions as a whole and not seek to fasten on to one particular resolution or describe it or any other as deficient.
If Saddam Hussein had shown any willingness to deal with these matters, they would have been resolved long ere now and the people of Iraq would have been allowed to return to what passed for normality in their lives before the Gulf war. We need not be here. We are here because of the intransigence, deception and brinkmanship of Saddam Hussein, because of promises made and not kept, but principally because of the motive of a deliberate effort to maintain the capacity to manufacture chemical and biological weapons.
Why does Saddam Hussein want that capacity? Is it to boast? He is good at that. Is it to swagger? He is good at that, too. It is not those superficial purposes that lie behind this motivation. It is the determination to be the dominant power in the region and to have available weapons of such terror and effect that he can exercise his will throughout the region, destabilise it if he chooses and, indeed, have the capacity to threaten an even wider area.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. This is the closest I can get to intervening on a Minister. Does he agree that the Prime Minister made it clear that we are now embarked on a long strategy of military intervention? That is the likely course of action. Vital to that is support in the Arab world—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman and take the opportunity to say that a great many hon. Members wish to speak, so I must require short speeches and short interventions.
Mr. Campbell: If the hon. Gentleman could ensure that I receive the same salary as a Minister, I will ensure that I give way on every occasion on which he wishes to intervene. I shall address strategy later.

1127
Saddam Hussein has had every opportunity to comply, but has chosen not to do so. He has had every opportunity to feed his people and to provide adequate supplies of medicine for them, but the money from the sale of oil has been diverted into replacing the military infrastructure that was so badly damaged in the Gulf war and into the so-called presidential palaces.
When one goes to war, there is always the risk of casualties. In one sense, the Gulf war did a disservice to those of us on the victorious side because the belief grew up that we could engage in modern military combat and that, somehow, that could be done without the downside—or the consequences—of substantial numbers of casualties. There is always a risk of casualties, always the risk of fatality. Pictures of so-called smart weapons filled the television screens in our houses, showing so-called smart bombs going down the chimneys of specified buildings, but they represented a very small fraction of the ordnance that was used. There is no such thing as the infallible weapon, nor is there any such thing as the so-called surgical strike—an expression that contains its own inherent paradox.
No matter how skilled, loyal and professional the crews of the Royal Air Force might be—and they are all of that, as we know—their lives are at risk. Therefore, it must be a matter for sober reflection in the House when we are asked to endorse a decision to put those lives at risk and to test that loyalty, professionalism and skill. It is a question of judgment and that is why we have been sent to the House: to exercise our judgment on behalf of our constituents. I do not believe that my judgment is superior to that of anyone else in the House, but in this matter, my judgment is that the risks to which I have referred are outweighed by the consequences of a successful operation, and more than outweighed by the fact that, if no action is taken, the authority of the United Nations will be for ever affected. Therefore, it is likely that Saddam Hussein's expansionist attitude—to which I have already referred and which lies behind his determination to have weapons of mass destruction—can only be enhanced.
What should be the objectives? They should be to destroy, as far as possible, the capacity to make chemical and biological weapons. We cannot guarantee that we will do that in every respect, but we should do it to the limit and extent of our ability. We should aim to discourage and inhibit any regeneration of that capacity. That is important; Saddam Hussein is a dictator, who has made ingenuity into an art form. We should also aim to inflict serious damage on the military infrastructure that underpins his regime.
The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) asked me about strategy. If one reads the Prime Minister's statement carefully, one will see that he poses two alternatives. That is indicative of the fact that none of us is able to say here today precisely what the strategy will be after the operations are completed. I shall take what might be described as the worst case—or, perhaps more correctly, the worse case—and hope that I am wrong. I hope that UNSCOM will be restored, but if that is not possible and UNSCOM cannot return to fulfil its remit, the strategy might well have to be one of surveillance, containment and deterrence. Let us remind ourselves that in the Gulf war deterrence worked. When it became clear that Saddam Hussein might contemplate the use of weapons of mass destruction—as we now know, to a greater extent even than we believed—the response of Mr. James Baker,
1128
then the Secretary of State for the United States responsible for the majority of the negotiations with Mr. Tariq Aziz, was to say that, if there was any use of weapons of mass destruction, it would be met with a disproportionate response. Such a lack of specification is the very essence of deterrence.
In the debates of 1990 and 1991, there were often highly charged moments, such as those that have occurred today. Those debates, like today's debate, involved questions of judgment and the assessment of risk. They certainly involved anxiety about the consequences of war and the understandable reluctance of Members of the House to expose our forces to the perils of modern warfare. As we now know from the efforts of UNSCOM, the risk of chemical, biological and nuclear attack was much greater than we had known or understood. In those debates, I consistently voted to support the Government of the day in the action in which they were engaged. I believe that the House was right to do that then and I believe that it is again right to support Her Majesty's Government today in the action to which they have set their hand.
5.36 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I think that this is the sixth war that I have heard debated in the House: the Korean war was going on when I was elected; and on the day that I was elected, President Truman threatened to use atomic weapons in Korea. It was much to Clement Attlee's credit that he flew straight to Washington and warned Truman off. During debates about Suez, I heard Eden comparing Nasser with Hitler, just as many hon. Members have compared Saddam Hussein with Hitler.
The truth is that chairborne troops, who sit here planning strategy with their marvellous knowledge of military matters, are the ones who can betray the troops. The most scandalous thing that can be done is to commit troops to a war that is wrong and then shield behind them, saying that because they are on the front line we must never criticise. Our duty to the troops is to see that they are never put in a position in which they are endangered by being outside the law.
I shall be brief because I made many of the points that I shall make today when we last debated the matter. Article 46 of the United Nations charter states:
"Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee."
It is no good saying that a resolution that is seven years old provides a permanent permission for anyone in the UN to go to war. It is absolute nonsense and no one believes it for a moment. The plan to use armed force was not a decision taken by the Security Council. Why? It is because the Government and the American Government knew that they would never get the support of the Security Council. Israel has been protected by God knows how many vetoes—27, I was told when I asked the UN office in London. The Americans always veto to protect Israel: they make that their business. However, Russia, China and perhaps France would have protected Iraq for their own reasons.

1129
I do not want to rely too much on texts, but, a few years ago, the leader of the party of which I am a member insisted that we had a new clause in our constitution. I looked it up; it states:
"Labour is committed … to the United Nations … to secure peace, freedom, democracy".
It is with regret that I say to my colleagues that I am deeply affronted by what has been done. We talk about ethical foreign policy; this is an unethical thing to do. Why? Because wholly innocent people will be killed. Let us not pretend that, just because Saddam has killed people, we can do the same. We have killed far more Iraqis than Saddam has: we killed 200,000 during the Gulf war. That argument is not credible.
I received about 100 telephone calls during last night, many of which were from people who had voted Labour and who expressed—not hostility or anger of the kind that I might be expressing—but a sense of disappointment because they did not think that a Labour Government would break the charter of the UN to go along with the President of the United States.
Mr. Alan Simpson: Regarding international legitimacy and the United Nations, will my right hon. Friend confirm that UNSCOM is not the child of the United States, or even of ourselves? It is the creation of the United Nations and, as such, should have reported back to the Security Council for a Security Council decision on that report. The failure to do that will almost certainly guarantee that UNSCOM will never be allowed to return to Iraq, whatever the consequences of the bombings.
Mr. Benn: That is true, but then the British and American Governments now call themselves "the international community". They sometimes call themselves "the west" or "the allies". Whatever they call themselves, Britain and America are the only two nations in the world participating in this action. Other countries may try to be friendly—the Arab countries do not want to upset Washington—but the reality is that, even if people understand it, Britain and the US have no support whatever for the bombing that they have undertaken.
The hypocrisy upsets me. The Americans killed 1 million people in Vietnam. The Americans tried to kill Castro and invaded Cuba. We did the same—I say "we", but it was not me—when Sir Anthony Eden ordered the assassination of Nasser. The operation failed because it was handled incompetently—like many security operations. The American Government reported Mandela to the apartheid regime. American Governments have supported some of the most corrupt and dictatorial regimes in the world. When I hear President Clinton speak, I am not prepared to see him with wings and a halo. The United States is a super-power, just like Britain was in the 19th century. In this action, we are witnessing a return of Victorian imperialism. The only difference is that Britain is so weak we have to piggyback on top of an American military superpower.
Mr. Christopher Leslie: What credible alternative strategy does my right hon. Friend offer for disarming Saddam Hussein?
Mr. Benn: I ask my hon. Friend to consider this: if one does something illegal, it is no good saying, "Well, what
1130
else could I do?" It is an illegal action. The answer is simple: the sanctions should be lifted. I am asked to believe the Prime Minister, but the imposition of sanctions has not stopped Saddam re-arming.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: How will that stop Saddam?
Mr. Benn: Sanctions have not had any effect except on the Iraqi people. [Interruption.] Please do not shout at me, I am entitled to make my case. I have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and I shall be sorry when he leaves the House. The world community agrees unanimously that the sanctions are a grave injustice that affect innocent people.
Let us look at the other side of the coin—I do not know whether I am allowed to mention it. Today, the five Law Lords apparently moved to allow another filthy dictator to return home. I wonder what image the world will have of Britain when we bomb the people of Iraq and plan to let Pinochet go home. If this is cool Britannia, modern Britain and the millennium dome, let us have another look at it.
Mr. Robathan rose—
Mr. Benn: I will not give way again as I promised to be brief.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have a very important intervention.
Mr. Benn: I promised that I would speak briefly.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is not going to give way, and he is entitled to refuse to do so.
Mr. Benn: It is a difficult thing to vote against one's own Government in the House of Commons when the overwhelming majority of hon. Members want the bombing, favour the bombing and praise the bombing. I think it is wrong and I will not apologise to the House for that. People woke up today and discovered that they are widows, orphans and parentless as a result of last night's bombing—and it will happen again. The last time we bombed Iraq, Saddam got stronger; the time before that, Saddam got stronger. This is not the way to deal with the situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George)—who has now left the House—talked about Munich and all that. There was no appeasement before the war: Neville Chamberlain supported Hitler. If hon. Members look at the captured German Foreign Office documents, they will see that Lord Halifax went to Berchtesgarten and said to Hitler, "Herr Hitler, on behalf of the British Government, I want to congratulate you on obliterating communism in Germany and acting as a bulwark against it in the Soviet Union." The history must be read again.
We armed Saddam and we cut Kuwait away from Iraq. The Americans provided Iraq with chemical weapons—it is all recorded—and they supported Saddam to the hilt. We must be careful that we are not swept away on a

1131
media wave, where every bombing is a spectacle. The news media switch from the test match in Australia to Baghdad burning. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and I were on a television programme last night. We heard the questions: "Come on, is that a bomb or a missile? What do you think?" A pilot was asked, "How did you feel when you went in and bombed?"
It is a defiance of human nature to try to resolve matters in that way. The world is more dangerous than it was because anyone can make chemical weapons. The super-powers have nuclear weapons, but any country can have chemical weapons. The more dangerous the world becomes, the more important it is to stick to the rule of law. However attractive and popular this action is with the media—The Guardian says that it was done to help the poor Iraqis—the reality is that, once we depart from our responsibility to the United Nations charter, we are moving into the world of the jungle. In that world, there are many dangerous animals, and we must not think that we can just deal with Saddam and everyone else. Our children will not thank us for what we decide today because the consequences will live with them long after we have gone.
5.45 pm
Mr. Tom King: There is a certain repetition in these debates, and one feature of them is that I often follow the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I listened to his anti-American outburst over Vietnam. The right hon. Gentleman then swept aside the Law Lords over Pinochet and moved on to Munich and whether Neville Chamberlain supported Hitler. I was reminded of the three-card trick in which our attention is drawn to other things. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) raised the real issue and punctured the wonderful performance by the right hon. Gentleman. With the greatest respect, the right hon. Gentleman fell apart completely when asked what he would do.
Mr. Benn rose—
Mr. King: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will develop my argument.
There are three real distinctions. The right hon. Gentleman participated in the Gulf war debate and voted against military action. If the right hon. Gentleman had had his way, Saddam would still be in Kuwait, and other countries would have undoubtedly collapsed under his forces. I will not discuss the torture or the number of casualties in Kuwait or the many Kuwaitis who are still missing as a result of Iraq's action.
My experience predates the Gulf war. I met Saddam Hussein in 1982 when, as a Minister in the Department of the Environment, I led an export mission to Iraq. I saw the police state at first hand. I was not surprised to learn recently that every prisoner incarcerated for a certain length of time had been executed when Iraqi prisons became overcrowded. The nature and obscenity of this regime totally differ from anything that the world has seen.
Mr. Benn rose—
Mr. King: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I should like to continue.
1132
That might not matter and we might have to tolerate it if it were a purely domestic matter for the people of Iraq—awful as that would be. However, the reality is that it is not an internal matter. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's other theory is that the weapons of mass destruction and the programmes to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are a product of the imaginations of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and of the previous Prime Minister and the previous Foreign Secretary. Perhaps he discounts all the evidence of the United Nations agencies and UNSCOM, which—as the Foreign Secretary pointed out in his speech—have identified the awful nature of weapons that could, in the wrong hands, destroy the world.
This is a serious issue. Governments can embark on pretty stupid programmes of expenditure so long as they confine them within their own territory. Those countries that have developed weapons are usually under democratic control and the international community is reasonably confident that they will not be mad enough to use them. The trouble is that Saddam Hussein not only is developing the capability of weapons of a quite awful nature but has used them on occasion. The international consequences could be extremely grave.
This is unfinished business. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman if he wished to engage me on this point, but I do not have time to discuss it as other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. I am satisfied with the legal basis for the action. Solemn undertakings were given and they were endorsed, accepted and authorised by United Nations resolutions, which the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) spelled out clearly. Those undertakings were given at the meeting at the tented camp—I forget its name—where General Schwarzkopf, Crown Prince Khaled and General de la Billiere met the Iraqi generals sent by Saddam Hussein to seek a ceasefire. They did not say that the weapons of mass destruction did not exist; they accepted that the weapons existed and gave the most solemn undertaking that not only would they destroy the weapons but they would no longer develop fresh weapons to replace them. This is therefore unfinished business.
In 1991, we were right to proceed through UNSCOM and agree on the peaceful identification of weapons, with the solemn promise that Iraq would co-operate in their destruction. The seven-year history of that process is one of continual obstruction and deception, which has been testified to by Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, who was responsible for the programme and was subsequently executed by his brother-in-law, with or without Saddam's specific instruction. The son-in-law made it clear that there was an organised, deliberate campaign of deception. UNSCOM has made considerable progress against that campaign. The problem now is that UNSCOM is getting too close to the heart of the matter, which is why the obstruction has become more and more serious.
Against that background, we cannot simply walk away, say that the situation is too difficult to tackle—it is certainly extremely difficult—and let the monster develop his programme, which would grow and grow, along with his influence and the threat that he poses. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said, if we did nothing, the authority of the United Nations and order in the world would be totally undermined and there would be a total subversion of order in that region. If that is the case, we have no choice, but it is an extremely difficult choice.

1133
Our decision carries with it heavy responsibilities, including a responsibility to the people of Iraq, who have suffered all too much. We have a responsibility to try to ensure in every way possible that civilian casualties are kept to a minimum. I suspect that we shall get no help in that from Saddam Hussein, who may be actively engaged in trying to ensure that there are suitable civilian casualties. As we know from his other activities, he has little concern about the lives of many of his people. There will be civilian casualties, but I hope and believe that it will be possible to minimise them.
We have a responsibility to our armed forces, whom we have asked to undertake this most difficult of tasks. I strongly support my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Leader of the Opposition, who said that there must be the clearest rules of engagement and exact terms for this difficult undertaking. There must also be the closest understanding with the United States about those rules of engagement and the objectives of our actions.
It is important to spell out objectives because it will be vital, in the House and outside, to maintain—as we succeeded in doing during the Gulf war—overwhelming public support and understanding for our actions. That will be an enormous challenge. The Foreign Secretary and the Government pride themselves on their media skills. Anyone who has been in a studio today will know the sort of media frenzy that develops on such issues. Many channels and wavelengths are at work and press conferences are being held in capitals around the world.
The problem is to ensure that messages are clear, that there is no confusion and that rumour is not allowed to spread, but we face a dictator and an organisation that are masters of propaganda and misinformation and will be seeking to organise dissent in the Arab world and more widely. There is also the problem of countries that are not always sure of their support for actions such as ours. France has been mentioned. I recall that three weeks passed after the invasion of Kuwait, before France, with the more positive leadership of President Mitterrand, decided to act, and we welcomed its support. Historically, France and Iraq have a relationship that is different from that between Britain and Iraq, and we must recognise that.
We face the difficulty of ensuring good communications and avoiding misunderstanding. There have already been suggestions that what the Chief of the Defence Staff said today was not entirely consistent with what President Clinton said last night. That can be explained and the differences are not as great as some members of the media might believe. However, if there is not the clearest statement and harmonisation of view, approach and objective between ourselves and the United States, the whole venture on which we have embarked will be threatened.
We are only just starting on this venture. The challenge lies ahead and is peculiar, because of the incidence of Ramadan. The whole world understands that the initial venture is likely to be short-lived. It will be followed by a period of reflection and assessment conducted by ourselves and Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi leadership. The issue will be to try to determine what will happen.
Obviously, what should happen is that we revert to the UNSCOM approach of the peaceful and orderly destruction of the weapons of mass destruction. Saddam
1134
Hussein and his regime committed themselves to that approach and are bound to it by their understandings with the UN and those reached during their recent meeting with Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations. However, we must all recognise the concerns about whether that is a realistic option. Will the inspectors be able to return? Will they be able to resume and continue their work, or will their task be made even more difficult by the interruption? Will they be welcome?
There is an alternative, and the Defence Secretary may want to comment on this when he winds up the debate. I was interested in the Prime Minister's comments, which pointed to a continuing programme of degradation of Saddam's military capability and the clearest warning to him that he will not be allowed to recover from the damage that he suffers in this campaign and that any attempt to rebuild his defences will be similarly dealt with.
That statement is correct and must be made, because Saddam Hussein must now be sent the message that this action is not a slap on the wrist. We are not saying that we are fed up, that we shall express our impatience through this action and that we shall then let the matter drop. We have now embarked on a process that we must continue, one way or another, until the weapons of mass destruction are removed. Nothing else would be safe for the region or the world. The process will not be easy or without pain. Obviously, that pain most directly threatens the sad, unfortunate people of Iraq, but it is no secret that our action also puts at risk British interests, British lives and British assets.
We know of terrorist groups in the world and we know of exploitation by Saddam Hussein of terrorist groups. If we are undertaking—as it is right to do—a responsibility on behalf of a safer world order in the future, we may have to pay a price. We must be as careful, orderly and steady as we can during this difficult process. Things will go wrong. There will be every attempt to mislead the public and to pretend that this action was unnecessary. The speeches and interventions that we have already heard give us a clear picture of the arguments that will seduce some people who think that there must be an easy way. We have made the hardest choice; that is the route on which we have embarked and I believe that we must now see it through.
5.59 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: I well understand the wish of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) to keep public opinion on side in this operation. He cited the example of what happened in 1990–91, but this operation is surely more difficult than the one undertaken at that time, when it was possible to have a clear-cut aim. That aim was to expel the aggressor—Iraq—from Kuwait. This time, there is no absolute, certain aim for the short term.
All that we can say is that we want to destroy to the maximum Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and his capacity to build more. It will be a much longer process than that of 1990–91. However, I agree with the right hon. Member for Bridgwater, who made a wise speech, showing his experience. It was not frenzied, gung-ho or enthusiastic, and that same tone characterised most of the other speeches that we have heard today. It contained a recognition of the risks to our

1135
airmen who, as the Prime Minister said, are probably still in the air and still risking their lives. It also contained a recognition of the risk to civilians on the Iraqi side, so we proceed not with enthusiasm but with regret and a recognition of the dangers. However, there is also a recognition of the principles involved.
I hope that the House is sending a very clear message of the overwhelming all-party support for the action that the Government have taken and that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set forth so responsibly earlier today. The speeches made by the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Foreign Secretary and the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, show that there is an all-party coalition, and rightly so, telling the dictator that he has gone too far and that this country and this Parliament overwhelmingly support the action of the Government and our allies.
I shall not repeat the history of the situation, because the Prime Minister clearly set out its genesis in 1990–91 and the unfinished business before us. We can perhaps pick up the history in the two crises that developed earlier this year. The first, in February, almost led to the launch of an air attack on Iraq, but Kofi Annan then visited Baghdad. A Security Council resolution made it clear that Saddam Hussein's actions would have the "severest consequences", which could only mean military consequences, if he again failed to comply with the promises that he had made.
A second crisis developed with Saddam Hussein's further obstruction, which culminated in November when he again broke his solemn and binding promises almost as soon as they were made. We issued a threat, similar to that which had been made in February, that, if there was clear evidence of obstruction, there would be no warning and we would launch an air attack.
The evidence is crystal clear. It was provided in the United Nations Special Commission's report, not by one senior inspector but by all UNSCOM inspectors who had experienced Saddam's obstruction. A warning was given in very clear terms that, if Saddam Hussein's promises were broken, and if there was evidence that they had been broken, there would inevitably be an air attack.
We would have looked foolish and lacked credibility if we had not responded, if we had got to the point of being about to launch our missiles again, only for there to be yet another United Nations visit and yet another promise from Saddam Hussein, along the lines of, "You know me; next time I'll do better." Such an outcome would have had the most unfortunate consequences, not only for this operation but for the credibility of the international community in other forums—in Kosovo, for example. It is clear that we could not simply continue to bow to the promises of Saddam Hussein.
There is no easy solution when dealing with Saddam Hussein. Inaction would not have been satisfactory. Indeed, it would have sent a clear signal to Saddam Hussein that he could do what he liked and get away with it, and we would have lost all credibility. However, the military option has serious implications and raises many questions about the nature of the international mandate. Ultimately, NATO, the west or the international community cannot always await a specific endorsement from the United Nations and cannot always expect to wait for China, or any other permanent member of the Security
1136
Council, to agree. The window of opportunity was limited because Ramadan starts this weekend, and I certainly do not accept that domestic matters in the United States were relevant in this context.
Clearly, all actions can have adverse consequences. All are dangerous and all must be entered into with great caution, but it is the least undesirable option to say that there is clear evidence that promises have been broken, and to act accordingly. Every diplomatic possibility of dealing with Saddam Hussein has been exhausted.
There will almost certainly be some success in the short term, but where do we go from here? The key question is, "Where now?" If, as is likely, a substantial part—perhaps the greater part—of Saddam Hussein's capacity and materiel is destroyed, it is still unlikely that the UNSCOM inspectors will be allowed back into Iraq. We shall then have to rely on signals intelligence, human intelligence, defectors, aerial surveillance and so on. It will be much more difficult to monitor what is happening.
The official objectives are clear—to reduce Saddam's capability to use and build weapons of mass destruction and to diminish the threat that he poses to his region. We shall almost certainly achieve those objectives in the short and medium term, but he will still be there. So long as he is, the threat will continue—we must be ready to counter it as and when necessary.
All that we can hope to do during that time is, first, to isolate Saddam within his own region and to build on the reasonable consensus that exists in the Arab states. Secondly, we must use monitoring to contain his capacity to cause mayhem for his neighbours. It will not be easy. The outlook is somewhat bleak, and there are no simple solutions. All that we can do is affirm our clear commitment to ensuring that Saddam Hussein does not go unrestrained, and work with the forces in the region to ensure regional stability.
Had we done nothing at this time, which was the alternative, we should have lost credibility and simply encouraged Saddam Hussein. I am confident that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members will join the all-party coalition and support the Government's clear action.
6.9 pm
Sir John Stanley: There are three compelling propositions, all of which are overwhelmingly demonstrable, for supporting the Government's key decision. First, it is now wholly demonstrable that the word of Saddam Hussein is absolutely worthless, that his protestations of innocence are worthless, that his assurances of compliance are worthless, and that his written undertakings, even including those made directly to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, are worthless. Against that background, one must recognise that, in dealing with Saddam Hussein, the only truth is reality. The reality is that established most particularly by UNSCOM, which demonstrates what is on the ground. I am very glad that the Government have been guided by the reality and not by Saddam Hussein's protestations or written assurances.
The second proposition is that it is now clearly demonstrable that Saddam Hussein's almost single-minded objective is to acquire, retain and conceal weapons of mass destruction. We know for a fact that he has such weapons, and that he has used them—internally

1137
in Iraq and externally in the Iran-Iraq war, which, it is worth recalling, was started by the Iraqis and resulted in the greatest number of casualties of any war since 1945. Saddam Hussein is clearly absolutely bent on obtaining those weapons of mass destruction.
Therefore, I personally very much welcome one of the Government's decisions. In a previous incarnation on the Government Front Bench in the 1980s, I received all the material about the Iraqi programme of weapons of mass destruction. It was, without exception, covered by very high security classification. The Government have been absolutely right to declassify and place in the public domain significant amounts of that material. It is essential that, in the House and the wider public, people are fully aware of the horrendous nature of the weapons that Saddam Hussein is bent on acquiring, the capabilities of those weapons and the scale of his programme.
I welcome the fact that every hon. Member received a letter dated 10 November, under the signatures of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), and the Minister for the Armed Forces, to which was attached a quite detailed paper which set out Saddam Hussein's activities in his programme of weapons of mass destruction.
The third proposition that is wholly demonstrable is that Saddam Hussein is not only concerned with the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction, but determined to try to find opportunities to use them. The fact that he has been testing missile technology carrying chemical warheads, as has been confirmed in several research laboratories, makes it clear that such weapons of mass destruction are potentially available for use well beyond Iraqi boundaries. Against that background, it is compellingly clear that Saddam Hussein must be stopped—and stopped at this point.
That brings me to one of the key elements in the equation, to which the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) referred: the position of UNSCOM. UNSCOM's surveillance capability is undoubtedly far greater than anything that can be achieved by any other means. Under the powers given to it in UN resolutions, it can go where it wishes in Iraq, providing that Saddam Hussein adheres to the resolutions' ambit. UNSCOM teams can enter facilities and buildings; they are certainly not confined simply to external inspection. By their very nature, the teams can get as close as necessary in order to conduct visual inspection of any item of equipment or material that they want to examine. That is a key capability, and unique to a system of inspection on the ground.
I join wholly with praise in all parts of the House for the capabilities, professionalism and bravery of our armed forces. I also pay tribute to members of the UNSCOM inspection teams, which, in extremely challenging circumstances, have done a most remarkable job in uncovering Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and securing their destruction on an enormous scale. I believe that hon. Members in all parts of the House are very grateful for, and appreciative of, what those teams have achieved.
Mr. Robert Key: May I echo what my right hon. Friend has just said? Does he agree that much
1138
of UNSCOM's success is due to the critical role played by our scientists in Porton Down, who have been members of UNSCOM from day one? Does he also agree that the work of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment and the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research at Porton Down are crucial to the enterprise's success?
Sir John Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right to highlight the significant British contribution in research facilities and some personnel, which has made a material and beneficial impact on the work of UNSCOM teams.
As critical as UNSCOM is, the key point must be made that some have argued—in this debate and outside the House—that hostilities should never occur in order that UNSCOM teams might remain in Iraq. I shall deal with that argument head on. It is not valid if UNSCOM teams are no longer able to do their work. If they are neutralised, that argument falls. Having looked through the paper of 15 December, which Richard Butler submitted to the Secretary-General of the UN—the Government helpfully placed it in the Library yesterday—I am in no doubt that UNSCOM inspection teams are being drastically neutralised. We simply cannot allow UNSCOM to become a token force, simply a flag-waving exercise for the UN or a body that goes only to several declared sites and ignores entirely undeclared sites.
We all know the position in the declared sites; the Foreign Secretary made it clear earlier in the debate. They are so heavily sanitised that, by the time UNSCOM arrives, they are—proverbially—reeking with Dettol as a result of the clearance of anything that may be remotely incriminating. We can therefore no longer rely on UNSCOM inspections. That leaves the Government with only two alternatives: to abandon any attempt to contain the awfulness of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programme, or take the action that they have taken.
With all my colleagues in all parts of the House, I wholly support the Government's action. I am saddened—I am not critical because every hon. Member has the right to form his own view and divide the House if he so chooses—that, apparently, there will be a Division at the end of the debate. I hope that support for the Government will be overwhelming. I am in no doubt that, like one or two others this century, Saddam Hussein is far too dangerous and far too evil not to be stopped right now.
6.20 pm
Ann Clwyd: I especially agree with the last remarks of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley).
I declare an interest. I chair an organisation called Indict, which was set up to bring Saddam Hussein and his associates before an international criminal court. Some other hon. Members are part of Indict. I want Saddam and his colleagues to remain alive to sit before that court and answer the charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
The United States Congress has voted us $3 million to carry out that task. It has also passed the Iraqi National Liberation Act, with the intention of helping the Iraqi opposition to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein—an aim with which I profoundly agree.

1139
Although I am sure that no one in the House wants to see a country bombed—I certainly do not, with my long record in the peace movement—I must tell the House, with profound distress, that in the circumstances I see no option but to do so. The people who have criticised that option have come up with no alternatives. How does one cause a country to comply with UN resolutions? No one has answered that question.
The UN resolutions are endless. For example, there are resolutions 687, 707, 715, 949, 1060, 1115, 1134, 1137 and 678. Most of those resolutions are continually being broken by the present regime in Iraq. It is often forgotten that one of those resolutions calls for an end to the repression of Iraqi citizens, yet Kurds are continually being deported from the parts of Iraq controlled by Saddam Hussein.
I did not realise what was going on, because unfortunately such information does not get out of Iraq. When I was there in 1995, I found that, in the previous three months, 2,000 Iraqi citizens who happened to be Kurds had been kicked out of Kirkuk. Two thousand had been forced into northern Iraq. They had 24 hours to get out of their homes in the areas controlled by Saddam Hussein. That is ethnic cleansing by anyone's definition, and that ethnic cleansing is not a one-off; it is a continuous aim of Saddam Hussein's regime.
Many mentions have been made of the latest report of the UN special rapporteur on human rights. I have followed those reports over the years. Depressingly, year after year, the report is the same. There have been very few improvements in human rights in Iraq since the UN special rapporteur started reporting.
Recently, I attended a conference at which I heard ordinary Iraqis speak about torture in Iraq. One Iraqi spoke about gross violations of human rights, including extra-judicial killings, torture, arbitrary detention, disappearances, mass murder, the use of chemical weapons in Halabja and elsewhere, the mass deportation of 2 million Kurds, the establishment of 110 concentration camps, the destruction of 4,500 Kurdish and Assyrian villages, the laying of thousands of mines, deforestation, drainage of the Arab marshlands, repression of the Shi'ites and some formerly loyal Sunni tribes, discrimination against and oppression of the Assyro-Chaldean and Turkoman minorities, state-directed rape, thalium poisoning, scientific experimentation on prisoners, execution campaigns, state-supported terrorism and the destruction of religious and cultural property.
Dr. Al Hakim of the Organisation of Human Rights in Iraq described numerous atrocities, including those of dissolving bodies in nitric acid, submerging prisoners in septic tanks, forcing them to sit on broken bottles, piercing their tongues with needles and roasting them over a fire. Such atrocities are not consigned to the past; they are facts of life in Iraq today.
In 1991, I and others stood on the mountains and saw the Kurds, who fled in their thousands across snow-covered mountains in scanty clothing with no shoes on their feet. They died in their thousands because Saddam Hussein chased them out of their own country I shall never forget being approached, in the sleet and snow, by women who pushed bundles at me. The bundles were dead babies. Nor shall I forget taking an all-party group of Members to a London hospital to see some of the victims of Halabja: people who could not speak because
1140
their insides had been burnt, and people who showed the wounds on their bodies. All those were victims of Saddam Hussein's oppression.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Of course those human rights abuses are abhorrent, but is it not also the case that 7,000 people are dying from sanctions-related causes? That has been said by Dennis Halliday, who for 32 years was the UN official concerned. My hon. Friend spoke about the alternative. Does she not believe that there should be an alternative to the death of 7,000 people a month—many of them babies? Will she say what the next step is—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had a good innings.
Ann Clwyd: My hon. Friend knows that I agree with him on many things. However, I do not agree with him on this issue, because he obviously has not read the special rapporteur's report in detail. The special rapporteur says:
"Insofar as the 'oil-for-food' programme has been implemented in a discriminatory and not fully equitable or efficient manner, the Special Rapporteur observes that the Government of Iraq is solely responsible for the distribution programme."
Moreover, he says that, for five years, the Government of Iraq refused to comply with UN resolutions in the oil-for-food programme. For five years, when the people of Iraq could have been receiving food and medicines, the Government of Iraq turned down that opportunity. The people who have imposed the sanctions are not responsible for the wretchedness of the people of Iraq. Saddam Hussein and his regime are solely responsible for the situation of his own people.
I believe that, while Saddam Hussein and that rotten regime remain in being, the people will continue to suffer. I have no patience with those who apologise for that regime, because the facts are there for everyone to see. I am afraid that, while he persists, the situation of the people in Iraq will continue to deteriorate, because that is his wish. It gives him the opportunity to disseminate propaganda. I am very sorry that some of my hon. Friends, whom I respect in so many other ways, have been duped by that propaganda, because some of the pictures that have appeared were obviously carefully arranged by Saddam Hussein for the media. The media cannot roam at will in Baghdad or any other part of Iraq. The Government of Iraq ensure that the media are taken to those pictures that they want them to see. Please do not tell me that there is a free press in Iraq, because there is not.
In the north, there is an opportunity to see what sanctions do. For me, there can be no argument against lifting the sanctions for the liberated part of Iraq. Why should the liberated part, which holds no truck with Saddam Hussein, still suffer the impact of those sanctions? It is suffering not only United Nations sanctions but sanctions imposed by Saddam Hussein against it. It is the subject of a double set of sanctions.
It is tragic that for so long the Iraqi opposition outside Iraq has not been fully supported. I should like to see a programme other than one-off bombings, although I do not criticise the bombings, as I have made clear. The bombings must be linked with a longer-term programme which obviously has to include a way of assisting the Iraqi

1141
opposition to bring about the downfall of Saddam Hussein and his regime. The Americans have made it clear that aim of the Iraqi National Liberation Act, which was passed in both the Congress and the Senate, and for which money has been appropriated, is to bring about the downfall of Saddam Hussein by arming the opposition and giving them other assistance. I agree with that aim because I do not believe that there can be any future for the people of Iraq while that regime remains in being.
Nor do I believe that there can be safety for Saddam's neighbours or for the rest of the world while he is capable of using those weapons of mass destruction that UNSCOM, time after time, has said he still has in his grasp. It is our responsibility to make sure that those weapons of mass destruction are eliminated from his armoury. But again I say that that is not enough on its own: there has to be a longer-term plan. I criticise Governments all over the world who have paid lip service to destroying the regime of Saddam Hussein for not giving more support to the Iraqi opposition. The Iraqi National Congress has the capability of providing the type of opposition and force that can bring Saddam Hussein down, but it needs assistance.
Mr. Robathan: Does the hon. Lady think that part of the assistance that Britain can give is to ensure that the Arabic service of the BBC World Service portrays the position of the British and American Governments? The World Service is very much listened to by the people of Iraq who dare to do so. There are reports, which I cannot substantiate, that undue notice is taken of people in this country who oppose the British Government; yet we can see from the House today that they are but few.
Ann Clwyd: I am afraid that one of my hon. Friends made a lot of noise just as the hon. Gentleman was finishing his remarks and I did not catch the end of them.
Mr. Robathan: My point is that there are reports that, when the Arabic service of the BBC—I fear that few of us speak Arabic—broadcasts to Iraq, it gives undue prominence to the opponents of British Government policy. Both sides should be heard, but should not the Government exert some influence on the BBC to ensure that British Government policy is heard on the World Service?
Ann Clwyd: I do not have the facility to understand the Arabic service of the World Service, but clearly a number of views ought to be broadcast. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make his view clear to the BBC World Service and get that put right.
I ask this question of people who oppose this action: how do we get countries to adhere to United Nations resolutions? I want the UN to work. I do not want people to scoff at the UN because it passes resolution after resolution. I do not want Saddam Hussein to raise two fingers to the UN and play cat and mouse with UNSCOM and everyone else. He had been told repeatedly that, unless he abided by the resolutions, unfortunately further action would be taken without warning. That is precisely what has happened in this case.
Max van der Stoel, the UN rapporteur, shows in his report that the number of people assassinated this year in Iraq for their political views has reached four figures. That
1142
is the nature of Iraq and that is the blood running down the streets of Baghdad. If people want to be emotional about this, let them have the truth. The Iraqi regime has used its weapons against its own people and killed tens of thousands of them. Until we eliminate those weapons, there can be no safety for any of us from Saddam Hussein.
6.35 pm
Mr. Martin Bell: I wish to speak briefly and from the heart about a few things that I think I know about. I can claim more personal experience than most of the nature of modern warfare, and that experience causes me a great deal of trouble at a time like this. We talk about the degradation of the Iraqis' capability. That carries me back about eight years to the Saudi desert, when I found myself in uniform with the Queen's Royal Irish Hussars attached to 7 Armoured Brigade, preparing to go to war against Iraq. Up ahead of us, the allies were conducting a six-week bombardment campaign from the air. The reports and briefing notes came back saying that the capability was being degraded. At the same time, the antennae of the intelligence unit alongside us were picking up desperate calls from the Iraqis for anything with four wheels to come and take out their dead and wounded.
We have to realise that we are talking here about people. There will be casualties—we do not know how great. There is no such thing as a cost-free conflict. This is going to cost. Against that background, I have two concerns. One is about the timing of this action. It is legitimate to look back over the past 12 months and ask whether the escalation of the American rhetoric has coincided with the time of the President's trouble. It certainly did in February and it does now. Let us say that it is a coincidence.
I will go on to my second concern. Study the silences. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to study the speeches that have not been made and the actions that have not been taken. Where is the support in the Arab world, the United Nations and the world community at large of the kind that we enjoyed seven and eight years ago? It was an enormous comfort to the soldiers of the Queen's Royal Irish Hussars when they went to war to know that they were part of a great coalition that included Arab contingents. The Egyptians were there, the Saudis were there, even the Syrians were there, the Kuwaitis were there. Now that is not so.
People say that business was left undone. It was not. The business was done. The business was to throw the Iraqis out of Kuwait. That was the mandate. Only the British, Americans and French in that coalition actually set foot in Iraq. So that was done. Now we face a really difficult situation, in which we are in danger, if not of acting as, of being perceived as the deputy sheriff of the world, with the United States as the sheriff. We have to think this through. We need more information from our Government than we have received. We need to have the notes of which the Prime Minister spoke this afternoon so that we can be convinced that we are doing the correct thing. I have grave doubts about it.
I sit in this House as the only elected Independent. I vote with the Government much more often than against them. On the whole, they are a good Government. On most issues, they serve the people well. I cannot support this enterprise.
6.39 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Like the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), I was a member of 7 Armoured Brigade. That prompts me to reflect that those of us who—albeit only on ranges, not in Korea or in war—have smelt cordite and know what it is like to fire heavy shells are just a bit more careful about advocating bombing and all the horror that goes with it than those who have never had such an experience. I do not criticise those who are of a different generation, but I find it interesting that perhaps those who have had experience in the services are rather more careful than most sitting on the green Benches about recommending military action for others.
I find the bombing nauseating. I am ashamed that it should be endorsed by a Labour Government. I was told in Baghdad three weeks ago that the Iraqis thought that it was not the British following on the Americans, but in many cases the British Foreign Office being in the driving seat. For some of us, that makes matters worse.
It is poignant that we should be discussing bombing in this Chamber, which was bombed in the early 1940s and later reconstructed. Let us go back to that bombing for a moment. Throughout the 1930s, there were many, not only in the Labour party but elsewhere in British society, who abominated Winston Churchill and all that they thought he stood for. Come 1940 and 1941, when bombs were being dropped and there was a blitz particularly on London, but also on Coventry, Clydebank and elsewhere, what happened? Those who had criticised Churchill for the previous decade became some of his most ardent supporters.
That is the effect of bombing. It rallies people behind their leaders. It is human nature not to go into the whys and wherefores, but to ask the simple question, "Who is dropping the bombs that create such havoc?" Therefore, bombing is both immoral and counter-productive, and I am deeply ashamed to be involved in this policy.
I have a number of questions. First, given the case of Bhopal, a fertiliser plant in India which exploded killing thousands, how will it be possible to bomb alleged chemical or biological plants in Baghdad without the potential for massive civilian casualties? When I interrupted the Foreign Secretary's speech, he said that I had asked him the same question in February. The reason that I repeated the question was that it was not answered in February. I am not sure that it can be answered. It certainly was not answered today. If one puts down high explosives on chemical or biological weapons plants, if they exist, one had better try to be clear about what the effects might be. The truth is that nobody knows.
My second question concerns recent US intelligence failures—for example, cruise missiles on Afghanistan and on the Al Shifa factory in Khartoum. Who now believes that that factory had anything to do with weapons of war? The Empta o-ethyl-methyl-phosphonoic acid was not found in sufficient quantities or in a position to prove anything about weapons manufacture.
Given the military ineptitude manifested in Iran, Libya and Somalia, how can we be certain this time that the right targets will be identified or hit or destroyed? I ask a direct question of those on the Front Bench: is it true, as has been reported, that, within the past 24 hours, one of the apparently superlatively targeted cruise missiles landed in Iranian territory, not in Iraq? Is that the degree of accuracy that we are to expect? I am cynical about the supposedly highly accurate targeting.
1144
Thirdly, how will it be possible to "teach Saddam a lesson"—to use the jargon—when he is almost certainly several meters underground in a different bunker every night? How can we be sure that he will not gain in strength in Iraq and the Arab world if he has the opportunity, doubtless with full international media coverage, to walk through streets littered with civilian casualties?
Fourthly, there has been no answer to the question that I tabled to the Attorney-General and other Ministers. Which international law gives Britain the authority to bomb Iraq? Which international law authorises Britain to encourage opposition groups to overthrow a Head of State? I should like an answer. It is not sufficient to say that two out of five members of the Security Council somehow have the authority to do so. Not true, I am told by international lawyers in Edinburgh. I should like the precise reference for such authority, by letter afterwards or in the winding-up speech from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Fifthly, is an alternative to Saddam Hussein really preferable? How can we be sure that post-Saddam Iraq will not descend into civil war along religious and tribal lines—like the north of Iraq, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) knows from her personal experience—drawing in neighbouring countries and resulting in a major conflict in the middle east?
When I went to Baghdad with Albert Reynolds, the former Taoiseach, who is not a naive man, and three of his Irish colleagues, we were invited to dinner in the house of Tariq Aziz, after we had met him for two and a half hours in the morning. I am quite open about that. It was a long session, during which both Tariq Aziz and Dr. Riyadh al Quasi said separately, "The west may think that we are extremists, but we are considered to be too moderate by many of those of the generation that may follow us." I beg colleagues to be careful about what we are creating in that country, especially if sanctions go on and on. The next generation will loathe us, and that is storing up great trouble for the future.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is that the same Tariq Aziz who alleged that no atrocities at all were committed in Kuwait?
Mr. Dalyell: I asked Tariq Aziz about the Kuwait disappeared. According to him, there were between 800 and 900 disappeared Kuwaitis, and 1,100 to 1,200 disappeared Iraqis. I can only report what was said. I do not know the accuracy of either figure.
Sixthly, with the no-fly zone and only one United Nations aircraft flying, how can strikes against Iraq be without warning? What about the almost 400 UN personnel who remain? The Government may correct me, but I understand that there are also some 20 ambassadors still in Iraq. If the bombing continues, as it looks like doing, what will happen to those people? They may find it extremely difficult to get out.
Seventhly, it has been said that eight years of UNSCOM should have been time enough to search the whole of Asia. Is it possible that the delay reflects a desire on the part of certain countries in the west for permanent sanctions, rather than the intransigence of Iraq? It is widely said in Jordan and Iraq that the Saudis have an oil allocation of 3 million barrels which was originally

1145
designated for the Iraqis. With oil prices so low and the Saudi debt mounting to serious proportions, the Saudis do not want to surrender that advantage. In certain circles, there may be a feeling that it would be disastrous for Iraqi oil to come on stream. That problem must be addressed.
Eighthly, UNSCOM's weapons inspectors appear to be dominated by Americans. One of their spokesmen is British and they have an Australian leader. Is that satisfactory? Would it not be better for UNSCOM to have a far wider section of personnel from other countries? Surely technical experts from other countries could do the job just as effectively.
Ninthly, United States and Britain hold large stocks of chemical and biological weapons. America has used chemical weapons on civilians with devastating effect—for instance, agent orange in Vietnam—and both countries used depleted uranium in the Gulf war. Is that background really compatible with asking for full co-operation from Iraq? How do we answer those who say that that represents hypocrisy, based on a concept of western superiority over Arabs? These are delicate but important matters.
Dr. Julian Lewis: My point will not affect the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's last question. I think that I heard him say that Britain and America retain large stocks of biological and chemical weapons. I believe that neither Britain nor America has any stocks of biological weapons, which were banned in 1972, other than the most minute amount for defensive research purposes. The hon. Gentleman may wish to correct his earlier remark.
Mr. Dalyell: I am conscious of the fact that Porton Down has examples, legitimately so, of aggressive agents. In order to take defensive measures, one has to have certain quantities, which undoubtedly we have, of aggressive agents.
The most likely trigger for a military attack has been the UNSCOM demand for papers. I can only report to the House that both Albert Reynolds—as I say, not a naive man—and I thought that, when the individuals responsible for managing and handing over the papers said that they had already given 2 million documents, they meant it. It may not be at all popular, but I just make the general observation that it is unsatisfactory if westerners assert that they disbelieve everything that the Iraqis appear to say.
In the 1980s, our relationship with the Iraqis was very different. Many of them were educated in Britain. In a sense, come to think of it, it is a tragedy that relations between Britain and Iraq have deteriorated this far. Iraq is not simply Saddam Hussein; it is a lot of other people, many of them brought up in a British medical, educational or industrial culture.
On a specific issue, since the flashpoint for the present problem is the difficulty of entry into the national command headquarters of the Ba'ath party, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he would make available evidence that he had that showed that "material"—that was the word that he used—of considerable importance and relevance was in those headquarters. Perhaps that could be made available in the Library of the House.
1146
I will be in the Lobby voting against the Government tonight. Bombing is absolutely no way to solve these difficult problems.
6.54 pm
Sir Raymond Whitney: The hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Tatton (Mr. Bell) referred to their military experience, citing it as one of the factors that led them to oppose the actions against Iraq that the Government agreed last night. My military experience—I am proud to say that I served in the Northamptonshire Regiment in the Commonwealth Division in Korea—leads me to the opposite conclusion, that any temptation to appease violence and dictatorships leads to even more trouble.
I certainly agree that no one who has had the privilege of serving in the military forces in any way takes lightly the possibility of military conflict. I am sure that the three of us would agree—two of us of the same generation—that the fact that military experience in the House is now naturally, in the workings of anno domini, a declining feature is a loss to the House and to our deliberations.
That experience leads me to reinforce the view, however, that, whenever Britain's armed forces are committed by a democratic Government of whatever complexion, it is crucial that the Government do so in the knowledge that they have the full support of the House and the country. I hope that the debate will show the extent of the support for the action taken by the Government last night.
Of course, there is dissent. We understand and glory in the right to dissent from the common view. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) has no need to shout about his right to free speech. He is welcome and fully entitled to that.
My only fear is that the relatively small number of Labour Members who have spoken in opposition to their Government today may receive undue prominence tomorrow in the media's reports of today's debate. That would be regrettable for our armed forces, for the nation and for the principle on the basis of which the decision has been taken.
I wish to make only two points in a brief intervention. The first is that the crucial importance of the action that we have taken in relation to handling Saddam Hussein has been well dealt with, from the Prime Minister onwards. The great majority of contributors to the debate have emphasised the crucial importance of sustaining the credibility of the Government's position in ensuring that Saddam Hussein adheres to his undertakings to the United Nations and the Security Council.
I want to make a point in the rather longer context of the international community's struggle to find a system of international relationships which, to put it simplistically, will make this a better world, a world where moral values count and where aggression and violence do not succeed.
We started that process at least as long ago as 1918 or 1919 with the League of Nations. For a year or two, the League of Nations was not the lame duck that it later appeared to be. For a year or two, there was hope that it would work. With the horrors of the first world war heavily in the minds of politicians and statesmen of the time, it was hoped that something could evolve. We all know now that it failed. It is commonplace to deride it

1147
for America's non-participation and its failure to stand up to Mussolini and Hitler. After the second world war, we tried again. Here, too, we ran into the problems of the cold war and the veto of the permanent members of the Security Council, and so on.
In recent years, as the cold war thawed, the position improved. I feel some relative and modified optimism that we can steadily evolve towards a system that actually works. As it involves human beings, however, it will always go wrong from time to time. Although it is possible to be optimistic, I disagree with the view expressed by Labour Members that we already have such a system, that international law is a wonderful thing, the United Nations is sacrosanct and perfect and Security Council resolutions must be followed to the letter. That approach is naive, hypocritical, or both. We know very well the difficulties involved in achieving action in the Security Council. If we follow the rules entirely to the letter, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) would have us do, no action would ever be taken against any tyrant or in any difficult situation. We have to be realistic as well as idealistic, so that we can make steady progress towards a better arrangement.
I believe that today's action will be another stage along the road. The hon. Member for Tatton asked what right the United States had to play sheriff. I hope that I have not misquoted him, but I am sure that the United States has no wish to play sheriff to the world, and nor do we, but both nations have a clear sense of responsibility. There is no concrete benefit for the United Kingdom or the United States in preserving the sanctity of Kuwait, but there is a broader interest that benefits every nation. We should not be mealy-mouthed about it; we should be sad, but proud, that our country and the United States are prepared to take action in such difficult circumstances. I hope that we do not resile from that and pussyfoot around, as it could be a step in the right direction.
It is interesting that we have not heard much about the veto. No doubt Mr. Yeltsin will complain, the Chinese may say something and the French may say something else, but at least there was a unanimous vote in the Security Council on 5 November condemning Saddam's failure to acknowledge and fulfil his undertaking. Progress is being made. It must continue, and this is another step forward.
My final point has already been made by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Defence Committee. We cannot expect to maintain our high-grade armed forces if we continue chipping away at the financial resources that they urgently need. It seems a bit trite for us to pay wonderful tributes to the skill, professionalism and valour of our service men. Although it is well deserved, we must also give them the resources that they need and I very much hope that the Government will re-examine that issue.
There are difficult days ahead and it is extremely important that the near unanimity in the House and the nation is held together so that we can face the immediate challenge to the international world order by Saddam Hussein and, in the longer term, take an important step towards a new system where the ideal put forward by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and others of a world system of international control can be realised.
7.5 pm
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I am very conscious of the fact that there are many service men in the Gulf tonight risking their lives for this country. Recognising that many people outside the House are watching and listening to the debate, let me place on record the fact that those who have spoken so far are not generally representative of the level of support—particularly among Labour Members—for the action in the Gulf. Let there be no doubt that it has overwhelming, almost unanimous support among Labour Members as will be shown in the Division tonight. I do not believe that the debate has reflected the general position.
The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) referred to his meeting with Saddam Hussein in 1982. Along with a couple of my hon. Friends, I tried to meet Saddam Hussein and his people in 1989, about nine months before the war in the Gulf. At that time Iraq was not on the international agenda, apart from the fact that there were allegations—subsequently shown to be true—that there had been major atrocities by the Iraqi Government at Halabja.
I remember the to-ing and fro-ing with the Iraqi embassy in London. We had asked for access to people who were in prison, to others who had been involved in the activities at Halabja and to people in Iraq who could account for what had happened and tell us what action had been taken. At first we were granted access, but then we received a message from the embassy saying that we could not go. Imagine my surprise when I heard that a cross-party delegation from the House had visited Iraq immediately after Halabja and before the war in 1990 and met Saddam Hussein's people on the very terms on which we had been rejected. We were extremely angry indeed. To explain my general view of the matter, I thought that they were a bunch of freeloaders who were prepared to go where others had not been permitted to go on a matter of principle.
Mr. Galloway: Name them.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: There is no need for me to name them as some of them are still hon. Members.
I want to express my unreserved support for the Government's position. We should also address the whole issue of ethical foreign policy, and I know what I mean by that. The Labour Government are criticised on the basis that we are not following an ethical foreign policy, but that is exactly what we are doing. We are saying no to dictatorships in the great tradition of Labour Governments this century. We have always argued against dictators and taken an ethical position. Once again, I am proud to identify myself with that policy.
Although I recognise that other European countries are giving us support this evening, I was a little surprised as I thought that some of them might have been more active in that support. We are laying ourselves on the line on an issue of principle. The whole world will benefit, so it should not be left uniquely to the United Kingdom and the United States to send in military personnel and equipment. Furthermore, let me say to those in the United Kingdom who want to oppose the conflict at a time when our airmen are in the Gulf risking their lives that what they are doing is shameful. It is quite outrageous, when our

1149
service men are risking life and limb for their country, for people here and outside to argue against what they are doing and to undermine them.
Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend's assertion that we should not debate the issues in Iraq because British forces are involved is astonishing. The whole point of democratic government is that one can discuss and hold to account. I only regret that we have had no opportunity to discuss the matter in advance of the massive commitment of British arms and service men in this conflict.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: We had an opportunity to debate the matter when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) introduced a debate on it only four weeks ago. A number of hon. Members participated in that debate; I do not remember my hon. Friend being present.
Mr. Corbyn: It was an Adjournment debate.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: It was an hour and a half s debate. This, too, is a debate on the Adjournment of the House.
May I now deal with what I believe to be at the heart of the matter: the work being done internationally on what I call a "post-Saddam Iraq"? That is the issue that we should be addressing. In America, the Republican party has taken the lead and, despite the noises on television last night from some Republicans who objected to the action being taken for political reasons, many Republicans are clearly pleased that the action is being taken.
We should set straight the record on Senator Lott, who is being accused of doing down the American Government in this time of crisis. I understand that Senator Lott, who last night opposed military action but whose justification for doing so was misrepresented, was one of the guiding lights behind the Iraqi National Liberation Act, which was constructed to seek a solution to a post-conflict Iraq once Saddam Hussein has gone. The only reservation that he was expressing last night was not that he was opposed to the war or to military conflict, but that he wanted military action to be accompanied by a political settlement in a post-Saddam Iraq.
That is a genuine argument to have. The Americans have been having it over the past six months. The American Congress and Senate have been trying to address the issue of what will happen once Saddam Hussein goes and what can be done to ease him out, which is why they have allocated some $90 million to the Iraqi National Congress. That is doubtless only the first tranche of money that the American Administration will allocate to the INC, which is effectively the opposition to Saddam Hussein. Moreover, they allocated some $3 million to the organisation that is in place to indict Saddam Hussein for his war crimes.
My case is simple: the Republican party in the USA has taken the lead in forcing this agenda and Clinton, in desperation, has had to accept it. He has had to accept that there must be a solution over and above simple military action. We in the United Kingdom must afford far more of our time to dealing with what will happen
1150
once Saddam Hussein's regime has been brought down. We must find a strategy. First, we must back the opposition groups. Secondly, we must frustrate the work of Saddam's front oil companies, such as Mecca Trading or Al Dawsar. Those companies, which trade illegally, sell oil either through northern Iraq to Turkey, or through the Shatt al-Arab area of southern Iraq, shipped off illicitly through Iranian waters into Dubai, and sold on from Dubai.
Those illegal oil revenues are used to fund Saddam's operation in Baghdad. The money is used to buy materials for the production of shells, chlorine nitrate for the production of explosives, tyres for Mig fighters, mobile radar systems and many other munitions. Those are bought illegally on the international market with revenues gained through breaches of sanctions. The United Nations has a responsibility to enforce the sanctions regime—to stop the revenues and the oil flows that are in breach of sanctions. The consequence will be that Saddam's regime will fall.
Over the past four or five months, I have been pressing the idea of a Basra enclave, which must form part of the final solution. The port of Basra on the Shatt al-Arab should be taken. It would provide a bridgehead to the sea. Its control should be under a substantially reinforced and properly funded INC, which is the only organisation representing the Iraqi opposition groups that is in a position to administer such a sub-region. The region should be a sanctions-free zone, shielded to the north by a no-fly zone. It should effectively be a new free Iraq in the south. It is a very small area on the edge of the sea at the top of the Gulf. It would expand northwards as the people of northern Iraq gain confidence in it, especially as it would be a sanctions-free zone.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) referred to the north of Iraq being a sanctions-free zone. I am a little concerned about that because of the nature of the boundary. A long boundary stretches between Kurdistan and the rest of Iraq, and it would be difficult to police a zone on that scale if Kurdistan were a sanctions-free area. However, with a small boundary between Iraq and what I call the Basra enclave, it would be easily enforceable and it would act inside Iraq as an incentive to others, who would see that there was life after sanctions and they had everything to gain by rising up in the north on the basis that the privileges of the enclave would be extended northwards. The area would become a strategic military site. It is an oil-rich area—one of the richest in Iraq—and it would be a trade and freight centre.
That is my proposal for a resolution of this conflict. Bombing alone will not resolve the problems. It may deal with the immediate problem of illicitly held military equipment, but any long-term solution must be far more innovative. We cannot rely on the Iraqi people, with their limited resources, to rise up and move that dictatorship. They need an incentive, which will come through the Basra enclave.
7.18 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was absolutely right to put on the record the fact that the vast majority of

1151
right hon. and hon. Members support the Government's action. He also drew attention to the minority of hon. Members—and one notable right hon. Member—who disagree. In our Bristol days, I often shared a platform with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). We always disagreed then, and we continue to disagree now. However, I shall defend to the last ditch his right to stand up in this Chamber and disagree. Such a right is denied to those who profess to be politicians in countries like Iraq. It is important that we defend that right. Those who disagree with the Government's action must simply judge the impact of what they have said in this Chamber on the morale of our forces who are putting their lives at risk.
Even those who disagree with the action that is being taken will hope that it ends Saddam Hussein's cynical game of brinkmanship, which is a danger not only to his people but to his neighbours in the middle east and to the world at large. He is in flagrant violation of UN Security Council resolution 687, which sets out the terms of the ceasefire that ended the Gulf war. That ceasefire was predicated on full Iraqi co-operation in the dismantling of outlawed missiles and weapons of mass destruction and their production facilities.
Saddam Hussein has broken his word twice—most recently on 14 November—in connection with undertakings to comply with the UN resolutions and to allow UNSCOM inspectors free access. That is the legal justification for the military strikes.
Some reporters have said that the timing of the operation is awkward, to say the least. Unfortunately, events show no respect for anniversaries. At this time of year, we remember those who were murdered in the crash of the Boeing 747 at Lockerbie in 1988, in which Islamic fundamentalists are thought to have been involved and many innocent people lost their lives. At Christmas, our minds should be elsewhere: many people will have noted the incongruity of the Prime Minister making his announcement outside No. 10 Downing street with Christmas tree lights twinkling in the background. Although there is also a question about timing, given the possible impeachment of President Clinton, there is no excuse for not taking action. We had no alternative: military action could not have been avoided.
Several hon. Members have mentioned Ramadan, which is due to start this weekend. Does that mean that the air strikes will not continue beyond the weekend? The Secretary of State for Defence is to wind up the debate, and I hope that he will say something about that. When is the deadline for the end of military action?
In his statement, the Prime Minister referred to the importance of maximising surprise. Given the events associated with this season of the year, Saddam Hussein probably thought that this was the least likely time for military action against him. By acting now, we have maximised the surprise factor, and the operation will probably succeed for that reason, among others.
I have two questions for the Secretary of State for Defence that are relevant to the operation, especially if the deployment of ground forces is eventually required. Several hon. Members have mentioned the Gulf war, and my questions arise out of that conflict. First, there is the matter of what is known as IFF—identification friend and foe. There were several very regrettable incidents in the
1152
Gulf war in which friendly fire led to the deaths of allied service men. Will the Secretary of State confirm that IFF is thoroughly up-to-date and workable?
Secondly, there is the still-unanswered question of so-called Gulf war syndrome. The Select Committee on Defence remains concerned about that problem, and still awaits the outcome of the research that is being done. Will the Secretary of State assure the House that, if our forces are deployed on the ground, the tablets and injections that they are given in advance as protection against chemical and biological weapons are effective and will not lead to the difficulties experienced by personnel in the Gulf war?
I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to our defence industries. There have been many newspaper reports about the accuracy of the Tomahawk cruise missiles involved in today's operations. Apparently, those missiles have been about 90 per cent. accurate—twice as accurate as in the Gulf war. That emphasises the need to ensure that we and our allies maintain the competence of our defence industrial base.
Faced with enormous competition from the other side of the Atlantic, European defence industries must think more seriously about joining forces. That would enable them to offer true competition in the free-for-all against the American giants in the worldwide market, and to achieve the critical mass for research and development necessary to improve the efficiency of our weapons. By improving the accuracy of our weapons, collateral damage and the loss of civilian lives have been reduced.
The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence have set out the objectives of today's operation. We have also heard about the British contribution to that operation, but we were told that taking out Saddam Hussein was definitely not one of the objectives. I strongly support the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who said that Saddam eventually should be required to answer in court for his war crimes and for his crimes against humanity and his people.
We were also told that the intention behind the operation was certainly not to punish the people of Iraq but to liberate them. The objective is not to destroy the great country of Iraq but to build it up. However, is it not about time that we finished the unfinished business of the Gulf war and put an end to Saddam Hussein?
Government spokesmen, in both the United States and the United Kingdom, have made it clear that they would be very happy "to see him go". Why cannot our forces make Saddam go? If they do not, he will be free to fight another day, and there have been alarming reports of the Ba'ath party's determination to rule the world. In that connection, I have a number of questions that I hope that the Secretary of State will answer when he replies to the debate.
First, what if Saddam Hussein lets loose a chemical and biological weapon in retaliation? Newspaper reports tell us—although I agree that they should not always be believed—that in 1991 the Americans planned to retaliate with a nuclear device, and one Pentagon insider was quoted as saying, "One drop of anthrax and we nuke Baghdad." In an operation such as has been undertaken today by British and American forces, it is vital that consideration be given to the risk of an escalation in military action.

1153
The Government deserve credit for the line that they have taken on what is known as "no first use" of nuclear weapons. There is a strong lobby, especially in connection with debates about the non-proliferation treaty, to commit nations to no first use. However, the only defence against chemical and biological weapons—regarded by many as the poor man's nuclear device—is the deterrent of nuclear retaliation.
Mr. Corbyn: While the hon. Gentleman is on the subject of nuclear weapons and non-proliferation, will he comment on the position of Israel, which has a nuclear weapons capability? Should we not be more interested in decommissioning weapons across the whole region, and should not that decommissioning cover Israel's nuclear weapons?
Mr. Colvin: The hon. Gentleman must have read my thoughts, because that was going to be my next question. However, I was going to ask it of the Secretary of State for Defence, who is the one who should know the answer. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell the House what talks have taken place with the Israelis in advance of the action in Iraq.
A crucial question remains unanswered. If, as we all hope, the military action is successful, what will happen next? Do we move in and occupy Iraq? On television this morning, the Chief of the Defence Staff said that to do so would require about 100,000 troops. There are only just over that many troops in the whole of the British Army, so I am not surprised that he said that it could not be done and that, as a result, taking out Saddam Hussein was not one of the operation's objectives. That underlines the need—referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney)—for us to re-examine the way in which expenditure on our armed forces has been reduced by successive Governments over the years. Members of the Defence Committee, certainly, feel that the present level of expenditure is barely tolerable, and must not be lowered further.
We also know that, if the level of spending planned for the next three years is to be maintained, the Secretary of State must save considerable amounts through greater efficiency, smarter procurement and the sale of assets. If those savings are not achieved, over the next four years we shall see a further 4 per cent. cut in our defence expenditure, in addition to the 4 per cent. cut that we already expect over three years. What the Chief of the Defence Staff said this morning constitutes a reminder to us all that the cuts have gone far enough.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): The Chief of the Defence Staff was asked whether one of the military objectives of the campaign was to "take out" Saddam Hussein. He made it clear that that was not the case. Such a military objective would require hundreds of thousands of troops. In any circumstances, the troops would not all be British—a multinational force would be involved—but the Chief of the Defence Staff made the point to illustrate how big such a military task would be, even if it were desirable. It is not one of the objectives of the current operation.
Mr. Colvin: I understood that precisely, but I could not resist reminding the House of the importance of
1154
maintaining our defence expenditure and not reducing the size of our armed forces—especially our Army—to below the 100,000 minimum that the Chief of the Defence Staff said would be required. As I said, I realise that a multinational force would be involved.
What about reactions to the military action? The reactions of France and Russia have been mentioned, but those countries, probably more than any others, opposed the "taking out" of Saddam Hussein in 1991. As I said earlier, the fact that we did not finish the job then has brought us to our present position, so in a sense it is the fault of those countries that we are where we are. Had we finished the job in 1991, everyone would be a great deal happier.
What about the Arab world? We shall want to hear from the Secretary of State for Defence just how much discussion there has been with the Gulf Co-operation Council and others. What about the Iraqi people themselves? I know that, even under a leader like Saddam Hussein, an attack from outside can have a unifying effect on the people of a country, but there is always the danger that this attack could strengthen Saddam Hussein's position rather than weakening it. As we all know, the people of Iraq are subjected to a bombardment not of cruise missiles but of propaganda from their Government all the time.
I agree with the earlier suggestion that the BBC World Service, Sky television and the rest should think more carefully about what they broadcast, in order to convey the true story. There is no doubt that some television reports have given the wrong impression in regard to the impact of sanctions. There are no sanctions on food or medicines; Saddam Hussein can still buy them with his oil revenues. It would be far better if he used them for that purpose, rather than spending what I understand are millions, or even billions, of dollars on building his armour-plated palaces. I wonder what chance there is of a political overthrow of Saddam Hussein if the air strikes are successful. I take the point that was made earlier: if help is to be given to a political upheaval in Iraq, it is important for outside support to go to the Shias, the Kurds and any others who may be considering such action.
Peaceful solutions have been sought in Iraq and have failed, because of Saddam Hussein's evil obstruction and deceit. The House believes that there is no alternative to military action. Our forces are being committed to action in an area in which British blood has been shed for the achievement of a precarious peace, in 1991. We support the Government's decision in the knowledge that our service men and women are the best in the world. If they go into battle, they will do so with the overwhelming support of both our Parliament and our people.
Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you tell me whether many hon. Members are trying to catch your eye, and can you tell me what are the chances of their being called if speeches are somewhat long?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I think that the hon. Gentleman can see pretty well how many hon. Members are trying to catch my eye. 1 hope that they will all realise that, if they are to have a chance of speaking, they should consider not speaking for too long.
7.36 pm
Mr. John Home Robertson: For some years, I served on the Defence Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin). He made a thoughtful speech, containing some fair points and some that were not so fair. In any event, the House is in sombre mood. There is nothing remotely exhilarating in the failure of diplomacy in circumstances such as those faced by our forces tonight.
The debate, fundamentally, concerns whether the United Kingdom fulfils a responsibility to help to deal with a serious military threat. We in the House owe it to the rest of the country, and to our service men, to rise to that responsibility—especially those of us who have not personally served in any armed forces. Inevitably, given history, that constitutes the vast majority of us.
I have been in the House for just long enough to remember the Saturday debate on the Falklands crisis, and the debates on the emergency in the Gulf in 1991 and the decision to deploy British forces in Bosnia. Since then, I have gained a little knowledge and understanding of the work of our armed forces, through the armed forces parliamentary scheme and my membership, for a few years, of the Defence Committee. In that context, I saw some of the devastation of Kuwait in 1991. I also spent several weeks helping relief work in the civil war zone in Bosnia. I know that military conflict is terrifying and destructive, and that people are killed and maimed. I am very reluctant to see people being put in danger in any conflict. Those of us who are not pacifists, however, must accept that there are circumstances in which the failure to use military force leads to far greater evils than the use of such force. I am satisfied that we face such circumstances now.
Some of us criticised the United States and others for their failure to intervene earlier to protect Muslim communities in Bosnia. I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) is present, because he knows much more about that than I do. I saw for myself the consequences of that delay for towns and villages throughout central Bosnia.
I can say from experience that it is much too easy for well-meaning people and, perhaps, opportunistic Governments to wring their hands, and give oppressors and aggressors just one more chance—and then another, and then another. The road to Srebrenica was paved with last chances. One of the most emotional and harrowing experiences of my life was that of coming face to face with some of the orphans and widows of Srebrenica in a refugee camp in Tuzla, just weeks after their husbands and fathers had been massacred in what was supposed to be a UN-protected safe area. That was an awful abdication of responsibility by the UN, by NATO and, yes, by the United States—but I do not remember hearing the hon. Member for Tatton complain about the fact that the world sheriff about whom he was rather scathing this evening turned up then. The Americans turned up late; many of us would have liked them to turn up sooner—would, indeed, have liked others to turn up sooner to do what was necessary in Bosnia. They have turned up on time on this occasion, and it is right that we should support them. I certainly hope that nothing like Srebrenica ever happens again. It is one very good reason for supporting the United States because what it is doing now is right.
1156
If we know for certain that prevarication will lead to greater evils, it must be right to intervene. I believe that it is right and ethical. We have read more than enough about atrocities involving chemical weapons in Halabja. We have seen more than enough evidence of wicked oppression of Kurds, Shias and political dissidents in Iraq. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) referred to that evidence, which she knows a great deal about. I saw with my own eyes what happened to Kuwait in 1991.
The Iraqi Government have been ducking and deceiving ever since the ceasefire signed at Safwan in 1991. We have been told time and again by successive UNSCOM inspectors that they were thwarted and obstructed in their efforts to locate and destroy chemical and biological agents and manufacturing facilities. Every time that fresh undertakings have been given under threat of military action, those undertakings have been broken within weeks. That is what has just happened again. Richard Butler's report to the Secretary-General of the United Nations dated 15 December could not be clearer.
We know that the Iraqi Government have a stock of chemical and biological weapons and that they have active development and manufacturing programmes to produce more such weapons. We know from bitter experience that they will not hesitate to use those weapons to suppress their own people or to overrun their neighbours. Even my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) acknowledged that. The fundamental question is whether to leave President Saddam Hussein in possession of such weaponry in the certain expectation of untold mayhem in future or whether to do something about it now.
It is absurd to suggest that last night's action was part of some Machiavellian plot to delay domestic political processes in Washington. The action was triggered by Richard Butler's letter to the Secretary-General dated 15 December. Is it likely that an Australian weapons inspector would send a report to a Ghanaian Secretary-General of the United Nations simply to deal with some domestic political problem facing the President of the United States of America?
Mr. Corbyn: Has my hon. Friend cared to reflect on the fact that it is odd that, once the report had been received by the Secretary-General, there was no opportunity for the Security Council to meet to discuss what to do with it? Instead, the United States and Britain took pre-emptive action and started bombardment, thus rendering the action illegal under the terms of the UN charter.
Mr. Home Robertson: What was there to talk about? We have been through all this only a month ago and many times before that. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) can make excuses for the Iraqi regime if he wants to, but I do not intend to do so. The domestic political situation in the United States had nothing to do with this.
It is worth mentioning that the Defence Secretary in the United States, who played a part in the unanimous decision of the Security Council in America to go ahead with the action, is a lifelong Republican. Would he be doing that to save the bacon of a Democratic President? I rather doubt it. I have total confidence in the integrity of our Prime Minister and my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence.

1157
As a Scottish Member of Parliament I think it is right and proper that Scottish service personnel are involved in this operation and I pray that they will all return home safely. Scots can and do—they always have and I hope they always will—contribute to effective international enforcement and peacemaking operations precisely because we are an integral and vital part of the effective armed forces of the United Kingdom. Most of us in Scotland are determined that that will always remain the case and that we will remain part of a powerful and effective security family.
I want to dissociate myself in the strongest possible terms from the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). It is nauseating nonsense for my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin to suggest that the United Nations is responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi people. There is nothing to prevent the Iraqi Government from importing the humanitarian and medical supplies that their people require. They have deliberately chosen not to do so. They seem to prefer to use their own people as pawns in a cynical power game.
We have responsibilities to the oppressed people of the middle east, be they in Palestine, Iraq or anywhere else where we can realistically help, just as we have responsibilities to the oppressed Muslim people of Bosnia. I welcome the fact that our Government are rising to those responsibilities and I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in expressing my whole-hearted support for what is being done by our service men over Iraq today.
7.46 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) who, for many years, was a distinguished member of the Select Committee on Defence, which I have subsequently joined. I hope that he will not be offended if I say that whereas he said that he spoke as a Scottish Member of Parliament, I speak as a British rather than just an English Member of Parliament. I entirely endorse the sentiments he expressed at the end of his speech.
The whole House is agreed on the gravity of these events. Hon. Members in most parts of the House have expressed support for the action. We feel pride in those men and women in uniform who are risking their lives for our sake. It is important to remember that they are doing that far away from their loved ones at a time when most of us are about to go home to our Christmas dinners and our families.
I want to discuss three points. First, I want to deal with the objectives of the mission, a subject on which much has been said already. Secondly, I want to discuss the means of achieving those objectives and, thirdly, in a non-partisan way, I should like to discuss the implications for two areas of the strategic defence review.
I shall deal with the objectives first. Over the past few months, we have heard a number of statements saying that we were determined to force Saddam Hussein to comply with the requirements of the UN weapons inspectors. Important as those requirements and inspections are, that cannot be a military objective. I think that the Prime Minister was right to implicitly acknowledge that by
1158
settling for a lesser objective when, in his broadcast yesterday and in the House today, he chose to say that we were focusing on damaging Saddam Hussein's capability.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was right to say that we should go for a greater objective and that, in the long run, the aim must be to get rid of Saddam Hussein. We must be clear about the fact that no fuzzy intermediate objective is possible. Either we seek to kill or remove him and install some other regime, or we settle for merely doing what damage we can from the air.
It is Saddam Hussein who will decide whether or not to comply with the requirements of the UN weapons inspectors. If, as long as he is there, we try to pretend that we can force him to do so when he has set his mind against it, we will simply discredit ourselves in the eyes of those in the Arab world because they will know that we will not be able to deliver on that while he is there. That is why I believe that, in the long run, we will have to face the prospect of getting rid of Saddam Hussein and installing another regime. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who has just left the Chamber, spent some time discussing whether it was enough simply to bomb.
I would not pretend for a moment that this will be an easy task. Removing Saddam Hussein would be difficult enough, but ensuring that his replacement was a more reasonable Iraqi Government would be equally as difficult. Next door to Iraq is Iran, which has one of the most bloodthirsty Governments in the world. That country knows very well that the majority of Iraqis are Shi'ite and it would dearly love to annex Iraq and create a power bloc even worse than the one we face now.
I want to make just one point about the means of achieving our objectives. It may prove impossible to deal with Saddam Hussein by air power alone. Barring a lucky accident where bombing catches him outside the deep vaults where he tends to shelter when it is occurring, I fear that it will probably prove insufficient. On the last couple of occasions when I went to Beirut, by chance—I hope that I was not entirely to blame for it—serious bombing occurred. On one occasion, I was struck by the extraordinary capacity of reinforced concrete to resist the Soviet rockets which have much larger warheads than the cruise missiles that are available to us. As a result of his experiences in both the last Gulf war and the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussein is making colossal use of this. Indeed, the Prime Minister in his statement testified that in one particular building, the cellar was as big as the superstructure, enjoying, I suspect, this protection.
As we bomb it is sad to think—I am particularly aware of the presence of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell)—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) is not in the Chamber, so the hon. Gentleman should not refer to him.
Mr. Brazier: I stand entirely rebuked, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although we can see him, I accept that he is outside the Chamber. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks, although I am on the other side of both arguments from him. Saddam Hussein and his regime will have gained considerable comfort from what they have seen in Kosovo. Whatever the rights and wrongs there—this is not the time to discuss it, but I am against more

1159
involvement in the Balkans—the spectacle of the west shouting at and hectoring the Serbs, only at the last moment to back two thirds of the way down, and finally to agree to send in observers on the humiliating basis that they would not even have personal weapons, must have encouraged Saddam Hussein to think that he could push us further.
We cannot rule out the use of ground forces, bloody and difficult as that may be. I do not underestimate for a moment the scale of involvement necessary. Throughout the Arab world, moderate states, some of which might wish to lean towards us, have seen the west huff and puff at Saddam Hussein over a number of years. Indeed, in 1991 they saw him stay in power after the allied onslaught. However wrong we may think the analysis, they saw both Ronald Reagan and Lady Thatcher, for different reasons, depart from the scene while Saddam Hussein remained. There is a danger that he will feel stronger if the bombings fail to achieve a substantial reduction in his strength.
The Secretary of State should look at two areas of the strategic defence review again. [Interruption.] Would he like to intervene?
The Secretary of State for Defence indicated dissent.
Mr. Brazier: In testimony to the House and in even more detail to the Select Committee on Defence, Ministers and commanders were open about the fact that, in implementing the defence review, they would have to abandon the ability to mobilise a large field army. The televised testimony of the Chief of the Defence Staff was that, if we were to engage in two operations of the size of the one in Bosnia, one would have to be abandoned after about six months. Our Chairman was so astonished by that answer that he repeated the question. Surely I do not have to remind the House that we are already involved in one Bosnia-sized operation—in Bosnia.
I understand that, this morning, Sir Charles Guthrie made clear the scale of the operations that would be required by the allied forces if we have to use ground forces in Iraq, as some of us believe may eventually prove necessary. That suggests two points to me about the SDR. The first relates to our industrial base, and I must in part disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin). It worries me terribly that we should be asking our defence industry to blend with those of our European neighbours, such as Germany, which reluctantly supports this operation and is contributing nothing to it, and France, which appears actively to oppose it. Even more immediately serious, we must secure our supply of ammunition from the Royal Ordnance factories. For more than a year now, British Aerospace has said that they are not financially viable and are close to closure. God knows, we had enough trouble getting one category of shell from the Belgians. What would it be like if, in a few months' time, we were to deploy our troops on the ground and find that, of our tiny war stocks, only a few days' supply remained and we were reliant for all our ammunition on our continental neighbours?
The other strand relates to the reserves, which will come as no surprise to the House. At present, it is still possible for us to build up our small Regular Army. We have some 30 Territorial Army infantry battalions, nine engineer regiments and seven yeomanry reconnaissance
1160
regiments, mostly well trained, albeit on varying scales of equipment, behind the two paper-thin regular divisions. Those divisions have excellent troops, but are planned to have practically nothing in reserve. Were a conflict of this sort to take place, the infantry, armoured reconnaissance troops and engineers would be the most overstretched. It took almost the whole of the regular Royal Engineers when we had a much larger Regular Army to keep just two brigades in the field during the previous Gulf war. Yet all three of those categories of the TA are to be cut in half under plans that are scheduled for the next few months. Britain could never mount a sustained operation, taking casualties, guarding lines of communication in a country that has much more difficult terrain than that of Kuwait and dealing with prisoners of war, refugees and the civilian population, without drawing on substantial reserves—reserves that we shortly will no longer have.
I urge the Government, at a time when the Americans are revisiting this issue and are standing up extra National Guard forces—indeed, they are taking a fresh look at a higher readiness for elements within their 13 National Guard divisions—to reconsider both those issues.
7.58 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: We have life comfortable in this House. The young men and women who are standing ready would say that we have it cushy. We can engage in debate, put forward arguments, register reservations, record qualifications and then go home and sleep easy in our beds. The young men and young women do not have that option. They do as they are told. When it is red, they stand at the door, and when it is green on, they go. They have no choice about it. I do not want there to be any mistake about my views tonight. They have my unqualified support. I pray to God tonight, as I did last night when I heard that the operation had started, that they will be able to fulfil their duties effectively with minimal casualties, disable the military establishments which are their objective targets and get this phase of the operation out of the way to halt the production of weapons of mass destruction and perhaps remove them altogether.
I cannot remember who said it, but one of the truisms of our time is that those who ignore the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them. I have listened to the debate, which has now gone on for some time, and heard some selective history and dodgy logic, so I feel obliged to try to set the record straight. The history to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred during his statement started about seven and a half years ago, but more than 10 years ago, in the Pentagon, a discussion paper was passed to me. It assessed developments in the middle east, two and a half years before the invasion of Kuwait. It outlined a number of facts, made a couple of speculations and finished with a question.
The facts were as follows. First, Saddam Hussein was developing a Scud missile to extend the range effectively and to improve its accuracy. Secondly, Iraq was thought to be close to perfecting its biological, chemical and nuclear warheads of mass destruction, which could be delivered by the extended Scud. Thirdly, it was therefore thought that Israel would soon be exposed to the threat of biological, chemical and nuclear assault from the east. Fourthly, the Pentagon paper drew attention to the fact that, 18 years before, Israel had launched a pre-emptive strike on an Iraqi nuclear power station that was thought at the time to be producing weapons-grade plutonium.

1161
Next, the paper speculated on what might happen if Israel adopted a similar course of action in the circumstances prevailing at the time the paper was written, with particular note taken of the fact that fundamental Islamicism was in the ascendancy in several middle east states. Was there not a possibility, the paper speculated, that such a pre-emptive strike might ignite a jihad—a religious war that could conceivably spread through all Muslim countries, from the west coast of Africa, through the middle east, across the southern states of the Soviet Union, as it then was, and into Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia?
The House must understand that such a jihad would not simply be conducted between nations; it could take on the hideous characteristics of religious conflict between, within and throughout communities in every country of the world. It could take place in Bradford, Bristol, or South Shields. Faced with that horrendous prospect, the document asked, what strategy could be adopted to avoid that fearful scenario?
Having drawn attention to that document, I shall lay it to one side as I remind the House that, when Saddam Hussein made hostages of foreigners within Iraq and Kuwait, he incarcerated them in Baghdad, ostensibly for use as a protective human shield. By negotiating with the Iraqi embassy during the conflict, I succeeded in securing the release of two of those unfortunate individuals; neither was a constituent of mine—their cases having been brought to my attention by relatives in my constituency—nor had they met each other. They were both oilfield workers who, despite not knowing each other, told me identical stories at different times, one on the telephone and the other when he came to thank me.
Both said that British consular officials had told them, many months before the Iraqi incursion into Kuwait, that some sectors of the oilfields and some well heads would change hands, but that they were not to worry because they were key workers and would be seen as essential talent, with guarantees of continuing employment and personal safety. If I match that with the claim made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), that Saddam Hussein had told him that the United States ambassador to Iraq had previously said that any dispute between Iraq and Kuwait would be viewed by the USA as an Arab question, I have to consider seriously the probability that the west duped the Iraqis into actively pursuing their ambitions in much the same way as we British had duped General Galtieri in the Falkland Islands episode, by allowing him to think that he would be successful and that the logistic demands of any effective retaliation on our part would be too great.
That tactic was crucial to our whole strategy, because the oilfield smokescreen was crucial to the mixed force that was necessary in the Gulf. It entailed the recruitment of Islamic nations into the alliance, as an effective counter-measure to the prospect of a jihad. The success of the Gulf operation was not purely military and did not lie merely in the size of the forces massed against Saddam, considerable though it was. The political success lay in the engagement of Islamic nations in the alliance, and the non-participation of Israel before the event and its studious decision not to retaliate during the event,
1162
when it was so indiscriminately attacked by Scud missiles launched from Iraq. There are those who remain firmly convinced that the alliance force was fighting Israel's war.
I have pondered those various factors for some years now. A year last October, I had the opportunity to meet General Brent Scowcroft, who, both before and during the Gulf war, was chief security adviser to President George Bush. I outlined to him the thesis I have outlined to the House today and concluded my remarks by asking him what he thought. He had listened intently and in silence throughout the 15-minute outline and he paused for a long time, never taking his eyes from mine, before replying. He said simply:
"Mr. Cook, I think there could be a great deal of validity in what you say."
That was the sum total of his observations.
That brings me back to today. I have to ask, what is different? We do not have now, as we had then, a country that has been invaded; nor do we have the smokescreen of either the oilfields or the involvement of other Islamic nations; nor do we have any support in military terms from the Islamic countries. We still have Scud missiles, and warheads of mass destruction that are probably nearer to perfection than they were before, albeit perhaps secreted away. However, we also have an Israeli Government headed by a man who is so deaf to views other than his own that he is positively frightening.
We are faced with the same question as the one that faced us originally: what do we do to get out of that fearsome scenario? How can we stop it? We have already heard tonight that simply sending in a few cruise missiles and a few bombers will not provide an effective solution to the problem, which will return to us, time and again, unless we adopt additional measures as one or two hon. Members have suggested.
Before addressing that issue, I shall comment on the views expressed by some of my comrades. I have reservations about the military exercise, even though I support it fully. However, I also have reservations about some of my comrades' reservations, and I shall try to explain my reservations. I am confused by the lack of logic. I recall many years campaigning, working and even fighting to attain government. I fought alongside many of the comrades whom I see in the Chamber tonight and who have expressed certain views with which I must take issue. I remember the massacre at Halabja and how people called for a quick response—retaliation and an end to that exercise. They were critical when that response was not forthcoming from the then Conservative Government, and I shared their views and voiced my own criticism. I wonder how my comrades think that we can achieve a rapid reaction. We talk blithely about training, preparing and equipping rapid reaction forces. However, rapid reaction forces are totally useless unless we have rapid reaction politicians. That is the only way in which those forces can be effective.
We have heard arguments about legitimacy. I respect, admire and have deep affection for my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). He criticised the use of a resolution which he said is seven years old, but he did so on the basis of a charter that is seven times seven years old. That is questionable logic. My right hon. Friend said that the situation could be resolved by removing sanctions. That will not provide any solutions. The real solution lies in removing weapons of mass

1163
destruction not only from Iraq but from all the countries in the region. So long as Israel has weapons of that type and class, its neighbours will feel threatened by them and will also want to possess such weapons. That is logical. If we do not face up to that, we will not have much chance of progressing any further.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned biological and chemical weapons. Before I close, I must refer to concerns that have been expressed about the prospect of scattering chemical agents and bacteria, such as anthrax, if we seek to bomb Iraq's stockpiles—wherever they are located. That is a genuine fear to which several hon. Members have referred and we know that there is no perfect answer.
If we are to continue the attack and to target those kinds of weapons, I believe that the only means of averting such a colossal dispersal of germs and nerve gas—my plan has a fairly remote chance of success, but it is the best chance—would be to employ the precise placement of laser-guided, bunker-penetrating bombs of a low-yield tactical thermo-nuclear character. The immediate searing temperatures created by such weapons on explosion would provide the best chance of obliterating the germs and dismantling the chemical compounds. I know that it is a hideous thought, but is there not a huge irony in the possible employment of one weapon of mass destruction as a means of destroying another two of an even more hideous character?
We must take stock of what we do and how we do it. That will be a long-term strategy. The moral dilemma posed is a real one of huge moment. One can ponder it sensibly only by engaging a "greater good or lesser evil" approach. Unless we strike a balance between the two extremes, we will not be successful.
8.13 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) has introduced some novel points at a late stage in the debate. I do not wish to be diverted from my main comments by his interesting contribution, but I think that it is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to try to cast Israel as some sort of covert villain in this scenario. It is particularly unrealistic of him to try to use Israel's possession of a deterrent—it is a democratic state that would never envisage using that deterrent unless it was under aggressive attack from someone else—as an excuse or a reason for Saddam Hussein's attempts to develop weapons of mass destruction for his own use.
As for General Scowcroft's rather noncommittal answer when confronted with the hon. Gentleman's convoluted conspiracy theory, all I can say is that that is precisely the sort of answer that I would give to anyone who presented a particularly unbelievable theory in a constituency surgery on a cold Saturday afternoon. I fear that General Scowcroft employed the words he did for the same reason that I employ the words I do under such circumstances. It is rather like the solicitor who, when confronted with an odd opinion, tactfully says, "I hear what you say."
When considering whether to support any military action, one must have three questions answered satisfactorily: is it justified; what is it trying to do; and will it work? I say at the outset that, if there is a vote at the end of this evening's debate, I will—together with all
1164
my colleagues on the Opposition Benches, I am sure—vote with the Government, as I did on 17 February. On that occasion, I voted with a degree of reservation, and I will probably have the same reservations tonight because I am not yet convinced that the third of the three questions has been answered satisfactorily.
I shall touch briefly on the first two questions. Is the military action justified? Anyone who has heard the evidence outlined by a variety of hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), cannot have the slightest doubt about the justification of the measures proposed. What is the military action trying to achieve? It is beneficial that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary made no bones about the fact that air strikes alone will not succeed in removing Saddam Hussein. They said that the action is designed to weaken his military machine and prevent his developing weapons of mass destruction. Rather revealingly—it may have been a throw-away line at the end of his remarks—the Foreign Secretary also said that the aim was to disarm Iraq on the ground from the air.
I fear that that is where the right hon. Gentleman may have problems, because we must then ask: will it work? That depends on whether we believe that Saddam Hussein already has a substantial stock of biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction or whether we think that he is still only trying to amass that stockpile.
On the subject of weapons of mass destruction, a Foreign Office paper on the Iraqi threat and the work of UNSCOM earlier this year stated:
"One hundred kilograms of anthrax released from the top of a tall building in a densely populated area could kill up to 3 million people."
We have a problem: if Saddam Hussein already has that potential, will air strikes remove it? Although one does not generally agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about everything, it does not mean that occasionally one should not agree with him about something. On 17 February, he asked a rather pointed question—which he reiterated today, perhaps slightly less pointedly—about what would happen if a bomb hit a stockpile of chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction. On that occasion, the Foreign Secretary replied:
"We are entirely clear about the dangers of hitting such a stockpile. That is why we have taken great care in our targeting plan to ensure that we do not hit such completed weapons."—[Official Report, 17 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 902.]
Mr. Wareing: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman should refer to the targeting directness of missiles. He may care to know that CBS has just reported that a bomb or missile has hit a hospital in Baghdad.
Dr. Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because one of the points on which I hope to conclude is that it is a big mistake to think that we can have a war without casualties on both sides.
Let us assume for the purposes of the argument that the weapons are sufficiently accurate that we can guarantee that they will miss the stockpiles, if that is our objective. We would have tried to miss the stockpiles in February if we had launched an attack, so presumably we are trying to do the same job in December. It cannot therefore be maintained that one of our aims is to remove Saddam

1165
Hussein's stockpiles, if he has them. That is why I look to Ministers to tell us whether we anticipate that Saddam Hussein already has mass destruction weapons or whether, as the Foreign Secretary said earlier, we are simply trying to prevent him from developing the earlier stages in the manufacturing process so that he cannot amass those stockpiles in the future.
I shall not take up much more time because I know that other Members are keen to speak, but I shall refer briefly to points that have been made by authorities on the efficacy of aerial bombardment alone. Earlier this year, the former Gulf war commander-in-chief, Sir Peter de la Billiere, said:
"There are few, if any, examples of air power alone succeeding in defeating and bringing to heel such a determined and resolute enemy as Saddam."
The former Chief of the General Staff, Field Marshal Sir John Stanier, said:
"It is unlikely that air strikes will destroy Saddam's stockpile of weapons or topple him."
What, then, about alternatives? In February, when we faced exactly the same situation, Professor Lawrence Freedman, a well-known academic strategist, said:
"the Allies are in an awkward position because they are forced to rely solely on air power … Sending troops into Iraq would be an altogether more serious operation … Yet it may well be that the best way to convince the Iraqi leader … would be to announce the sending of a US Marine taskforce to the Gulf."
I do not want to sound like a latter-day convert to pacifism or disarmament. Members change sides of the House and Governments change, too. I recall that, at the time of the first Gulf war, several members of this Government were wholly opposed to bombing Baghdad on perfectly respectable, or at least arguable, grounds. One of those Members was the current Foreign Secretary, who criticised the bombing of Baghdad in the first Gulf war as making it
"more difficult to achieve peace and security."
At that time, when ground troops were involved, we had a workable plan, which the present Foreign Secretary opposed. Now that we have a plan that is not, I fear, entirely workable, he supports it.
I draw different conclusions from those of hon. Members on the left of the Government Benches who have been nodding in agreement with some of my points about stockpiles. Their argument is that we should do nothing at all. My argument is that, if we are going to do something, we must do something that will be effective. If we will the ends, we must will the means. We cannot have war on the cheap. We cannot have war without casualties, and it is no good saying, in a latter-day version of what people said in 1914, "It'll all be over by Ramadan," because it will not.
We are unwise to be saying in advance that we shall not continue fighting the war into Ramadan—because that sends a signal to Saddam Hussein that he has only to hang on for a certain number of days and the bombardment will cease. If we are serious about taking out his potential to use mass destruction weapons, we must recognise that air power alone will be insufficient. Aid to the resistance alone will be insufficient. The only way to deal with this menace to the security of the region and, possibly, to
1166
world security is the use of ground forces. If we are not prepared to consider that, it is very debatable what else we should be doing.
8.24 pm
Mr. David Winnick: We all wish that military action could have been avoided. No one who supports the Government's action wishes to gloat or be happy about the situation.
I do not determine my views on a major issue such as this on the basis of "my Government right or wrong". If I concluded that the Government's action was wrong, I would with the greatest reluctance make my views clear and vote accordingly. I do not criticise Members on the basis of how they vote—that is their business. Unlike Iraq, this is a free country and, fortunately, this is also a free Parliament.
In the circumstances, the action that began last night is absolutely essential. If, in view of all the warnings that have been given since February, no action had been taken when the Baghdad regime made it clear once again that the inspectors would not be able to do their job, what credibility would the allies have had? Should there have been more warnings and more meetings with the Secretary-General of the United Nations? If the Governments had not taken this action, we would have surrendered our position entirety.
None of the hon. Members who have been critical has put forward an alternative other than the only alternative possible at the time of the invasion of Kuwait—surrender. I was present during those debates in 1990 and 1991 and participated in some of them. Hon. Members were opposed to military action to liberate Kuwait and some, including many of those who are now most ardently opposed to sanctions, argued for sanctions at that time. If we had listened to those critics, Kuwait would never have been liberated. There is no way that sanctions would have led to Kuwait being freed. Was it right to liberate that country? Yes, it was absolutely right.
Why do not those who are so critical of the British and American Governments put the blame where it belongs? Why do they not say that Saddam Hussein has had every opportunity, this year and beforehand, to make sure that the United Nations inspectors could do their work? Why, time and again, is every accusation, criticism and downright slur made against the leadership of the United States and Britain, while there is no criticism whatsoever of the butcher who rules in Baghdad?
In an intervention, I quoted the remarks of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway). I did not do so because I am engaged in a personal feud; I could not care less about such matters. He often says that he has good credentials as a long-time opponent of Saddam Hussein. That may well be so, and some Conservative Members may not be in that position. However, I quoted what my hon. Friend said in Baghdad in 1994 in a face-to-face confrontation with Saddam Hussein. I repeat, he said:
"Sir, I salute your courage, your strength … and I want you to know we are with you until victory."
Victory? What sort of victory? We are dealing with a butcher. Enough has been said today and it can only be repeated that Saddam Hussein has committed the most terrifying crimes against his own people.

1167
We are lectured about civilian casualties. I am concerned about that, and I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said in an intervention a moment ago. It is absolutely essential to minimise civilian casualties, although I agree that it is impossible to wage a war with any guarantee that civilians will not be hit. However, we are dealing with a murderous dictator who initiated the war against Iran in which tens of thousands—possibly hundreds of thousands—of Iraqis and Iranians died. Is he in a position to lecture us?
Saddam Hussein carried out poison gas attacks against the Kurds in 1988. He invaded Kuwait and caused the events that followed. There is brutality in Iraq, day in and day out, including the execution of prisoners, torture and amputation, yet a Member of the House of Commons can say:
"Sir, I salute your courage … we are with you until victory."
Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: Does my hon. Friend accept that, when Saddam Hussein initiated the war against Iran and used chemical weapons against it and his own people, Britain and the United States supported him?
Mr. Winnick: Yes, I cannot deny that my hon. Friend makes a valid point. I wish one could say that this country consistently opposed Saddam Hussein, but that is not so. I hope that I, many of my Labour colleagues, some in the Liberal ranks and the nationalists are in a different position from many Conservatives who found excuses for Saddam Hussein. I wish that I could say that the United States had a consistent record of opposing him, but that is far from the truth. I have to say to my hon. Friend that one could have argued in 1939 that, because the western powers to a certain extent helped to arm Hitler and gave political support to the Nazi regime, we should not have gone to war. As I said in 1990, when the time came, during the invasion of Kuwait, at least the western powers woke up. Incidentally, we were not one of the worst offenders—in all fairness, France, Germany and some others were worse.
Ms Oona King: Is it not the general inconsistency that hangs over the United Nations' and the international community's approach to violations of human rights that puts us in this more difficult position now? Although I agree with the position of my hon. Friend and the Government, it has been undermined by the fact that we seem on occasion to have been influenced by oil as well as other factors.
Mr. Winnick: If oil was the only reason that we went to war in 1991, thank heavens that that was so—nothing would have been worse than if we had allowed the invasion of Kuwait to take place without our taking action. What would have happened? We know how Saddam Hussein operates. If he had got away with the invasion of Kuwait, he would have been encouraged to invade other countries.
Mr. Wareing: My hon. Friend has drawn a comparison between 1939 and now. People are asking what alternative there is to the bombing. I supported the attack to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, but I suggest that we would not have defeated Germany in 1945 without massive armed troops
1168
on the ground. If we really want to get rid of Saddam, the real alternative is that mentioned by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). Had we taken that option in 1991, we would not have this problem now.
Mr. Winnick: It is perfectly true that ordinary people asked then, and are no doubt asking now, why we did not finish the job then. The job then was the liberation of Kuwait. Although I would have liked to see the liberation of Iraq in 1991, there was no mandate for that—we should bear that very much in mind. I do not think that members of the alliance, particularly countries in the Arab world, would have gone along with us. Whether we should escalate the armed conflict along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), I have considerable doubts.
Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend said that he would like to see Iraq liberated. Would he like to see it liberated by Iran?
Mr. Winnick: No, I would not like to see it liberated by Iran, but the Iraqi regime is so horrifying and brutal and has inflicted so much terror on its own people that I certainly want Iraq liberated from Saddam Hussein, and I make no apologies for that. Far from being ashamed of my view, I am proud of it. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees with me about that.
Using whatever ammunition they can find, some critics are saying that these events are a plot to save Clinton—perhaps they have seen too many recent American films. My response is to ask: where is the evidence that the Republicans, who have been waging a campaign against the American President, are going to drop the motion to impeach him? All the indications are that they are going to continue. It will be difficult to persuade people that the American President is conspiring with UN inspectors, the British Government and other countries to save his political skin.
There were two main objectives after the invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. The first was the ending of the enemy occupation, which was achieved. The second was the destruction of the weapons of mass destruction. I believe that, for all the reasons set out by many hon. Members, we should be as single-minded about that objective as we were about Kuwait.
I want to give other hon. Members the opportunity to speak, so I conclude with two points. Labour has a reputation of being against despots and mass murderers. I hope that I am in order when I say that it would be very difficult to find a single Labour Member who does not want to see Pinochet brought to justice. We are against such criminals, even if their criminal deeds ended a few years ago. The vast majority of Labour Members have such strong views about dictators, so there is no reason that our view on Saddam Hussein should be different.
I understand that some of my hon. Friends have reservations—some are pacifists—and are deeply worried, as we all are, about innocent people being killed. However, we should not forget that this party, before the second world war and since, has had a consistent record of opposing criminal dictators, and long may it be so.
The British people do not like war. As I said, they are not clapping their hands or gloating, and they are not refraining from doing so simply because it is the

1169
Christmas period. They are always concerned about casualties, British casualties and those in the country being bombed. I take the view—we shall see whether I am right in the next few days and weeks—that what has been done has the overwhelming support of the British people. They know what sort of person Saddam Hussein is; they know how he has cheated and murdered over the years; and they know that he cannot be relied on. I believe that, when we vote overwhelming in support of the Government tonight, we shall be speaking to the large majority of the British people.
8.37 pm
Mr. David Heath: I must first tell the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), how much I personally appreciate the fact that the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), were able to attend the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs yesterday, when they must have had many more serious matters on their mind.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has made clear what was also apparent from all the speeches this evening—that there is no support in the House for military action for its own sake. I detect no sense of jingoism or bombast. Instead, there is a strong reluctance—rightly so—to use military means as a way of achieving international justice. International justice is the universal wish.
I listened carefully to hon. Members for whom I have the deepest personal respect, such as the hon. Members for Tatton (Mr. Bell) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I hear what they say about some of us being of a generation that has not seen combat and, indeed, that cannot have seen combat. There was an implication that perhaps that makes it easier for us to support military action. I believe that the reverse is true.
Many Labour and Liberal Members grew up in a political atmosphere that strongly opposed war and everything associated with it and that saw war very much as a last resort. I spent my college years in the same college as the Prime Minister, and I know that the atmosphere in which we grew up makes it more difficult to conclude that military force is the right solution. It takes more moral courage to come to that view. It is easier to follow one's instincts and say that military force is not the right solution. Yet, on occasions, when crimes are committed, it is not right simply to say that it is somebody else's business, that somebody else can call the police, that somebody else can deal with it. The right thing is to screw up one's courage and intervene. That is what Britain is doing.
I find it odd that hon. Members who applauded the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, when he returned from Iraq with a memorandum of understanding a few months ago, are now prepared to stand by and allow that memorandum of understanding to be ripped up in the face of the United Nations, just as every previous agreement that Saddam Hussein has made with the international community has been. Time and again, we have been asked to stay our hand to give the man another chance. Time and again, he has taken advantage of that.
1170
I have listened with great care to all speeches. Not once in a speech by a hon. Member who opposes the Government's action have I heard an alternative strategy that would maintain the rule of international law. Not once have I heard another way in which to bring matters to a successful conclusion, other than from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who said that we should remove sanctions and that, somehow, that would bring Saddam Hussein to his senses. I do not believe it.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: It is not true that an alternative has not been posed. The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) explained perfectly clearly that it should be a central policy objective to get rid of Saddam Hussein. That is an alternative, although one must will the means. In 1991, the decision was taken not to go after Saddam Hussein, for geopolitical reasons. People were afraid that Iraq would fracture, a new Kurdistan would be created and that that would destabilise Turkey.
Mr. Heath: I do not regard as an alternative strategy to military action larger recourse to military means, such as the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) described. A perversity that passeth my understanding is that arms should only ever be used by murderous tyrants of the kind whom we see in Iraq. That is a logical somersault that I am not prepared to make.
Having said that, I am concerned by the argument advanced by some hon. Members and in the United States of America that this limited military operation's objectives could be extended to the removal of Saddam Hussein by military means. The House should not misunderstand me; I would welcome, as I believe would almost every hon. Member, an outcome that resulted in the removal of Saddam Hussein. As an outcome, that is very much to be welcomed. No one who has any regard for the lives and histories of Kurds, Shi'ites, Kuwaitis and any vestige of political opposition in Iraq could fail to conclude that Saddam Hussein should be removed, and quickly. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) that he should be indicted for his many crimes against humanity.
Removal of Saddam Hussein cannot be an objective of this military operation. First, it would be impractical; it is not a realistic objective of the military resources available. Secondly—this is extremely important—it would be without a mandate. I for one will stand on what is legitimate under UN resolutions, and I will not go beyond that until there is a new UN resolution. There is a clear mandate in UN resolutions 687 and 688 for what the United States and the United Kingdom are doing, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) explained. At the moment, there is not an international sanction—nor is there likely to be—for the removal of Saddam Hussein as a Head of Government in Iraq, however odious we may consider him. Therefore, if that became an objective, it would change legitimate action in international law to a simple act of war. We should not encompass that in this House.
There is legitimacy to the proposed action, and for that reason, Liberal Democrat Members will support it. The action, however, must be accompanied by the continuation of the diplomatic offensive which has been waged over recent months—and redoubled. We must re-establish the coalition of interest that was established during the Gulf war. Some will be very reluctant to join that alliance.

1171
I had the good fortune a few weeks ago to lunch with members of two of the permanent members of the Security Council. I will not reveal what Mr. Sergei Lavrov and Mr. Dejammet said in confidence, because that would be inappropriate. It was, however, clear that France and Russia were not reconciled at the time to the view that military action was appropriate. None the less, the alternatives that the French and Russian Governments have produced have not worked. Their diplomatic offensives have not resulted in reductions in the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Therefore, we must ask them, as we are asking in the House: what is the alternative strategy?
We must develop a strategy beyond these strikes. I hope that we shall always maintain the view, and make it clear to Iraq, that, the moment that it complies with UN resolutions, we are prepared to do what we are conditioned to do under the resolutions: remove the sanctions. Indeed, there is some scope for lifting the International Atomic Energy Authority part of the inspection programme at an early stage, if only Iraq would comply. We must consider the effectiveness of the sanction regime.
Later—not now—we must remind our allies in the United States that the United Nations can never be a flag of convenience for its actions and that, much as we welcome the United States' actions in support of UN resolutions, its money in support of the United Nations and its active support of equivalence of attitude to countries, especially in the middle east, would be equally welcome.
I hope that we all regret—perhaps regret is too weak a word—that military action at this stage is required. We should not forget where the responsibility for that action lies: with the regime in Iraq. We can express the hope that the Government will be firm but proportionate in the way in which they apply military action but, at the end of the day, we must agree that the Government are right in such action. I hope that we shall never forget the interests of the service men and women who are active on behalf of this country and international law at this time. At the moment, only RAF personnel are involved but, in future, my constituents from Fleet Air Arm in Yeovilton could be, too. I wish our service men and women well tonight and in the days to come, and hope that they return safely to their bases with the job well done.
8.48 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: This is a grave debate, as some speeches have reflected. I was very saddened by the tabloid language of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours); that did not do the debate any good. It is offensive to say that people who have a different opinion on bombing are apologists for Saddam Hussein. Some of us have a long record of opposing Saddam Hussein—even when it was not terribly popular to do so. The one thing that undoubtedly unites us is that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator who has produced and used dangerous weapons against his own and other people. We are all united in condemning him on that.
As we are aware, not all United Nations resolutions are upheld. If the answer to enforcement of such resolutions was to bomb the country of every violator, about half the world would be laid to waste by cruise missiles—from
1172
Israel to Kashmir, from East Timor to Saudi Arabia. There seem to be double standards concerning United Nations resolutions.
Morally, I cannot support the bombing of Iraq. I do not believe that we have the authority of the United Nations to undertake this action. It is a hideous action, and it does not advance the cause of the long-suffering Iraqi people one iota. Instead, it punishes them further. They did not elect Saddam Hussein. They had no say when he took them to war with Iran and a whole generation of young men were wiped out, and he certainly did not consult them when he invaded Kuwait. Yet we penalise those unfortunate victims of an evil regime by killing them with our bombs.
I ask the Government, what will the bombing achieve? Is it not the same, failed, approach that the west adopted during the Gulf war? We did not get rid of Saddam Hussein then. We killed hundreds and thousands of Iraqis. I do not forget the road to Basra and the description, put so eloquently by Edward Pierce, of the "Jack Frost face" of the young Kurdish recruit who was frozen by the smart bombs there—frozen for ever.
We killed hundreds of Iraqis, but Saddam Hussein remained more powerful, and more secure, than ever. At the time, some people, as they are doing now, encouraged armed opposition to his regime, and we stood by while he ruthlessly put down the uprisings, from the Kurds in the north to the marsh Arabs in the south. I have not forgotten the terrible pictures of Kurds dying on the freezing mountains as they fled, terrified, from the Republican Guard. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who is not in the Chamber now, went to see for herself and give witness to the heartbreaking scenes that she saw on those mountains. She moved the House with her descriptions.
During the Gulf war, we had massive support from other countries. Where is that support now? I did not vote for the Gulf war, but there was massive support from other countries. Where is it now? Only Britain and the United States support the bombing. China, Russia and France oppose it. Why did we not go back to the Security Council with the inspectors' report? Where is the support from Arab countries? The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) put it well when he said, "Study the silences." At the time of the Gulf war, we were at least offering the Palestinians a peace process. We can all see what has happened to the peace process now.
I briefly mention the role of the President of the United States. I have always believed that those in America who want to impeach the President for a love affair that he lied about are at best stupid and at worst the type of right-wing fundamentalist Christian that I detest almost as much as the Islamic Taliban. However, a question remains as to the timing of this bombing. Today, the House of Representatives was going to vote on four impeachment charges against the President, and it looked as though impeachment would go ahead. Postponement puts off impeachment and, if the bombing continues for a few days and Capitol Hill closes down and reopens in the new year with a new Congress and a new Judiciary Committee, the President has a much better chance of breaking impeachment charges.
If—I only say if—the bombing has been somehow manipulated for the political expedience of the President, I believe that it will go down in history as an act of

1173
unspeakable wickedness because, as we speak tonight, real men, women and children are dying. Innocents who have led miserable lives under Saddam Hussein will suffer even more.
The Prime Minister said last night:
"Our quarrel is not with the Iraqi people."
Those who know the Prime Minister know that he speaks from the heart when he says that. I do not doubt his sincerity. But bombs do not discriminate between the good and the bad; in any case, the bad will probably have a very good shelter. It will be the poor and the oppressed who will be killed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) said, a hospital has been hit tonight. As we approach Christmas and I look at the lovely, happy anticipation on my grandchildren's faces, I think of the children of Iraq, who await Ramadan with the same innocent, happy expectation. How many of those will lose their parents or loved ones because of our actions, and how many will grow up hating the west and joining the Islamists?
Has any thought been given to what will happen next if Saddam Hussein does not comply? Are we going to bomb again; and, if he carries on saying no to the inspectors, will we bomb again? Will the Minister tell us, will we bomb and bomb until we really do bomb Iraq into the stone age? How many will die? I ask—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—what will happen if we hit a chemical or biological plant. We have heard the horrifying details.
What about the stability of the area? Iran, which is hardly a good role model for upholding democratic values, is poised to benefit. I do not conform to the notion that Muhammad Khatami's election will transform Iran. On the contrary; I believe that the grave and systematic violations of human rights—including public executions, torture, stoning and arbitrary arrests—continue unabated in that unhappy country. In recent years, more than 20 Iranian dissidents have been assassinated abroad. Does anyone seriously believe that Iran's mullahs, with their dream of an Islamic world, would not take advantage of a divided and bombed-out Iraq?
We look the other way as the Iranians develop their weapons, and they are certainly developing weapons. It is said that they have missiles that can reach into Europe. I do not think that we should bomb them, either. I agree with the Foreign Secretary when he tries to open up dialogue with them. I think that that is the way forward.
I also think that the Arab nations and the long-suffering Palestinians gasp at the lack of any action against Netanyahu and his scuppering of the peace process. There is no insistence on the upholding of UN resolutions there.
What about Kashmir—subject of the oldest resolution on the United Nations' books? That resolution actually supports self-determination, and so do I. What about the people of Kashmir? Pakistan and India have weapons of mass destruction, but we are not suggesting that we should go in there and bomb them.
Some of my colleagues have asked, "What would you do?" and there was some heckling, asking, "What is the alternative?" Well, I certainly would not make Saddam Hussein into a martyr and strengthen his position even more. We should negotiate and try to isolate him.
1174
We trade with other dictators. We traded with Indonesia when Suharto murdered a third of the population of East Timor; we went further, and sold him weapons. We maintain friendly relations with Israel and try to get the peace process going there. The Foreign Secretary even met the mullahs in Iran. We do not bomb those and other such regimes; we keep trying to talk to them. History shows that tyrants will eventually be toppled by their own people, if given the right help.
The main reason why I do not believe in the bombing strategy is that I do not think that it will succeed. We shall just kill ordinary, innocent people and make the suffering a lot worse. This morning, John Nicol, an ex-RAF pilot from the Gulf War Veterans, said:
"I believe it is ludicrous to try to bring down Saddam Hussein. This will change nothing. We launched the biggest air Armada the world has ever seen during the Gulf War, and we did not destroy Saddam then. So I think that we are unlikely to do it now."
I agree, and I ask the Secretary of State again: what next, when we have bombed?
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rightly praised our forces. I join him in that. I want them to be safe, but I do not believe that this military action is morally right. If there is an opportunity to do so, I will vote against it tonight.
8.58 pm
Mr. Crispin Blunt: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Lady, who has a distinguished record in support for human rights. She wrestled in her speech this evening with the difficulty of what to do about Saddam Hussein, while properly recognising the nature of the regime. The previous Labour Member who spoke was the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) who, I am sorry to see, is not in his place. He is consistent in his desire to use military force in pursuit of the desired outcome, but I just wish that, while willing the aims, he would will the means, and vote for defence expenditure that would support the military power that he always wants the United Kingdom to use.
Some Labour Members, including the hon. Members for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), seem to deny the nature of the regime with which we are dealing. This is not a popular democracy with just an unusually robust criminal justice policy; it is a regime of terror. The hon. Member for Kelvin should agree that the Ba'ath party apparatus now operated by the Tahiti gang in Iraq bears no recognisable relation to a proper Ba'ath or Arab philosophy.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow said that the next generation of Iraqis would not forgive us for what we were doing. It is much more likely that they would not forgive us for failing to rid them of the regime of terror under which they are suffering. That would be the crime of the west.
We face today three options, the first of which is to do nothing. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) is an advocate of that option, as is the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). But are we to allow the dictator in Baghdad to continue to challenge the world community? He is not only a threat but someone who has a record of using weapons of mass destruction. He is a danger not only to his neighbours, but to the peace and stability of the world.

1175
If we are going to act, we are left with two other options. One is a ground attack on Iraq to complete the job that in 1991 was, for reasons that I supported, not undertaken. We did not have the formal authority to do so and people felt that Saddam was going to fall. The Marsh Arabs were encouraged to rise, but Saddam did not fall. That had bitter and horrendous consequences for the Marsh Arabs in southern Iraq.
The ground attack option, as the only means of definitively removing Saddam from power, would require the support of the Arab world and coalition that we had in place in 1991. At the moment, that coalition is hardly enthusiastic in support of the west. If we are not in a position to launch a ground attack—I believe that, without the support of the Arab world, that option is ruled out—we are left with the option that the Government are pursuing today and that I support. We are trying to degrade Saddam's capability of making weapons of mass destruction. That strategy comes with a series of long-term problems, which the Prime Minister recognised in his statement to the House. He said that it was likely that we would be without the services of the UNSCOM inspectors in future. So our best source of intelligence about the weapons programmes would be denied to us. On the basis of other, less good, sources of intelligence and information, we would have to be prepared in the long term to use military force to suppress that programme. We have embarked on a long-term strategy and we shall need the long-term support of the Arab world.
It is my concern that within the Arab world there is a real and, in a sense, proper perception of double standards—that there is one rule for Iraq and quite another for Israel. I impress on the Government the point that the success of the middle east peace process is essential to the interests of the United Kingdom, the United States and all the liberal democracies in the action that is being taken and our position in the middle east. If Benyamin Netanyahu is allowed to get away with continuing to obstruct the path to peace and a settlement in Israel and Palestine, if he is allowed to obstruct the legitimate right of the Palestinians to aspire to self-government in the territory recognised under UN Security Council resolution 242 as properly belonging to them, we will never be in a position to sustain the long-term Arab coalition that we require to deal with the brutal dictator in Baghdad.
I urge the Government to use their influence on the United States to ensure that it is made clear to Prime Minister Netanyahu that he is not only dealing with the interests of Israel, but playing with the interests of all the liberal democracies in his conduct of negotiations with the Palestinians. I hope that the Government will impress on him what is at stake.
9.5 pm
Ms Rachel Squire: I accept the points made by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and others about the complexities of the present foreign policy strategy towards the middle east. I want to go on record as saying that I entirely agreed with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last night when he said in his announcement at No. 10 that he believed that there was no realistic alternative to carrying out immediate bombing action against Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
I accept that the gains from such action are not entirely predictable, but when would any military commander or senior politician claim to predict with certainty the
1176
outcome of a course of action? My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) spoke powerfully and, I hope, persuaded many that we cannot continue to allow such an evil dictator to amass chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and the means to produce them.
There is continuing discussion about whether we should extend our air power and bring in land forces, but I have yet to hear from those who oppose the action taken by the Government a reasonable and realistic alternative strategy for dealing with Saddam Hussein and the evil dictatorship that he represents.
Mr. Corbyn rose—
Mr. Barnes rose—
Ms Squire: I am happy to give way if my hon. Friends want to suggest a realistic alternative strategy.
Mr. Barnes: An alternative strategy was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). As an add-on to the current strategy of bombing, she suggested that action should be taken to help the political opposition to the Iraqi regime to gain strength so that in time they can take over, and that Saddam Hussein should be indicted. That is an alternative position, although it may not have been propounded by those who oppose the bombing.
Ms Squire: I see that proposal as additional to the action undertaken by the Government. It certainly will not prevent Saddam Hussein from continuing to amass weapons of mass destruction, or deny him the licence to kill whomever he wants, however he wants, whenever he wishes to do so. He has demonstrated his willingness to use such weapons.
I emphasise that I am not an uncritical supporter of the President of the United States, but I thought that he was right in his address to the American nation last night, when he said that Saddam Hussein had been given more than one chance, not the licence that he was seeking. I have yet to hear an alternative strategy to make Saddam Hussein comply with UNSCOM and co-operate fully with the UN inspectors, as he committed himself to do just over a month ago, in return for force not being used.
Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend not concerned that President Clinton, in his speech last night, considerably widened the objectives beyond any that existed before? If he is to topple the regime and install a new Government, it will be done not by air power but by the commitment of ground troops. Is my hon. Friend not concerned that we might be embarking on a long-term conflict, with a huge deployment of ground and air forces, the outcome of which is uncertain, apart from a vast number of Iraqi military and civilian casualties?
Ms Squire: I share the concerns of all hon. Members about possible casualties and, as I said at the start, I am also concerned that such actions can have no certain outcome. However, that is true of any military and political strategy.
However, I am disappointed that my hon. Friend did not suggest a suitable alternative strategy, apart from that of sitting back and allowing Saddam Hussein, for the

1177
fourth time in 12 months, to give two fingers to the United Nations, the values, moral base and principles of which, in its efforts to secure peace, freedom and security for the peoples of the world, all hon. Members say that they support.
I, too, have been somewhat surprised at the suggestion that the President of the United States is seeking to put the interests of domestic politics above those of the international scene. As I have said, I am not an uncritical supporter of President Clinton and, like other hon. Members, I, too, can be somewhat cynical about the motives of some politicians. From my knowledge of American politics, I believe that there is no greater political risk for any American President than to endanger the lives of American service men. In the past, the American public have shown clearly how much they will criticise and demand an explanation for any loss of life in their armed forces.
I cannot and do not believe that the publication of the UNSCOM report was somehow engineered, that it just happened to come out in the week when it would be to the convenience of the President of the United States. I do not believe that the President of the United States acted with anything less than the sincerity that he expressed in his address to the nation.
Another objection has been that we should have delayed. Apparently, we should have said that we were wondering whether to go ahead and bomb Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime, but that we should have a debate in the House before going ahead. I cannot think of anything more likely to put our armed forces at greater risk.
I have been present at previous debates when we agreed that, in the event that Saddam Hussein did not carry out his commitment to full compliance and co-operation with UNSCOM and the United Nations, Britain and the American Government would respond with swift and immediate action.
We can speculate about Saddam Hussein's motives in throwing down yet another gauntlet in the week before Ramadan and the main Christian festival, and whether he thought that that would result in a delay which he could use further to conceal and remove the weapons that he did not want the UN inspectors to find.
Criticisms have been made of the independence or authenticity of the UNSCOM report presented by Mr. Butler. Some have said that it is biased and inaccurate. I should like to know where they got their evidence. I am aware of no evidence of willing compliance with the United Nations by Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime in the past eight years. Some have said that there is a need to establish clearer rules for UNSCOM's activities. Bluntly, Saddam Hussein has had plenty of opportunities, if he was willing to take them, to sit at the table and discuss with the United Nations the clear rules under which effective inspections could be carried out. He has demonstrated clearly that he is unwilling to do that.
One reason why the British Government were right to take action in the past 24 to 48 hours is very much connected with the credibility of the United Nations, its future role in worldwide peace and security and the removal of dictators. We should remember that Saddam
1178
Hussein has consistently shown his unwillingness to uphold those principles and values. He is concerned with oppressing and murdering the people who are unfortunate enough to live within his territory and he has demonstrated his determination to extend its boundaries. I have no doubt that, if he thought that it would further his political power-seeking ends, he would use any weapons that he had managed to conceal from the United Nations against anyone whom he disliked or who had displeased him.
The House should send a message tonight that the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members fully support the action taken by the British and American Governments and that we support and acknowledge the courage and commitment of our armed forces and their professionalism and skill. Our hearts go out to them and to their families, who are sitting at home watching television and dreading it when the phone rings, as that might bring the worst news.
Hon. Members must say clearly that the British Government are demonstrating our determination and commitment to a genuine role in future for the United Nations, that we are seeking to build a stable and secure world for the next millennium and that we will take whatever action is necessary within our parliamentary and democratic traditions to give due notice to Saddam Hussein and all the other evil dictators in the world that their time has come. If they show their unwillingness to comply with the United Nations and all that it stands for, we shall use all necessary force to ensure that they do so.
Mr. Galloway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Three times in the course of this debate—once this afternoon and twice this evening—the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has launched a bitter, personal attack on me, which included attributing to me a totally false quotation. I did not rise to contradict it because I hoped to catch your eye in the six and a half hours that I have sat here. However, as I have not been called, would you advise me what remedy I have, as an hon. Member of this House, for a baseless, personal slur which was launched against me by another Member, to which I have not had the opportunity to reply?
Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I think that I have heard enough to deal with that matter. It is not a point of order for the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman has now had his say.
Mr. Winnick rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that point of order. I call Mr. Maples.
9.21 pm
Mr. John Maples: About 10 days ago, we had a defence debate and I told the Secretary of State that it was the eighth day of defence debates since 19 October, which was a few too many. Here we are back again a few days later. On none of those occasions, however, did we discuss a matter as important as this, with British troops about to go into action in the Gulf.

1179
Given that our armed forces are about to be asked to go into action, they deserve to know that the country and the House are wholly behind them. The tenor of this debate has clearly shown that that is so, and I am delighted that all those who have spoken on the Opposition Benches were supportive of the Government, including my right hon. Friend the Shadow Foreign Secretary.
Most of those on the Labour Benches, including the hon. Members for Walsall, South (Mr. George), for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), were wholly supportive of the Government's position.
The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) put his finger on the crux of this matter, which is that Saddam Hussein wants to dominate the region. That is why we all feel that it is appropriate to have pursued the action that has been pursued in the past few years since the Gulf war—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. An electronic device has gone off in the Chamber. Hon. Members must either learn to switch those off before they come into the Chamber or leave them outside the Chamber.
Mr. Maples: Saddam's desire to dominate the region is at the crux of this matter, just as it was at the crux of the Gulf war. The west has vital interests in the region for a variety of reasons. Clearly, had Iraq got away with the invasion of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia would have been next, and he would soon have dominated the whole Gulf and the world's oil supplies. He would have become not just a threat to the rest of the region, but a violent, evil threat, armed with weapons of mass destruction. Those ambitions are not yet dead, which is one of the reasons why the Government's action is appropriate.
The Conservative Members who spoke all supported the Government's position. They made various points. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) said that it is unrealistic to restrict oneself to basing all military action on UN resolutions. There are bound to be times when that is impossible and when it would paralyse our ability and that of our allies to take appropriate action, or delay it to the point when it was bound to lose much of its effectiveness.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) discussed the possible dangers imposed by the onset of Ramadan. I shall return to that and ask the Secretary of State's views on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), while making his usual eloquent pitch for the Territorial Army, cast doubts on the efficacy of using air power alone, a view shared by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and others.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) talked about chemical and biological weapons and their dangers, and my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) drew attention to what he considered to be the double standard applied to Iraq and to Israel. He said that, with today's operation, we had embarked on a long-term policy whose implementation would be dangerous and difficult.
The debate came to life with the speech by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the response that it provoked from my right hon. Friend the
1180
Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). They put forward the alternative opinions evident in the House, although those hon. Members who side with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield form a very small minority. However, the right hon. Gentleman could not have expressed his views more eloquently or passionately, and he provoked an equally eloquent and passionate response from my right hon. Friend.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield led a significant group of Labour Members opposed to Government policy. Among those whose dissent was visible to me were the hon. Members for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway), for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).
Mr. Galloway: I want to point out that I did not speak in the debate, as I was not called.
Mr. Maples: The hon. Gentleman spoke in response to the Prime Minister's statement, and on several occasions he indicated his dissent. The diatribes that he provoked from some other Labour Members made his opinion on the matter pretty clear.
I was surprised by the stance of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), which appeared to be that the United States and the United Kingdom should not intervene in circumstances such as obtain in Iraq and should not act as the world's police. That seems to sit rather strangely with the line that the hon. Gentleman took over Bosnia, when he used his position as a reporter to call for and promote intervention by the United States and the United Kingdom. I am not sure that the circumstances are as different as would be necessary if he were going to be able to sustain his argument.
The argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and those who agree with him deserves to be answered. I shall try to do so, but I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence will do so as well. When Members on both Front Benches agree, there is a danger that minority opinions do not get answered. However wrong one considers them to be, they are entitled to a response.
The speech by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield was rather like the speeches of the late Enoch Powell, which required intent listening, offered a series of propositions and eventually ended with a conclusion with which one completely disagreed. At that point, one realised that somewhere along the way one must have been tricked by the logic. The right hon. Gentleman achieved the same feat, very eloquently and passionately.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to make two specific points: first, that, in the absence of agreement under article 46 of the United Nations charter, the action was illegal; secondly, that it was anyway immoral to bomb in circumstances where there might be civilian damage and casualties. The point about the legality of the action seemed to imply that it would be all right if there had been an appropriate United Nations resolution. However, I do not understand how the absence or presence of such a resolution could determine whether the action was moral.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maples: I shall finish this point. If the attack was immoral, I do not see how a United Nations resolution

1181
could have made it moral. That apparent inconsistency in the morality argument means that it can be exploded pretty effectively. It is an argument against military action anywhere, at any time and in any circumstances.
That inconsistency was pointed out in a trenchant intervention by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie). He crippled the argument of the right hon. Gentleman for Chesterfield simply by asking what the right hon. Gentleman would do. The right hon. Gentleman fell back on some rather legalistic points, but essentially there is no answer to the question. Those who say that the Government and the action being pursued are wrong can, perfectly justifiably, be asked what they would do, but they never have an alternative to offer. They must accept that the result of having no alternative policy and of not pursuing the action that is proposed would be that Saddam Hussein would be left in place, in relatively peaceful circumstances, to pursue his policy of arming himself with weapons of mass destruction, thus posing an even greater threat to the peace of the region than at present.
Mr. Dalyell: Before we leave the question of morality, the hon. Gentleman will not have had the opportunity to see the film footage being shown tonight of the annihilation of parts of Baghdad. It is really vomit-making. It is pretty terrible to think that we are responsible, and that is a moral question.
Mr. Maples: I must say that I wonder whether this is just Iraqi—
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not possible to intervene on an intervention.
Mr. Maples: I am happy to give way and let them argue with each other, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I correct the record? My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is exaggerating. What we have seen on television in the last hour is the very effective selective bombing of military establishments on the outskirts of Baghdad. We are all very thankful for it—as, indeed, will be people in the surrounding countries.
Mr. Maples: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has dealt with the intervention of the hon. Member for Linlithgow better than I could have. However, one of the things that concern me about the pictures that we shall see in the press and on television is the fact that many of them will be Iraqi propaganda. Journalists will not be able to go freely where they want to go. I hope that the media will not continue to fall for that propaganda, as they already seem to be doing. For instance, on the front page of the Evening Standard is a colour photograph of an injured man, but we do not know that he was injured in a bombing raid. The editors of newspapers, and of radio and television programmes, have an obligation not to print Iraqi propaganda uncritically, when members of the British armed forces—men and women—are endangering their lives on our behalf in the Gulf. The effect of such propaganda on their families must be very damaging,
1182
and I feel that, in such circumstances, the media have a responsibility not to print and use it in such an apparently uncritical way.
The great benefit of the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield was that it provoked the response of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater. He gave what I consider to be the most spirited defence of the Government's position. He said, trenchantly and passionately, that Iraq was a menace to the peace and stability of the region, and that it was run by a vicious and evil dictator who was developing weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. This was unfinished business from the Gulf war, and a threat that must now be removed.
We wholly support the Government's position. The credibility of the willingness of the United States and the United Kingdom to act was at stake. Sufficient final warnings had been given after the events of November, when Saddam Hussein backed down at the last minute. I am sure that other dictators around the world—including Mr. Milosevic—are watching events closely.
Mr. Benn: The Conservative party had an alternative in dealing with Saddam. It armed him. When the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) was Secretary of State for Defence, Iraqi pilots were being trained by the Royal Air Force until a few days before the invasion of Kuwait. The truth is that the Conservatives' support for Saddam throughout the Iran-Iraq war completely destroys the moral basis of their argument.
As for the law and morality, I thought that law and morality were supposed to go together, and that an illegal action could not be moral. That is an argument that the hon. Gentleman should address.
Mr. Maples: The right hon. Gentleman seemed to me to be saying that something that he thought was immoral could have been made moral by a resolution of the United Nations Security Council. I do not see how that circle could have been squared. I must also point out that it was my party, in government, that fought the Gulf war—with, I have to say, the support of the right hon. Gentleman's party—and that, in view of that, it is inappropriate to criticise us as the right hon. Gentleman did.
Let me ask the Secretary of State some specific questions, which I hope he will have time to answer. I understand that there are 12 Tornado GR1s in Kuwait, and six more in Saudi Arabia. If the bombing campaign is likely to go on for more than a few days, will that be enough, and will the ordnance and support there be enough? I also understand that our forces are under the operational command and control of the United States. What is the role of permanent joint headquarters in the command line, and are the arrangements similar to previous arrangements that we have had with the United States when we have been the "junior partner" in a military operation?
I do not know whether the Secretary of State can tell us what damage was done to Iraqi air defences last night, and how easily he thinks that the losses might be replaced. Obviously, however, damaging or destroying air defences is a key part of the initial phases of the campaign, and of the safety of the pilots and crews of our aircraft, who will rely on their having been destroyed. We all wish them luck, and want them to know that our prayers are with

1183
them—and that we sympathise with their families, who, at a time when the rest of us are planning to take a few days off, will know that their loved ones are on active service, and endangering their lives.
I recognise the military objective that the Government have set. It is a limited objective: to degrade weapons of mass-destruction capability, and to destroy enough military assets to weaken Saddam Hussein's grip on power. Can the Secretary of State tell us the extent of the planned destruction? Can he give us some idea of how long the campaign might last and, particularly, can he give us some idea about how the Government will judge whether they have been successful in achieving the objectives, and at what stage they will think that it is appropriate to terminate the bombing campaign?
There has been a considerable amount of discussion and some lack of clarity over whether it is felt that Saddam Hussein's removal is an essential precondition for re-establishing peace and stability in the region. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether that is an objective of the United States-United Kingdom policy? We think that it should be a policy objective, but we agree that it should not be an objective of the military campaign. I do not see how it could be achieved deliberately by the military campaign. Does the Secretary of State think that, in the long run, it will be possible to resolve the issue without getting rid of Saddam?
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey raised the problem of the start of Ramadan. Does the Secretary of State think that that will be a problem with our Arab allies in this enterprise, many of whom are, at present, not saying very much, but are doing so in a fairly constructive way? I am sure that we would not want to do anything that might damage that support.
The main issue, which has been largely unposed and unanswered in the debate—I am not asking the Secretary of State to answer tonight, but I hope that the Government are thinking about it—is what we see as the end objective for Iraq. There is a danger of creating a power vacuum in a strategically important part of the world. We need a substantive and friendly Government in Iraq. I am sure that that is an objective that the Government share, but we have not articulated—we have not tried and neither have the Government—exactly what that objective is and how the Government propose to reach it. We seem to have a limited interim military objective of destroying the military capability and weapons of mass destruction, but no longer-term view on where we want to get to.
Civilian casualties are an inevitable consequence of campaigns such as this and they are what make many of us draw back from getting involved. The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister both articulated that sentiment for themselves. At the end of the day, the only justification for war is that the ends justify the means. In these circumstances and with modern weapons and intelligence, I hope that those civilian casualties can be limited to the absolute minimum. With any luck, there will be very few. It is inevitable that there will be some and, as I have said before, I hope that we shall not be taken in and influenced by Iraqi propaganda, and that the media will not fall for that.
Can the Secretary of State tell us what support the Government have had from France? France and Russia signed up to the United Nations resolutions. It is disappointing that they do not seem to be prepared to
1184
support whole-heartedly the action that is necessary to enforce those resolutions. It shows how important the United Kingdom-United States axis is in all these defence matters, and it shows how the interests of ourselves and France can differ in both our agendas and the national interests that we perceive.
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what has been the reaction of the Arab League and what diplomatic activity is going on in the Gulf? Can he tell us what support he expects or has from the Arab world? Are there any plans to raise this matter in front of the Security Council in the next few days? Does Austria have any plans to call together the General Affairs Council of the European Union? What efforts are taking place to secure the whole-hearted support of the European Union under the common foreign and security policy? All those countries have issues at stake in this region, just as we do.
Will the Secretary of State say a word about possible Iraqi retaliation either in the Gulf, perhaps in Israel or even through some form of terrorist attack against United Kingdom or United States people, or even on our respective territories? That opens a wider issue which, at some time, we would like to pursue, and that is the general problem of asymmetric threats and of rogue states with weapons of mass destruction and their ability to do damage to us. In paragraph 47, the strategic defence review promised a review of the issue over the summer and the production of a coherent national response to those threats. Is that ready, and when can we expect to receive it? The United States has a rather different policy and a far greater commitment to this through its Defence Threat Reduction Agency, with responders being trained in 120 United States cities and 10 special National Guard units. We will want to revisit that issue in the future.
We in the Conservative party fully support the Government's action. This evil business must be finished if possible, for the peace and stability of the region to be restored. We fear that it will not be possible fully to realise that until Saddam Hussein is removed from power in Iraq. The Government will face difficult problems in handling this crisis. They can count on our support for their objectives and having taken military action. We shall watch closely how they implement their policy and deal with those difficult issues as they arise.
9.40 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): We have had a good, appropriate debate about the joint decision by the United Kingdom and the United States of America to take military action to reduce the threat from Saddam Hussein's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons capability and ambition. We have had speeches of passion and conviction, and of substance and gravity, but all of some considerable and appropriate sobriety, too.
It is invidious often at the beginning of winding-up speeches to single out hon. Members who have spoken, and I should like to deal with some of the points raised. Nevertheless, my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), the Chairmen of the Select Committees on Defence and on Foreign Affairs respectively, made valuable contributions. We heard moving and outstanding speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who has had a long, consistent

1185
interest in this subject, and my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who spoke with passion and experience. We heard speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) made an interesting contribution before he departed to the outer limits of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who has been involved in the campaign against Saddam Hussein for far longer than many others, contributed well.
The hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin), the former chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, made a valuable contribution, not of all of which I agreed with, but some of his points were pertinent. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who held my position when Saddam Hussein last threatened not only his neighbours but international stability, made several perceptive points which have been useful to me in my detailed consideration of these affairs. I shall deal with some of the points as I go through my speech, although it is physically and verbally impossible to deal with the plethora of questions from hon. Members.
My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary clearly explained why we decided that we had to take military action this week. No one should imagine that that decision was taken lightly or without deep and careful thought. As the Prime Minister said, there can be no greater responsibility for any politician than to ask British service men and women to go out and risk their lives for their country and for international law and order.
I have listened, as we all have, carefully to the views of those opposed to the use of force. Perhaps some of us have sympathy for some of the feelings expressed. Military action inevitably has direct human consequences. Nobody involved in authorising or taking military action should ever close his or her eyes to that fact. Those who oppose the use of force must ask what alternative there could have been in the present circumstances.
Mr. Canavan: Earlier this year, I asked the Foreign Secretary specifically, whether he could rule out the possibility of a nuclear attack on Iraq. He replied:
"Yes, I can rule that out straight away."—[Official Report, 10 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 154.]
More recently, he said that nothing could be ruled out. Which of his statements does the Defence Secretary agree with?
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware of what the position of Governments in this country has consistently been on that subject. If there is any question of this country's existence being under threat, the position is quite clear. Those who oppose the use of force—
Mr. Canavan: It is not clear at all—the statements are contradictory.
Mr. Robertson: Those who, in the debate today, have opposed the use of force have to answer the simple question of what the alternative would be. I contend that
1186
there was no alternative to what we have done. Quite simply, Saddam has almost certainly retained some stocks of chemical and biological weapons and has the capability to regenerate more. It is clear from the concealment, lying and deception that we have witnessed over the years that his prime objective is to keep that capability, and that cannot be allowed. The only reason that he would go to such lengths to retain his weapons of mass destruction capability is if he is prepared to use them. As long as he retains that capability, Saddam will remain the most serious threat to the stability of the whole of the middle east and to the security of his neighbours—neighbours who have been under threat for a long time.
It may sound far-fetched to some people to suggest that Saddam would actually use chemical and biological weapons, and to those who are normal that is indeed true. However, he has already done so. He used chemical agents extensively against Iran and even against his own people at Halabja in March 1988, when he killed thousands of Iraqi Kurds with mustard gas and the nerve agent tabun. I have met the refugees from Halabja and spoken to some of those who survived. They talked of what they called the bombs with no voices. The effects of that attack were indescribably horrible, and left physical and psychological scars on the survivors which will never heal. However, that was using only chemical weapons; the potential devastation that he could wreak with biological weapons—the biological weapons that have been uncovered by the UNSCOM inspectors—is many times more serious.
Mr. Cohen: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Will he clear up one point that was raised during the debate? He has referred to chemical weapons. During the Foreign Secretary's speech, it was pointed out that we would not be targeting chemical weapons in the bomb and missile attacks, yet the Prime Minister and other Ministers have talked of degrading them. Will the Secretary of State for Defence square that apparent contradiction?
Mr. Robertson: There is absolutely no contradiction. We are targeting the machinery through which the chemical weapons could be used. I am not prepared to go into detailed operational issues for understandable reasons, but I can assure the House that all relevant factors were taken into account in selecting the targets for the operations and only precision-guided weaponry is being used.
We are united in agreeing that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his capability in that respect must be dismantled. That is a sentiment that unites the international community and all members of the UN Security Council. We would all prefer that to have been achieved peacefully and diplomatically. Some believed that that was still possible. The Government and, I believe, the majority of those in the House did not. Saddam has had seven years in which to comply with his obligation to the UN to give up his weapons of mass destruction. He has been given chance after chance after chance to co-operate and on every occasion he has lied, cheated and obstructed. The time for diplomacy has passed.
The Prime Minister and the President of the United States gave the clearest possible warning on 16 November that if there were any further obstruction we would strike without warning. True to form, Saddam Hussein not only

1187
obstructed UNSCOM yet again, but made its whole job impossible. The conclusion of Ambassador Butler's report is inescapable to anyone who has concerns about the subject.
The campaign is limited but intensive; we have chosen targets that are connected to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction capability, with other capabilities which pose a threat to his neighbours, such as command and control capabilities, and with air defence systems which could pose a threat to coalition aircraft involved in the operation. That operation is on-going, and United Kingdom aircraft are in the air as we speak. It will continue for as long as is necessary.
Saddam Hussein's record of non-compliance is considerable. His non-compliance with resolution 687 is not confined to his disavowal of the regime of the UNSCOM inspectors. He has not complied with practically every point that he accepted as part of the ceasefire settlement. I shall outline just one. At the time of the ceasefire, Saddam Hussein was called upon, and agreed to, repatriate the Kuwaiti prisoners of war. They have never been repatriated, and that is a disgrace and a continuing stain on Saddam Hussein. We will not forget those who were captured and remain in detention.
The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary explained fully and clearly how Saddam has failed to comply on the weapons of mass destruction front. The fact is that that non-compliance has continued on and off throughout the period since the end of the war. Saddam Hussein attacked the Iraqi Kurds in April 1991 and we introduced the northern no-fly zone. He threatened Kuwait again in 1994. In 1992, he attacked the Shia in the marshlands of southern Iraq and we were obliged to establish no-fly zones in southern Iraq as well. In 1996, Saddam Hussein again attacked his own countrymen and women in the Kurdish north of Iraq. Throughout those years, he obstructed and deceived the UNSCOM inspectors. He said at first that he had no chemical or biological weapons. As those weapons were disclosed and discovered, he continued to lie about the weapons that he retained and failed to disclose.
Several hon. Members—including the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples)—asked an important question during the debate. As the military action continues, I think that it deserves an answer in my winding-up speech. That question is: what is the long-term strategy after this military operation has ended? First, Saddam Hussein's obligations to disarm will remain and, come what may, he must one day comply fully with the resolutions agreed at the end of the Gulf war. Secondly, as a result of this military action, his capability to build and use chemical and biological weapons, and therefore his ability to threaten his neighbours, will be severely damaged and diminished.
Thirdly, the sanctions regime will remain in place and enforcement will be tightened so that the funding of the soft life of the Iraqi elite and the military superstructure of Iraq will become increasingly difficult. Saddam Hussein will eventually have to take back the UNSCOM inspectors if he wants the sanctions to end. Fourthly, until Saddam Hussein complies fully with the United Nations Security Council resolutions, we will not withdraw the threat of renewed military action without warning. If he tries once again to regain his capability to develop
1188
weapons of mass destruction and his ambition to intimidate and threaten his neighbours, he will have to face the consequences. We will not go away.
Hon. Members have asked about the command and control of British troops in the Gulf operation. Royal Air Force aircraft engaged in operations over Iraq are under the tactical control of the US joint force commander, but political control is retained at all times by this Government.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) and others asked what our deadline is for military action. I am not willing, and no Member would expect me, to answer that question in detail. Military action will cease when we judge that we have achieved our objectives. We are, of course, sensitive to the start of the Muslim holy month, as hon. Members would expect us to be.
Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Robertson: No, I have very little time and I should like to do justice to hon. Members' questions and arguments.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) cast doubt on the legality of the operation, but they could not have been listening to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. If stating the case a third time will enable them to comprehend, let me say that in February—few of us will ever forget it—following Kofi Annan's initiative and visit to Baghdad, the UN Security Council resolved that any violation of the provisions of its resolution 687, relating to the immediate, unconditional and unconstrained access of UN special inspectors to the sites that they believed held the weapons of mass destruction, would lead to the severest consequences for Iraq. That warning was enshrined in a Security Council resolution.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and anyone else who needs reassurance on that important point that Ambassador Butler's report yesterday to the United Nations could hardly have been clearer in outlining the systematic failure of the Iraqi regime to honour those conditions. There is no doubt about that fact.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon and the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), asked about Arab support for our action in the Gulf. I remind them that, when the Damascus declaration states—Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Oman—met on 12 November, they stated that Saddam alone would be to blame for any repercussions following his decision to cease co-operation with UNSCOM. They were clear and unambiguous on that point. The Gulf Co-operation Council has more recently reiterated the need for Saddam to comply with UN Security Council resolutions.
I know that the House is conscious of how grave is the situation in the Gulf this week. Of course, there is a price to be paid for taking military action against any brutal dictator, especially one with no principles, no scruples and no sense of humanity. There are risks to human beings, whether they are the pilots of our planes or civilians and others in Iraq, many of whom will be deliberately placed

1189
in danger by that regime. I know, more than most, how important are those considerations in making plans for any military action. I would regret bitterly any loss of life or limb.
We wanted a peaceful outcome, but Saddam Hussein did not. The price of doing nothing would be far, far greater. The price of letting Saddam Hussein develop—
Mr. Benn rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put:—
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no Member willing to act as Teller for the Ayes, so the motion now lapses, and we move on.
Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does this not mean that the House has voted unanimously against the military operation in the Gulf?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. We must now move on to the next business.
Mr. Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House has voted not to adjourn, so the debate continues.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House has not voted. It is now past 10 pm; the motion lapses, and we must move on.
Mr. Galloway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not taking any more points of order on this issue.
Mr. Galloway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not taking any more points of order on that issue.
Mr. Galloway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the same point of order?
Mr. Galloway: No.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it further to the previous point of order?
Mr. Galloway: Yes.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have dealt with that, and we must now move on.
Mr. Galloway: So the House is being cheated—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that point of order, and we must now move on.
Mr. Galloway: The House has been cheated of its opportunity to vote—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that point of order. We shall now move on to the next business.
Mr. Galloway: The House has been cheated of an opportunity. The minority of hon. Members who are against the war—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When I am on my feet, hon. Members will sit down. The hon. Gentleman has had more than his say this afternoon.
Mr. Galloway: I beg your pardon—I have not even been called this afternoon.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point.
Mr. Galloway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I insist on my right as a Member of Parliament to raise a point of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the same point of order?
Mr. Galloway: It is not.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, I will listen to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Galloway: The country is at war and, as a result of a procedural trick, the minority opposition to that war is being cheated of the opportunity to record its vote. What kind of Government—what kind of war effort—require parliamentary democracy to be abused and mocked in such a circumstance?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have heard the hon. Gentleman's point of order, but we must, I am afraid, now move on.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that there is no motion on the Order Paper on the military action? The only motion on the Order Paper is for the Adjournment of the House. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) has simply misread the procedures of the House of Commons. He does not understand.
Mr. Galloway: You cannot face 20 people opposing you—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is enough. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin is an experienced Member of the House. We all know and understand just how important this debate is and just how much emotion it has aroused. The House has listened to his point of order and fully understands both his concerns and his point of view, but we must move on to preserve the rest of the business. I trust that he will accept that.
Mr. Benn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that we have dealt more than adequately with the point of order.
Mr. Benn rose—
Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot prolong the debate, which, in a sense, is what the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) are seeking to do.
Mr. Dalyell: On a separate point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not within your power to ask Madam

1191
Speaker to resume the Chair? Frankly, this issue—I speak with 36 years' experience in the House—bluntly brings the House of Commons and its procedures into disrepute. Minorities have a right to register their view. On one previous occasion, Speaker Selwyn-Lloyd came to the Chair in roughly similar circumstances. Could we ask, through you, that Madam Speaker be apprised of the situation?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says.
Mr. Canavan: rose—
Mr. Benn rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that we have followed the procedures of the House. At this point, there is nothing more that I can do to help. We must move to the next item of business.
Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not taking any more points of order.
Mr. Benn rose—
Mr. Canavan rose—
Mr. John Austin: I spy Strangers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have dealt with matters as the House should. Hon. Members may not be content personally with the way in which things have gone, but we have followed the procedures of the House. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) is here to present a petition to the House. It is only right that we should move on to such business.
Mr. Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not taking any more points of order.
Mr. Benn rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must not be on his feet when I am on my feet. He has heard today's debate; the subject has been thoroughly aired. I understand his concern about the way in which the proceedings have ended, but we cannot correct them tonight. I am not prepared to dwell on this
1192
matter any longer. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make any complaint about the way in which things have gone, he may do so through the usual channels.
Mr. Benn rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. We shall now take the petition.
Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have no idea, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what I wish to put to you.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it an entirely separate point of order?
Mr. Benn: It is entirely separate. I make no complaint about the procedural correctness of what happened. I want to put it on record that the Government called a special debate but the House of Commons was denied the opportunity to register its opinion, yet British service men and women are at risk. I put that on the record as a matter of fact—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As I thought, the right hon. Gentleman is seeking only to prolong the debate and put further things on record. I am sure that other hon. Members who are rising in their places also want to put other things on the record. I shall now call Mr. Tony McWalter.
Mr. Galloway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not taking any more points of order.
Mr. Galloway: On a separate point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is an entirely separate point of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that all the points—
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No; I am on my feet. When I am on my feet other hon. Members will sit down. I cannot believe, with all honesty, that the points of order that hon. Gentlemen are seeking to raise are not related to the matters on which we have now spent several hours. I addressed the hon. Member for Kelvin at great length a few moments ago, and I thought that he understood the

1193
position. Many of the other hon. Members who are seeking to rise are experienced Members of the House. I have already said that I understand the feelings that are aroused by a debate like this, but we have done things correctly as the House should do them, and there is nothing more that we can do to correct things tonight. If hon. Members want to raise—
Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. I am not prepared to take the points of order. Hon. Members really ought to be fair to the hon. Member who is waiting to present his petition. Mr. Tony McWalter.
Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Galloway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am now prepared to take points of order only if they are on entirely separate matters.
Mr. Cohen: On a point of order on an entirely different matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) say, "I spy Strangers." I am not sure whether you heard that, and whether we could take a vote on that matter.
Mr. Galloway: I spy Strangers, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to tell the House that there is no such motion that we can put before it. Tony McWalter.
Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Galloway: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We now come to the petition.

PETITION

  Hemel Hempstead General Hospital
  10.12 pm
  Mr. Tony McWalter: I wish to present a petition. It states:
  The Humble Petition of 35,610 persons likely to be affected detrimentally by the plans of the West Hertfordshire Health Authority, which plans were submitted recently to the Secretary of State for Health for his decision,
  Sheweth That
  The aforesaid plans imply potentially closure of or downgrading of the Hemel Hempstead General Hospital, notwithstanding that the said hospital has had within the year 1998 a new Accident and Emergency facility built at a cost of over £5 million,
  and that
  The acute services available at the aforesaid Hemel Hempstead General Hospital are held in the highest regard by the community of West Hertfordshire,
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray your Honourable House urge that the aforesaid plans of the West Hertfordshire Health Authority be not countenanced by the Secretary of State for Health
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Tourism, Leisure and Sport
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
  10.13 pm
  Mr. Tom Pendry: It says here, "What a great pleasure it is to be called at this time." [Laughter.] It is especially fitting to have secured the Adjournment debate on the subject of tourism, sport and leisure just before the House—and the country—turns its attention to the Christmas period, when there will be much enjoyment of, and participation in, all such activities.
  I want to address not just the pleasure that those activities bring to millions of people in this country, but the crucial economic contribution that they make to our economy. In the past generation, sport, tourism and leisure have grown to become one of the largest and most important contributors to today's modern economy. Sport and leisure now employ some 750,000 people, and every year more than £10 billion is spent on sport consumer products.
  The Treasury receives £3.5 billion in tax revenues from the sports industry. On an even larger scale, tourism now contributes more than £53 billion to the economy and provides 1.7 million jobs. In 1997, 26.2 million visitors came to Britain. It is estimated that, in the next 10 years, 400,000 new jobs will be created in that sector, given the right conditions for growth and support from the Government. It is that support that I and some 220,000 small and medium-sized firms seek. I am still concerned that sport, leisure and tourism, which have many interlocking synergies, are not given sufficient recognition by the Government as true economic powerhouses and in terms of their potential for growth.
  Earlier this week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced major reforms of the Government's funding of cultural activities. It was disappointing to note that there was little increase in funding for sport and tourism. In economic terms, tourism is by far the biggest and most important component of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. In some cases, it provides the wealth that subsidises other components of the Department such as the arts and museums.
  The British Tourist Authority achieves a return for the UK economy of £27 for every £1 of public money spent on marketing abroad. The fact that it is to reallocate £5 million to spend on marketing in key markets is welcome, but I think that the Secretary of State could have granted a larger increase in its budget, especially when one realises that such expenditure leads to an increase in Exchequer revenue, as visitors from overseas pay various direct and indirect taxes.
  We await with interest the more detailed proposals for the restructured English tourist board. We are told that it will be more strategically focused. We must ensure that it plays a positive role in promoting the attractions of leisure and tourism that England offers in the United Kingdom marketplace. I welcome the renewed commitment to the industry shown by the Secretary of State through the expanded tourism forum, which was set up when we were in opposition, and which he chairs. I welcome the enthusiasm that the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting has brought to her job. I am pleased that she
  1196
  is replying to the debate. I know that since her appointment she has consulted widely on a new tourism strategy, which is set to be published early in the new year. As chairman of the all-party tourism group, I await that development with great interest.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not ignore the thinking that the party has already undertaken on the subject. In opposition, we undertook extensive consultation with many sectors of tourism and the hospitality industry. Much of that work was done in partnership with the industry forum, and we subsequently received much praise from the industry's leaders when we published our policy document "Breaking New Ground—Labour's strategy for tourism and hospitality". That comprehensive policy document, which set out a strategy for the tourism industries, was published before the election by me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who, as shadow Secretary of State for National Heritage, had responsibility for tourism.
  Our document contained a range of policies and initiatives to improve our tourism infrastructure and economy. They involved updating tourism structures, enhancing standards, co-ordinating overseas marketing and investing in people. The centrepiece of our tourism policy, and a commitment that I hope will be reiterated in the forthcoming tourism strategy, was the proposal to introduce a new development of tourism Bill. It is now 25 years since a previous Labour Government introduced the Development of Tourism Act 1969, the first and only such legislation, which gave a coherent focus to tourism, marketing and promotion. Clearly, in that time circumstances have changed and new challenges have arisen.
  As tourism grows to be the world's biggest industry and becomes such a mainstay of our economy, it is vital that we review and update the structures of government support. I was therefore encouraged to note that, in the "New Cultural Framework" document, reference was made to the Department's hope of finding an opportunity to amend legislation to ensure that England, Scotland, Wales and London were formally represented on the board of the British Tourist Authority.
  An issue of concern to a significant sector of the tourism industry in London is the development of tourism on the Thames. Such tourism has grown immeasurably in recent years, with new markets and considerable investment, following the Port of London Authority's "partners in progress" programme. The Thames now attracts 2 million visitors a year, generating a revenue of between £20 million and £30 million a year, yet London still lags behind cities such as Paris in its exploitation of the river as a tourist attraction.
  In April 1999, as the House knows, responsibility for all river functions will pass to London River Services, a newly formed subsidiary of London Transport. There is a concern that the new body will focus on transport to the detriment of tourism, jeopardising the considerable investment that operators have in our river.
  I know that it is the intention of the Department to be represented in every regional office, and to play a much greater role in interdepartmental liaison. Can my hon. Friend assure me that she will look into the matter and make inquiries of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Government office for London, to ensure that tourism is fully integrated in the management of the river under London Transport?

  1197
  In economic terms, tourism is one of Britain's largest export industries. I wish to raise some of the concerns in the industry about the high taxes that we place on the product. Our VAT rate on hotel accommodation is the second highest in Europe. Other countries have taken advantage of our uncompetitive decision by reducing their VAT rates on hotel accommodation and attracting more visitors. I know that a report on the matter prepared by the BTA is before Ministers, and I urge them to consider it carefully.
  In a move that was even more damaging for tourism, the previous Government introduced and then doubled the rates of air passenger duty. It is the only unit tax that I know on an export product. Every visitor to Britain from Europe must pay £10 when catching a flight to the UK and £20 if travelling from outside the European Union. If visitors decide, as many do, to fly to Scotland, for example, or one of our regions, they must pay even more tax. That is damaging tourism growth, especially in Scotland and the regions—areas that often depend most on tourism.
  Recent figures released by the British Incoming Tour Operators Association reveal a 4 per cent. fall in visitor numbers during 1998, at a time when cool Britannia should be giving us a marketing edge on our competitors. Clearly, by doubling APD, the previous Government played a contributory part in the fall in numbers. APD damages our balance of payments and stymies further employment opportunities. I urge my hon. Friend and her colleagues in the Department to raise the issue with the Chancellor so that he does not repeat the Conservatives' folly by further increasing rates of APD.
  Before dealing with our most played and spectated sport, football, I shall touch on sport in general, which is a great earner for the British economy. Horse racing is often overlooked when sport is debated in the House. British racing is not only a leading spectator sport, but a major industry contributing massive amounts of revenue to our economy.
  More than 100,000 people are employed in the racing and betting industries, including one in eight agricultural workers. Racing and breeding generate exports worth more than £90 million a year and income exceeding £600 million a year. About £450 million a year is raised in tax and betting duty through betting on horse racing. There are more than 5 million racecourse attendances a year. Those figures indicate the scale of the sport and its importance to our economy. A study by KPMG in 1996 estimated that one in 15 racegoers is a tourist and therefore an overnight stayer. In 1996 about 330,000 tourists visited racecourses, of whom half were likely to be from overseas.
  The British Horseracing Board this year launched a financial plan that aims to secure the future of British racing on the international stage, as well as creating more jobs, raising more revenue and improving education and training opportunities in that industry. I hope that the Government will carefully examine the board's proposals and acknowledge the importance of the sport to our economy and culture.
  Next year's sporting calendar shows that in 1999 Britain will host a number of major sporting events, including world cup rugby and cricket tournaments, world
  1198
  judo and orienteering championships, as well as the much cherished annual events such as Wimbledon, open golf, Ascot and the Derby.
  It has been suggested by the national association for the governing bodies of sport that the Government adopt a tax exemption for sporting events parallel to that afforded to the UK film industry. The idea is to introduce a tax exemption that would assist governing bodies which host international bodies and sporting events, which, through tourism and related services, would bring considerable economic benefits to Britain. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will pass that message on to the Chancellor. She will be busy talking to him.
  Not only do we see the huge economic potential of sport, but it has considerable importance in promoting a healthier nation. A report published only this week reveals that 23 per cent. of young men and 19 per cent. of young women are overweight. Therefore, the promotion of sport not only benefits the Exchequer but leads to reduced demands on the NHS. The spending review, however, contains only a meagre increase in grant-in-aid for sport of £3 million in the period 1998 to 2001. Compared with grants to the arts and museums, that is insignificant. The sports world fears that it is being penalised for being efficient with its money and successful in its commercial activities.
  I must declare my interest as chairman of the Football Trust. It is true that the game is riding high at the moment—despite the unwelcome developments of the past few days at the Football Association, to which I will return later—compared with the 1980s, when, as chairman of the all-party football group, I and fellow members of the group worried for the very future of the game. Yet there is still a threat, and that is the persistent menace of the football hooligan. That is why I so warmly welcome the Government's statement last week on further legislation to clamp down on football hooligans, especially those who tarnish our name abroad.
  I must gently chide some Ministers for not recognising, when announcing so-called new policies, that many of the proposals have been Labour party policy for some time and were endorsed by the electorate. The failure to attribute the consultation and work that went into their development is, to say the least, disingenuous. Many of the proposals launched by the Home Office were contained in the charter for football launched before the election. Had the previous Government heeded our calls for such measures, we might not have had to witness some of the world cup scenes with so few powers at our disposal to deal with them.
  It is vital that such measures reach the statute book quickly. The United Kingdom is in a leading position to host the world cup in 2006, which would bring enormous benefits to the UK economy. Euro 96 brought a significant increase in the number of visitors to the country, bringing vital foreign exchange earnings with them.
  I hope that the Government's new sports strategy, also due this Session, will refer to the potential of sport to promote tourism and economic growth through Britain hosting major international sporting events.
  If we are still to make a credible bid for the world cup in 2006, which I am sure that we will and can as we have an excellent case, backed by superb stadiums, and a proven track record, our ability to manage and control our

  1199
  small yet persistent minority of soccer hooligans is vital. I am concerned that the Government see fit to leave such matters to the parliamentary tightrope of a private Member's Bill rather than bring them forward as a Government measure. We cannot underestimate the deadlines that we are up against. Euro 2000, to take place in Belgium and Holland, is just 18 months away. We must have legislation on the statute book to ensure that we do not see a repeat of some of the scenes in France.
  The economic potential of hosting major international sporting events for the UK is huge. The successful Euro 96 football competition brought the Exchequer approximately £60 million from taxes on products such as tickets, accommodation, food and drink, and from corporation tax. That is why the new sports cabinet must address urgently issues such as the future of Wembley stadium, and the establishment and day-to-day running of the Sports Institute and its regional academies—a policy promoted not by the former Prime Minister but by the late and greatly missed Denis Howell in opposition following extensive consultation with the sporting world.
  Those are the fundamentals that must be in place if we are successfully to bid for and win the right to host major events. I, for one, applaud the efforts of my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport in travelling the world, seeking support for England's bid to host the world cup in 2006. It is the day-to-day involvement of a member of the Government that will make a difference to the perception of our bid by the representatives of other countries.
  There is currently consultation on the Government's sports policy. Again I urge the Minister to reflect carefully on "Labour's Sporting Nation", the sports policy document that I launched during the election campaign. It set out the framework for a national strategy for sport covering such issues as school and youth sport, broadcasting, tackling drug abuse, local authority sport, reform of the lottery and the restructuring of sport. In that restructure it was our clear intention to make the Sports Council the lead strategic body for sport. That has still to occur to any meaningful extent, so I hope that it will feature in the sports strategy.
  Finally, I turn to Tuesday's events, which rocked the football world. I do not know the details of the events which led to the vote of no confidence in Mr. Wiseman, the chairman of the Football Association and the resignation of Graham Kelly, the chief executive, but it has been clear for many years that the FA needs restructuring. Personally, I am saddened by Mr. Kelly's departure. He is a man of great integrity and his love of football is obvious to all who know him. I am sure that the House joins me in wishing him well in future.
  David Davies, the acting chief executive, recognises the need for changes in the structure of the FA and I hope that he will be given every opportunity to kick start the process of change. I am sure that the House wishes him well in that task.
  Our document "A New Framework for Football—Labour's Charter for Football" was endorsed by the National Executive Committee and the shadow Cabinet as well as the FA, the Premier League, the Professional Footballers Association and the supporters' organisations and others. It had a foreword by the then Leader of the Opposition, now my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It stated:
  "Restructuring is underway at the Football Association, reflecting a long-established need for change. We welcome this recognition of the changing pressures and situations within the game. Labour's
  1200
  view is that further modifications to the Football Association's Executive Committee would bring about quicker decision-making and ensure a better say for the professional game. Labour would not wish to see football divided, and there has never been a greater need for coherence and consistency. Football deserves nothing less than a Football Association, fit for the 21st century, to oversee the game."
  That was our policy at the general election and I trust that it is now. I hope, therefore, that Ministers will adhere to the words of the Prime Minister in the foreword:
  "It is up to the Government working in partnership with the football authorities and other interested organisations to ensure that the right framework for football is created."
  Only when the appropriate structures are in place will we see a Football Association leading soccer at every level to where it deserves to be led.
  It was always my hope in 28 years in the House to see sport and latterly tourism elevated to their rightful places in the higher echelons of government. I hope that the present Government will fulfil that wish.
  10.32 pm
  The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on securing tonight's Adjournment debate and thank him for his kind words. As he said, I am extremely enthusiastic about my new role as Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting. He will know that one of the first things that I did was to change the order of my title to reflect the particular importance I attach to tourism. I also pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend does as chair of the all-party tourism group. My hon. Friend spoke about the need for Government support for those sectors. I assure him that we are very much aware of that, and of the importance of those sectors to the economy.
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport needs a champion for the industries who recognises their important contribution to the economy. We have such a champion in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  My hon. Friend has raised many different issues. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not respond to them all, but I shall do my best. He spoke about VAT rates on hotel accommodation. As he said, the Treasury is considering a report on that. He also referred to air passenger duty and his fear that any increase in that duty would damage tourism. He knows that that fear is shared by others. It is a good example of the Department having to undertake what my right hon Friend the Prime Minister calls joined-up government. I assure him that the industry's concerns about that matter have been conveyed to the appropriate places.
  My hon. Friend also spoke at length about sport and its contribution to the economy. He spoke about horse racing and the number of people who visited race courses. We shall look carefully at the board's proposals.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend again—he has so many hats that I could probably continue to do so for many hours—and thank him for the work that he has undertaken in his first 12 months as chairman of the Football Trust. Like him, I welcome the Government's intention to clamp down on football hooliganism. As he knows, the Minister for Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), will propose a sports strategy. I repeat what my hon. Friend said and applaud the Minister for all that he is doing to try to bring the world cup here in 2006.

  1201
  My hon. Friend was way ahead of us all: in opposition, he produced a document entitled "Breaking New Ground—Labour's strategy for tourism and hospitality". I assure him that the Department has used it as a guide in drawing up our strategy, which we shall publish in the new year. My hon. Friend was one of the first people to recognise both the importance of tourism and hospitality to the economy and the fact that it is the world's largest and fastest-growing industry. We now know that, in this country alone, tourism contributes some £53 billion a year to the economy and employs some 1.7 million people.
  The Government want to deliver what my hon. Friend promised in opposition: to assist Britain in attaining an unassailable position as one of the world's most popular tourist destinations, and to establish tourism as a source of national pride by encouraging investment in our infrastructure, communities, attractions and people.
  We have already gone some way towards meeting the objectives that my hon. Friend set out comprehensively in opposition. The first is the strategy, which is now almost ready. He referred to the outcome of the departmental spending review, particularly to the restructuring that we intend to carry out. That was decided after a wide consultation, to which we had more than 300 responses. I reassure my hon. Friend that its purpose was not to cut funding to tourism. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that it was about trying to assess whether there was a better and more effective way of spending our funding in support of the tourism industry.
  Virtually all the responses called for a smaller, more streamlined national strategic body to oversee English tourism. As we announced on Monday, that is how we see the way ahead. That body will concentrate on only five key areas: innovation; research; quality standards; disseminating best practice; and overseeing information systems. Funding in support of English tourism will be maintained, but a greater proportion will go to the regions for the direct provisions of services. I represent a beautiful constituency in the north-west, so I welcome that.
  We shall also work alongside other regional cultural organisations and development agencies. It is a chance for the regional tourist boards to develop a more strategic role. We must look carefully at the exact relationship between the national body, the regional development agencies and local authorities, and develop it, because it is important.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the British Tourist Authority. We were pleased to announce that the BTA will be provided with above-inflation increases next year and the year after. It is the first real increase in funding to tourism for many years. Under the previous Government, funding to the English tourist board dropped from £25 million to just under £10 million. It is only a small amount, but I hope that we are beginning to redress the balance. The BTA is also reallocating £5 million a year from within existing resources through restructuring,
  1202
  which will enable it to develop new marketing campaigns, provide a world-class information service in every office, further develop its award-winning internet sites and offer an improved service to the UK trade.
  The tourism forum was a 57-member advisory body, which represented a wide range of organisations involved in tourism and related areas. The forum has played an invaluable role in helping us to develop our new strategy for tourism. Some 200 people, through a number of smaller working groups, considered a range of issues. I thank those people for the dedication that they gave to the task. They are all busy people who do busy jobs, and we were enormously grateful that they gave up their time.
  Those groups examined human resources or people issues, a communications strategy for the industry, business tourism, cross-Whitehall issues affecting tourism, such as planning and transport, and widening access to tourism—about 40 per cent. of the population never take a holiday, and we intend to consider that matter carefully in conjunction with the social exclusion unit. One group examined visitor attractions, and another group on domestic tourism considered sustainability and quality, which are extremely important, and distribution.
  A strategic planning group, chaired by the Secretary of State, has met monthly since December 1997. The industry has welcomed my right hon. Friend's commitment to the workings of the forum. Our plans for the future of the tourism forum will be set out in our new strategy to be published next year.
  We are keen to offer strategic leadership to help the industry to increase its coherence and to remain globally competitive. That is why we have worked closely with the industry to formulate a comprehensive strategy. It is a determined attempt to provide joined-up government, with my Department promoting tourism's interests within government and maximising the industry's involvement in policy initiatives from across government. Key initiatives included in the strategy are aimed at promoting career opportunities in the industry, increasing access to tourism for those with low incomes, families, the elderly and the disabled, providing better information about tourism, and developing and promoting quality tourism experiences. The strategy will be about quality, value for money and service.
  I am running out of time, but I should like quickly to deal with my hon. Friend's remarks about London and the river. I take on board what he said. Under the Greater London Authority Bill, the mayor will have specific duties related to tourism, and we shall carefully consider what develops from that, because it is important. We are approaching the millennium, and the millennium dome will be the biggest tourist experience for many years.
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, till Monday 11 January, pursuant to Resolution [8 December].
  Adjourned at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HEALTH

  Care History (Children)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria are used for holding care history information centrally on children in care homes. [64213]

  Date

  Minister

  Place

  23 February 1998

  Minister for Public Health right hon. Tessa Jowell

  Anglia and Oxford Regional Office, Milton Keynes. Take a Break Cafe, Milton Keynes

  23 March 1998

  Secretary of State right hon. Frank Dobson

  Two Shires Ambulance National Health Service Trust, Milton Keynes

  8 April 1998

  Secretary of State right hon. Frank Dobson

  South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust, High Wycombe

  5 October 1998

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Mr. Paul Boateng

  Regional launch of National Priorities Guidance, Milton Keynes Council Chamber

  Investing in Dentistry
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to disburse the balance of funds available under Investing in Dentistry by the end of the current financial year; and if he will make a statement. [64249]

  Mr. Milburn
  Dispersal of the balance of funds depends on receiving bids from local health authorities and dentist that meet the criteria for grants under the investing in dentistry initiative.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 9 December 1998,Official Report, columns 201–02, on Investing in Dentistry, if he will list for each health authority area (a) the number of applications received, and (b) the gross funding awarded; and if he will make a statement. [64262]

  Mr. Milburn
  The table gives details of the number of Investing in Dentistry funding requests health authorities have submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, and the gross funding awarded to health authorities whose requests have been approved.

  Health authority

  Number of funding requests 1,2

  Gross funding approved3 £

  Avon

  12

  81,000

  Barnet

  6

  —

  Barnsley

  5

  72,900

  Bedfordshire

  2

  30,000

  Berkshire

  6

  85,000

  Bexley and Greenwich

  3

  —

  Birmingham

  2

  57,000

  Bradford

  4

  52,700

  Bury and Rochdale

  2

  —

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  4

  —

  618
  Mr. Hutton
  The Department collects anonymised statistical profiles of a one-third sample of all children who are looked after by local authorities in England, including those placed in children's homes. This information includes details of each child's placements, legal status, and reason for being looked after. A copy of the form on which these data are reported was published as an appendix to "Children Looked After by Local Authorities, Year Ending 31 March 1997, England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many official visits(a) he and (b) the Ministers in his Department have made to Buckinghamshire since 2 May 1997; and if he will list them. [64139]

  Ms Jowell
  Information on visits to Buckinghamshire is shown in the table.

  Health authority

  Number of funding requests 1,2

  Gross funding approved3 £

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  5

  127,400

  City and East London

  8

  164,000

  Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

  13

  301,800

  County Durham

  10

  110,000

  Coventry

  1

  —

  Doncaster

  5

  32,900

  Dorset

  5

  29,500

  Dudley

  1

  —

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  9

  112,600

  East Kent

  4

  —

  East Lancashire

  15

  44,000

  East Norfolk

  6

  96,000

  East Riding

  13

  184,500

  East Sussex

  3

  —

  Enfield and Haringey

  8

  —

  Gloucestershire

  18

  172,000

  Herefordshire

  2

  50,000

  Isle of Wight

  3

  85,000

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  18

  —

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  7

  77,700

  Leeds

  3

  —

  Leicestershire

  5

  29,300

  Lincolnshire

  2

  117,000

  Liverpool

  2

  96,000

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  5

  34,900

  Morecambe Bay

  10

  137,000

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  7

  67,400

  Northamptonshire

  6

  50,000

  North Cheshire

  1

  50,000

  North Cumbria

  14

  206,600

  North Derbyshire

  2

  60,400

  North and East Devon

  7

  253,800

  North Essex

  2

  37,400

  North and Mid Hampshire

  19

  185,200

  North Staffordshire

  10

  168,800

  North West Lancashire

  7

  161,800

  North Yorkshire

  30

  169,400

  North West Anglia

  4

  —

  619

  Health authority

  Number of funding requests 1,2

  Gross funding approved3 £

  Nottingham

  7

  35,700

  Oxfordshire

  7

  222,000

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  18

  170,500

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  6

  57,700

  Rotherham

  10

  141,500

  Salford and Trafford

  2

  22,300

  Sandwell

  8

  —

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  7

  —

  Shropshire

  11

  221,000

  Somerset

  17

  132,000

  Southern Derbyshire

  4

  12,000

  South Cheshire

  9

  155,700

  South Essex

  4

  40,000

  South Humber

  3

  59,000

  South Lancashire

  5

  23,300

  South Staffordshire

  7

  55,000

  South West Devon

  10

  213,700

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  18

  306,200

  Stockport

  1

  —

  Suffolk

  6

  109,000

  Sunderland

  6

  —

  Tees

  3

  —

  Walsall

  3

  —

  Warwickshire

  1

  —

  West Hertfordshire

  2

  40,000

  West Kent

  3

  80,200

  West Surrey

  8

  168,100

  West Sussex

  30

  90,600

  Wigan and Bolton

  4

  63,200

  Wiltshire

  20

  584,800

  Wirral

  4

  —

  Wolverhampton

  5

  50,000

  Worcestershire

  5

  40,000

  1 Number of requests includes re-submitted and revised applications.

  2 Some requests are still to be considered.

  3 Gross funding figures have been rounded up to the nearest hundred pounds.

  GP Lists
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been removed from general practitioners' lists in each health authority in each of the last five years. [64247]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information on the number of people removed from their general practitioner's list is collected annually and is published in the General Medical Practitioner Census Additional Data Collection. The latest published information relates to the year 1996–97.

  Information on the number of such removals in each of the last five years will be placed in the Library.

  NHS Complaints Procedures
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the outcome of the independent evaluation of NHS complaints procedures; and in what ways he is promoting good practice in this respect. [64484]

  Mr. Milburn
  A team consisting of the London Health Economics Consortium, the King's Fund and Public Attitude Surveys Ltd. was appointed to undertake the evaluation following a tender exercise earlier this year. The project will begin early in 1999 and the identification of good practice will remain a key objective.

  Electrical Wheelchairs
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what budget was allocated for the provision of self-propelled indoor/outdoor, non-attendant, electrical wheelchairs in the financial year 1997–98; what was the actual expenditure on electric wheelchairs in that year; and how many self-propelled indoor/outdoor, non-attendant, electric wheelchairs were issued in that year. [64477]

  Mr. Hutton
  In 1997/98 the sum of £7 million was allocated to enable the National Health Service to provide electrically-powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs. 4,500 chairs were issued in 1997/98. Total expenditure on the service, including costs such as additional assessment and training in the safe use of the chair as well as the cost of the chair, was £6,683,523.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Christchurch on behalf of his constituent, Mrs. King, dated 31 October, about exemption certificates for transport for medical treatment. [64442]

  Mr. Milburn
  I replied to the hon. Member on 11 December 1998.

  Mr. Barry Horne
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what costs were incurred by York District Hospital NHS Trust as a result of the stay of Mr. Barry Horne from 24 November to 10 December and subsequently. [64449]

  Mr. Milburn
  The costs for caring for a specific individual are not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to discuss the matter with the Chairman of the York Health Services National Health Service Trust.

  Healthy Living Centres
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the criteria for approving healthy living centres; and when the first healthy living centres will be approved. [64543]

  Ms Jowell
  The criteria for approving bids for lottery funding for healthy living centres are currently being developed by the New Opportunities Fund. The fund's draft application criteria, which specifies some of the areas it plans to include in its assessment criteria, is currently out for consultation. The fund plans to begin inviting bids early in 1999 and will make its first awards as soon as possible thereafter.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the Government propose to alter the process of(a) approving new NHS dentists and (b) allocating the relevant funds to health authorities. [64541]

  Mr. Milburn
  Dentists are registered by the General Dental Council, and are then free to work for the National Health Service if they wish, anywhere in the country. Funds are not allocated to health authorities for the general dental services where the vast majority of dentists work, instead dentists claim fees from a nationally set fee
  621
  scale. Health authorities do commission community dental services and it is up to each health authority to decide how much funding to put towards these. There are some categories of dental service—personal dental services and salaried dentists—where health authorities must apply to the Department.

  Prostate Cancer
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on population screening of men for prostate cancer. [64339]

  Ms Jowell
  In response to advice from the National Screening Committee (NSC), we advised the National Health Service in Executive Letter (97)12 that screening for prostate cancer should not be offered routinely, based on the existing evidence available. This remains the current policy. The NSC is actively keeping this question under review in the light of emerging evidence.

  Cancer Treatments
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will estimate the annual cost to the National Health Service of screening all men above the age of 30 years for prostate cancer; [64341]

  (2) if he will list the cost to the National Health Service of (a) a PSA blood test, (b) screening for cervical cancer and (c) screening for breast cancer; [64337]

  (3) what is the annual cost to the National Health Service of screening women for (a) cervical cancer and (b) breast cancer. [64342]

  Mr. Hutton
  There is currently no reliable information available to make an estimate of costs for a prostate cancer screening programme.

  It is estimated that the annual cost of the National Health Service breast screening programme is approximately £38 million. In 1996–97, 1.1 million women were screened, giving an approximate cost of £34.50 per woman screened.

  The National Audit Office has estimated the total annual cost of the NHS cervical screening programme to be £132 million. This includes payments to general practitioners for achieving target coverage levels. In 1996–97, 3.8 million women were screened giving an approximate cost of £34 per woman screened.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the use of national guidelines to protect patients' pocket money from unscrupulous nursing home owners. [64301]

  Mr. Hutton
  Guidance issued by the National Association of Health Authorities (now the Health Service Confederation) in 1988 advises health authorities responsible for regulating nursing homes that residents in nursing homes should, wherever possible, manage their own financial affairs.

  "Home Life: a code of practice for residential care" further advises that, should residents be incapable of looking after their own finances, arrangements should be
  622
  made for a friend or relative to act as an agent or appointee for the resident. A homeowner or manager of a home should not undertake this responsibility unless there is no alternative.

  Any suspicion that a homeowner is misappropriating a resident's money or valuables should be referred to the police.

  Antibiotics Report
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish his response to the seventh report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology of Session 1997–98, "Resistance to Antibiotics and their Antimicrobial Agents (HL81)". [64407]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government's response to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology report on Resistance to Antibiotics has been laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library.

  Farming Stress and Suicide
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cause of the delay in publishing the Department's report on farming stress and suicide, prepared by the University of London Department of Psychiatry; and if he will make a statement. [64304]

  Mr. Hutton
  The report commissioned by the Department on "Suicide and Stress in Farmers" was a study undertaken by Professor Keith Hawton and his team at the University of Oxford. Publication has not been delayed. The final version was received on 4 December 1998 and was published on 7 December 1998.

  Medway NHS Trust
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current waiting time for fitting hearing aids at Medway NHS Trust; and if he will make a statement. [64511]

  Mr. Milburn
  The current waiting time for fitting hearing aids at Medway National Health Service Trust is 1 month for clinically urgent cases and 6 months for routine cases.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the two vacant posts for audiology technicians at Medway NHS Trust are expected to be filled; and if he will make a statement. [64512]

  Mr. Milburn
  Medway National Health Service Trust recently advertised for two audiology technicians but did not receive any applications. They are re-appraising the posts in terms of grade and job content and will be re-advertising in the new year.

  Social Services (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had on the provision of social services in the London Borough of Wandsworth; and if he will make a statement. [64520]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department, through the Social Services Inspectorate (SSI), monitors the performance of all local social services authorities. The report of a joint SSI/Audit Commission review of social services in the
  623
  London Borough of Wandsworth was published in June 1997, and the report of an SSI inspection of the safety of children looked after was published in June 1998. Copies of both reports are available in the Library. The SSI is closely monitoring progress against the action plans drawn up following both these reports.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  "A New Deal for Transport"
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the amount of extra taxation which will be received from motorists in the next three years as a result of the increases in fuel duties and the new taxes proposed in the White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport". [63473]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Chancellor announced in the July 1997 Budget a commitment to annual increases in road fuel duties averaging at least 6 per cent. in real terms. HM Customs and Excise estimates that this will raise an additional £4.4 billion over the three financial years 1998–99 to 2000–01 compared with increasing fuel duties only in line with inflation. The White Paper announced our intention to legislate to enable local authorities to introduce road user charges and workplace parking levies in their areas, and to enable the Secretary of State to introduce charges on trunk roads and motorways. The revenue raised once the legislation is in place will depend on decisions by the authorities concerned as to whether or not to introduce the new charges, and if they do, at what level to do so.

  Airproxes in UK airspace

  Period

  Total of all reported UK airproxes involving all aircraft types (civil and military)

  UK risk-bearing airproxes involving all aircraft types (civil and military)

  UK risk-bearing airproxes involving Commercial Air Transport

  January-March 1997

  40

  17

  5

  April-June 1997

  68

  38

  13

  July-September 1997

  67

  31

  9

  October-December 1997

  33

  14

  4

  January-March 19981

  46

  16

  3

  April-June 19981

  47

  16

  4

  1 The 1998 figures are subject to review

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many official visits(a) he and (b) the Ministers in his Department, have made to Buckinghamshire since 2 May 1997; and if he will list them. [64128]

  Mr. Meale
  Ministers in my Department have made two official visits to Buckinghamshire since 2 May 1997.

  My noble Friend, the Minister for Roads and Road Safety opened the new Traffic Control Centre at Traffic Master's HQ in Milton Keynes on 15 October 1998 and

  Landing Fees (Airports)
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the level of duty required on landing fees at(a) Heathrow and (b) Gatwick to balance the supply and demand for slots. [63459]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The UK is subject to a number of international obligations and conventions in respect of airport charges which embody the principle that charges are based on the cost of providing facilities and services, even if there is excess demand to use these. Landing fees account for only a small proportion of airline costs. Given the extent to which demand for slots exceeds supply at Heathrow and (to a lesser degree) Gatwick, it is logical to expect that a several fold increase would be necessary to reach the market clearing level. But the Government have not undertaken precise calculations.

  Aircraft (Near Misses)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many near misses were reported in each quarter of 1997–98 and 1998–99 to date in(a) United Kingdom air space, (b) Greater London and (c) the home counties; what type of aircraft were involved in each case; and from which airport they were flying. [63362]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: Information on airproxes ("near misses") is not available in the form requested. The table provides a quarterly breakdown of airproxes in UK airspace for the period requested. Details of airproxes reported by pilots are published by the Joint Airprox Working Group and controller-reported airproxes are published by the Joint Airprox Assessment Panel. When it is able to do so, the newly constituted UK Airprox Board will combine these publications into a single series covering both pilot and controller-reported incidents.

  my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London, visited High Wycombe to discuss integrated transport issues and visit a number of transport sites on 24 November 1998.

  747 Aeroplanes
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to prohibit the landing of Type 747 aeroplanes at Heathrow Airport before 7 am on(a) Christmas and (b) New Year's day mornings. [64084]
  625
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government have no plans to do so. The Boeing 747 is widely used for transcontinental scheduled air services, including for arrivals before 7 am. Most such services operate on the basis of a minimum daily frequency. It is the Government's policy to encourage the use of quieter aircraft at night and proposals to this end are contained in the second stage consultation paper on "Night Restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted" which was published on 17 November 1998,Official Report, columns 492–93.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list in real terms(a) the amount of support given for social

  £ million (1997–98 prices)

  England

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  11998–99

  1999–2000

  Housing corporation approved development programme

  Net outturns

  2,613

  1,982

  1,618

  1,219

  1,057

  680

  600

  606

  Housing annual capital guideline allocations

  1,462

  1,521

  1,130

  1,051

  968

  628

  529

  797

  Estate action outturns

  394

  394

  406

  334

  259

  174

  96

  63

  Cash incentive scheme allocations

  34

  —

  33

  63

  62

  60

  29

  —

  Estates renewal challenge fund capital allocations

  —

  —

  —

  —

  31

  93

  145

  149

  Capital receipts initiative allocations

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  174

  554

  541

  Other local authority allocations2

  91

  50

  44

  32

  31

  —

  —

  —

  Management and maintenance allowances for LA stock

  3,633

  3,605

  3,590

  3,524

  3,463

  3,307

  3,127

  2,994

  Housing action trusts outturns

  31

  86

  100

  98

  92

  88

  86

  84

  1 All outturns for 1998–99 are latest estimates.

  2 Covers special programmes for homelessness, rural housing, energy efficiency, new town defective dwellings, flats over shops, the housing partnership fund and the private sector initiatives.

  Buenos Aires Conference
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what timetables were agreed at the Buenos Aires Climate Change Conference to implement(a) the clean development mechanism, (b) national compliance with greenhouse gas reduction targets and (c) technical advances on climate monitoring. [63776]

  Mr. Meacher
  At the fourth Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Buenos Aires 2–13 November 1998 (COP 4), a number of decisions were taken which contained timetables for future work:(a) on the mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol, COP 4 agreed a work-programme with the deadline for completion of work as the sixth Conference of the Parties (COP 6), likely to take place at the end of 2000. Parties agreed to give priority within this programme to the clean development mechanism, with a view to establishing its modalities and procedures by the COP 6 deadline.
  (b) on compliance, COP 4 established a working group tasked with developing a comprehensive compliance system for all obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, including national greenhouse gas targets, with a view to adopting a decision at COP 6.
  (c) on climate monitoring, COP 4 invited the relevant UN and international agencies to initiate an Intergovernmental process for addressing priorities for action to improve global observing systems for climate in relation to the needs of the Convention.

  Munitions (Sea Disposal)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions
  626
  housing in the period 1992 to 1997 and (b) the proposed levels of support for social housing in the period 1997 to 2000. [63422]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: The available information on allocations or outturns for expenditure on social housing stock made by central Government since 1992–93 is set out. Allocations for 2000–2001 have not yet been finalised but, as announced in the summer following the Comprehensive Spending Review, the housing capital allocations to local authorities will increase by around £600 million in 2000–2001. Some of the resources allocated through the Single Regeneration Budget, New Deal for Communities, and City Challenge that will be used for investment in social housing are not separately identified in the allocations made.

  took place at the heads of delegation meeting for the OSPAR convention held on 12 and 13 November in London, in respect of the disposal to sea of chemical and conventional explosive munitions; and if he will place in the Library copies of the United Kingdom submissions made on this matter to OSPAR. [63902]

  Mr. Meacher
  As agreed at the Ministerial Meeting of the OSPAR Commission in July, the meeting of Heads of Delegation considered past dumping of chemical weapons and munitions (further dumping of this kind is, of course, prohibited by the OSPAR Convention). The meeting invited the Contracting Parties and observers to submit to the Government of the Republic of Ireland the available information on chemical weapons, munitions and related material dumped in the past, and on retrieval events, dumped material which has turned up in unexpected places and dumpings by states other than OSPAR Contracting Parties. That information will be presented by the Republic of Ireland to the Sea-Based Activities Working Group at its meeting on 15 February 1999, and the meeting of the Heads of Delegation in May will then consider what should be done. No formal papers have yet been submitted to the OSPAR Commission or the Heads of Delegation meeting on this issue.

  Housing Act 1985
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to amend Part XI of the Housing Act 1985 to remove hotels, guest houses and self catering accommodation previously converted from a house which was once occupied by a single household from being categorised as houses in multiple occupation following the
  627
  recent decision by the Court of Appeal on the Living Waters Conference Centre, Conwy; and if he will make a statement. [64299]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We plan to issue a consultation document on proposals for a licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) early in the New Year. In that paper, we will also seek views on changes to Part XI of the Housing Act 1985, including the HMO definition. However, we would be reluctant to remove from the definition any premises which provide accommodation for people who have no other home. We would also need to consider the effect on the existing powers for local authorities to make HMO registration schemes containing special control provisions.

  Private Rented Accommodation
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the percentage of private rented accommodation which is let by landlords or agents who are not members of landlords' or agents' associations. [64248]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We do not know what percentage of private rented accommodation is let by landlords or agents who are not member of landlords' or agents' associations but we know that:over 70 per cent. of privately rented accommodation is owned by landlords letting as a sideline, rather than by business or institutional landlords;
  around 40 per cent. of lettings are managed partly or wholly by an agent of which some 2,500 are members of a professional association for agents;
  a small but growing number of sideline landlords are members of local landlords' associations, private landlords' forums and local authority landlord accreditation schemes.

  Eurostar
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the importance of Eurostar regional services to the economy of the North West; and if he will make a statement. [64280]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government announced on 8 December 1998,Official Report, column 135, that they will be appointing consultants to examine the "Review of Regional Eurostar Services", produced by Inter Capital and Regional Rail Ltd. The Government intend their consultant to consider the economic and social benefits of regional Eurostar services.

  Countryside Access
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he proposes to respond to the consultation process on access to the open countryside in England and Wales. [64298]

  Mr. Meale
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 18 November 1998,Official Report, column 672.

  M6 (Roadworks)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions at how many locations on the M6 there were roadworks between 10 and 11 December. [64297]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Kerman to Mr. Nigel Evans, dated 17 December 1998:
  M6 road closures—10 and 11 December
  As you know the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked Lawrie Haynes, the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question. You asked "at how many locations on the M6 there were roadworks between 10 and 11 December". I am replying on Lawrie Haynes' behalf in his absence from the office.
  The table below sets out the information you require:

  Area

  10 December 1998

  11 December 1998

  Cheshire

  4

  5

  Lancashire

  4

  3

  Cumbria

  2

  2

  Warwickshire

  1

  1

  Total

  11

  11

  The length of the M6 from the M1 to the A74 is 229 miles.
  The figures provided are for the main running lanes only and exclude roadworks on link roads where advanced signs are erected on main carriageways and also works on the hard shoulder only, where Temporary Vertical Concrete Barriers are in place. The figures also include roadworks that took place overnight.
  I trust the above information meets your requirement.

  Overhead Power Lines
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on planning guidelines in respect of applications to build houses close to overhead power lines. [64288]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Draft guidance on determining planning applications for development proposed in vicinity to sources of electro-magnetic fields, such as overhead power lines, is contained in the draft circular, "Land-Use Planning and Electro-Magnetic Fields (EMFs)". This has been drawn up jointly by this Department and the Department of Health, and was issued for public consultation on 8 December.

  Pensions
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what information his Department collects on(a) the numbers of those directly employed through the single regeneration budget programme and (b) the proportion of those directly employed who are in occupational pension schemes or receive personal pension contributions; [64393]

  (2) if he will make a statement on pensions for staff directly employed by the Single Regeneration Budget programme; [64394]
  629
  (3) what restrictions are placed on bodies receiving SRB funding who employ people directly from offering occupational pension schemes or contributions to personal pensions from the SRB programme. [64392]

  Mr. Meale
  The SRB provides support for between one to seven years for regeneration schemes by locally based partnerships. The SRB contribution towards management and administration costs has a ceiling of 5 per cent. of total SRB grant for the scheme. It is for the partnerships themselves to determine the terms and conditions of any staff they employ directly and there are no restrictions imposed by the SRB. My Department does not collect information on the number of staff directly employed through the SRB programme. It is the Government's view, as recently reaffirmed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, that everyone who can save for their retirement has a responsibility to do so.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library a copy of the report commissioned by Ministers to assess the potential effects of cultivating genetically modified food in Britain; and if he will make a statement. [64329]

  Mr. Meacher
  As outlined in the response to the hon. Gentleman's earlier question of 9 February 1998,Official Report, column 11, we undertook to have further discussions with English Nature and others on how concerns regarding the possible wider implications of genetically modified crops may best be addressed. As a result of these discussions, DETR officials have been preparing a draft paper considering the possible wider impact of genetically modified crops on farmland wildlife.

  Consent holder

  Consent reference

  Trial site location

  Additional precautions imposed

  Monsanto

  96/R22/6

  Rothwell, Lincolnshire

  Destroy all oilseed rape seed harvested from plants within 50m of the GM trial plot, and extend post trial monitoring to include land within 50m of the GM trial.

  Monsanto

  96/R22/6

  Stanton, Hereford and Worcester

  Destroy all genetically modified glyphosate tolerant oilseed rape at this site prior to flowering.

  Perryfields Holdings Ltd.

  96/R27/1

  Rothwell, Lincolnshire

  Destroy all oilseed rape seed harvested from plants within 50m of the GM trial plot, and extend post trial monitoring to include land within 50m of the GM trial.

  Pioneer Genetique

  97/R24/2

  Inkberrow, Worcestershire

  Destroy all oilseed rape seed harvested from plants within 50m of the GM trial plot, and extend post trial monitoring to include land within 50m of the GM trial.

  Plant Genetic Systems

  97/R15/23

  Inkberrow, Worcestershire

  Destroy all oilseed rape seed harvested from plants within 50m of the GM trial plot, and extend post trial monitoring to include land within 50m of the GM trial.

  British Rail Publications
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the publications issued by British Rail since 1 May 1997, indicating the total cost to British Rail of such publications. [64469]
  630
  The potential impact is considered in the context of existing agricultural practices and the Government's commitments to reverse wildlife declines in farmland. The potential advantages or disadvantages of genetically modified crops will be discussed.

  This paper is being prepared in consultation with the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) and English Nature. As explained in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) on 5 November 1998, Official Report, column 638, regarding ACRE's remit, the Secretary of State has asked the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment to advise on the possible changes in agronomic practice and subsequent effects on biodiversity that may result from the release of genetically modified organisms.

  When the paper is completed it will be made publicly available.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in how many trials of genetically modified crops inspected in 1998 the regulations governing their planting have been found to have been broken; and if he will provide details in each instance. [64468]

  Mr. Meacher
  There were five instances in 1998 where, in the opinion of the Health and Safety Executive Inspector, the release of genetically modified organisms was not being carried out as specified in the consent document regarding the measures taken to restrict pollination of adjacent plants. In each case the consent was varied to include additional precautions to minimise any possible risk to the environment. In all cases the risks arising from pollination of adjacent plants by the genetically modified oilseed rape were assessed to be low.

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand from the British Railways Board that, apart form the issue of site particulars by Rail Property Ltd., the only publication issued by the Board since 1 May 1997 is its Annual Report and Accounts 1996–97 published in January 1998. The cost of publication is a matter for the Board.

  Packaging Waste
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will make an announcement on the outcome of the review of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997. [64443]

  Mr. Meacher
  I will be making an announcement shortly.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions with which countries his Department has arrangements in place for the exchange of driving licences for a British equivalent. [64439]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The countries are: Australia, Barbados, British Virgin Islands, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Japan, Kenya, Malta, New Zealand, Republic of Cyprus, Singapore, Switzerland, Zimbabwe. It is also possible to exchange licences from countries in the European Economic Area (EU Member States plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein), but such licences are subject to mutual recognition and need not be exchanged.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the holders of full Canadian driving licences will be able to exchange them for British equivalents; and if he will make a statement. [64440]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Recognition of Canadian licences is made complicated by the fact that the 12 Canadian Provinces are separate licensing authorities and the licences generally do not strictly conform to the UK requirements. Nevertheless legislation to allow holders of Canadian car driving licences to exchange them for the British equivalent is in hand. The aim is to have the necessary arrangement in place early in 1999.

  Health and Safety Laboratory
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Health and Safety Laboratory intends to publish its Annual report and Accounts for 1997–98. [64492]

  Mr. Meale
  The Health and Safety Laboratory has today published the 1997–98 Annual Report and Accounts, and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Average daily and annual average daily traffic figures

  Road

  Location

  Grid

  Ref

  1AADT 1994

  AADT 1995

  AADT 1996

  AADT 1997 (Percentage HGV)

  Growth 1994 to 1997 (Percentage)

  A1

  Northwest of Lobley Hill I/C

  4237

  5610

  91,600

  97,700

  101,400

  101,500(9)

  10.8

  A1

  Northwest of Consett Route I/C

  4232

  5615

  89,900

  92,400

  94,400

  94,500(9)

  5.1

  A1

  Metro Centre, East of I/C

  4210

  5623

  77,500

  79,800

  80,600

  80,800(10)

  4.2

  A1

  Metro Centre, East of I/C, W/B

  4210

  5623

  —

  —

  —

  42,400(-)

  A1

  Metro Centre, East of IC, E/B

  4211

  5624

  —

  —

  —

  38,500(-)

  —

  A1

  Swalwell Slip Roads, N of Market Lane

  4203

  5623

  —

  —

  —

  8,800(-)

  —

  A1

  Metro Centre, West of I/C, Slip On

  4208

  5624

  —

  —

  —

  4,300(-)

  —

  A1

  Metro Centre, West of I/C, Slips On/Off

  4208

  5624

  —

  —

  —

  5,900(10)

  —

  A1

  North of Blaydon Bridge

  4194

  5647

  71,100

  75,600

  80,000

  81,700(9)

  14.9

  A1

  North of A69 Interchange

  4199

  5569

  69,800

  72,900

  77,200

  79,200(8)

  13.5

  A1

  South of Ponteland Road Interchange

  4211

  5676

  64,200

  68,100

  71,400

  73,400(9)

  14.3

  A1

  South of Brunton Lane Overbridge

  4234

  5706

  48,600

  52,800

  55,000

  57,000(8)

  17.33

  A1

  North of Ponteland Road Interchange

  4218

  5687

  53,300

  57,800

  60,000

  61,200(-)

  14.8

  Short-haired Bumblebee
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when his Department was informed of the likelihood that the short-haired bumblebee is extinct; which other creatures in the United Kingdom his Department has assessed to be at serious risk of extinction; and what action he proposes to take. [64333]

  Mr. Meale
  Surveys throughout the 1970s and 1980s suggested that whilst undergoing declines, the short-haired bumblebee was still present albeit localised. It was not until August 1998, when examples of the short haired bumblebee were not found for the second year in succession at its previous Dungeness stronghold, that fears were raised about its possible extinction.

  There are a number of United Kingdom species which are endangered (fauna) or critically endangered (flora) and the Government are taking forward a range of measures, including the establishment of biodiversity species action plans, to address their plight. A plan for the short-haired bumblebee is in preparation.

  A1
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the 24 hour traffic volumes at each interchange on the A1 route round Tyneside from the Metro Centre to North Gosforth including the New Tyne crossing(a) at the most recent available period and (b) three years earlier. [64437]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Lawrie Haynes, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from John Kerman to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 17 December 1998:
  As you know the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked Lawrie Haynes, the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question. You asked for traffic figures on the Al route round Tyneside from the Metro Centre to North Gosforth, including the Tyne Crossing. I am replying on Lawrie Haynes' behalf in his absence from the office.
  The attached table sets out the information available to us along the route you specify where we have counters, but these are not necessarily at the interchanges.
  I trust the information meets your requirement.

  633

  Road

  ADT 2Jan 98

  ADT Feb 98

  ADT Mar 98

  ADT Apr 98

  ADT May 98

  ADT Jun 98

  ADT Jul 98

  ADT Aug 98

  ADT Sep 98

  ADT Oct 98

  Average

  A1

  83,084

  —

  101,269

  106,730

  100,387

  101,458

  108,484

  106,963

  107,639

  107,078

  102,566

  A1

  85,615

  91,805

  94,303

  93,473

  93,736

  —

  98,574

  98,749

  97,959

  97,917

  94,681

  A1

  76,330

  79,164

  81,705

  81,014

  82,301

  81,823

  85,827

  85,250

  84,826

  83,628

  82,187

  A1

  37,963

  40,926

  42,363

  41,663

  —

  42,351

  44,443

  44,815

  44,486

  44,285

  42,588

  A1

  38,517

  38,238

  39,342

  39,351

  —

  39,472

  41,384

  40,435

  40,340

  39,343

  39,602

  A1

  8,170

  8,338

  8,635

  8,674

  7,820

  7,902

  8,413

  8,171

  7,388

  8,129

  8,164

  A1

  3,512

  3,709

  3,754

  4,144

  3,827

  3,893

  4,307

  4,233

  4,048

  4,315

  3,974

  A1

  5,018

  5,031

  5,122

  5,560

  5,208

  5,380

  5,796

  5,736

  5,498

  5,903

  5,425

  A1

  73,889

  75,022

  79,492

  80,367

  84,287

  85,893

  87,965

  87,013

  88,257

  87,752

  82,994

  A1

  71,638

  74,996

  80,097

  80,051

  82,555

  84,185

  86,841

  86,070

  86,187

  81,277

  81,391

  A1

  65,159

  —

  —

  74,265

  78,184

  79,200

  82,725

  79,667

  80,310

  80,090

  77,450

  A1

  52,015

  56,109

  58,023

  57,250

  60,754

  60,940

  62,874

  62,457

  61,629

  60,977

  59,303

  A1

  57,518

  60,708

  62,312

  64,954

  64,311

  64,550

  66,039

  65,011

  65,741

  65,095

  83,624

  1 AADT—Annual Average Daily Traffic

  2 ADT—Average Daily Traffic

  Northern Development Area
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he intends to approve the revised master plan for the Northern Development Area, Newcastle, and its links to the strategic highway network before the outcome of the Tyneside multimodel transport study is made available. [64438]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Master Plan for the Northern Development Area has been referred to the Secretary of State in support of an application for outline planning permission and they will be considered together to determine the extent to which there might be conflict with national planning policy. Since the Tyneside multimodel transport study is not expected to be available for another 12 to 18 months, it would not seem reasonable to delay consideration of the application and Master Plan.

  Town Planning Laws
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to appoint a commission to examine town planning laws. [64434]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have no plans to establish such a commission. Our policy statement, "Modernising Planning", published in January, set out a series of proposals for improving the responsiveness and efficiency of the planning system. During this year, we have announced new proposals for a stronger regional planning framework, improved arrangements for delivering development plans and better procedures for handling appeals. As part of this initiative, we will be putting forward further detailed suggestions for improving the planning system during 1999.

  Steel and Aluminium
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the proportion of steel and aluminium which is recycled(a) in the UK and (b) in the rest of the EU. [64432]

  Mr. Meale
  According to the Recycling Advisory Unit, the percentage of scrap recycled as a percentage of production in the UK in 1997 was 55 per cent. for steel 634
  and 44 per cent. for aluminium. International comparisons are misleading because of the wide range of formulae used for calculating recovery and recycling rates.

  Carbon Dioxide
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress the UK has made towards meeting its carbon dioxide reduction target agreed in Rio. [64433]

  Mr. Meale
  The UK is on track to exceed its commitment agreed in Rio, to return greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2000.

  Total emissions of greenhouse gases from the UK have fallen from 215 million tonnes carbon equivalent in 1990 to 204 million tonnes carbon equivalent in 1996, the latest year for which all figures are available. Emissions of carbon dioxide are available for 1997 and show a 7.8 per cent. reduction from 1990 levels.

  Homelessness (Emergency Shelters)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many places have been made available by his Department as emergency shelters for the homeless over the Christmas period in each of the last five years for which figures are available showing the locations of those places. [64309]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Through the Winter Shelter Programme additional bedspaces are provided for rough sleepers each year to ensure that no one needs to sleep rough on the streets during the winter months. The majority of the additional bedspaces are provided in London where rough sleeping is most acute. Information on the number of bedspaces is available for the following years:1998–99: 547 bedspaces and 78 severe weather beds in London, Bristol, Brighton and Cambridge.
  1997–98: 552 bedspaces and 59 severe weather beds in London, Bristol and Cambridge.
  1996–97: 495 bedspaces and 100 severe weather beds in London and Bristol.
  1995–96: 315 bedspaces in London.
  1994–95: 330 bedspaces and 200 severe weather beds in London.
  635
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many places have been planned by his Department as emergency shelters for the homeless over the forthcoming Christmas period and in what locations. [64310]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Through the Winter Shelter Programme the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will be funding 547 additional

  Agency

  Shelter

  Area

  Bedspaces

  London

  English Churches Housing Group Ltd.

  Bedford Place

  Camden

  60

  Riverpoint

  Talgarth Road

  West London

  24

  Single Homeless Project

  QE Nurses Home

  Tower Hamlets

  50

  Providence Row Housing Association

  Fitzgerald Lodge

  Tower Hamlets

  48

  Crisis

  Southwark Street

  Southwark

  40

  London City YMCA

  Errol Street

  Islington

  15

  St. Mungo Community Housing Association Ltd.

  Southampton Row

  Camden

  45

  Salvation Army

  Tudor Street

  City

  30

  Look Ahead Housing and Care Ltd.

  Marsham Street

  Victoria

  60

  Look Ahead Housing and Care Ltd.

  St. Pancras Way

  S. Camden

  42

  Centrepoint

  St. George's Court

  S. Camden

  60

  Outside London

  English Churches Housing Group Ltd.

  City Library

  Cambridge

  25

  Cold Weather Group/English Churches Housing Group Ltd.

  Stokes Croft

  Bristol

  29

  Brighton Housing Trust

  Lennox Street

  Brighton

  19

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total expenditure for the provision of emergency Christmas shelters for the homeless over the past five years; and what estimate he has made of the resources to be made available for the purpose during Christmas. [64311]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government have made available £4 million this year for the Winter Shelter Programme. This will provide 547 additional bedspaces for rough sleepers and 78 severe weather beds in London, Bristol, Brighton and Cambridge. I will write with the additional information requested.

  Personal Social Services (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the total cash value of the standard spending assessment for personal social services in Worcestershire including any special transitional grant funding in (i) 1998–99 and (ii) the proposed settlement for 1999–2000. [64406]

  Ms Armstrong
  In 1998/99, the standard spending assessment for personal social services in Worcestershire was £66.9 million. An additional amount of £3.2 million was also provided, amongst other special and specific grants, as a special transitional grant for community care clients. In 1999–2000, the standard spending assessment for personal social services is £70.7 million. An additional programme of specific and special grant funding will also be provided in 1999–2000.

  Concessionary Fares Scheme
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans for a national minimum concessionary fares scheme. [64482]
  636
  bedspaces in London, Bristol, Brighton and Cambridge and a further 78 severe weather beds. The winter shelters will be open from 1 December to 31 March. The Winter Shelter Programme will also fund Crisis to keep up to 40 beds open for 2 weeks following the closure of their London Open Christmas provision on 30 December and help to fund a day centre in Portsmouth which will operate over the winter months. Information about the shelters is below:

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Our White Paper "A New Deal for Transport" outlined our proposed national minimum concessionary fares scheme, under which pensioners would be entitled to half fares on buses on the purchase of a £5 annual pass. Implementation will depend on the availability of parliamentary time for the passage of the necessary primary legislation.

  Train Operating Companies (Punctuality)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 14 December 1998,Official Report, columns 315–16, on rail punctuality, if he will list the punctuality statistics based on the Passenger Charter and the same statistics calculated without disregarding void days for the 12 months up to 14 November. [64436]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Performance statistics appear in the Franchising Director's quarterly bulletins which are in the Library of the House. These reflect Passenger's Charter data which exclude voided days. Statistics which include the punctuality of services operated on voided days have not been collected on a systematic basis. However, as I said in my answer of 14 December 1998,Official Report, column 315, numbers of void days will be included in the Franchising Director's next and subsequent quarterly bulletins.

  SSSIs
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the protection of(a) sites and (b) areas of special scientific interest. [64300]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have issued a consultation paper in England and Wales called "SSSIs—Better Protection and Management". The consultation ends on 21 December.
  637
  Colleagues in Northern Ireland are preparing a consultation paper on Areas of Special Scientific Interest which will be issued in 1999.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the impact of wind farms on the local environment. [64343]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have issued national guidance on wind energy development in PPG22, and further guidance appears in PPG7, and also in the Report we issued recently "Planning for Sustainable Development—Towards Better Practice". The impact on the local environment is one of the relevant factors taken into account when considering planning applications for wind farms. Where wind farms are likely to have a significant effect on the environment, a formal Environmental Impact Assessment is required.

  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for fast-tracking planning permission for wind farms under the general permitted development orders. [64340]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I am satisfied that the existing arrangements are appropriate.

  Regional Development and Rural Policy
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he proposes to consult on the administrative guidance promised to regional development agencies on sustainable development and rural policy. [64741]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have recently consulted on draft statutory guidance for Regional Development Agencies on the development of their regional strategies. In that guidance we have stressed that RDAs should take an integrated and sustainable approach to tackling economic issues across their regions, taking account of the particular features of their rural areas.

  The guidance notes on sustainable development and rural policy that are being issued in draft today are intended to assist the RDAs on these matters. Copies are being sent to those national and regional organisations which have expressed an interest in these areas, and are also available on request from the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions. I am placing copies in the House Library.

  The drafts build on informal soundings taken both within and outside Government and will form part of a package of guidance to be available to the RDAs early in the new year.

  Local Government Finance
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will issue the Housing Revenue Account Subsidy Determination for 1999–2000. [64782]

  Ms Armstrong
  I have decided to confirm the proposals for the Determination on which we consulted authorities on 29 October 1998. My Department will be sending copies of the Housing Revenue Account Subsidy Determination 1999–2000, the Item 8 Credit and Item 8 Debit (General)638
  Determination 1999–2000 and the General Determination of Administration of Housing Revenue Account Subsidy 1998 to all local housing authorities in England. Copies of the Determinations will be placed in the Library of the House next week.

  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what resources he will make available to authorities that have been reorganised on 1 April 1997 and 1998 for reorganisation costs incurred by them in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [64787]

  Ms Armstrong
  On 9 October I invited authorities which were eligible to participate in the Local Government Reorganisation Cost Scheme for 1999–2000 which reorganised before 1 April 1998, to submit estimates of the amount of expenditure they expect to incur on transitional costs of reorganisation in 1999–2000. On the basis, inter alia, of the information provided by the authorities, I have decided the maximum amounts that it would be appropriate to allocate towards such costs.

  The amounts are as follows:

  Maximum amounts: £000 rounded

  Authority

  1999–2000

  1997 Reorganisations

  Luton Borough Council

  200

  Derby City Council

  920

  Bournemouth Borough Council

  1,075

  Darlington Borough Council

  1,102

  Portsmouth City Council

  1,307

  Southampton City Council

  2,541

  Rutland Council

  1,400

  Stoke-on-Trent City Council

  1,300

  Swindon Borough Council

  349

  Total

  10,194

  1998 Reorganisations

  West Berkshire Council

  500

  Reading Borough Council

  4,131

  Slough Borough Council

  4,555

  Wokingham District Council

  1,587

  County of Hertfordshire District Council

  6,545

  Worcestershire County Council

  1,250

  Plymouth City Council

  3,442

  Torbay Borough Council

  3,782

  Thurrock Borough Council

  2,423

  Nottingham County Council

  1,465

  Halton Borough Council

  3,587

  Telford & Wrekin District Council

  699

  Medway Borough Council

  4,178

  Peterborough City Council

  902

  Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council

  1,900

  Blackpool Borough Council

  975

  Total

  41,921

  Combined total allocations

  52,115

  Rent Increases
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if, following the consultation paper Limiting Fair Rent Increases, published in the summer, he intends to introduce measures to help tenants facing exceptionally high fair rent increases. [64788]
  639
  Ms Armstrong
  Tenants have been facing exceptionally high fair rent increases, following recent court cases. We received more than 500 responses to the consultation paper we issued in the summer which proposed limiting fair rent increases by applying a formula linked to the Retail Prices Index (RPI). There was overwhelming support for this from individual tenants and tenants' organisations. They considered our proposed limits were too high, however, and we have responded to this.

  We propose, therefore, to go ahead and introduce new limits by making an Order under Section 31 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

  Rent officers and rent assessment committees will continue to determine fair rents as they do now. Where applications for re-registration are made to the rent officer after the Order comes into effect, however, fair rent increases will be limited to RPI + 7.5 per cent. for the first re-registration (rather than RPI + 10 per cent. as originally proposed) and RPI + 5 per cent. for subsequent re-registrations. This will case the anxiety faced now by thousands of tenants, many of whom are elderly or on fixed incomes. It will give them certainty that their rents cannot be increased by more than these limits.

  If there is no existing fair rent registration for the property, these limits will not apply. Nor will they apply if the rent officer or rent assessment committee considers that repairs or improvements carried out by the landlord have changed the condition of the property or common parts so much that the new rent should be at least 15 per cent. more than the existing registered rent. I believe that, in these limited circumstances only, it is fair for landlords to charge the full fair rent increase.

  The new limits will apply to private tenants and secure tenants of registered social landlords who have a fair rent registered under the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 or the Rent Act 1977. They will not apply to rent increases for assured or assured shorthold tenancies under the Housing Act 1988. We have no plans to change the legislative framework for these tenancies.

  The Order will be laid immediately after the Parliamentary Recess and will come into force shortly afterwards. My Department will make a further announcement when the Order is laid. We will issue a leaflet for landlords and tenants explaining in detail when the limits apply and how rent officers and rent assessment committees will calculate them, and details will appear on our internet site.

  Best Value
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to allow the Audit Commission to fulfil its proposed role in relation to best value; and if he will make a statement. [64789]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Audit Commission has a key role to play in our agenda for modernising local government particularly in implementing our proposals for best value.

  We are to give new audit and inspection powers to the Commission as part of our proposals for best value. The Local Government Bill, currently before Parliament, provides for this. The Commission will arrange for
  640
  the annual audit of Local Performance Plans, and for the inspection of local authorities' activities in areas other than those which are the responsibility of the existing specialist Inspectorates such as OFSTED, SSI and HMIC. The Commission will, however, work closely with these Inspectorates, as they do now, to ensure that all the necessary skills are brought to bear in securing best value.

  The Commission will also be given powers to recommend action by the Secretary of State where an authority fails to achieve best value.

  To ensure that these new functions are fully co-ordinated with the work of the other Inspectorates, I confirm both our commitment to establish an Inspectorate Forum to discuss common inspection interests, and our intention to take a power in the Local Government Bill to enable arrangements to be made where necessary to ensure the smooth and efficient operation of the inspection process.

  Our work on ensuring proper co-ordination between the Commission and other Inspectorates in relation to best value and local government will fulfil the principal recommendation of the Prior Options Study of the Financial Management and Policy Review (FMPR) of the Audit Commission, which I am publishing today. Copies of the Report have been placed in the House Library.

  This study, concluding that the functions of the Commission are necessary and best carried out by that body, proposed a study linked with best value to put in place a framework of working arrangements to provide a means of resolving differences between the various audit and inspection bodies involved. Our proposals for the Forum and new power will ensure such arrangements are in place.

  We will now also be proceeding with the second stage of the FMPR. This looks at the detailed organisation and procedures which will be best suited to the Commission as it continues its traditional audit functions and embraces its new roles within best value. To lead the Audit Commission through this period of significant change, my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretaries of State for Health and for Wales, have today appointed Helena Shovelton as its new Chairman. It will be for her and her fellow Commissioners to ensure that the highest standards of professionalism and objectivity—for which the Commission has been known—are continued, not only in its traditional audit roles, but also in its new tasks in the best value framework.

  MV Derbyshire
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has made his decision on the form and coverage of the reopened formal investigation into the loss of the MV 'Derbyshire'; and if he will make a statement. [64906]

  Mr. Prescott
  Having considered the comments submitted following my announcement of 12 March 1998,Official Report, columns 270–71, that the Formal Investigation into the loss of the Derbyshire was to be reopened I have today ordered, under section 269 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, that the whole of the case shall be reheard by Her Majesty's High Court of Justice. The preparation and presentation of the case, the

  641
  identification of parties to the Investigation and the statement of questions are now matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. The conduct of the reopened Investigation will be a matter for the Judge appointed to undertake it.

  I have also decided that my Department will support an application made to the Judge at his preliminary hearing that the reasonable costs of a single legal term to represent the interests of the relatives of those lost with the ship at the reopened Formal Investigation should be met from public funds.

  I have further decided that my Department should make a contribution towards the legal costs of one team that may be incurred by the relatives in preparing for the preliminary hearing.

  Disabled People (Parking Badges)
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for the European Commission's recommendation for a standard European parking badge for disabled people to be implemented in the UK; what is the proposed timing; and if conditions of use of the UK's existing Orange Badge will be affected. [64967]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have decided that the EC's recommendation for a standard design of blue parking badge for disabled people will be implemented in the UK. In reaching our decision we consulted with our statutory advisers, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC).

  The aim of this Recommendation is, of course, to have a standard design of blue parking badge to replace the parking cards or badges which are currently on issue in Member States, and to ensure that there is reciprocity across Member States in recognising the new badge. The EC's intention is to have these arrangements introduced by 1 January 2000.

  The Recommendation does not affect the eligibility criteria applied by Member States, nor the parking privileges which the parking card affords disabled people in each Member State. These remain matters for national governments to determine. Parking badges will, therefore, retain their national status, but will be designed on the basis of the EC's model.

  In this country, we plan to phase in the new blue badges as existing Orange Badges come up for renewal, or new applications are processed, over the 3 years from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2002.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list the official visits to Buckinghamshire which(a) she and (b) her predecessor have made since 2 May 1997. [64134]

  Mrs. Beckett
  None.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Recycling
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee (1) which company is responsible for the recycling of waste paper from the Parliamentary Estate; [64554]

  (2) how much money was raised from the sale of waste paper from the Parliamentary Estate in the last financial year; [64555]

  (3) what tonnage of waste paper from the Parliamentary Estate was recycled in the last financial year. [64553]

  Mrs. Roe
  These are matters for the Serjeant at Arms; I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Good Town Planning
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department has taken to promote good town planning in the cities of the third world. [64400]

  Clare Short
  We view good town planning practice as an essential component in the better management of cities. This is in line with the internationally agreed development goals contained in the Habitat Agenda which resulted from the Habitat II conference at Istanbul in 1996. The Department provides funding support to help the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements, Habitat, take forward this Agenda.

  Direct support is also given to the global United Nations Urban Management Programme and Urban Indicators Programme. The Department works closely with countries which implement these approaches to improved urban environments and has supported programmes which include good town planning practice in India and China.

  Trading Markets
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to increase the access of third world countries to the principal trading markets of the world; and if she will make a statement. [64524]

  Clare Short
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  TACIS Projects
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will increase UK Government activity in generating TACIS projects. [63110]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We do not wish to see an expansion of Tacis activity until its effectiveness is improved. Tacis has been widely criticised for its slow procedures and cumbersome bureaucracy. We are in dialogue with the European Commission to address these problems, including the new Tacis Regulation which will be agreed during 1999.

CABINET OFFICE

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list(a) the (i) task forces, (ii) review panels and (iii) advisory groups his Department has, (b) the remit of each and (c) the members of each together with their principal employment and their level of remuneration. [62811]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  For the purpose of this question this answer includes the Prime Minister's Office and the Cabinet Office. Details of all Cabinet Office task forces, review bodies and advisory groups have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Civil Servants (Sickness)
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what is the overall level of sickness absence in the Civil Service. [64908]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The average level of sickness absence in 1997 was unchanged from 1996 at 8.5 days per person (10.4 days per staff year). This is broadly in line with the level in the economy as a whole.

  I have placed in the Libraries of the House copies of the report on Sickness Absence in the Civil Service during 1997, which contains a comprehensive analysis of the figures about the Civil Service. This report was prepared for my Department by BMI Health Services.

  My Department is discussing with Departments and Agencies how they can achieve the targets of reducing sickness absence in the Civil Service by 20 per cent. by 2001 and 30 per cent. by 2003 which were set following the July 1998 report "Managing Attendance in the Public Sector". I shall receive regular reports on progress.

  Civil Servants (Industrial Tribunal)
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many civil servants took cases to an industrial tribunal last year. [64303]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Figures on the number of civil servants who take cases to Employment Tribunal are not held centrally, and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Official Cars
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will estimate for each month in the past five years the total miles covered by Ministers' official cars. [63656]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Government Car and Despatch Agency. I have asked its Chief Executive, Mr. Nick Matheson, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Nick Matheson to Mr. Peter Bottomley, dated 17 December 1998:
  The Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office has asked me in my capacity as the Chief Executive of the Agency responsible for the Government Car Service (GCS) to reply to your Parliamentary
  644
  Question dated 10 December 1998 asking for a list by month of the estimated total mileage of ministerial car travelling on official business in the last five years.
  The Government Car and Despatch Agency, of which GCS is a part, was formed on 1 April 1997 and information on mileage before then is not readily available and can only be obtained at disproportionate cost. However, I estimate the total mileage of ministerial cars provided by this Agency and travelling on official business since 1 April 1997 to be as follows:

  1997 month

  Estimated mileage

  1998 month

  Estimated mileage

  April

  27,810

  January

  71,910

  May

  143,820

  February

  129,440

  June

  139,030

  March

  143,820

  July

  143,820

  April

  104,270

  August

  71,910

  May

  143,280

  September

  69,510

  June

  139,030

  October

  115,060

  July

  143,820

  November

  139,030

  August

  71,910

  December

  107,860

  September

  69,510

  October

  115,060

  November

  139,030

  The above estimates are based on total official use of GCS cars. In addition to their use by ministers, cars are used for other official purposes such as the movement of documents and for use by officials as directed by the ministerial private office.

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on biotechnology and genetic modification, following the establishment of the ministerial group. [64629]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The Government are initiating a thorough review of the framework for overseeing developments in biotechnology, focusing particularly on the range of committees that have been established to provide the Government with expert advice and to regulate in this area. The Government are already engaged in a public consultation on developments in the biosciences which is due to report in Spring 1999. The review of the framework for overseeing developments in biotechnology, to be carried out by officials, will take place on the same timescale.

  The Government believe that the protection of human health must be the first priority in regulating biotechnology. The impact on the environment and on biodiversity must also be thoroughly assessed, and the ethical issues raised by biotechnology fully taken into account. At the same time, the Government believe that this technology has the potential to offer enormous opportunities for improving the competitiveness of the economy and the quality of life in terms of health, agriculture, food and environmental protection, and that regulation should facilitate technological development by not imposing unjustified burdens on the biotechnology industry.

  The Government seek to have in place a system that provides sound advice and proportionate regulation and is at the same time as simple and transparent as possible; that has the flexibility to respond to the fast moving developments in the technology and to public concerns; and that commands the respect of users and the public.
  645
  The review will assess the current system in the light of these criteria. It will seek to address the following questions:
  what gaps exist in coverage of biotechnology by the existing committees and how might these be remedied?
  what overlaps exist and are they justified? If not, how might they be remedied?
  could the current system be structured in a more simple way?
  how could the system for providing advice to Government be made more transparent?
  are ethical and other wider issues addressed fully and properly within the current system?
  are stakeholders given the appropriate opportunities to make their views known? For example, would an environmental stakeholder forum be a valuable addition to the current framework?
  is the framework flexible enough to cope with the rapid development of this technology which is likely in the future?
  does the public have confidence in the system currently in place?

  The views will be sought of the existing regulatory and advisory bodies themselves, and of outside bodies with an interest in this area. The Government would also welcome views from the public.

  The Cabinet Office and the Office of Science and Technology will jointly co-ordinate the review. The Government will make an announcement on its outcome.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Prosecutions (Assent)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Attorney-General how often in each of the last five years the holder of his office gave his assent to prosecutions which needed it; and if he will list each of these occasions. [63017]

  The Attorney-General
  The records in my Department are maintained for case-tracking rather than statistical purposes. The information sought by the hon. Member could be obtained only by a manual trawl of all relevant files. That would involve disproportionate cost.

  Fraud
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Attorney-General what are the current case loads of the Serious Fraud Office and of the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to serious or complex fraud. [63024]

  The Attorney-General
  The Serious Fraud Office currently has a caseload of 68 serious or complex fraud cases. In the year 1997–98, of 39 defendants whose cases were brought to trial, 37 were convicted and 2 acquitted. In the current year so far, 22 defendants have been brought to trial with 18 convictions and 4 acquittals. The Crown Prosecution Service does not keep records which show serious and complex fraud cases as a separate category. It is therefore not possible to provide comparable figures.

  Crown Prosecution Service (East Sussex)
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the current strength of the Crown Prosecution Service in East Sussex. [63020]
  646
  The Attorney-General
  On 30 November 1998, the East Sussex branch of the Crown Prosecution Service had the full time equivalent of 23 Crown Prosecutors and 35.6 caseworkers and administrators engaged in its work.

PRIME MINISTER

  Council of Europe
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will announce the composition of the United Kingdom delegation for the January 1999 ordinary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. [64792]

  The Prime Minister
  The January 1999 ordinary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will be opened in Strasbourg on 25 January. The delegation from the United Kingdom for the session will consist of 23 members of the Labour Party, nine from the Conservative Party and four members from the minority parties. The delegation will serve in place of the current delegation from the opening January 1999 ordinary session.

  The appointments of representatives and substitutes have been made on the basis of nomination by the parties concerned.

  The same delegation will be representing the United Kingdom Parliament at the Assembly of the Western European Union.

  Representatives from the Government Benches will be:
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), who will act as leader; the hon. Members for Tooting (Mr. Cox); for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe); for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington); for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn); for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe); for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara); for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall); for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara); for Glasgow, Bailleston (Mr. Wray); Lord Kirkhill and Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.

  Representatives from the Conservative Party will be:
  The hon. Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson); for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman); for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) and the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir A. Goodlad).

  Representatives from the minority parties will be:
  The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) and Lord Russell-Johnston.

  The following substitutes have been appointed to act as necessary on behalf of the delegates.
  From the Government Benches: the hon. Members for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer); for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones); for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith); for Dover (Mr. Prosser); for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley); for Calder Valley (Ms McCafferty); for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith); for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor); for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis); Lord Grenfell and Lord Judd.
  From the Conservative Party: the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin); for Ludlow (Mr. Gill); for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire); Lord Lucas of Crudwell and Lord Northesk.l
  From the minority parties: the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) and the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor).

  G7 Presidency
  Ann Keen
  To ask the Prime Minister what has been achieved by the G7/8 during the United Kingdom presidency this year. [64793]

  The Prime Minister
  During the United Kingdom's Presidency of the G7/8 this year, we have made progress on international action in a wide range of areas.

  The successful G8 Summit in Birmingham in May marked a departure from tradition. Leaders were able to have a more businesslike and focused discussion in an informal atmosphere, and agreed a shorter, more action-oriented communiqué. The new format worked well and will be followed next year under the German Presidency.

  One of the most challenging responsibilities was the turbulent world economy and the need to modernise international financial architecture. The Birmingham Summit endorsed G7 Finance Ministers' proposals on strengthening the global financial system. This was followed up by wider-ranging recommendations in statements issued by G7 leaders and by G7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors on 30 October. This includes enhanced financing arrangements for dealing with financial market contagion: codes of good practice for greater transparency and openness in economic policy-making and in private sector financial institutions; better processes for monitoring and regulating global financial stability; and reforms to improve the effectiveness of the international financial institutions. We hope to see good progress in these areas by the IMF/World Bank meetings in April 1999.

  The G8 has renewed, at Birmingham and since, its commitment to resisting protectionism and continuing trade liberalisation in the framework of the WTO.

  At Birmingham, G8 leaders discussed national action plans which set out practical measures to promote employability. These were based on the seven principles agreed at the G8 conference on employability, growth and inclusion in February to generate new employment opportunities and tackle unemployment and exclusion.

  Development was a key theme of our Presidency. At Birmingham, G8 members committed themselves to the internationally agreed targets for economic and social development. They recognised the importance of substantial levels of development assistance and undertook to work towards untying it wherever possible. They supported the WHO's roll-back malaria initiative, to which the UK has pledged £60 million, and which is now being actively implemented by Mrs. Brundtland, the new Director General.

  The UK was keen to use our Presidency to press ahead with debt relief for the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) initiative. The Birmingham Summit agreed that all eligible countries should be in the debt relief process by the year 2000, and should receive interim relief where necessary. The IMF/World Bank annual meetings in October took this forward by agreeing to extend the HIPC initiative to the end of 2000; to allow IMF post-conflict assistance programmes to count towards a country's track record under the HIPC initiative; to carry out a comprehensive review of the initiative as early as 1999; and to undertake further work on what the international
  648
  financial institutions can do to help post-conflict countries. Following UK proposals, the World Bank has set up a trust fund to help meet the multilateral debt service obligations of Nicaragua and Honduras, and the Paris Club of official bilateral creditors has agreed a three-year moratorium for these countries.

  Leaders set in train further G8 action against trans-national organised crime. They endorsed a 10-point plan to combat high-tech crime and agreed the need for further action against money laundering and financial crime, official corruption, trafficking in human beings and the illegal firearms trade. Since Birmingham, officials have taken this work forward and G8 Interior Ministers reviewed progress in a video conference on 15 December.

  With the end of the century fast approaching, leaders recognised the challenge posed by the millennium bug. G8 officials have, since the Summit, co-ordinated G8 preparations and contingency planning, worked actively to raise global awareness, and started to identify vulnerable areas in which international organisations have a key role to play. The United Kingdom is contributing £10 million to the World Bank trust fund to help developing countries.

  After agreement at Birmingham for urgent work to take forward the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, G8 members all negotiated constructively at the conference of the parties in Buenos Aires in November and secured agreement on a workplan to bring into effect the international mechanisms such as emissions trading. G8 Foreign Ministers in May endorsed an action programme to protect the world's forests. In April, G8 Environment Ministers agreed a package of measures to fight against environmental crime.

  In May, G8 Foreign Ministers agreed to focus G8 efforts against terrorism on terrorist financing, improving co-ordination on hostage-taking, and export controls on explosives and other terrorist-related items. A conference of senior officials on 7–8 December agreed shared principles and points for further action to tackle terrorist support mechanisms.

  G8 leaders and Foreign Ministers discussed international action in various regions, for example the Middle East and Kosovo. After Birmingham condemned India's nuclear tests, G8 Foreign Ministers met in June and established a senior officials task force of G8 and other countries to take forward the international response to the tests in India and Pakistan.

  We are working closely with the German government on the hand over to their G7/8 Presidency on 1 January 1999 and are preparing for the next G8 Summit in Holn on 18–20 June 1999.

  European Commission
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Prime Minister how many and what percentage of people working for the European Commission are British. [64401]

  The Prime Minister
  There are 1,172 Britons working as permanent officials of the European Commission. This equals 7 per cent. of the total work force.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Prime Minister what percentage of people in the higher European Commission Civil Service positions are British. [64402]
  649
  The Prime Minister
  The percentage of permanent officials in the higher grades of the European Commission who are British is 9 per cent. This can be further broken down into the following grades: 'A' Grade (graduate administrators)—11 per cent., 'LA' Grade (linguistic)—10 per cent.; and 'B' Grade (executive officers)—6 per cent.

  Fox Hunting
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans the Government have to(a) introduce legislation relating to fox hunting and (b) provide opportunities for legislation relating to fox hunting. [64483]

  The Prime Minister
  We have kept fully to our Manifesto commitment on this issue, which was to allow a free vote. Members made their views clear with a huge majority in favour of banning hunting. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has met with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) and others to look at ways of dealing with this issue.

  The Government's priority is to ensure the successful passage of the full legislative programme which was set out in the Queen's Speech.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library his response to the letter of 25 November to him from Michael Stone, former head of the United Nations Multidisciplinary Observer Unit, Iraq. [62796]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: A copy of the reply to Mr. Stone's letter will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Sure Start
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to introduce the Sure Start programme in Northern Ireland. [64143]

  Mr. McFall
  Present expenditure plans do not include provision for the introduction of the Sure Start programme in Northern Ireland. However, the Government are already doing a great deal in Northern Ireland to develop improved support systems for families with young children and a consultation exercise early next year on the Northern Ireland Childcare Strategy will seek views from a wide range of interests about how programmes for families with young children might best be further developed here. It will then be for the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide on the way forward.

  Partnership Areas
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for district partnership areas in the last financial year(a) the spending on community businesses and (b) the percentage of the productive investment budget this represents. [64210]
  650
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information requested is as follows:

  Partnership

  £

  1. Antrim Borough Partnership

  0

  2. The Ards Partnership

  77,810

  3. Armagh City and District Partnership

  0

  4. Ballymena Partnership

  26,028

  5. Ballymoney District Partnership

  25,725

  6. Banbridge District Partnership

  9,750

  7. Belfast European Partnership Board

  0

  8. Carrickfergus Together

  0

  9. Castlereagh Partnership

  0

  10. Coleraine Borough Partnership

  0

  11. Cookstown District Partnership

  0

  12. Craigavon District Partnership

  30,900

  13. Derry District Partnership

  0

  14. Down District Partnership

  92,226

  15. Fermanagh Partnership

  233,195

  16. Larne Partnership

  39,000

  17. Limavady Partnership

  0

  18. Lisburn Partnership

  0

  19. Magherafelt Partnership

  0

  20. Moyle Partnership

  27,249

  21. Newry and Mourne

  31,000

  22. Newtownabbey Partnership

  0

  23. North Down Partnership

  0

  24. Omagh District Partnership

  113,600

  25. South Tyrone Partnership

  0

  26. Strabane District Partnership

  285,000

  In the first tranche of funding, the Productive Investment allocation was an indicative percentage of the total (£41 million). At 18 per cent., it represents approximately £7,380,000 over 3 years (this figure is approximate, taking into account Exchange Rate Fluctuations).The figures shown for District Partnerships in one year (£991,483) represents only 13.43 per cent. of the budget, but the budget is indicative only, and the figures only relate to one year.

  Military Strategy
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what dates since April Ministers attended meetings at which the review of military strategy in Northern Ireland was an agenda item, indicating which of these meetings were attended by(a) the Chief Constable of the RUC and (b) the General Officer Commanding. [64211]

  Mr. Ingram
  Military strategy is considered at many of the frequent formal and ad hoc meetings and contacts the Secretary of State has with the Chief Constable and GOC. Naturally these in no way prejudice the operational independence of the Chief Constable, supported by the GOC.

  Hospitals (Capital Expenditure)
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much capital expenditure on what dates and for what purposes has been made at(a) the South Tyrone Hospital and (b) the Craigavon Area Hospital since April 1991. [64265]

  Mr. McFall
  Prior to April 1993 in the case of Craigavon Hospital, and April 1996 in the case of South Tyrone Hospital, the Southern Health and Social Services Board was responsible for capital expenditure in minor
  651
  works and equipment in its area where the cost was below £1 million. From these dates, the responsibility has been delegated to the Trusts for determining priorities for local investment, up to £0.5 million, out of their general capital provision. Details of individual items below the delegated limits are not available centrally.

  In April 1993 an allocation of £1.25 million was made to the Southern Health and Social Services Board for replacement of the main theatres in the South Tyrone Hospital.

  Craigavon Hospital currently has a major capital project which involves recladding of the exterior of the building. This project started in mid-1994 and is due to finish in 2002. The current estimate of the total cost of the project is £14.5 million.

  Capital expenditure on the project in each financial year by the Craigavon Area Hospital Group Trust is as follows:

  £ million

  Financial year

  Amount

  1994–95

  0.250

  1995–96

  0.877

  1996–97

  2.669

  1997–98

  2.970

  1998–99

  4.680

  Total

  11.446

DEFENCE

  Nerve Gas Attacks (Japan)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the clinical data on the long-term health effects on the victims of the nerve gas attacks on the Tokyo subway and Matsumato in 1994 and 1995; if his Department has reached any conclusions; and if he will make a statement. [63841]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 17 December 1998:
  I have been asked to reply to your question about the clinical assessment of the long-term health effects on the victims of the nerve gas attacks on the Tokyo subway and Matsumato in 1994 and 1995. Although the Ministry of Defence and the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector (CBD) of DERA at Porton Down are aware of both the incidents and the acute toxic effects of sarin experienced in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, we have not undertaken a clinical assessment of the potential long-term effects of these attacks.
  However, staff at CBD understand that Japan has instigated a long term follow-up programme to monitor the individuals who were involved in these incidents and it is anticipated that results from this programme will be published in due course.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many papers in the Technical Memoranda 652
  series of technical papers produced by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down, are currently unclassified; when the series of papers (a) started and (b) finished; and how many papers have so far been produced in the series. [63933]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 17 December 1998:
  I have been asked to reply to your question about the Technical Memorandum series of technical papers produced by the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of the Defence evaluation and Research Agency at Porton Down. This series of internal technical reports started in September 1980 and finished in June 1994. It contains over 100 reports, of which 17 are unclassified.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Iraq
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many flights have been made by the RAF in the air exclusion zones in North and South Iraq since this military operation commenced. [64295]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Since patrolling of the northern and southern Iraqi No-Fly-Zones began (in 1991 and 1992 respectively), the RAF have flown a total of some 15,500 sorties in the zones.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place a list of the 49 unclassified papers in the DERA reports series in the Library, specifying the title of each paper and the date on which it was produced. [63932]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have arranged for a list of the titles and dates to be placed in the Library of the House. The Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency regrets that unfortunately there was an error in his reply to my hon. Friend's previous question about these reports on 18 November 1998,Official Report, column 636. There are, in fact, 44 not 49 unclassified reports in the series.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the abandonment of the IT system being prepared by Data Sciences for the Defence Intelligence Staff, indicating the reasons for the abandonment; what is the breakdown of the costs incurred; for what reasons an off-the-shelf system was not ordered at the time of the original decision; and what estimates were made at that time of the costs of an off-the-shelf system. [63717]

  Mr. Spellar
  The IT system referred to was selected in July 1988 following a detailed requirements survey. No off-the-shelf system was available which could meet the requirement and the rigorous security standards which were necessary. The system was abandoned in November 1996 because delays in implementing the contract and rapid changes in IT technology meant that it no longer met either the developing business needs of the Department or current health and safety standards.
  653
  Many valuable lessons have been learned about the acquisition and development of such a demanding system and these align closely with the principles of the Smart Procurement Initiative.

  As a result of these lessons, a follow-on-system has now been put into service at a fraction of the cost using up to date commercial-off-the-shelf technology and is successfully operating on a widespread basis.

  A precise breakdown of the costs incurred is not easy to establish but was around £14 million for hardware with the remainder for software development. Some E2 million were recovered from the company concerned in liquidated damages.

  Nuclear-powered Submarines
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the United Kingdom and France have reciprocal rights for their nuclear-powered submarines to use docking facilities in(a) either country and (b) their overseas dependent territories. [63901]

  Mr. Spellar
  The UK and France do not have any reciprocal rights for their nuclear-powered submarines to use docking facilities in(a) either country and (b) their overseas dependent territories. We do, however, have berthing arrangements for nuclear-powered submarines with a number of countries, including France.

  Chile
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of occasions upon which the Commander in Chief of the Chilean Army has visited the United Kingdom since 1990, the duration of each visit, and the officers of the British armed forces and officials of his Department's Defence Sales Organisation whom he met on each occasion. [64023]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 15 December 1998]: As far as we are able to ascertain from available records, no official visit to the United Kingdom has been made by the Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean Army during the years in question. We are, however, aware that the then Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean Army, General Pinochet, made six private visits to the United Kingdom between 1990 and 1997. We can find no record of his meeting any Officers or officials of the Defence Export Services Organisations on these occasions.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names of each Royal Navy vessel which has visited Chile in the last five years and the dates and duration of the visits; and what future visits to Chile by Royal Navy vessels are planned. [63409]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [pursuant to his reply, 14 December 1998, c. 331]: I regret that one visit by HMS Northumberland was inadvertently omitted from the list provided and the dates for the visit of HMS Brazen in 1994 were wrong.

  The correct information is as follows:

  Year

  Vessel

  Date

  1994

  HMS Brazen

  28 September to 20 November 1994

  1996

  HMS Northumberland

  27 June to 29 June 1996

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the contacts which took place between his Department and the Embassy of Chile about the security of General Pinochet during his visit to Britain in the autumn. [64331]

  Mr. George Robertson
  My Department is not aware of any contacts with the Embassy of Chile concerning General Pinochet's security.

  Scottish Infantry Battalions
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the (i) establishment and (ii) current strength of each of the regular Scottish infantry battalions; and if he will list each element of company strength or above currently serving in them. [62542]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 8 December 1998]: The establishment and current strength of each of the six regular Scottish Infantry Battalions, as at 1 November, is as listed. The strength figures for individual companies within these Battalions is dependent, at any one time, on the operational or training needs of the Battalion. The individual company figures are, therefore, a snapshot of strength on 10 December 1998. The Battalion strength figures include personnel who bear the Battation's cap badge but are posted away from it.

  Battalion Figures

  Battalion

  Establishment

  Strength

  Surplus/Deficit

  1 Royal Scots

  Officers

  35

  31

  -4

  Soldiers

  582

  394

  -188

  1 Royal Highland Fusiliers

  Officers

  34

  33

  -1

  Soldiers

  626

  487

  -139

  1 Kings Own Scottish Borderers

  Officers

  31

  32

  +1

  Soldiers

  520

  439

  -81

  1 Black Watch

  Officers

  31

  25

  -6

  Soldiers

  523

  440

  -83

  1 Highlanders

  Officers

  32

  33

  +1

  Soldiers

  583

  438

  -145

  1 Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

  Officers

  31

  32

  +1

  Soldiers

  558

  518

  -40

  Total

  3,586

  2.902

  -684

  Company Figures

  Unit

  Officer strength

  Soldier strength

  1 Royal Scots

  HQ Coy

  9

  112

  A Coy

  6

  92

  B Coy

  6

  Manned by Gurkhas

  C Coy

  5

  96

  Recce Coy

  4

  71

  1 Royal Highland Fusiliers

  HQ Coy

  12

  98

  A Coy

  4

  84

  B Coy

  4

  78

  C Coy

  4

  81

  Sp Coy

  6

  145

  655

  Company Figures

  Unit

  Officer strength

  Soldier strength

  1 Kings Own Scottish Borderers

  HQ Coy

  12

  115

  A Coy

  5

  81

  B Coy

  5

  81

  C Coy

  5

  78

  Sp Coy

  5

  112

  1 Black Watch

  HQ Coy

  9

  117

  A Coy

  3

  71

  B Coy

  4

  83

  C Coy

  4

  78

  Sp Coy

  4

  90

  1 Highlanders

  HQ Coy

  12

  122

  A Coy

  4

  59

  B Coy

  3

  48

  C Coy

  4

  55

  Sp Coy

  7

  137

  1 Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

  HQ Coy

  12

  177

  A Coy

  5

  85

  B Coy

  5

  81

  C Coy

  5

  84

  Sp Coy

  5

  77

  Note:

  The Company figures include only those serving with that particular company on 10 December 1998 and may include personnel from other units.

  Gulf War Veterans
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons Ministry of Defence Police forcibly entered the homes of Gulf War veterans at the beginning of December. [63911]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Constable of the Ministry of Defence Police Agency. I have asked the Chief Constable to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from W. E. E. Boreham to Mr. Llew Smith, dated 17 December 1998:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about Ministry of Defence Police entering the homes of Gulf War veterans, as this falls into my area of responsibility as Chief Constable/Chief Executive of the Ministry of Defence Police Agency.
  Ministry of Defence Police did not forcibly enter the homes of Gulf War veterans. On Tuesday 1 December 1998 the Ministry of Defence Police executed search warrants at two private residences in connection with an investigation to determine the whereabouts of MOD documents, believed stolen from the MOD's Gulf Veteran's Medical Assessment Programme at St. Thomas' Hospital, London.

  Landmines
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what ways British forces are currently involved in initiatives around the world to reduce the risk of injury from landmines. [64460]

  Mr. Spellar
  UK Armed Forces personnel currently provide technical expertise and management skills to support mine action programmes world-wide. The Mine Information and Technology Centre at Minley, established in November 1997, has become the focal point for non-governmental organisations and other Government Departments for information on demining operations and 656
  provides Mines Awareness training to both military and civilian personnel in the UK. UK military personnel are currently attached to The Mine Action Centre in Mostar, the Mine Information Centre in Kosovo, and the UN Mine Action Service in New York. British forces are involved in mine action activities in Bosnia and provide an Explosives Ordnance Disposal Response Team on the Falkland Islands. We are also planning to second a Colonel to The Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining next year and are examining the possibility of providing personnel to support a further five UN sponsored mine programmes world-wide. My Department continues to explore areas, in conjunction with the FCO and DFID, where the UK Armed Forces' expertise can make a meaningful contribution to humanitarian demining activity.

  Armed Forces Recruitment (Scotland)
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to assist the regular and part-time forces and cadets in Scotland to recruit up to their full complement. [61082]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Polo Ponies
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the total cost to the British Army of polo ponies stabled at bases(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) overseas; and how many polo ponies are stabled at its bases in total; [63991]

  (2) what proportion of the cost of the maintenance of polo ponies in British military bases (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) overseas is paid by individual polo players. [63992]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department does not own any polo ponies, although ponies may be owned by individual service personnel and stabled at private saddle clubs within British Army bases in the United Kingdom and overseas. The cost of stabling these ponies is met by non-public funds and therefore at no cost to my Department. My Department does not hold details of the number of polo ponies stabled within British Army bases, and this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  REME (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the projected operating costs for 101 Battalion REME operating out of Queensferry in the first three financial years of operation. [63622]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: This information is not yet available. However, operating costs of the TA Centre at Queensferry are currently forecast to be, over a 25-year period, some 25% lower than the operating costs of the TA Centre at Chorley, where HQ 101 Battalion REME is currently the sole TA occupant. The transfer of HQ 101 Bn to Queensferry, to join other TA units there, will realise further cost savings since it will allow the closure of TAC

  657
  Chorley. The precise details have yet to be established, but this work will be undertaken in the New Year as part of my Department's usual financial planning process.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated cost of proposed redundancies of civil servants arising from the transfer of 101 Battalion REME from Chorley Barracks to Queensferry. [63621]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: It is too early to say how many redundancies, if any, will be necessary as a result of the transfer of 101 Battalion REME from Chorley to Queensferry, and what the cost of these redundancies may be.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals for the future of 101 Battalion REME at the Devonshire Road Barracks, Chorley were included in earlier drafts of his review of the Territorial Army. [63619]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: Initial outline proposals, issued as a basis for the consultative process, proposed that the Headquarters 101 Battalion would remain in Chorley.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many official visits(a) he and (b) the ministers in his Department have made to Buckinghamshire since 2 May 1997; and if he will list them. [64138]

  Mr. Spellar
  Ministers in this Department have made the following visits to Buckinghamshire since 2 May 1997.

  Secretary of State for Defence

  14 October 1997: RAF Strike Command, High Wycombe

  16 June 1998: RAF Strike Command, High Wycombe

  Minister of State for the Armed Forces

  5 June 1997: RAF Strike Command, High Wycombe

  26 September 1997: Services Sound and Vision Corporation, Gerrards Cross.

  CR Gas
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times the armed forces have used CR tear gas since 1968; on what dates CR gas was used; for what reasons; and in what circumstances the armed forces have been authorised to use CR tear gas since 1968. [63842]

  Mr. Spellar
  We have no records of CR having been used operationally by the Armed Forces. I understand that a small amount, however, has been used for training purposes in the past, but details of when this took place are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  CR was authorised to be held in readiness for use in Northern Ireland in October 1973. Its possible use has also been authorised on a small number of occasions where the armed forces have responded to a request for assistance for law enforcement purposes from the civil power. CR is only authorised as a non-lethal self-defence option where the risk to the safety of military personnel is considered particularly high.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Antibiotic Growth Promoters
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the use of antibiotic growth promoters in food. [62997]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government are responding today to the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee's report on resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobial agents. We support a phased withdrawal of antimicrobial growth promoters which may impair the efficacy of prescribed therapeutic antibiotics used in human medicine through the development of resistant strains of organisms.

  Flood Defences
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to improve flood defences and warnings. [63000]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Local operating authorities, including the Environment Agency, are responsible for flood defence. The Agency is responsible for flood warning systems and has published an Action Plan for implementing the recommendations of the independent review of last Easter's flooding.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what additional money he will make available for the protection of farm land against flood in North Devon. [63013]

  Mr. Morley
  It is the responsibility of local operating authorities (primarily the Environment Agency (EA) and local authorities) to identify the need for flood defence measures and to decide which projects should be promoted. Therefore the Government cannot direct authorities to protect farm land. However the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has notified local authorities that the flood defence element of their Standard Spending Assessments for 1999–2000 will be 6.3 per cent. higher than actual expenditure (on EA levies, Internal Drainage Board special levies and own revenue expenditure) in 1998–99. This Department will shortly announce funding for the Environment Agency's core capital programme for 1999–2000 in the South West; in addition the South West will benefit from further funding for flood warning improvements being provided to the Agency on a national basis.

  Pig Industry
  Mr. Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is pursuing with other European Agriculture Ministers to help the pig industry. [63001]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I have held a number of constructive discussions with my counterparts in the EU; both in Agriculture Council and in bilateral meetings. Following those discussions, we have encouraged the EU Commission to use all the mechanisms it has available to help alleviate the particularly difficult market conditions faced by the EU pig industry.
  659
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with pig producers in the south west about the current state of pig farming. [63003]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Ministers have had a number of constructive discussions in recent weeks with pig farmers in the South West and elsewhere in Britain. These have helped us understand the crisis situation facing pig farmers at the present time.

  Milk (Derbyshire)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports he has received concerning levels of dioxin in milk in Derbyshire; and if he will make a statement. [63002]

  Mr. Rooker
  Since 1991, samples of cows' milk have been taken from dairy farms in the Bolsover and Staveley areas for analysis for dioxins. The results are routinely published and show that the levels of dioxins in cows' milk from both areas are now similar to those found in other parts of the UK. For this reason, the Ministry has no plans to carry out further sampling.

  Battery Hens
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he has taken to improve the welfare of battery hens. [63004]

  Mr. Rooker
  We initiated discussions on proposals for new and improved EU welfare standards for all laying hens during our Presidency. We will continue to work with our European partners to being these negotiations to a satisfactory conclusion.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the timetable is for consultation on financing the proposed Food Standards Agency. [63005]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Government remain committed to setting up the Food Standards Agency following the proposals outlined in the White Paper, The Food Standards Agency: A Force for Change (CM 3830). Should additional Parliamentary time become available, we hope to make progress on the necessary legislation in the present Session. In the meantime, following discussion with colleagues today, I can announce that we shall publish the Food Standards Bill in draft for public consultation in January 1999. The draft Bill will be available for pre-legislative scrutiny by this House. At the same time, we intend to publish a document for consultation on the Government's proposals for financing the Agency.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when he expects to publish the draft Bill to establish a food standards agency; and what period will be provided for pre-legislative scrutiny of it; [63548]

  (2) what form the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill to establish a food standards agency will take. [63547]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: The Government remain committed to setting up the Food Standards Agency following the proposals outlined in the White Paper, The Food Standards Agency: A Force for Change (CM 3830). Should additional Parliamentary time
  660
  become available, we hope to make progress on the necessary legislation in the present Session. In the meantime, following discussion with colleagues today, I can announce that we shall publish the Food Standards Bill in draft for public consultation in January 1999. The draft Bill will be available for pre-legislative scrutiny by this House. At the same time, we intend to publish a document for consultation on the Government's proposals for financing the Agency.

  Farmers (Competitiveness)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to ensure British farmers can compete on even terms with farmers in countries that have lower food and animal welfare standards. [63006]

  Mr. Rooker
  I am working hard to create a level playing field for standards across the European Union. As a result of initiatives we took in our Presidency, the European Commission has been charged with producing a report by June 1999 considering the relationship between EU and third country farm animal welfare standards and making any necessary proposals.

  Farm Incomes
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of the recent decline in farm incomes on the UK fanning industry. [63007]

  Mr. Rooker
  My Department announced on 1 December that Total Income from Farming is forecast to be 33 per cent. lower in 1998 compared to 1997. The main reason for the fall in prices in 1998 has been the oversupply of commodity markets, although the strength of the "green pound" has also been a factor.

  The Government are aware of the difficult times that some sectors of the farming industry are undergoing, and have responded by announcing an aid package worth £120 million, targeted to the sectors most affected.

  For the future, Government and all those associated with food production in the UK need to work together towards a sustainable, competitive and profitable industry and an attractive and viable countryside. This means in particular securing reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.

  Farming (Profitability)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the prospects for future profitability of farming in the United Kingdom over the next 10 years. [63008]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is difficult to predict the trend in farm incomes because of the many factors involved. I am kept informed by my officials on how specific market developments could impact on farm incomes.

  Beef on the Bone
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many prosecutions have taken place with regard to the sale of beef on the bone to the final consumer. [63009]
  661
  Mr. Rooker
  Local authorities are generally responsible for enforcing the Beef Bones Regulations 1997 and I am not aware that any prosecutions have been completed though at least three are in progress. I would expect prosecutions to be taken if other enforcement action fails. I understand that such action has included reminding traders that the retail sale of bone-in beef is not permitted, the issuing of warnings and the formal cautioning of traders who admit to retailing bone-in beef. Details of prosecutions brought to my Department's attention are included in the BSE Enforcement Bulletin which is published monthly by my Department. Copies of the Bulletin are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures have been taken to combat TB in cattle. [63010]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on 12 November 1998,Official Report, column 311.

  Meat and Bonemeal
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to change the regulation of the disposal of meat and bonemeal. [63011]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government have no plans to change the regulations which currently govern the disposal of meat and bonemeal.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will meet the Commission of the European Union to discuss the fraudulent misapplication of funds under the common agricultural policy. [63014]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have no plans to do so. The Government have made it clear that they strongly support and encourage measures to reduce fraud against the CAP budget and to improve the budget's financial management.

  Turkeys
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the competitiveness of the United Kingdom turkey industry. [62999]

  Mr. Rooker
  In common with other agricultural sectors, the turkey industry is experiencing difficulties and having to compete with cheap imports from other EU member states, particularly on the catering market.

  The standard turkey as a Christmas loss leader in UK supermarkets will mean that lower priced imports will be competing with UK production during the busy Christmas period. However, at least one major supermarket is sourcing from the UK only and traditional farm fresh turkeys will all be British.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 14 and 15 December. [64558]
  662
  Mr. Nick Brown
  I represented the United Kingdom at a meeting of the European Union Agriculture Council in Brussels on 14 and 15 December.

  The Council agreed by qualified majority (Belgium, Spain and Portugal abstaining) a Commission proposal to ban the use of four antibiotics in animal feed as from 30 June 1999. I welcomed the proposal as an appropriate response to advice, including from our own specialist scientific committees, that the use of antimicrobial growth promoters which may impair the efficacy of antibiotics used in human medicines should be phased out. I also welcomed the Council's statement stressing the need for an overall science-based approach to the issue of antibiotic resistance and calling for the Commission to submit a further report on the question of third country compliance with equivalent rules.

  The Council also agreed by qualified majority (Italy and the Netherlands opposing, Portugal abstaining) two regulations establishing new agrimonetary arrangements to apply following introduction of the Single Currency on 1 January 1999. I supported these measures which will greatly simplify the agrimonetary system whilst reducing its costs and making it easier to operate. I was particularly pleased to secure provision that the impact of the ending of the freeze on green rates on 1 January, which benefited our farmers more than any other member state's, will be subject to a gradual transition over 3 years.

  The Council reached unanimous political agreement on a proposal to send food aid to Russia, targeted towards regions most in need. I particularly welcomed this important gesture of EU solidarity with the Russian people.

  A discussion of the Commission's proposal for reform of the wine regime concluded with agreement that final decisions should be taken in the context of the Agenda 2000 CAP reforms in the early part of next year. The Commission debated a proposal to establish EU-wide rules governing organic livestock standards, agreeing guidelines for further negotiations.

  A package of proposals concerning the marketing of seeds was adopted by qualified majority (Denmark voting against). Council resolution on an EU forestry strategy was agreed unanimously, as was a decision approving a national aid to certain Greek co-operatives. The Commission also adopted unanimously a further postponement of the implementation of the 1997 Decision on Specified Risk Materials and a short deferral of implementation of new intra-Community health rules on trade in cattle and pigs.

  Over-30-months Scheme
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made on destroying over-30-months Scheme tallow stocks since his answer of 13 July 1998,Official Report, column 88. [64670]

  Mr. Rooker
  At the end of November 1998, stocks of OTMS tallow stood at 185,000 tonnes. Over 53,000 tonnes of tallow have been sold to renderers to burn as a fuel to power the rendering process. The Intervention Board have commissioned a leading firm of environmental engineers to report early in the new year on the opportunities for the large scale destruction of OTMS tallow in accordance with the requirements of Commission Regulation 716/96. The
  663
  Board's aim is to conclude early supply contracts which take full account of the need to protect human and environmental health and yield the best return for the taxpayer.

  WTO Agriculture Agreement
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his principal objectives with regard to the forthcoming negotiations on the World Trade Organisation's Agreement on Agriculture; and if he will make a statement. [63492]

  Mr. Rooker
  World Trade Organisation negotiations on agriculture are due to start in January 2000. We expect them to cover the same broad framework as the last negotiations (in the Uruguay Round), focusing on further improvements in import access for agricultural products; further cuts in subsidised exports; and reductions in domestic support to agriculture. We want these negotiations to be part of a comprehensive, time-limited round of trade liberalisation negotiations.

  The European Commission will participate in the negotiations on behalf of the EU. We will therefore work to ensure that UK interests are properly taken into account. The negotiations will be an important opportunity for further liberalisation of agricultural trade in line with the UK's objectives on reform of the CAP. These are to phase out productions support over a period in order to reduce substantially the costs of the CAP to consumers and taxpayers, to encourage the development of a viable and sustainable farming industry which is capable of competing without ongoing production support, and to conserve and enhance the rural environment and promote the rural economy through targeted measures.

  Beef Ban
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to make an announcement on the lifting of the export ban on beef derivatives with particular reference to tallow and gelatine. [63344]

  Mr. Rooker
  Exports of tallow derived from bovine animals slaughtered in the UK for use in human food, animal feed, cosmetics and medical and pharmaceutical products may recommence when the European Commission has inspected the implementation in the UK of the controls laid down in Council Decision 98/256/EC and set a date for this, after consulting the Standing Veterinary Committee. We have invited the Commission to carry out the required inspection and hope they will do so soon.

  There is at present no proposal from the European Commission to lift the prohibition on exports of gelatin derived from bovine animals slaughtered in the UK for use in human food, animal feed, cosmetics and medical and pharmaceutical products. But all UK producers are approved to export gelatin made from imported bovine raw materials for such uses.

  Gelatin, tallow and other byproducts derived from bovine animals slaughtered in the UK can already be exported for uses other than in human food, animal feed, cosmetics and medical and pharmaceutical products.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment his Department has made of future stock levels of each species of quota fish for the next four years; [64161]

  (2) what estimate his Department has made of indicative total allowable catches for (a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002; and if he will make those estimates available to the industry. [64160]

  Mr. Morley
  Fisheries scientists from the Ministry's Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) annually join with other international experts to undertake assessments of commercial fish stocks under the auspices of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES).

  Neither CEFAS nor ICES provides a forecast of stock size or catches over the next few years. This is because the future stock size and catches are significantly affected by the large natural variation in the number of young fish born each year and the level of total allowance catches agreed each year by Fisheries Ministers.

  ICES does however provide an assessment of the current size and state of the stocks, and of the effects on the stocks of different sizes of catches taken in 1999. It also provides an indication of the status of the stocks, in the medium term, if fishing rates are set at particular levels relative to current fishing. For the longer term, ICES estimates the average long term catches and stock sizes that can be expected with different fishing rates applied to the stocks.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure that the six and twelve mile fishing limits will be retained after the renegotiation of the Common Fisheries Policy in 2002. [64155]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government are committed to ensuring the retention of restrictions on access by foreign vessels within six and twelve mile fisheries limits. They will secure this by working with other Member States and European Commission.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what discussion(a) he and (b) his Department's officials have had with producer organisation representatives on industry proposals for coastal state management-based reform of the Common Fisheries Policy; [64158]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishing Organisation's joint proposal to operate a system of coastal state management of the fishing industry. [64159]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have welcomed the industry's joint position paper as a good basis for discussion. I and Ministry officials have discussed the paper with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and Scottish Fishermen's Federation, including producer organisation representatives. The two Federations have also been discussing their ideas with their counterparts in other Member States and I shall be interested to see the outcome of these contacts.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for the
  665
  future (a) operation and (b) funding of the Sea Fisheries Committees. [64156]

  Mr. Morley
  Sea Fisheries Committees will continue to play an important role in regulating inshore fisheries in England and Wales out to 6 miles from baselines. Funding is the responsibility of their constituent local authorities.

  Supermarkets
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps the Government are taking to encourage supermarkets to maintain diversity of supply. [63382]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 15 December 1998]: Decisions on the sourcing of produce at retail level are matters for the commercial judgment of the various retail companies, and it is not the Government's role to interfere in such decisions. We do however work closely with interests throughout the food chain, including the supermarkets, to encourage transparency in the interests of producers and consumers alike.

  Poultry
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy in respect of routine visits to poultry farms to ensure minimum inspection requirements are met. [63376]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 December 1998]: I attach a high priority to the registration and inspection of farms wishing to use special marketing terms under EC egg marketing legislation. MAFF's Egg Marketing Inspectorate set annual targets reflecting the number, size and importance of the premises to ensure compliance with the set criteria. The figures are published annually in the Inspectorate's annual Report. Next year they will do the same for poultry meat marketing terms.

  The State Veterinary Service visits farms to check compliance with statutory requirements and to encourage high animal welfare standards. Some visits are undertaken on a random basis, but priority is always given to responding to indications of possible welfare problems (e.g. complaints, problems detected at slaughterhouses).

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Students
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many graduate students of (i) nuclear and (ii) elementary particle physics there were at UK universities in(a) 1980, (b) 1985, (c) 1990, (d) 1995 and (e) 1998. [63083]

  Mr. Mudie
  The data requested are not available centrally. The available data show the numbers of postgraduate physics students in total but do not separately identify nuclear or elementary particle physics. The figures for physics are as follows:

  Postgraduate students in Physics—former Universities Funding Council (UFC) Universities in Great Britain

  Academic year

  Full-time

  Part-time

  1980–81

  1,794

  755

  1985–86

  1,850

  538

  666

  Postgraduate students in Physics—former Universities Funding Council (UFC) Universities in Great Britain

  Academic year

  Full-time

  Part-time

  1990–91

  2,216

  555

  1995–96

  2,545

  1,351

  1997–98

  2,319

  1,330

  New Deal (Women)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what assessment he has made of the arrangements for encouraging women to take up subsidised work under the New Deal; [63716]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the factors which make women more likely to be transferred to other benefits while on the New Deal than men; [63715]

  (3) what steps he has taken to encourage more women to join the New Deal. [63714]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 16 December 1998]: All young people who have been unemployed and claiming Jobseekers Allowance for six months or more, are eligible for New Deal whether they are men or women. During the Gateway all participants are equally encouraged to look for unsubsidised work or take up one of the New Deal options, including subsidised work or take up one of the New Deal options, including subsidised employment. The reasons for transfer to other benefits, including differences in transfer rates between men and women, are being examined as part of the New Deal evaluation.

  The latest Government Statistical Service data for end of September show that of the 167,400 young people who start new Deal 43,700 (26 per cent.) were female.

  Prisoners (University for Industry)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to promote the take up of the University for Industry courses amongst prisoner inmates. [64426]

  Mr. Mudie
  There are no definite plans yet to promote the University for Industry among prison inmates. However, distance learning opens up new opportunities to deliver education and training in prisons and the University for Industry may therefore be of potential benefit to prison inmates. Ministers have already met colleagues at the Home Office to consider the possibilities. Further discussions are planned between the University for Industry and the Prison Service.

  Education Development Plans
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the progress of the education development plans. [64170]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 15 December 1998]: Draft education development plans were due to be sent to the Department by 14 December for preliminary consideration. Final plans are to be submitted for approval by 28 February.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made
  667
  of the means by which the additional funding for the reduction of class sizes will be met by local education authorities and diocesan authorities. [63773]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We are making sufficient resources available for the class size pledge to be delivered fully by local education authorities and schools. £560 million is available over the next three years and this will be paid in the form of 100 per cent. grant for capital and revenue funding for all the types of schools covered by local authority implementation plans.

  New Deal (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have started on the New Deal scheme in Shrewsbury and Atcham broken down by(a) employer, (b) full-time education/training, (c) voluntary sector, (d) environmental task force and (e) other. [64076]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The latest Government Statistical Service figures for clients in the Shropshire Unit of Delivery, which covers the Shrewsbury and Atcham area, shows that to the end of September 1998, 695 young people had started on New Deal. 196 have left the Gateway of which(a) 24 have gained subsidised jobs through the Employment option (b) 43 have entered Full-Time Education and Training (c) 5 on the Voluntary Sector option (d) 12 on the Environment Task Force and (e) 112 have gone to other destinations including 75 who have gained unsubsidised employment.

  Further Education
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if students registered with the University for Industry on courses up to and including Level 3 will count as further education enrolments. [62550]

  Mr. Mudie
  The University for Industry will offer access to comprehensive information and to flexible skills-based programmes at all levels. Some learners using UfI materials may be enrolled at further education colleges or other institutions; others could be registered with other providers, or be learning individually in UfI learning centres, or at home. This will depend on the needs of the individual learner.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of the additional further education students planned for the year 2002 will be University for Industry enrolments. [62546]

  Mr. Mudie
  No such decision has yet been taken. That will reflect student choices.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money is being made available in the 12 months from 1 December for lone parents with children of school age receiving income support in Oxfordshire. [63648]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  668
  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Shaun Woodward, dated 1998:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning how much money is being made available in the 12 months from 1 December for lone parents with children of school age receiving income support in the Oxfordshire area. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The New Deal for Lone Parents programme is aimed at those lone parents on Income Support whose children are of school age although it is also available to lone parents with younger children. A total of £2.34m for the programme has been allocated to the Employment Service London and South East Region, which includes Oxfordshire, for the period from December 1998 to March 1999. This figure includes all programme and running costs but does not include funding for in-work and lone parent benefits.
  Unfortunately, separate figures for individual areas are not available. Funding allocations for 1999–2000 have not yet been agreed.
  I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful.

  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if the training undertaken by the advisers for the New Deal for Lone Parents is accredited towards a national vocational qualification; [63994]

  (2) what proportion of the advisers for the New Deal for Lone Parents have been recruited from (a) the Benefits Agency, (b) the Employment Service, (c) the Child Support Agency and (d) other backgrounds. [63995]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. 1 have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. John Healey, dated 1998:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions regarding whether the training undertaken by the advisers for the New Deal for Lone Parents is accredited towards a national vocational qualification and what proportion of the advisers for New Deal for Lone Parents have been recruited from (a) the Benefits Agency, (b) the Employment Service, (c) the Child Support Agency and (d) other backgrounds. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Highly skilled personal advisers are a crucial element in the success of New Deal for Lone Parents. Personal advisers were recruited on the basis that they would receive extensive training to cover all aspects of their job and would work towards an NVQ level 3 in Guidance. A number of the training modules New Deal Lone Parent advisers complete will contribute to their work towards the NVQ level 3 in Guidance.
  As of 30 October approximately 88% of Lone Parent advisers have been recruited from the Employment Service, 5% from the Benefits Agency and 7% from the Child Support Agency.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Child Care
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what plans his Department has to raise the standards of care and safety for over-eight year olds in child care provision; [64115]

  (2) what plans he has to extend the regulations of child care to those providing care for the over-eights; [64116]
  669
  (3) what estimate his Department has made of the cost of registering those caring for children over eight years of age. [64118]

  Ms Hodge
  The consultation paper on the regulation of early education and day care, issued earlier this year by the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment, asked whether there should be regulation of day care for children over 8-years-old and, if so, in what form. The Government are considering the responses and will announce their intentions in due course, mindful of the need to ensure children in day care are suitably protected from harm. The cost of any extension to current arrangements will be considered along with all other factors.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research his Department has commissioned on parents' views about(a) the quality of child care provision and (b) the system of registration of child carers. [64117]

  Ms Hodge
  We have commissioned a baseline survey of parents of children aged up to and including 14 years to establish nationally the demand for child care. This survey will ask parents about the overall quality of child care in the local area. Parents' opinions of the registration of child carers have not been surveyed, although a number of individuals responded to the Government's recent consultation paper on the regulation of early education and day care.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment by what means the National Child Care Strategy will be targeted, with particular reference to the City of Coventry. [63503]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: To date, a total of £470 million has been committed to the National Child Care Strategy in England over five years. Planning and implementation of the Strategy in England is being taken forward at local level by the new Early Years Development and Child Care Partnerships which have been set up in each local authority area.

  Key elements of funding are as follows:

  In 1998–99, £12 million has been allocated to Partnerships to carry out local child care audits, consult on demand and draw up plans for the delivery of increased provision next year. This has been allocated on the basis of the number of 0–14 year olds in each Partnership area. The City of Coventry allocation for this work is £81,000. Over the same period, some £22.1 million has been made available to fund the Out of School Child Care Initiative (OSCI), of which £378,000 has been allocated to Coventry and Warwickshire through the local Training and Enterprise Council. In addition, Coventry Local Education Authority has received £87,000 this year through Nursery Education Grant.

  For 1999–2000, my Department has allocated £44 million to the Partnerships for child care activities, which includes £6.7 million to safeguard existing good quality services in disadvantaged areas, which are at risk of closure. These funds have again been allocated on the basis of the number of 0–14 year olds in each area, adjusted to take account of the levels of deprivation in each area as reflected by the proportion of children receiving free school meals. For 1999–2000, the City of Coventry Partnership has been allocated a total of
  670
  £309,700. Nursery Education Grant will again be available to support additional places for 4 year olds, and we shall be announcing support for 3 year olds shortly. Next year's Revenue Support Grant allocation also includes substantial funds to support additional registration and inspection of child care services and the requirement to set up a local Children's Information Service in each Partnership area. A further £7 million is also being made available to TECs next year for training for child care workers: £776,500 of this has been allocated to the West Midlands, but a breakdown at local level is not yet available.

  Coventry's education Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) represents an increase of £6.1 million, or 4.1 per cent. over the comparable figure for 1998–99. Part of this may be used to support the National Child Care Strategy.

  In addition there is a range of other potential sources of funding which Early Years Development and Child Care Partnerships, local authorities, individuals and other groups can bid for to support National Child Care Strategy objectives. This includes the New Opportunities Fund, which will allocate some £220 million across the UK by 2003 to create new out of school child care places, the Single Regeneration Budget and the European Social Fund.

  Teachers' Remuneration
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultation he undertook and representations he received prior to the publication of his Green Paper on the future remuneration of teachers. [64119]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  No formal consultation was undertaken prior to the publication of the Green Paper although a wide range of representations were received from interested bodies during the course of normal business.

  A full consultation on the Green Paper has now commenced and will continue until 31 March 1999. A copy of the Green Paper and summaries have been provided to each school to assist with this process.

  Teachers (Performance-related Pay)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to review the payment of annual salary increments to teachers in the context of his performance-related pay proposals; and if he will make a statement. [63612]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made to the House on 3 December 1998,Official Report, columns 1041–44, about the Government's consultation on the reform of the teaching profession. In that statement I indicated that we proposed two pay ranges for classroom teachers, separated by a new performance threshold. Up to the threshold, we would expect teachers normally to progress through annual salary increments, as now. To cross the threshold, we would expect teachers to demonstrate high and sustained levels of achievement and commitment. Further steps on the higher pay scale would be based on appraisal of performance.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many grant-maintained schools have had their annual maintenance grant for(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95 and (d) 1995–96 redetermined by reason of retrospective adjustments to their rateable assessments; [63461]

  (2) which grant-maintained schools have been required to repay in full overpayment of annual maintenance grant identified following retrospective adjustments to their rateable assessments; and in which of these cases recovery of the money has been phased; [63462]

  (3) which grant-maintained schools have not been required to repay the full overpayment of annual maintenance grant identified following retrospective adjustments to their rateable assessments; and what percentage of the overpayment has been required in each case; [63463]

  (4) what was the total annual maintenance grant overpaid to grant-maintained schools in respect of each of the years 1992–93 to 1995–96. [63464]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  These matters are the responsibility of the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the Chairman of the Funding Agency to arrange for a reply to be sent to the hon. Member.

  New Deal (Unsubsidised Jobs)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate how many of those leaving the New Deal for unsubsidised jobs remain in those jobs for more than(a) one month, (b) two months and (c) three months. [61078]

  Region

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  Total

  Northern

  (a)

  25

  15,927

  39,556

  166,209

  362,232

  15,302

  599,251

  (b)

  226,252

  321,994

  473,310

  550,260

  746,309

  1,237,069

  3,555,194

  Yorks and the Humber

  (a)

  230

  6,339

  46,321

  92,932

  114,086

  191,245

  451,153

  (b)

  400,218

  751,298

  1,291,763

  1,291,895

  1,706,588

  1,500,211

  6,941,973

  East Midlands

  (a)

  154

  7,202

  18,317

  36,916

  59,360

  50,291

  172,240

  (b)

  308,991

  308,776

  453,548

  502,366

  902,391

  993,871

  3,469,943

  London and South East

  (a)

  39

  16,851

  300,898

  179,170

  331,267

  471,237

  1,299,462

  (b)

  964,053

  1,016,204

  1,445,047

  1,000,767

  2,411,676

  2,666,225

  9,503,972

  South West

  (a)

  104

  7,576

  27,570

  56,277

  47,028

  47,245

  185,800

  (b)

  366,834

  421,769

  588,880

  541,934

  722,097

  1,282,248

  3,923,762

  Wales

  (a)

  20

  2,921

  11,593

  77,960

  112,375

  93,223

  298,092

  (b)

  286,553

  293,690

  499,811

  475,279

  563,873

  766,913

  2,886,119

  West Midlands

  (a)

  6

  8,526

  29,972

  29,490

  71,324

  112,581

  251,899

  (b)

  306,247

  342,233

  548,321

  441,711

  630,879

  800,955

  3,070,346

  North West

  (a)

  24

  13,185

  56,507

  224,563

  238,678

  198,129

  731,086

  (b)

  553,467

  577,490

  862,998

  877,928

  1,283,154

  1,462,770

  5,617,807

  672
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 30 November 1998]: The New Deal statistics are revised each month to remove from the cumulative unsubsidised jobs count any participant who has remained in a job less than 13 weeks.

  The length of time those moving into unsubsidised jobs have remained (a) in those jobs and (b) in employment, will be assessed as part of the evaluation of the New Deal.

  New Deal Gateway
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many claimants who have been eligible for the New Deal entered the gateway and then ceased drawing benefit when leaving the gateway after being offered a choice of options and did not go onto draw other benefits or go into education. [62301]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 3 December 1998]: Disaggregation according to whether they have been offered New Deal options is not presently available. This will be examined in the New Deal evaluation.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the monthly expenditure on(a) Gateway provision and (b) other provision for the New Deal for young people by region from January to the end of September. [63276]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 December 1998, c. 478]: I am providing a revised response as the figures in my earlier reply had been corrupted during data transmission and were therefore incorrect.

  The correct position is that expenditure brought to account by the Employment service since national roll-out of New Deal is £4.36 million for Gateway and £42.79 million for other provision. Separate regional figures are not available for the Pathfinder districts between January and March 1998 as all expenditure was accounted for centrally during that period. The figures for April to September 1998 are shown in the following table.
  673

  Region

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  Total

  Scotland

  (a)

  30,090

  2,052

  55,083

  71,018

  103,926

  106,104

  368,273

  (b)

  436,351

  453,354

  613,039

  595,726

  779,322

  944,482

  3,822,274

  Total

  (a)

  30,692

  80,579

  585,817

  934,535

  1,440,276

  1,285,357

  4,357,256

  (b)

  3,848,966

  4,486,808

  6,776,717

  6,277,866

  9,746,289

  11,654,744

  42,791,390

  Total

  3,879,658

  4,567,387

  7,362,534

  7,212,401

  11,186,565

  12,940,101

  47,148,646

  (a) Gateway provision

  (b) Other provision

  Source:

  Employment Service Financial Accounting System April to September 1998

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much of the additional expenditure for education announced in the July Comprehensive Spending Review for England has already been allocated to(a) local authority expenditure, (b) class size reduction, (c) school buildings and repairs, (d) standards fund grants, (e) early years education, (f) further education, (g) higher education and (h) other spending by his Department; and how much has been allocated to no specific purposes as yet. [63326]

  Mr. Blunkett
  (a) The additional provision for local authority Education Standard Spending over the three years 1999–2000 to 2001–02 is £6,831 million.

  (b) The additional provision for class size reduction over the three years is £320 million. This is in addition to £300 million previously committed to the programme.

  (c) The additional resources for school buildings and repairs form the Comprehensive Spending Review is some £1.5 billion over the three years'. This is in addition to the extra £1.1 billion of capital investment we are making available through the New Deal for Schools. Taken with existing provision this means that there will be a £5.4 billion investment programme in school buildings over the period.

  (d) The Standards Fund programme will be over £900 million in 1999–2000. This includes the DfEE grant and the local education authority contribution.

  (e) There will be £390 million extra over the three years for early education places for 3 year olds, together with an element of the £452 million for the Sure Start programme.

  (f) There will be additional funding for further education of £725 million over the two years 1999–2000 to 2000–012.

  (g) There will be additional funding for higher education of £776 million over the two years 1999–2000 to 2000–013.

  Further details on Departmental spending programmes will be published in the Departmental Report in the Spring.
  1 Includes some capital funding for class size reductions and resources for the National Grid for Learning which will go through the standards fund
  2 Figure includes £95 million in increased employer contributions
  3 Figure includes £308 million fee contributions

  Secondary School Pupils
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 7 December 1998,Official Report, column 85, on secondary school pupils, if he will list the six maintained schools in England with more than 2,000 pupils in January. [64192]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested, taken from The 1998 Secondary School Performance Tables is as follows:

  Maintained secondary schools with more than 2,000 pupils as at January 1998

  Crown Woods School, Greenwich

  Great Barr GM School, Birmingham

  Outwood Grange School, Wakefield

  Wolfreton School, Hull

  Exmouth Community College, Devon

  Collingwood College, Surrey.

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of GNP was spent on(a) education and (b) secondary schools in (i) Germany, (ii) France, (iii) the Netherlands, (iv) Sweden, (v) Switzerland, (vi) the US and (vii) the UK in each year since 1968. [62085]

  Mr. Mudie
  Information on expenditure on all levels of education as a percentage of GDP has, for the countries mentioned, been collected by the OECD for the period 1970 to 1995 (the latest year for which such collated data are available). Information about secondary school expenditure has not been collected by the OECD separately from other forms of educational expenditure.

  This information on all educational expenditure is given in the table. Any comparisons should be cautious, since the expenditure definitions used are not always fully comparable, (particularly in their treatment of research and development expenditure) and definitions, as indicated in the table, have sometimes changed over time. In addition, the special OECD definitions mean that the OECD figures for the UK may differ from those published in "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses".

  Public expenditure on education as a proportion of GDP fell between 1994–95 and 1997–98. However, as a result of the investment in education announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review, expenditure on education as a proportion of GDP will rise from 4.6 per cent. in 1998–99 to 5.0 per cent. in 2001–02.
  675

  Public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP, 1970–1995

  Year

  France

  Germany

  Netherlands

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  United Kingdom

  United States

  1970

  n/a

  3.7

  7.5

  7.9

  3.9

  6.2

  6.0

  1971

  n/a

  4.2

  7.5

  8.0

  4.3

  6.3

  6.0

  1972

  n/a

  4.4

  7.4

  7.9

  4.5

  6.5

  5.7

  1973

  n/a

  4.5

  7.3

  7.6

  4.7

  6.3

  5.5

  1974

  5.5

  4.9

  7.1

  7.3

  4.9

  6.9

  5.5

  1975

  5.6

  5.1

  7.4

  7.1

  5.3

  6.8

  5.7

  1976

  5.5

  4.9

  7.2

  7.2

  5.5

  6.4

  5.6

  1977

  5.4

  4.7

  7.1

  7.7

  5.5

  6.0

  5.3

  1978

  5.3

  4.6

  7.1

  8.0

  5.4

  5.8

  5.0

  1979

  5.2

  4.6

  7.0

  8.6

  5.3

  5.7

  4.9

  1980

  5.1

  4.8

  7.1

  8.5

  5.2

  5.7

  4.9

  1981

  5.5

  4.8

  7.2

  8.0

  5.1

  5.6

  4.8

  1982

  5.6

  4.7

  7.2

  7.8

  5.2

  5.5

  4.9

  1983

  5.7

  4.8

  7.0

  7.4

  5.3

  5.2

  4.8

  1984

  5.7

  4.6

  6.6

  7.2

  5.2

  5.2

  4.6

  1985

  5.7

  4.6

  6.6

  7.0

  5.1

  4.9

  4.6

  1986

  5.7

  4.5

  6.7

  7.0

  5.2

  4.9

  4.8

  1987

  5.6

  4.4

  6.9

  6.9

  5.2

  4.8

  4.8

  1988

  5.5

  4.3

  6.1

  6.5

  5.0

  4.8

  4.9

  1989

  5.1

  4.2

  5.7

  5.4

  n/a

  4.8

  5.0

  1990

  5.1

  4.1

  5.7

  5.6

  5.2

  4.9

  5.2

  1991

  5.4

  4.1

  5.6

  6.5

  5.4

  5.3

  5.5

  1992

  5.5

  4.1

  5.6

  7.7

  5.7

  5.2

  5.4

  1993

  5.7

  4.8

  5.4

  7.7

  5.8

  5.1

  5.2

  1994

  5.9

  4.7

  5.2

  7.7

  5.7

  5.2

  4.9

  1995

  6.0

  4.8

  5.2

  7.7

  5.6

  5.2

  5.0

  Notes:

  Horizontal lines indicate a break in the series

  n/a—data not available

  Source:

  Data supplied to OECD by individual countries for the "Education at a Glance" series.

  Numeracy Hour
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects the numeracy hour to be introduced in schools; and if he will ensure that teaching materials arrive in sufficient time for staff to be trained and organise resources. [62348]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Dedicated daily mathematics lessons of up to an hour are expected to be introduced in primary schools from September 1999. Suitable materials will be provided in the early part of next year.

  Key Stage 2 National Curriculum Tests
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what percentage of schools have had an above average percentage of pupils scoring

  Schools whose performance is below the national result

  Schools with performance below national result in education action zones

  Percentage of pupils achieving level 4 or above in England

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage 1

  English

  65

  6,520

  44

  230

  4

  Reading

  71

  6,150

  42

  220

  4

  Writing

  53

  7,180

  49

  230

  3

  Mathematics

  59

  6,770

  46

  230

  3

  1 As a percentage of the number of schools below the national result

  676
  below the national average at Key Stage 2, level 4 in (a) reading, (b) writing and (c) numeracy; and how many of these schools are in education action zones; [63312]

  (2) what percentage of schools had an above average percentage of pupils scoring below the national average at Key Stage 2, level 4 in (a) reading, (b) writing and (c) numeracy; and how many of these schools are in education action zones. [63980]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The table shows the number and percentage of maintained mainstream schools where the proportion of pupils achieving level 4 in the Key Stage 2 National Curriculum tests is below the overall national proportion reaching that level. Data are shown for the English and mathematics tests, together with the reading and writing components of the English test. The proportion of these schools in the first tranche of education action zones is also shown.

  The National Curriculum standards have been designed so that most pupils will move up one level every two years. Level 4 is the level expected for most 11 year olds.

  Competitive Bidding
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many bids were(a) received and (b) successful in each local education authority area for each competitive bidding process launched by his Department since May 1997. [63979]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 18 November 1998,Official Report, columns 644–45.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the total value in each local education authority of the bids which were(a) received and (b) successful for each competitive bidding process launched by his Department since May 1997. [64184]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This question could only be answered at disproportionate cost.

  GCSEs
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of schools had a smaller percentage of pupils gaining(a) five GCSEs at grades A* to C and (b) five GCSEs at grades A to G, in 1998 than in 1994; and how many of those schools are in education action zones. [63982]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The GCSE information requested is shown in the table:

  GCSE information

  Total Schools

  3,840

  Number of schools with a smaller percentage of pupils achieving 5+A*-C GCSE grades in 1998 than in 1994

  976

  Percentage

  25.4

  Number of those schools in Education Action Zones

  16

  Total Schools

  3,840

  Number of schools with a smaller percentage of pupils achieving 5+A*-G GCSE grades in 1998 than in 1994

  946

  Percentage

  24.6

  Number of those schools in Education Action Zones

  9

  Free Milk
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the Government will re-introduce free milk at school for children in deprived communities. [64430]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The law requires those Local Education Authorities and grant-maintained schools that provide milk to make this available, without charge, to pupils whose parents receive income support or income based job-seekers allowance. The Government have no plans to extend this eligibility or to make the serving of free milk compulsory.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the provision of physical education in(a) state and (b) private schools. [64427]
  678
  Ms Estelle Morris
  OFSTED inspections report on individual schools' provision of National Curriculum subjects including physical education. At a national level, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools reports annually to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on compliance with the National Curriculum requirements, including physical education, in state schools. The provision of physical education in private schools is the responsibility of individual headteachers and governing bodies of such schools.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what estimate he has made of the number of hours spent by children doing PE(a) in inner city schools and (b) in suburban schools; [64428]

  (2) how many hours per week (a) primary and (b) secondary school children (i) spend currently and (ii) spent in each of the last 10 years doing PE. [64429]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  There is no prescribed statutory minimum or maximum time which schools should devote to PE. The National Curriculum for PE consists of six areas of activity and schools have a degree of freedom in deciding which physical activities to teach and how much time should be allocated to them and to other National Curriculum subjects. PE must be taught to all children throughout their compulsory schooling.

  Evidence from OFSTED inspections of the number of hours per week primary and secondary schools currently spend teaching PE is given in the table.

  Key Stage

  Average hours of PE per week (approx.)

  1 (ages 5–7)

  1 hour 20 minutes

  2 (ages 7–11)

  1 hour 35 minutes

  3 (ages 11–14)

  2 hours

  4 (ages 14–16)

  1 hour 15 minutes

  These figures do not account for travelling and changing time incurred in the provision of swimming tuition. In addition, the amount of time devoted to PE at Key Stage 4 is reduced when pupils study for public examinations.

  My Department also carried out a survey of PE and sport in English schools in January 1996. It found that primary schools had on average 1.5 to 2 hours per week of National Curriculum PE. The amount of time devoted to PE in secondary schools varied between 1.5 and just over 2 hours per week according to year group. No information is held prior to that time or divided by the location of schools.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to develop the Employment Service's job search provision for unemployed people following the evaluation report on programme centres published last month. [64905]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I am pleased with the progress in developing programme centres so far. To provide further support for job search, where this is delivered through Jobclubs, I have asked the Employment Service to
  679
  encourage providers to operate a more flexible model of delivery to enable jobseekers to receive help tailored to their individual needs.

  In addition I have asked the Employment Service to introduce changes to Jobclub eligibility conditions. This means that, in line with programme centres, job search support will be available for people experiencing difficulty in returning to work after 13 weeks of unemployment. This will be at the discretion of Employment Service advisers who will identify those clients who most need this kind of help.

  The changes will take effect from April 1999.

  Post-16 Provision
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will publish a report on the comparative public funding costs of post-16 provision. [64904]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Report on the Public Funding costs for Education and Training for 16–19 year olds in England 1996–97 will be published today. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  International Labour Conference
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for publishing the White Paper on the instruments adopted at the 85 session of the International Labour Conference. [64969]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have today published a White Paper entitled "International Labour Conference", copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  New Deal
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have entered the New Deal gateway in the(a) Fareham, (b) Gosport and (c) Test Valley Borough Council areas since its inception; and how many took up each New Deal option. [64221]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information on New Deal is only held by Unit of Delivery and is not broken down below this level. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 7 December 1998,Official Report, column 82.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the energy efficiency schemes being delivered under the New Deal for Young People. [64226]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Details of energy efficiency schemes are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the(a) average, (b) longest and (c) shortest time taken by each LEA in England and Wales to produce statements of special educational need in 1997–98. [64246]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not collected centrally.

  New Deal (Public Sector)
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of New Deal jobs have been provided to date by the public sector. [61483]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Between 5 and 6 per cent. of young people who have started New Deal jobs are employed in the public administration and education sector as defined in the Standard Industrial Classifications. In addition, there are an increasing number of New Deal job starts in Health and other community, social and personal services, which will include public sector job starts.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what forecast he has made of the amounts to be raised from the introduction of tuition fees over the planning period; and how much of that amount will be used for university funding. [64431]

  Mr. Mudie
  The higher education funding plans assume that institutions in England will receive private income from home and EU students starting full-time undergraduate courses from 1998–99 as follows: £130 million in 1998–99; an extra £105 million in 1999–2000; and compared with 1998–99 an extra £203 million in 2000–01. Over this period the higher education sector will retain all the income from student contributions to fees and receive extra public funding on top. Figures for 2001–02 will be announced later.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  School Sport
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received concerning the teaching of sport in schools. [63441]

  Mr. Banks
  Since 1 May 1997, 1 have received about 80 letters about sport in schools and the physical education National Curriculum. These have come from professional organisations such as the CCPR and BAALPE, University lecturers, head teachers and members of the public. Almost all of these have been about the importance of the teaching of physical education and sport in schools and support my view that physical education and sport is an essential part of youth development. While fully supporting the current emphasis on numeracy and literacy, I know how important sport and PE are; not only as subjects in their own right, but as having a positive impact on cognitive development and on classroom and academic performance. That is why I am delighted that sport and PE still have to be taught in primary schools, while allowing flexibility by relaxing the detailed programmes of study. We are working closely with the Department for Education and Employment to ensure that PE and sport remain an important part of the curriculum.

  There are of course a number of initiatives underway to promote sport in schools, many of which are co-ordinated by the English Sports Council (ESC) under its National Junior Sports Programme (NJSP). This is a major programme which provides a framework within which schools, local authorities, governing bodies of

  681
  sport, sports clubs and youth organisations can work together to provide quality sporting opportunities for 4 to 18-year-olds in a planned and co-ordinated way. It is intended to reinforce and build on good practice, to support teachers and to provide an important profile for the work they are doing. ESC initiatives include the Sportsmark award scheme, the Sporting Ambassadors scheme, the development of an Activity award for primary schools and proposals for Community Sports Co-ordinators.

  Publications
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how he plans to take forward policy on the legal deposit of publications following the report of the working group chaired by Sir Anthony Kenny. [64743]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I am arranging for the working group's report to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament and published on both my Department's web site and that of the British Library.

  The report recommends that there should be a single national published archive of non-print material. It proposes that a code of practice for voluntary deposit of electronic publications should be drawn up, but suggests that, in the longer term, only statutory deposit can secure a comprehensive national published archive.

  The report proposes that the following should be deposited with the national published archive:
  CD-roms to be deposited in a single copy only after 12 UK sales. The group has put forward alternative options for access:
  accessibility on a stand alone basis at a single site (the preference of the publishers); or
  dissemination among the legal deposit libraries using a secure ring fenced network (the preference of the libraries).
  Microforms to be deposited in a single copy only after six UK sales.
  For British films, a mint print to be deposited, plus a negative or equivalent after three years; for other films released in the UK, a best copy; for British videos, a mint condition duplicate; for other videos, a new condition reference copy.
  For sound recordings, two copies to be deposited.

  It concludes that it would not be feasible to include on-line publications and databases, although it suggests that provision be made to bring them into a statutory system in the future, subject to full consideration and consultation in each case.

  For print publications, the report recommends that while the six existing legal deposit libraries be retained, in the light of the increasing move towards devolution and regional Government, more work should be done to reduce the number of copies claimed by the libraries, especially in the area of local magazines and periodicals. I regard this as important.

  On the issue of improved access to deposited material in Northern Ireland, the report suggests that if an acceptable way can be found to allow secure networking of deposited electronic material, an access point in Northern Ireland could be included in a secure network.

  Because the Government believe it is important to plug the growing gap in the national published archive, I have asked Sir Anthony Kenny to draw up, through a group of technical experts from the legal deposit libraries and
  682
  publishers, detailed guidelines for a voluntary code of practice. I have asked Sir Anthony to examine the scope for this to include a basis for the secure ring-fenced networking of CD-roms between the deposit libraries in a way that will satisfy the publishers that there would be no undue risk for licence holders.

  However, I agree with the report's conclusion that a voluntary code will not be viable in the longer term and I believe the report makes a convincing case for moving towards legislation for the legal deposit of non-print publications on the basis of minimum burden on publishers and minimum loss of sales. It will be necessary to do further work on definitions and the impact on business and I have asked Sir Anthony Kenny to take this forward through the medium of the technical group of library and publishing experts. Once that is done, we shall move towards legislation.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many official visits(a) he and (b) the Ministers in his Department, have made to Buckinghamshire since 2 May 1997; and if he will list them. [64130]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have made no official visits to Buckinghamshire within that period. My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport visited Milton Keynes on 29 May 1998.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people in his Department are currently on secondment from private companies; and if he will list them, their companies and their current responsibilities within Government. [62820]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  There are currently no staff on secondment from private companies within my Department. However, Bob Cotton will join DCMS on secondment from Gardner Merchant in January as my adviser on the Tourism industry.

  English Sports Council
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he expects to announce the appointment of the English Sports Council. [63265]

  Mr. Banks
  We advertised the posts of Chair and new Members of the English Sports Council in the summer. We received a large number of applications and we will announce the names of those who are to be appointed as soon as we have finished the selection process.

  St. Kilda
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what date he intends to reply to the letters sent to him by Greenpeace on 15 July, 1 September and 30 October asking him to take action to protect St. Kilda World Heritage Site from the threat of offshore oil development. [64290]

  Mr. Battle
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have replied to the Greenpeace letters.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Groups
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the (i) task forces, (ii) review panels and (iii) advisory groups his Department has, (b) the remit of each and (c) the members of each together with their principal employment and their level of remuneration. [62808]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: A list of task forces, review panels and advisory groups follows. My Department does not hold centrally the information requested for these bodies and it could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Task Forces

  Action Group on Standards in Scottish Schools

  Best Value Task Force

  Borders Working Party

  Coronary Heart Disease Task Force

  Council Tax Collection Working Group

  Higher Still Implementation Group

  Higher Still Liaison Group

  Inter Agency Forum on Female Offenders in Scotland

  New Deal Advisory Task Force For Scotland

  Prestwick Task Force

  Protection Order Task Force

  Working Group on Tenant Participation

  Review Panels

  Air Quality Forum

  HIV Health Promotion Strategy Review Group

  Land Reform Policy Group

  Learning Disability Review

  National Review of Health Resource Allocation

  Postgraduate Review Committee

  Review of Housing Statistical Returns Group

  Review of Public Health Legislation Steering Group

  Review of Rural Water and Sewerage Grant Scheme

  Review of SSSIs in Scotland

  Review of the Public Health Function in Scotland

  Review of the Scottish Roads Programme

  Review of Transport Policy in Scotland

  Scottish Bathing Water Review Panel

  Advisory Groups

  5–14 Committee

  Acute Services Group

  Advisory Committee on Statistical Information

  Commission on Local Government and the Scottish Parliament

  Committee on Post School Education and Training of Young People with Special Needs

  Consultative Panel on the Registration of Nursing Homes and Independent Hospitals

  Empty Homes Initiative Advisory Group

  Expert Panel on Sex Offending

  Languages Action Group

  Liaison Group on Road Accident Statistics

  Mental Health Reference Group

  National Co-ordinating Committee for the Staff Development of Teachers

  National Dental Advisory Committee

  National Goose Forum

  684

  National Grid for Learning Scottish Steering Committee

  National Nursing Midwifery and Health Visiting Advisory Committee

  National Paramedical Advisory Committee

  National Pharmaceutical Advisory Committee

  National Transport Forum For Scotland

  New Housing Partnerships Advisory Group

  NHS Waiting List Support Force

  Objective 5B: Rural Diversification Forum: Project Assessment Committees (four)

  Planning Group on Teacher Supply

  Rehabilitation Technology Services Advisory Group

  Rough Sleepers Initiative Advisory Group

  Rural Agenda Steering Group

  Scottish Biodiversity Group

  Scottish Breast Screening National Advisory Group

  Scottish Cervical Screening National Advisory Group

  Scottish Childcare Board

  Scottish Criminal Statistics Committee

  Scottish Exports Forum

  Scottish Guidance Group

  Scottish Household Survey Advisory Group

  Scottish Medical and Scientific Advisory Committee

  Scottish Millennium Forum

  Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service Users Group

  Scottish National Rural Partnership

  Scottish Partnership on Domestic Violence

  Scottish School Leavers Survey Project Advisory Group

  Scottish Social Inclusion Network

  Scottish Statistical Liaison Committee

  Scottish University for Industry Advisory Group

  Scottish Virtual Teachers Centre Advisory Group

  Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on Scotland's Travelling People

  Secretary of State's Advisory Group on Sustainable Development

  Secretary of State's Advisory Panel of Economic Consultants

  SMART (Small Firms Merit Awards for Research and Technology): Scotland Judging Panel

  SME (Small and Medium Sized Enterprises) Initiative Operational Programme for Lowland Scotland: Advisory Group

  SME (Small and Medium Sized Enterprises) Initiative Operational Programme for Lowland Scotland: Programme Management Committee

  Social Work Statistics Liaison Group

  Working Group on Council Tax Collection

  Rehabilitation Beds (Availability)
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many step-down beds were available in each health board area in Scotland in each year since 1990–91. [63683]

  Mr. Galbraith
  There is no national classification of a step-down bed. Information on numbers of rehabilitation medicine beds in the seven years to 31 March 1997 is shown in Table 1. A more detailed bed classification system was introduced in 1997–98, and information on numbers of rehabilitation, convalescent and geriatric orthopaedic rehabilitation beds for the year ending 31 March 1998 is shown in Table 2.
  685

  Table 1—NHS in Scotland—beds1 in specialty of rehabilitation medicine2 by health board area of treatment: years ending 31 March 1991 to 1997

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Argyll and Clyde

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ayrshire and Arran

  —

  —

  —

  17

  21

  20

  20

  Borders

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  8

  4

  Fife

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Forth Valley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grampian

  —

  —

  —

  8

  16

  16

  16

  Greater Glasgow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Highland

  1

  3

  2

  3

  3

  63

  70

  Lanarkshire

  22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lothian

  62

  62

  65

  65

  71

  83

  76

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Tayside

  27

  10

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland

  111

  75

  69

  93

  115

  190

  190

  1 Average available staffed beds. The figures shown are averages rounded to the nearest whole number. Totals may not always equate to the sum of individual Health Board figures.

  2 Differing methods of bed classification may exist between areas. For example, beds classified as rehabilitation medicine in one area may be classified under other specialties in another area. Comparisons should therefore be made with caution.

  Table 2: NHS in Scotland—rehabilitation, geriatric orthopaedic rehabilitation and convalescent beds1 by health board area of treatment: year ending 31 march 19982

  All selected beds

  Rehabilitation beds3

  Geriatric orthopaedic rehabilitation beds4

  Convalescent beds5

  Argyll and Clyde

  7

  —

  7

  —

  Ayrshire and Arran

  21

  21

  —

  —

  Borders

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway

  24

  —

  24

  —

  Fife

  60

  40

  20

  —

  Forth Valley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Grampian

  129

  42

  16

  71

  Greater Glasgow

  168

  144

  24

  —

  Highland

  75

  74

  —

  —

  Lanarkshire

  36

  24

  12

  —

  Lothian

  199

  109

  89

  —

  Orkney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  8

  8

  —

  —

  Tayside

  28

  28

  —

  —

  Western Isles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland

  754

  490

  191

  71

  1 Average available staffed beds. The figures shown are averages rounded to the nearest whole number. Totals may not always equate to the sum of individual Health Board figures.

  2 Differing methods of bed classification may exist between areas. For example, bed classified as rehabilitation beds in one area may be classified under other specialties in another area. Comparisons should therefore be made with caution.

  3 Beds in specialty of Rehabilitation Medicine or in facilities designated as rehabilitation wards.

  4 Beds in facilities designated as geriatric orthopaedic rehabilitation units.

  5 Beds in facilities designated as convalescent units.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to make an announcement about the Local government Finance Settlement for Scotland for 1999–2000. [64781]
  686
  Mr. Dewar
  I expect to make my announcement shortly. Following the usual consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities over the proposals for the distribution of Aggregate External Finance (AEF), I intend to lay the necessary Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order in early February 1999 for approval by this House. I will ensure that the details of my proposals, which will be issued as a Circular to all Scottish local authorities, will be made available in the House Library at the same time as my announcement.

  Tay River Protection Order
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what conclusions he has reached on the Tay River Protection Order; and if he will make a statement. [64791]

  Mr. Macdonald
  On 5 June the Government announced in the Edinburgh Gazette its intention to revoke the Tay Protection Order made under the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976 and invited comments. This followed concerns that access for public angling had been withdrawn in a number of areas.

  Seven hundred and seventy-four responses were received. 766 supported retention of the Order. Eight advocated revocation. A full report on the operation of the Order has since been submitted on behalf of the new Protection Order Liaison Committee. A copy of that report, which has been endorsed by 18 groups associated with angling and riparian ownership in the area, will be placed in the Library.

  My noble Friend Lord Sewel, the Minister with responsibility for Fisheries in Scotland, has considered the comments received and the contents of the report very carefully. He has noted with satisfaction that as a result of the efforts of the Committee the access lost has been reinstated and furthermore that 86 per cent. of the river and loch are now open to public access compared with the 81 per cent. promised at the time the Order was originally approved. My noble Friend also welcomes the steps announced to ensure the effectiveness of the future operation and monitoring of the Order.

  In the light of the remedial action taken to improve and guarantee public access to angling and the generally enhanced arrangements for its operation, my noble Friend has decided that the Order should be retained. However, close monitoring will continue.

  BBC News
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the BBC's Six o'clock News in Scotland; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement. [64455]

  Mr. Galbraith
  To date my right hon. Friend has received two letters about the BBC's decision on the Six O'Clock News. The replies will make clear that the decision taken about the news programmes was one for the Governors of the BBC to make. They will also say that we welcome the promise of additional financial resources and new jobs in Scotland, which will lead to an increase in programmes produced in Scotland.

  Heroin
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he plans to take to limit increases in the abuse of heroin. [64315]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Government have already taken a number of measures to enhance our response to drug misuse, including heroin.

  In October my hon. Friend the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution and I announced an additional £5 million package of measures between now and March 2000. This included £2 million backing for new initiatives to cut drug crime, such as drug treatment and testing orders and more intensive probation; a £2 million boost to NHS drug treatment funding; a multi-agency blitz to reclaim communities in the grip of drug dealers; and the establishment of a new national drug prevention team to work with Drug Action Teams. Specifically on heroin, we have made £300,000 available to the Health Education Board for Scotland for new work to combat the threat to young people from cheap heroin.

  In addition, we expect to issue an enhanced drug strategy framework for Scotland in the first part of 1999 and this will take account of the current concerns about increased heroin misuse.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide additional resources to fund a public awareness campaign on the dangers of heroin abuse. [64316]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Additional resources of £300,000 have already been made available to the Health Education Board for Scotland for new work to combat the threat to young people from heroin. That work is now at an advanced stage and a decision will be taken shortly on how and when it can be taken forward.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to reduce the incidence of heroin abuse in the Lothian and Borders Police Board Area. [64312]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Government's strategy for tackling drug misuse in Scotland focuses on the key areas of education, treatment and enforcement. Police operations like Operation Foil carried out recently by Lothian and Borders Police against heroin use are a vital contribution to the Government's overall drugs strategy.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the level of resources available to the police in the Lothian and Borders Police Board area to combat heroin abuse. [64317]

  Mr. McLeish
  The level of resources deployed by the Lothian and Borders Police on drugs issues is an operational matter for the Chief Constable within the funding level set by the Police Board. During the period 1996–97 to 1998–99 Lothian and Borders Police GAE funding has increased by 9.2 per cent. This has enabled the Force to sustain high profile operations such as the recent highly successful Operation Foil directed against heroin use.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance has been made available to the courts on a consistent sentencing strategy for heroin users and dealers. [64313]
  688
  Mr. McLeish
  It is not a function of my right hon. Friend to give guidance to the courts on sentencing. The Appeal Court gives guidance to other courts through its appeal decisions, and in disposing of appeals it has the power under Section 118 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 to pronounce an opinion on the sentence which is appropriate in any similar case. The courts can and do make use of a wide range of penalties provided for drugs offenders, depending on the varying circumstances of each case. Heroin is a Class A drug in terms of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and as such its possession and supply are subject to tough maximum penalties, including life imprisonment in the case of supply. In the case of drug traffickers there is a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years on conviction of a third offence.

  Homeless People (Emergency Shelters)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many places have been made available by his Department as emergency shelters for the homeless over the Christmas period in each of the last five years for which figures are available, showing the locations of those places; [64306]

  (2) how many places have been planned by his Department as emergency shelters for the homeless over the forthcoming Christmas period and in what locations; [64307]

  (3) what was the total expenditure for the provision of emergency Christmas shelters for the homeless over the past five years in Scotland; and what estimate he has made of the resources to be made available for the purpose during Christmas. [64308]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The statutory responsibility for dealing with homelessness in any area and for deciding whether any emergency shelters are required over the Christmas period or at other times of year rests with the relevant local authorities. The Scottish Office provides them with financial support that can be used for such purposes.

  The Rough Sleepers Initiative was established by The Scottish Office to provide financial assistance to local authorities to help them develop accommodation and services for rough sleepers. This can include assistance, where appropriate, for emergency shelters and other direct access accommodation. £16m was allocated for this Initiative over the 3 years from 1997–98 to 1999–2000 and I recently announced additional funding of £14m to allow the Initiative to be extended to 2002. Heriot Watt and Stirling universities have been commissioned by the Department to undertake a preliminary evaluation of the Rough Sleepers Initiative and are due to report by September 1999.

  Information on the number of places made available in emergency shelters over the forthcoming Christmas period and anticipated and past expenditure on emergency shelters is not held centrally.

  A83
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to compensate owners of
  689
  vehicles which are forced to use the Tarbert-Portavadie ferry service when the A83 is closed for repair during weekends in February and March 1999. [64263]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The legal position that compensation is not payable in such cases is well established but, in view of the difficulties that the closures will cause in this particular instance, the option of providing a temporarily enhanced ferry service is being considered.

  Domestic Abuse Advertising Campaign
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much the advertisement, which was produced by the Women's Unit and aimed at preventing women within a family from being assaulted by a male member of that family, cost to produce; and under which departmental budget head the cost will fall. [64302]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scottish Domestic Abuse Advertising Campaign, to which I think the hon. Gentleman refers, has been both initiated and funded by The Scottish Office. It is aimed at increasing public awareness of the problem of violence against women which occurs across all ages and social groups. The cost of producing the advertisement was £105,000.

WALES

  S4C Board
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the role of the Welsh Office in respect of the appointment of members of the Board of S4C—Sianel Pedwar Cymru; and what is his policy in respect of such appointments. [63158]

  Mr. Michael
  Appointments to the Board of S4C are made by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I am consulted on these appointments at the short-listing stage and before appointments are finally made.

  My Department supports the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in the administrative work involved in making these appointments. Two vacancies for members of S4C were advertised in July, and my Department has handled inquiries and the receipt of applications. One of my officials will chair the interview panel, which will also include the Chair of S4C and an independent member.

  My policy is to offer my right hon. Friend every assistance in selecting for these appointments the persons best qualified and suited to hold them, bearing in mind the range of skills and knowledge required for the Board.

  National Assembly
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much the Government plans to spend on public information about the National Assembly. [63405]

  Mr. Michael
  Information will be made available to the public in a number of different ways—through publication of leaflets and documents; via information on the Assembly's web site on the internet; and through the arrangements we are putting in place for broadcasting the Assembly's plenary and committee sessions.
  690
  Provision for the first year of the Assembly has not yet been finalised. The £580,000 annual cost of the broadcasting contract, which I announced recently, will be shared between the Assembly and the resident broadcasters—BBC Wales Cymru; HTV Wales Cymru and S4C.

  Additionally, my department is running an information campaign prior to the first elections for the Assembly. Some £550,000 will be spent on the first phase of this activity.

  Ministerial School Visits (Monmouth)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many ministerial visits to schools in the Monmouth constituency have taken place since 3 September 1998. [63406]

  Mr. Michael
  One. I visited Croesyceiliog Comprehensive School on 11 December.

  Barnett Formula
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultation he has initiated relating to future funding of United Kingdom programmes located in Wales which are currently outside the provisions of the Barnett formula; and if he will make a statement. [63477]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government of Wales Act 1998 provided for the Transfer of Functions Order to be made to transfer Ministerial functions to the National Assembly for Wales. This Order was published in draft for public consultation on 12 November. Until the content of the Order has been finalised it is not possible to state with certainty what functions will transfer. Work is continuing within Government to finalise the text of the Order and to establish whether any programme's expenditure relates to those functions which will transfer. Funds will be transferred as necessary on this basis.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total expenditure and the breakdown of expenditure in his Department since May 1997 on(a) public opinion research, (b) television, radio and newspaper advertising and (c) direct mail. [63913]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) £98,228

  (b) £1,640,021

  (c) £55,128

  Total expenditure £1,793,377.

  All expenditure figures are to end of November 1998.

  Education Expenditure (Flintshire)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the standard spending assessment for education is per pupil in Flintshire local education authority; and if he will make a statement. [63939]

  Mr. Hain
  Standard spending assessments in Wales are not earmarked for any particular service, with the exception of the police. My right hon. Friend announced on 9 December 1998,Official Report, column 229, that he proposes to provide an additional £70 million for

  691
  education in the local government revenue settlement for 1999–2000 and the allocation for Flintshire will be announced next year.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to reduce delays in the statementing of children; and if he will make a statement. [63940]

  Mr. Hain
  The Education (Special Educational Needs) Regulations 1994 set time limits for making assessments and statements of SEN. Latest Audit Commission figures, for 1996–97, show that less than half of the draft statements were prepared within the deadline. The Government are committed to improving performance on statementing. The approaches we intend to adopt will be set out in the Welsh Office Action Programme on SEN which is being prepared in the light of the consultation on "The BEST for Special Education" green paper. We will publish the programme early in the New Year.

  State Aid
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much state and agency aid, including Regional Selective Assistance has been given to projects in the counties of(a) Clwyd and (b) Flintshire since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [63936]

  Mr. Hain
  A range of assistance, including grant aid, has been provided by the Welsh Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales, the Wales Tourist Board, the Training and Enterprise Councils, local authorities and other business development organisations. Information on all of these is not held centrally.

  Grants offered since 1990 under Regional Selective Assistance (the main form of regional aid in Wales), Regional Investment Grant, and Regional Innovation Grant were as follows:

  £ million

  Clwyd

  Flintshire

  Regional Selective Assistance

  118.0

  61.2

  Regional Investment Grant

  1.9

  0.9

  Regional Innovation Grant

  3.5

  1.5

  In total, these grants supported some 636 different projects with a projected total investment value of around £ 1 billion, and which should create or safeguard over 18,000 jobs.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of Wales currently has assisted area status; and if he will make a statement. [63935]

  Mr. Hain
  The map of the Assisted Areas established in 1993 covers approximately 74 per cent. of Wales's population.

  Busway (Shotton Steelworks to Chester)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he estimates that the former railway from 692
  Shotton Steelworks to Chester will be converted into a dedicated bus route; at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [63941]

  Mr. Hain
  I understand that Flintshire County Council are developing proposals to convert into a guided busway the disused railway line which runs from Chester into the Deeside Development Zone. The authority has bid for Transport Grant support for preliminary design work on the project, which has an estimated total cost of £7.5 million. I will shortly be announcing my decisions on Transport Grant support for 1999–2000, and I will be writing to my hon. Friend at that time.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to include Irish as a category in his Department's ethnic monitoring of staff recruitment. [63877]

  Mr. Michael
  The overriding principle of Civil Service recruitments is that they should be fair, and selection should be on merit at each stage.

  Monitoring in this area is based on ethnic origin, and not nationality. The nine ethnic minority origin categories monitored by my Department are based on those used in the 1991 census which did not include an Irish category. They will be reviewed in the light of any suggested changes for the 2001 Population Census.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision was made in the Local government settlement for Wales to enable local authorities to meet their obligations in terms of the implementation of the single status agreement for their employees. [64390]

  Mr. Michael
  The local government settlement for Wales is generous and allows local authorities a degree of flexibility to deal with issues that affect them. The single status deal was agreed directly between the unions and local authorities. The Government did not require it and I am therefore not providing specific funding for it through the local government revenue settlement.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Fairness at Work
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he is making on the consultation on the Fairness at Work White Paper. [64242]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The White Paper on Fairness at Work was published in May and the consultation period ended in July. Since then, the Government have been developing the policies in the White Paper to form legislative proposals.

  We remain fully committed to the principles in the White Paper, but have also listened closely to the concerns expressed in the consultation to develop sensible, balanced legislation that will represent a settlement for the whole Parliament and endure beyond.
  693
  As the Competitiveness White Paper highlighted, a key feature of our top performing companies is a culture which promotes fairness and trust and creates the right conditions for business success. This Bill will promote in all UK companies the standards of the best modern employment relationships.

  I intend to bring forward a Bill in the New Year. The Government are committed to action or have taken action on all 29 of the proposals in the White Paper.

  I am depositing in the Library of the House copies of letters which I have written to the TUC and CBI which contain a detailed summary of our intentions for the Bill.

  The following are the key points:
  Trade union recognition will essentially follow the procedure within the White Paper. However, we intend to build in measures to ensure that the recognition procedure functions effectively and credibly. A revitalised Central Arbitration Committee (CAC) will have discretion in cases involving automatic recognition and the Secretary of State will also be able to issue guidance to the CAC. We also intend that employees campaigning for recognition should have protection from dismissal or action short of dismissal.
  We intend to offer a real incentive to employers to put in place proper voluntary systems to avoid unfair dismissals. We will therefore be raising the limit for compensation for unfair dismissal from £12,000 to £50,000 and index linking that sum in the future.
  The Bill will safeguard the fundamental right of employers and employees to reach individual contracts which differ from the terms of any collective agreement. However, we will protect employees from being forced into signing individual contracts where a collective agreement exists.
  We will also provide protection for those engaged in lawfully organised official industrial action. It will be automatically unfair to dismiss employees for the first eight weeks of the action. Thereafter dismissal will be fair provided that the employer has taken all reasonable procedural steps to resolve the dispute.
  As outlined in the White Paper we will be bringing forward a package of Family Friendly measures to ensure that as many people who want to work should have the chance to do so.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many written parliamentary questions on the Millennium Experience he has responded to since assuming responsibility for the New Millennium Experience Company; and in how many cases he has issued holding replies. [63321]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 10 December 1998]: From the records kept by my officials the best estimate is that I have answered 382 written parliamentary questions since assuming responsibility for the New Millennium Experience Company in July 1997. 68 of those answers received holding replies.

  Millennium Exhibition
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what agreements exist between the New Millennium Experience Company and IMG in relation to IMG's work on attracting sponsors for the Millennium Exhibition. [62777]
  694
  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on 14 December 1998, Official Report, column 363.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library a copy of the standard terms and conditions of sponsorship in respect of the New Millennium Experience Company. [62002]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 1 December 1998]: I have today placed copies of the New Millennium Experience Company's (NMEC) outline approach to official sponsors in the Library of the House. This paper sets out the NMEC's approach to the rights and benefits applicable to Official Sponsors of the Millennium Experience and provides the basis on which sponsorship discussions, leading to contractual arrangements are taken forward. Contractual documents between the NMEC and sponsors are commercially confidential.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of the building materials used at the Millennium Site for National Celebration has been transported to the site by river. [62039]

  Mr. Mandelson
  In the initial stages of the Dome's construction and site preparation, aggregates were delivered to the site by river. The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) considers the use of the river for transportation of building materials at every opportunity, taking account of cost.

  Parts of the new piers at the site are being manufactured in the Medway and will be brought up the Thames to be put in place.

  Research Awards
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list for each of the last five years the percentage of(a) money awarded as research grants and (b) actual grants to former polytechnics and colleges of higher education by each of the national research councils in relation to the total moneys allocated as research awards to higher education institutions. [63174]

  Mr. Battle
  The available data are shown in the following table:

  Expenditure on research grants to former polytechnics/colleges of higher education as % of total expenditure at higher education institutions

  Number of research grants to former polytechnics/colleges of higher education as % of total grants awarded to higher education institutions

  Economic and social science research council

  1993–94

  1n/a

  2.30

  1994–95

  4.00

  3.40

  1995–96

  1n/a

  10.20

  1996–97

  4.00

  7.20

  1997–98

  4.90

  7.70

  Particle physics and astronomy research council

  1993–94

  0.38

  2.81

  1994–95

  0.63

  1.56

  1995–96

  1.47

  1.72

  1996–97

  0.48

  2.06

  1997–98

  0.76

  3.50

  695

  Expenditure on research grants to former polytechnics/colleges of higher education as % of total expenditure at higher education institutions

  Number of research grants to former polytechnics/colleges of higher education as % of total grants awarded to higher education institutions

  Medical research council

  1993–94

  2n/a

  2n/a

  1994–95

  0.17

  0.45

  1995–96

  0.35

  0.27

  1996–97

  0.21

  0.25

  1997–98

  0.08

  n/a

  Biotechnology and biological sciences research council

  1993–94

  *n/a

  *n/a

  1994–95

  0.92

  0.80

  1995–96

  1.34

  1.00

  1996–97

  1.42

  1.10

  1997–98

  1.25

  0.90

  Engineering and physical sciences research council

  1993–94

  3n/a

  3n/a

  1994–95

  7.1

  8.9

  1995–96

  4.4

  6.2

  1996–97

  4.1

  5.2

  1997–98

  3.9

  5.0

  Natural environment research council

  1993–94

  0.72

  2.80

  1994–95

  0.67

  3.10

  1995–96

  0.37

  2.90

  1996–97

  0.86

  3.80

  1997–98

  0.81

  3.30

  1 These figures are not available due to an error on the database which will be rectified when it is replaced in 1999.

  2 Figures prior to 1994–95 are not comparable due to changes in recording and indexation.

  3 EPSRC commenced operations on 1 April 1994.

  * BBSRC commended operations in 1994.

  Redundancy Claims
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he is taking to improve the efficiency of the Redundancy Pay Services Department offices in processing redundancy claims. [64519]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Redundancy Payments Service has considerably simplified the process of handling claims with a new computer system. This has enabled claims to be sent direct to the Service rather than through insolvency practitioners, cutting out delays and also saving about £1 million a year in administrative expenditure, while allowing for a small increase in the number of staff handling claims. It has also enabled claims for different types of payment to be combined, which were previously made separately. Improvements to the new system are still being made in the light of subsequent operational experience. An officer has also been nominated in each office to ensure that complaints from customers are addressed quickly and any necessary lessons learned. Their direct telephone numbers will be published in the Service's Charter leaflet in the New Year and issued with every redundancy claim form.

  Heat and Power Plants
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his policy on the sanctioning of combined heat and power plants, with particular reference to distributed heating schemes. [64108]
  696
  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 15 December 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to paragraphs 10.42 to 10.51 of the Energy White Paper, "Conclusions of the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation and Government response to fourth and fifth Reports of the Trade and Industry Committee". Decisions since the White Paper have demonstrated our positive commitment to combined heat and power:

  Grangemouth CHP announced 30 October

  Shotton and Castleford CHPs announced 3 December.

  Export Missions
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria he adopts in(a) selecting and (b) carrying out or aborting export missions. [62401]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: Export missions are selected on the basis of furthering my Department's objectives.

  They are aborted only as a result of unforeseen circumstances such as unexpected Parliamentary business.

  Science Spending
  Mrs. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the relationship between science spending and industrial productivity. [60971]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 3 December 1998]: Investment in scientific research is essential to increasing industrial productivity: that is why we have secured an extra £1.4 billion for the Science Base. We must also harness better the assets of our excellent knowledge base and secure them for competitive advantage. The Competitiveness White Paper highlights this need to enhance exploitation of technology and knowledge as a key feature of a modern industrial policy.

  Initiatives taken this year to enhance the exploitation of science and technology and so to encourage industrial productivity include:
  a doubling of funding for the Teaching Company Scheme to promote the movement of people and knowledge between industry and the science base
  an extension of the SMART scheme to stimulate business R&D in new products and processes
  three new LINK programme this year, in response to priorities identified by Foresight and representing Government funding of up to £15 million.
  the University Challenge Fund scheme, a competition set up by Government, the Wellcome Trust and the Gatsby Charitable Foundation offering £40 million to help universities set up seed funds to turn good research into good business.
  Science Enterprise Challenge, a £25 million scheme to support up to 8 Institutes for Enterprise in universities and to introduce courses in enterprise in science and engineering curricula.
  the new Higher Education Reach Out fund (HERO) providing £50 million over 3 years to ensure students acquire the skills that business needs, and to improve business access to universities' resources and services.

  Utilities (Competition)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the United Kingdom Government regard competition in United Kingdom utilities as fair when it
  697
  involves competition between a British plc responsible to its shareholders and an overseas state owned company. [62193]

  Dr. Howells
  The European Commission has exclusive competence as regards illegal state aids, including financial advantages which might be thought to arise from state-ownership. If the British Government had concerns in a particular case, they would make them known to the European Commission.

  Any merger involving a state owned enterprise would be considered impartially on its merits by the relevant competition authorities.

  Airlines
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many responses were received by the deadline of 4 September to his invitation for comments on the Director General of Fair Trading's advice on the proposed alliance between British Airways and American Airlines. [64713]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Office of Fair Trading received forty one written representations following my invitation on 6 August for comments to be sent to them on the Director-General of Fair Trading's advice.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason he has delayed announcing a final decision on approval of the alliance between British Airways and American Airlines beyond the Autumn as announced in a Departmental press release of 8 July. [64714]

  Mr. Mandelson
  No announcement has been delayed. I have not yet reached a final decision.

  The press notice of 8 July made clear that the next steps in the process were public consultation on both the Commission's proposals and the remedies proposed by my predecessor. It also made clear that the alliance would need approval from the US competition authorities, and that there would need to be a new UK/US bilateral air services agreement before the alliance could come into effect.

  I sought comments on the DGFT's interim advice to me, which was published on 6 August. The DGFT's advice stated that the Commission had not reached a firm view on the appropriate remedy in some areas, and that a number of important matters remained uncertain.

  Meanwhile, progress has been slower than expected in the negotiations with the US towards a new air services agreement.

  I have told BA, in reply to a letter dated 2 December which said that a final decision on the alliance should be deferred (at least until the position on open skies was clearer), that there were a number of issues on which more progress had to be made before I could reach a final decision.

  Arms Exports (South Africa)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the export to South Africa of British 698
  Aerospace Gripen fighters and Hawk aircraft and GKN Westland Maritime helicopters will be supported by export credit guarantees. [64498]

  Mr. Mandelson
  ECGD has been approached with a view to providing finance support in respect of these prospective transactions and if ECGD were to provide any such support it would be subject to ECGD's procedures and continuing cover availability.

  Export Finance Scheme
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the Government proposes to replace the Fixed Rate Export Finance Scheme on its expiry on 31 December. [64786]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Following a conference chaired by Lord Clinton-Davis on 24 June, ECGD, along with banks, exporters, and their representative associations have been working to identify possible ways to enhance the competitiveness of UK exporters and to improve the cost-effectiveness of ECGD interest rate support. In order to allow the outcome of these discussions to be taken into account in negotiating a successor scheme, and to ensure continuity of service to exporters and banks in the meantime, the Government have decided to extend the validity of the current Scheme for a further three months until 31 March 1999.

  Millennium Compliance
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps are being taken to ensure that all nuclear installations worldwide are fully millennium-compliant; and what contingency plans are in place in the event of multiple nuclear emergencies overseas. [64453]

  Mr. Battle
  Responsibility for ensuring safety at nuclear installations, and for dealing with any emergencies which might arise at those installations, rests with the state in which the installation is situated. At the international level, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna and the Nuclear Energy Agency in Paris are acting as co-ordinators of millennium information for the nuclear sector worldwide, and have already held sessions on millennium preparedness, with further major workshops planned. Other nuclear organisations are contributing as appropriate.

  In multilateral and bilateral contacts with overseas nuclear safety regulatory authorities, the United Kingdom's Health and Safety Executive—which for some years has been overseeing the preparations of the UK's nuclear installations for the millennium—has been encouraging other states to take appropriate action to address this issue. Mr. Laurence Williams, the UK's Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations, presented a well received paper on millennium preparedness to the IAEA Senior Regulator's meeting in Vienna in September 1998. A copy of that paper will be placed in the Library of the House shortly.

  Both the IAEA and European Union have established and tested international systems for the early notification of any overseas nuclear accident. The UK also has bilateral arrangements for the early notification of such accidents with a number of overseas governments. The Government's National Response Plan, co-ordinated by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the

  699
  Regions, makes arrangements for the UK's response in dealing with any consequences of an overseas nuclear accident. The Plan draws on the RIMNET national radiation monitoring and nuclear emergency response system, which also provides the UK with a second independent line of defence, should for any reason the early notification systems fail. RIMNET also links into the Meteorological Office's predictions of the areas of the UK likely to be affected by any overseas accident.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to ensure that all UK nuclear installations are fully millennium-compliant; and what contingency plans are in place in the event of a millennium-related nuclear emergency. [64452]

  Mr. Battle
  All UK nuclear operators have initiated major programmes of work to identify and address potential problems associated with the century date change issue. Those aspects of these programmes that address potential safety concerns are being monitored closely by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). The HSE is satisfied with the actions being taken. If the HSE were not satisfied it would take robust enforcement action if it were appropriate, but if the licencees continue to make good progress in tackling the issue, the HSE anticipate this will not be necessary.

  Operators anticipate that all essential work will be completed by mid-1999. This includes a re-testing of systems to provide confirmation that remedial action taken to rectify any safety problems that are identified has been effective. Contingency plans and business continuity plans will also be in place for the critical dates as a precaution against unforeseen threats to safety. Contingency plans against the possibility of a nuclear emergency are maintained and available for activation at any time.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library a copy of those provisions in agreements with corporate sponsors of zones in the millennium dome concerning(a) the content of the zone being sponsored and (b) the management of the zone being sponsored. [64422]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The contractual agreements between the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) and individual sponsors are commercially confidential. However, in terms of content and management they provide for the NMEC to retain the right of control over design, content, access to and operation of the exhibit zones. This ensures that the integrity of the Millennium Experience as the focus for the nation's millennium celebrations can not be compromised.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will list the zones in the millennium dome for which armaments manufacturers would not be considered to be appropriate sponsors; [64395]

  (2) if he will make provision for critics of corporate sponsors of zones in the millennium dome to have an opportunity to reply to claims made by the sponsors in cases where the sponsors are engaged in (a) the food industry, (b) the motor industry and (c) armaments manufacturing; [64396]
  700
  (3) what discussions he has had with representatives of the Church of England concerning the inclusion of armaments manufacturers amongst the corporate sponsors of the millennium dome; and what was the outcome of those discussions. [64397]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Millennium Experience at Greenwich and its associated national programme of events and activities is the responsibility of the New Millennium Experience Company. This includes the development of the exhibit zones within the Dome and the procurement of sponsorship. I have had no discussions with the Church of England about sponsorship of the exhibit zones within the Dome. Anyone who wishes to criticise, or indeed support, sponsors' involvement in the Millennium Experience is free to do so through a range of channels, including by asking Parliamentary Questions.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many visitors to the Dome are expected to come from each region of the United Kingdom and each European Union country in each week in 2000; [60882]

  (2) how many visitors to the Dome are expected to come from each London borough in each month in 2000. [60883]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 27 November 1998]: This information is not available in the categories or format requested and it would not be practicable for the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) to make visitor estimates in this manner. For example, visitors from each of the London boroughs will not necessarily be residents of those boroughs. They could include school parties or friends and relations staying with residents, or indeed, tourists staying in the different boroughs.

  Nuclear Physics (Postgraduate Courses)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what estimate he has made of the number and percentage of students who have gained postgraduate qualifications in nuclear physics who then took up employment abroad; and if he will make a statement; [63386]

  (2) what steps he has taken to encourage students to take up postgraduate courses in nuclear physics. [63387]

  Mr. Battle
  I understand that data are not available at a sufficient level of subject detail to provide an answer for all postgraduates. However, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council has provided the following information based on an evaluation, last year, of the research students supported by the Council and by the former Science and Engineering Research Council and whose funding expired in the period between October 1991 and 1996. 53 students are known to have obtained PhDs in nuclear physics; of those 9 per cent. took posts overseas in their first jobs. No data are currently available on the number who remain abroad, but a further recent career path study of former Research Council students across a wide range of subject areas found that only 4 per cent. worked overseas in their first job and in their latest job, some ten years on.
  701
  The EPSRC allocates studentships to university departments based on the level of EPSRC-funded research activity on a programme by programme basis. There is no specific allocation based on funding of nuclear physics. Heads of Department have discretion to distribute their quota of studentships in an appropriate manner provided the relevant projects fall within the research remit of the EPSRC.

  The Physics programme of EPSRC allocated 171 research studentships and collaborative (CASE) awards, and 39 advanced course studentships in 1997. Two of the advanced courses are in the area of nuclear physics, and the programme provides these two courses with 13 studentships. (Data are not readily available on the pass rate and employment destinations of the students on these two courses, but the career path study indicated that 99 per cent. of Research Council advanced course students gained their qualification).

  The EPSRC has recently provided funding for a new Integrated Graduate Development Course in nuclear physics at the University of Liverpool, entitled "Radiometrics applied to Decommissioning and Radioactive Waste".

  Nuclear Liability and Taxation Agreement
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to promote an expanded bilateral Russian/UK agreement covering nuclear liability and taxation. [63107]

  Mr. Battle
  DTI officials intend to discuss the possibility with their Russian counterparts early next year. The Department is also considering with other Governments concerned what reasonable legal protection is needed for contractors engaged in clean-up work in Russia. More broadly it remains our objective to encourage Russia to ratify the Vienna Convention on Nuclear Liability.

  Arms Exports
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many licences were granted to United Kingdom companies to export small arms between(a) 1 January and 30 June 1997, and (b) 1 July 1997 and 30 September 1998. [63439]

  Mrs. Roche
  The export of specified small arms is controlled under entries ML1 and PL5018 in the Export of Goods (Control) Order, which also cover specified accessories and specially designed components. The entry in the legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating.

  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the following results were obtained. Between 1 January 1997 and 30 September
  702
  1998, the numbers of Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) issued during each period and covering the export of goods with the relevant ratings were as follows:

  Individual Licences issued between 1 January 1997 and 30 September 1998 covering the export of goods with the rating ML1

  Period

  Number of SIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  Number of OIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  1 January 1997–30 June 1997

  962

  70

  1 July 1997–30 September 1998

  1,696

  60

  Individual Licences issued between 1 January 1997 and 30 September 1998 covering the export of goods with the rating PL5018

  Period

  Number of SIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  Number of OIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  1 January 1997–30 June 1997

  99

  69

  1 July 1997–30 September 1998

  84

  43

  This information should be considered in light of my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 256–58.

  There is no internationally-agreed definition of "small arms". It is possible that some weapons controlled under other ratings could be called small arms; for instance, a 12-bore shotgun with a calibre greater than 12.7mm would be controlled under entry ML2.

  Certain Open General Export Licences cover the return to specified countries of weapons controlled under entries ML1 and PL5018, subject to the conditions of the licence in each case: the Open General Export Licence (Export After Repair: Military Goods) and the Open General Export Licence (Export After Exhibition: Military Goods). In addition, the Open General Export Licence (Accompanied Personal Effects: Sporting Firearms) permits temporary exports for sporting or recreational purposes to Tanzania and Uganda. Copies of all Open General Export Licences valid at any time during the period are in the Library of the House.

  British Nuclear Fuels Ltd
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he received the KPMG report on the future of BNFL; and when he expects to be in a position to make a statement on the report. [64569]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 15 December 1998,Official Report, column 455.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Electronic Book Formats
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to introduce minimum standards for electronic book formats; and what representations he has received regarding the development of the XML and PDF formats. [62963]

  Mr. Battle
  The Department has no plans to introduce minimum standards for electronic book formats and has received no representations regarding the development of the XML and PDF formats.

  Industrial Tribunal Claims
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many industrial tribunal claims initiated in 1994 still await a hearing. [64231]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  In 1994–95, Employment Tribunals registered 88,061 applications which included 11,000 cases by people claiming part time worker pension rights. No statistical information is available to say how many cases initiated in 1994 remain in the tribunal system unheard. Currently 89 per cent. of cases receive a first hearing within 26 weeks of receipt. The majority of cases remaining in the system over a period of time are waiting the outcome of proceedings in other courts.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many official visits(a) he and (b) the Ministers in his Department have made to Buckinghamshire since 2 May 1997; and if he will list them. 164135]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Since 2 May 1997 it has not yet been possible to include an official visit to Buckinghamshire in a DTI ministerial regional programme. However, DTI Ministers have undertaken visits to a number of the surrounding counties.

  Internet (Paedophiles)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to stop the Internet in the United Kingdom being used by paedophiles. [64286]

  Mrs. Roche
  The law applies on-line as it does off-line with the result that each person is responsible for their own acts and omissions.

  The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) was established following discussions between the DTI, Home Office, the Police and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to provide a voluntary industrial mechanism to supplement law enforcement. The IWF operates a hotline to which Internet users can report material which they believe may be illegal. This information is then passed on to the police and the ISP who is hosting the site. When the material originates in the UK, the ISP should then remove it from
  704
  its server. The Police will take action to follow up any criminal offence. If UK service providers fail to act on IWF reports and the material is found to be illegal, they are liable for prosecution as accessories to the crime.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will ask Internet service providers to control kids' chat lines to prevent paedophile messages being placed on them. [64287]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Department works with Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and law enforcement agencies to combat paedophile action on the internet. One result of this was the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) which was established following discussions between the DTI, Home Office, the Police and ISPs. One of the aims of the IWF is to hinder the use of the Internet to transmit illegal material, particularly child pornography. As part of their work to combat illegal material appearing on the Internet, they have processed complaints received about Chat lines.

  Employee Savings Club
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he can take against company directors who operate a savings club for employees but do not open a separate savings account so that employees' savings are protected if that firm goes into liquidation. [64563]

  Dr. Howells
  In the event of a company being placed in liquidation, the conduct of its directors would be considered in the light of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. Failing to protect employees' contributions to a savings club would be taken into account in deciding whether or not to bring disqualification proceedings.

  If the contributions were to a holiday club the Secretary of State might be able to make payments to employees under section 184 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

  Redundancy Payments
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will instruct Redundancy Pay Services Department offices(a) to process claims for employees made redundant by a business or the Official Receiver as soon as the office makes the individual calculation and (b) not to wait for a whole batch of calculations for that business to be completed before making any individual payments; [64566]

  (2) if he will take measures to ensure that all Redundancy Pay Services Department offices process immediately the claims of employees made redundant by the Official Receiver when their firm becomes insolvent. [64567]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Redundancy Payments Service processes each claim as soon as possible after sufficient information to determine entitlement is available.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the use of
  705
  wind farms as an alternative to conventional power plants. [64344]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government are committed to a new and strong drive to develop renewable energy sources, including wind power.

  We need to move away from dependence on fossil fuels. But this needs to be managed gradually so as not to damage the economy.

  I am currently reviewing new and renewable energy policy, including consideration of what would be necessary and practical to achieve 10 per cent. of the UK's electricity needs from renewables by the year 2010 and how renewable sources can make an effective contribution to meeting requirements for future greenhouse gas reductions.

  As a first step towards that new and strong drive, on 24 September 1998 I announced the fifth and largest Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation Order for 1177 Megawatts of renewable energy electricity capacity, including 368 Megawatts from wind energy. As at 30 September 1998, some 1,076 Megawatts of wind energy capacity had been contracted under NFFO, and 57 projects, totalling 137 Megawatts, were operational. Electricity costs from wind power in NFFO have more than halved on average to around the same cost as the average wholesale price for electricity from conventional plants but not yet at prices competitive with new gas-fired generation. NFFO5 contracts for the large wind energy band were at an average of 2.88p/kWh compared with the average Pool Selling Price of 2.67p/kWh in 1997/98.

  On 2 September 1998 I launched a consultative document on opening up NFFO in future to offshore wind energy. I am now considering the responses to that exercise.

  Minister for Science
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Minister for Science has taken to divest himself of his investments in(a) Diatech Ltd. and (b) Innotech Investments Ltd. [64504]

  Mr. Mandelson
  As my answer to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made clear on 19 October 1998,Official Report, column 1050 all the Minister for Science's shareholdings, including those in Diatech and Innotech, have been placed in a blind trust. The blind trust was created on 31 July, 3 days after his appointment, and the legal formalities for transferring the shares were completed shortly afterwards.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he has taken to ensure that no conflict of interests arises in the consideration of matters relating to biotechnology by the Minister for Science. [64409]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I refer the right hon. Member to my reply on 19 October 1998,Official Report, column 1050.

  Post Office
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what estimate he has made of the 706
  impact of the proposed Post Office changes on public spending totals in (a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and
  (c) 2001–02; [64404]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the loss to the Treasury from the revised Post Office external finance limit in (a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02. [64411]

  Mr. Mandelson
  As a self-financing public corporation the Post Office is outside my Departmental Expenditure Limit. Capital expenditure by the PO contributes to Annually Managed Expenditure. The impact on the Public Sector Net Cash Requirement is broadly equivalent to the Post Office's External Finance Requirement, which will depend on a number of factors including the level of profits in future years and any borrowing. As I announced on 7 December 1998,Official Report, columns 21–39, an External Financing Requirement (EFR) of minus £207 million has been set for 1999–2000 and in following years the EFR will be equivalent to 40 per cent. of post tax profits. As indicated in the reply given by the then Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for the City of York (Mr. Bayley) on 17 July 1998, Official Report, column 356 the EFRs of minus £335 million announced then were an interim measure pending the outcome of the review.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what restrictions will be placed on the Post Office's permitted scope for the acquisition of overseas companies under his proposals for its future. [64403]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Under the Post Office Act 1969 the Post Office can make acquisitions, including overseas acquisitions, that are "requisite, advantageous or convenient" for the purpose of its business. The increase in retained net profits I announced on 7 December 1998,Official Report, columns 21–24, will enable the Post Office to finance an increased level of investment. However the Government recognise that larger growth, including acquisitions and joint ventures, may require prudent borrowing. The Government will approve normal Post Office requests for borrowing for investment cases that are commercially robust. Separate fast track arrangements will be put in place for considering the largest investments. Further details will be provided in the White Paper to be published in the New Year.

  Tanzania (Medical Supplies)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will issue an export licence before Christmas to enable the shipment of a LandRover loaded with medical equipment given by the people of Kingsbridge, South Devon, to Tanzania to be used by the Nzega District Hospital. [64435]

  Mrs. Roche
  Given the humanitarian nature of the export, I am able to inform the hon. Member that this export licence was issued on Tuesday 15 December.

  Scotland Act 1998 (Schedule 5)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list(a) total expenditure and
  (b) expenditure by programme over £50,000 by his Department in Scotland on areas covered by each of the exceptions under heads (i) C and (ii) D in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998. [63796]
  707
  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 15 December 1998]: This information is not held centrally and accurate figures on the exceptions under heads C and D could only be obtained at disproportionate cost, if at all.

  Green Technology
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to promote new green technologies and businesses. [62383]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government recognise the enormous potential of the UK environmental industry to develop new green technologies which both provide solutions to environmental problems and boost the UK economy. Support in promoting the activities of this sector is provided through a number of activities.

  DTI plays an important role in supporting the science and engineering base and business to develop and exploit sustainable technologies and processes. Science and engineering research received a major boost of £1.1 billion as a result of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  The Foresight Steering Group has identified sustainable technologies as a top priority. Specific initiatives under the Foresight programme include the Vehicle Link programme (which has recently received a further £5 million) and sustainable technologies for a cleaner world. Foresight is currently being developed to make it more effective and will be underpinned by the theme of sustainable development. Earlier this month eighteen projects received Foresight LINK Awards, which bring together business and the science base to work in areas identified by the Foresight programme as important to the future prosperity and quality of life of the UK.

  The Cleaner Vehicles Task Force was launched last year to provide a partnership between government, manufacturers, users and pressure groups to identify practical measures to reduce the environmental impact of vehicles.

  The LINK scheme also plays an important part in developing and transferring knowledge on new sustainable technologies. Research ranges from the development of biotechnologies to remove pollutants from streams and soils, to using earth observation satellites for monitoring the natural environment.

  The renewables industry received a boost last September with the announcement of the largest ever obligation on the Public Electricity Suppliers to secure 1177 MW of new electricity generating capacity from renewable sources of energy.

  The Environment Technology Best Practice Programme (ETBPP) produces high quality technical advice in relation to specific industrial sectors including examples of businesses which have established good practice procedures and made use of new technologies.

  The Joint DTI/DETR Environmental Markets Unit (JEMU) encourages development of British businesses in the environmental sector and promotes the UK as a supplier of environmental solutions. JEMU's Business
  708
  Plan, which was launched on 18 March by Michael Meacher and myself, details planned activities designed to raise the profile of the industry both at home and overseas.

  We are committed to working with business and others to identify and promote ways in which firms can move towards sustainability. The Government's consultation document "Sustainable Business" published in June, set out some ideas on how this can be best achieved. The responses from business—over 500 were received—were generally positive, and will be reflected in our new national Sustainable Development Strategy which is due to be published early in the New Year.

  Millennium Dome (Sports)
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for sporting activities to take place in the Dome. [62199]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 3 December 1998]: Responsibility for the content of the Millennium Dome lies with the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC). The NMEC has no plans for sporting events to take place in the Dome. However, the aims of the Serious Play Zone are to recognise and present traditional sports in an exciting and futuristic manner.

  Receiverships
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many directors of quoted companies have asked his Department to investigate the events leading to receivership in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [64633]

  Dr. Howells
  Information is not maintained in the manner requested by my hon. Friend. Such requests are minimal.

  Post-devolution Expenditure
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much expenditure is forecast to be incurred by his Department in Wales in 1998–99 as part of UK-and Britain-wide expenditure programmes; and what provision will be made in relation to this expenditure once the National Assembly for Wales has been established. [63479]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Government of Wales Act 1998 provided for a Transfer of Functions Order to be made to transfer Ministerial functions to the National Assembly for Wales. This Order was published in draft for public consultation on 12 November. Work is continuing within Government to finalise the text of the Order and until the content of the Order has been finalised, it is not possible to state with certainty what functions will transfer. It is therefore too early to say to what extent programme expenditure which is currently administered by my Department may relate to functions which will transfer to the National Assembly for Wales. Work is taking place to establish the extent of any such expenditure and to assess the need for any consequential transfer of funds to the Assembly.

  My Department does not make forecasts of how much of its expenditure will be incurred in each country of the United Kingdom, although such information is published on a retrospective basis in the Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA).

  Freephone
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will investigate plans by Oftel to alter freephone numbers. [63655]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: The administration of the National Numbering Scheme is a matter for Oftel. Oftel consulted earlier this year on several options for changing the system of freephone numbers. Oftel is currently examining all the comments it has received before deciding on the way forward. Oftel is due to issue a Statement on the results of the consultation next year and the Department will examine it closely.

  Internet
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to prevent companies trading fraudulently on the Internet by using as a domain name the registered name or trademark of another company. [63414]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: The Trade Marks Act 1994 contains provisions to protect against the fraudulent use of a registered trade mark. The common law tort of passing-off protects against false representation, where a company attempts to take unfair advantage or their action is detrimental to reputation of another.

  These provisions can be applied to fraudulent use of domain names. In a recent case (British Telecommunications Plc et al. v. One in a Million & others), both the High Court and the Court of Appeal said that the registration of trade marks as domain names was unfair and detrimental to the reputation of the trade mark owner and such registrations were also an infringement of the trade mark owner's rights.

  Nuclear Fuels
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations were made to the Minister of State during his visit to Dounreay on 18 November; and if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's position regarding the review of the policy of reprocessing spent nuclear fuels. [62669]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 16 December 1998]: During my visit to Dounreay on 18 November, I met members of the UKAEA management, staff and unions. We discussed a number of issues relating to the work of Dounreay, and in particular UKAEA's plans to respond to the HSE/SEPA audit of safety at Dounreay.

  The Government's position on reprocessing spent nuclear fuels was placed in the Libraries of the House as indicated in my answer to the House of 30 January 1998, Official Report, column 415.

  Defence Exports
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many civil servants are employed in his Department to assist in supporting and promoting defence exports; and at what cost. [64462]
  710
  Mr. Battle
  None of my officials are employed full-time in defence export promotion. However, a part of the workload of several DTI officials is on such activity, where they work alongside the Defence Exports Services Organisation of the MOD.

  Medical and Pharmaceutical Equipment
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many civil servants are employed in his Department to assist in supporting and promoting exports of medical and pharmaceutical equipment; and at what cost. [64463]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Three civil servants in the Export Promotion Command of my Department work on promoting exports in this sector, in liaison with officials from the Department of Health and an Export Promoter, seconded from industry. The running costs of the civil servants themselves, excluding the programme budget for which they are responsible, is £114,399.

  Radioactive Waste, Germany
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 7 December 1998,Official Report, column 69, concerning BNFL's reprocessing contract, if he will place in the Library copies of each of the inter-governmental exchanges of letters on nuclear waste to which the answer refers. [63898]

  Mr. Battle
  Further to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend of 7 December 1998,Official Report, column 69, I have arranged for copies of the relevant inter-governmental exchanges of letters underpinning BNFL's overseas reprocessing contracts since 1976 to be laid in the Library of the House.

  Export Licences
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of the applications for export licences which were outstanding on 24 June(a) have been granted, (b) have been refused and (c) are still outstanding. [61928]

  Mrs. Roche
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many export licence applications awaiting decisions between 24 June and 23 November had been waiting for(a) up to 20 days, (b) up to 40 days, (c) up to 60 days and (d) more than 60 days. [61927]

  Mrs. Roche
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

  Electronic Commerce
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the implications for the competitiveness of electronic commerce in the United Kingdom of the decisions made at the December meeting of the Wassenaar Arrangement. [63525]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: The Government are committed to making the UK the best environment in the world for electronic commerce by

  711
  the end of this Parliament. Our strategy for achieving this will be set out in the forthcoming White Paper on Competitiveness. The recent agreement in the Wassenaar Agreement, which has modernised and relaxed the export controls on encryption technology, will contribute towards this strategy.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Contributions Agency
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if it is the present policy of the Contributions Agency to require its staff to retire at age 60 years; [64415]

  (2) if he will state the whole time equivalent employment at each Contributions Agency site in the Tyne and Wear area at (a) 1 April 1996, (b) 1 April 1997 and (c) the most recent available date; and how many employees were over 60 years of age at each date. [64419]

  Mr. Timms
  This is a matter for George Bertram, the Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from George Bertram to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 17 December 1998:
  As Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency (CA) I have responsibility for answering questions about operational matters relating to the Agency. I have been asked to reply to your questions about the Agency's retirement policy and staffing levels in the Tyne and Wear area.
  The CA's current retirement policy is based upon corporate Department of Social Security policy and requires all employees to retire at age 60. The policy was implemented on 31 July 1998. The previous policy required employees to retire at age 60 unless they were employed at Executive Officer level or below. For Executive Officers retirement was at age 62 and for employees below this level at age 65. Transitional arrangements enable employees at Executive Officer level or below who were over age 60 on or after 31 July 1998 to be retained until no later than 31 July 1999 in the following circumstances:
  Their performance, attendance and conduct fully met the requirements of the job;
  Their job is not included in an area of work where there were planned redundancies;
  There are no local early retirement schemes planned for employees at the same level;
  Their retirement would lead, either directly or indirectly, to the need for external recruitment;
  The hardship that would be suffered would override any existing business need.
  CA has no plans to extend the transitional arrangements beyond 31 July 1999. From 1 April 1999 CA will become part of Inland Revenue. Their retirement policy requires employees to retire at age 60. CA management is in negotiation with Trade Unions to determine the policy that will apply to CA employees on transfer. The outcome of these negotiations has not yet been concluded.
  The number of CA employees employed at each site on the Newcastle estate on 1 April 1996, 1 April 1997 and 1 December 1998 are as follows:
  712

  Location

  Number of CA staff

  1 April 1996

  Scottish Life House

  94

  Lancaster House

  97

  Hebburn

  507

  Bellway Stores

  17

  Alfred Wilson House

  476

  Kenton Bar

  601

  Broadway West

  52

  Longbenton Main Site

  4,156

  1 April 1997

  Scottish Life House

  94

  Lancaster House

  97

  Hebburn

  507

  Bellway Stores

  17

  Alfred Wilson House

  476

  Kenton Bar

  443

  Broadway West

  26

  Longbenton Main Site

  4,040

  1 December 1998

  Hebburn

  507

  Bellway Stores

  17

  Alfred Wilson House

  476

  Kenton Bar

  540

  Broadway West

  26

  Longbenton Main Site

  4,134

  The number of employee's aged 60 or over on the above dates are as follows:

  Date

  Number of employees Date aged 60 or over

  1 April 1996

  118

  1 April 1997

  90

  1 December 1998

  50

  This data is the total number of employee's aged 60 or over in all buildings on the Newcastle estate. We do not keep figures for each individual building so I cannot provide you with this data from our records.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many case DLA case files were mislaid or lost prior to their referral to the Independent Tribunal Service in the last 12 months; and how many of these related to claimants who are mentally ill. [64216]

  Mr. Timms
  The administration of Disability Living Allowance is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Peter Mathison. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Ian Stewart, dated 16 December 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many Disability Living Allowance cases were mislaid or lost prior to their referral to the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS) in the last 12 months; and how many of these related to claimants who are mentally ill.
  The information you have requested is not routinely kept and would only be available at disproportionate cost.
  I am aware of only one case in the last 12 months where the papers were mislaid prior to their referral to the ITS where the person concerned was suffering from a mental illness.
  I am sorry I cannot be of more help.

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals there have been against findings made under the Benefit Integrity Project in the last year for which figures are available. [64691]

  Mr. Timms
  The administration of the Benefits Integrity Project is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Peter Mathison. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 16 December 1998:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many appeals there have been against findings made under the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) in the last year for which figures are available.
  As at 31 October 1998 there have been 22,689 reviews and 5,925 appeals received following BIP action.
  You may find it helpful to know that statistical information about the BIP, including details of reviews and appeals are published monthly and placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many civil servants will be redeployed following the cancellation of the Benefit Integrity Project. [64689]

  Mr. Timms
  The administration of the Benefit Integrity Project is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Peter Mathison. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, dated 17 December 1998:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about how many civil servants will be redeployed after the cancellation of the Benefits Integrity Project.
  The number of people engaged on the Benefit Integrity Project as at 30 November 1998 was the equivalent of 365.54 full-time staff.
  The Benefits Integrity Project will be replaced by a new modern review system to carry out regular checks of existing awards to ensure entitlement remains correct. However there is no estimate of the final numbers of staff that will be required.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Benefit Integrity Project's cancellation will come into effect; and if he will make a statement. [64690]

  Mr. Timms
  The Benefit Integrity Project will be replaced by a new, even-handed system of review, sensitive to people's circumstances and fair because it will provide for awards to be increased as well as decreased in line with entitlement. We will introduce the new process as soon as possible and aim to have it in place by April 1999 but our primary concern is to get it right rather than to introduce it quickly. We are discussing the way forward with the Disability Benefits Forum.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much is planned to be spent up to 1 April 1999 on the online national insurance contribution records system; and how much has been planned for the next three year period. [64417]
  714
  Mr. Timms
  If the supplier were to process anticipated volumes, the NIRS2 budget for the financial year to 1 April 1999 would be £5.301 million. The base annual service charge for NIRS2 over the next three years is budgeted at £6.850 million per annum. This amount is subject to volumes of work processed and also any charges for agreed enhancements to the system.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the implementation milestones with their dates for the online national insurance contribution records system; and to what extent these have been achieved to date. [64420]

  Mr. Timms
  The original contract allowed for the delivery of the National Insurance Recording System over three releases between February 1997 and April 1999. A subsequent Deed of Amendment was agreed in July 1996, which allowed for a phased delivery of the first release. Although incorporating the original timeframe, the phasing of delivery between those dates was significantly altered.Release 1a. The contractual delivery date of 10 February 1997 was achieved.
  Release 1b. The original contractual date of 27 October 1997 was not achieved. Delivery took place on the 28 January 1998.
  Release 1c. The original contractual date of 6 April 1998 was not achieved. Part of the service was delivered on the 13 July 1998, and final acceptance took place on the 28 August 1998.
  Release 2/3. Contractual delivery date is the 6 April 1999, and this is currently on target.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of people currently working who have not paid sufficient national insurance contributions to qualify for incapacity benefit. [64222]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the form requested. The latest available information is that the number of people working and paying National Insurance contributions who had not paid sufficient contributions to qualify for Incapacity Benefit in 1997 was about 4.4 million. In addition, the Family Resources Survey estimates that there are about 2 million employees who earn below the lower earnings limit at any one time and therefore would not pay National Insurance contributions.

  Notes:

  1. Figures come from different data sources and should not be aggregated.

  2. To qualify for Incapacity Benefit, a claimant must have paid Class 1 and/or Class 2 National Insurance contributions on earnings equivalent to 25 times the lower earnings limit in any tax year prior to the benefit claim year and have Class 1 and/or Class 2 NICs and/or NI Credits equivalent to 50 times the lower earnings limit (LEL) in each of the two previous tax years prior to the benefit claim year.

  3. Latest information relates to the benefit year 1997 for which the latest relevant tax year is 1995/96.

  Sources:

  1. DSS: Lifetime Labour Market Database which contains a 1 per cent. sample from the National Insurance Recording System (NIRS) taken at February 1997.

  2. Family Resources Survey for the estimate of employees who are earning below the lower earnings limit.

  Contributions Agency (Computer)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what date the Contributions Agency computer system for the self-employed became inoperable. [64447]

  Mr. Timms
  The Contributions Agency National Insurance Recording System (NIRS2) is designed to hold over 65 million individual contribution records, calculate contributory benefits, provide data to many other Government Agencies. It also pays age-related contribution rebates to Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes in respect of individual scheme members and collects National Insurance Contributions from both the employed and the self-employed. To date, over £300 million has been collected from the self-employed through the monthly direct debit facility and the quarterly collection method.

  Since its introduction on the 13 July 1998, the NIRS2 system has never become inoperable. Some facilities within the system have not yet been fully implemented.

  Redundancy (Access to Benefits)
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will implement a clawback mechanism so that ex-employees from businesses which have gone into liquidation have access from the date of their redundancy to jobseeker's allowance and other benefits; [64518]

  (2) if he will ensure that ex-employees of a firm going into receivership are able to receive jobseeker's allowance and other payments from the date of their redundancy while they await their claim for redundancy payment and compensatory payment in lieu of notice to be processed, with the introduction of a clawback mechanism, if appropriate. [64565]

  Angela Eagle
  We are aware that, under existing rules, if money is owed from an insolvent employer, full benefit cannot always be paid immediately to ex-employees claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or Income Support, although payments can be made to avoid hardship.

  Since this problem came to our attention, we have been working to simplify the complex legislation in this area and we are currently considering proposals for changes to the relevant benefit rules.

  Entitlement to the other income-related benefits (Family Credit, Disability Working Allowance, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit) is not affected by unpaid earnings when an employer goes into liquidation.

  Contributions Agency (Computer)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many amendments to the records of the self-employed have not been entered on the computer of the Contributions Agency; and what action is being taken to compensate those whose benefits have not been paid as a result. [64444]

  Mr. Timms
  There are currently 1,038,729 amendments as at the 6 December requiring input to the Contributions Agency National Insurance Recording System (NIRS2). Although an exact figure is not known, the number of cases affected by the delayed input of these amendments is a very small percentage of the overall 716
  total. This is because this figure is made up of varying types of amendments, many of which could never affect a claim to benefit.

  If an individual benefit claim is affected, compensation will be considered under the normal rules of the Departmental Compensation Scheme. Details of the rules were provided in my Written Answer to hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) on the 5 November 1998, Official Report, columns 647–48.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for maternity benefit from the self-employed are(a) outstanding and (b) have been paid late as a result of the failure of the Contributions Agency computer system. [64446]

  Mr. Timms
  The estimated number of applications for maternity benefit from the self-employed, which are outstanding for November 1998, is 830. This is 60 more than the estimated figure for November 1997. The number that have been paid late because of delays attributable to the NIRS2 system is not available as information for the reason for any delay in payment is not recorded.

  Source:

  Central Data Unit and Analytical Services Division.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the details relating to Mrs. Talat Robjant will be entered on the Contributions Agency computer system. [64445]

  Mr. Timms
  The Contributions Agency is able to use the new National Insurance Recording system (NIRS2) to answer all inquiries concerning information held on individual National Insurance Accounts. The NIRS2 facilities for registering National Insurance numbers and issuing National Insurance cards for both adults and juveniles are being piloted currently. and should be implemented nationally in the near future.

  I will respond to the hon. Member with further information about this case, if he will write with further details.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many men who have made maintenance payments through the CSA have requested a reimbursement following a DNA test that proved they were not the biological father; and in how many of these cases the payments have been reimbursed; [64465]

  (2) what plans his Department has to review the guidelines in respect of reimbursement for men who have made maintenance payments and subsequently been proved, following a DNA test, not to be the biological father; [64467]

  (3) how many men who have made maintenance payments under the court order system have requested a reimbursement following a DNA test that proved they were not the biological father; and in how many of these cases the payments have been reimbursed. [64466]

  Angela Eagle
  Neither the Child Support Agency nor the Court Services Agency routinely collect statistics on the number of fathers who have requested or received a reimbursement of child maintenance following a DNA test that indicated they were not the father. However, the
  717
  Child Support Agency estimates that there have been 74 cases where a child support assessment has been cancelled by the Agency because the non-resident parent has subsequently been determined not to be the father of the qualifying child.

  The outcome of the consultation process on the Green Paper "Children First: a new approach to child support", together with our detailed proposals for reforming the Child Support System, will be announced in due course.

  Terminally Ill People (Special Benefit Rules)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will amend the advice given to doctors on when to make a report on form DS1500 so that they can take the initiative in informing patients or their representatives of the special benefit rules for the terminally ill. [64305]

  Mr. Timms
  Each pad of DS1500 forms already contains a set of guidance notes for the doctors who will complete the forms. This sets out the purpose of the form and the circumstances in which it should be used. In addition, a Bulletin was issued by the Department's Chief Medical Adviser in March 1997 to all general practitioners which explained the special rules for Disability Living Allowance for those people suffering from a terminal illness. This also explained the purpose of this form and the general practitioner's role in the process.

  Consequently, we believe that sufficient guidance is already available to enable doctors to fulfil their part in this important benefit for a particularly vulnerable group of claimants. We have no reason to believe that the system is not working in the way in which it was intended.

  Carers
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how many carers would benefit and at what cost if the rules of invalid care allowance were changed to include carers who were providing a total of at least 35 hours care per week to one or more individuals who were in receipt of the relevant levels and types of benefit. [64410]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available. Invalid Care Allowance has no regard to the number of people being cared for save that at least one severely disabled person must benefit from a minimum of 35 hours care per week.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) when he plans to make a statement on how many council tax benefit claimants have been affected by the introduction of the Council Tax Benefit Regulations; [64692]

  (2) when he will publish his review of the introduction of the new Council Tax Benefit Regulations. [64693]

  Angela Eagle
  Council Tax Benefit was restricted to band E levels from 1 April 1998 for properties in bands F, G or H. The Government are committed to monitoring the effects of the restriction in partnership with local authorities. We are examining the most efficient way of collecting information as the rule beds in: all existing 718
  claimants at the point of change were unaffected by it. We are seeking to minimise the administrative burden on local authorities. To this end officials have discussed options with local authority staff. Subject to the co-operation of local authorities, we propose to commission research in 1999. This research will be published in due course.

  Children (Household Profile)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate(a) how many children are living in households which have below half average income and (b) how many children live in households headed by (i) a married couple, (ii) a cohabiting couple and (iii) a lone parent; and if he will break down the figures between (A) two working parents, (B) one working parent and
  (C) no working parent families. [64673]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the tables.

  The estimated total numbers of children living in households below half average income for the financial year 1996–97 in Great Britain

  million

  Number of children

  Before housing costs (BHC) measure of income

  3.3

  After housing costs (AHC) measure of income

  4.5

  Number of children living in households with below half average income by family type and economic status of parents

  million

  Couples

  1996–97

  Married

  Co-habiting

  Lone parents

  Before housing costs (BHC)

  2 working parents

  0.3

  1—

  0.0

  1 working parent

  0.8

  1—

  0.0

  0 working parents

  0.7

  1—

  1.2

  Total

  1.8

  0.3

  1.2

  After housing costs (AHC)

  2 working parents

  0.4

  1—

  0.0

  1 working parent

  1.0

  1—

  0.0

  0 working parents

  0.8

  1—

  1.9

  Total

  2.2

  0.4

  1.9

  1 The figures for co-habiting couples are not shown because their respective sample sizes are too small to provide robust figures at the required level of detail. However, approximately half of the children belonging to all such couples live in households with at least one working parent

  Note:

  All figures are estimates taken from the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) data set based on the Family Resources Survey (FRS)

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the total expenditure and the breakdown of expenditure in his Department since May 1997 on(a) public opinion research, (b) television, radio and newspaper advertising and (c) direct mail. [63918]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.
  719

  Total spend for year 1997–98

  £

  Business unit

  Public opinion research

  TV, radio and newspaper advertising

  Direct mail

  Benefits Agency

  12,587

  151,539

  76,603

  Contributions Agency

  —

  360,734

  735,217

  Child Support Agency

  —

  —

  10,000

  War Pensions Agency

  2,747

  1,857

  900

  HQ

  518,735

  1,146,806

  74,911

  Estimated spend for the year 1998–99

  £

  Business unit

  Public opinion research

  TV, radio and newspaper advertising

  Direct mail

  Benefits Agency

  183,703

  276,757

  44,321

  Contributions Agency

  25,442

  1,000

  164,200

  Child Support Agency

  —

  —

  21,000

  War Pensions Agency

  —

  1,400

  2,300

  HQ

  620,060

  2,806,660

  322,691

  1 The substantial increase in Research costs over 1997–98 can be attributed to Project Access (a review of Benefits Agency information, which included consultation and research exercises) and the costs of commissioning research prior to the launch of the new style leaflets and claim forms.

  Married Woman's Pension
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list in respect of each financial year since 1990(a) the level of the married woman's retirement pension, (b) the level of that pension if upratings had been rounded to the nearest one pence and (c) his estimate of the net effect on public funds in each financial year if upratings had been carried out as in (b). [64140]

  Mr. Denham
  Information is not available in form requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  It is not possible to provide an accurate estimate of means-tested benefit offsets. However, if all Basic State Pension rates were increased by 1p the magnitude of the change in expenditure on means-tested benefits would be around 28 per cent. of the increased expenditure on RP.

  Year

  Actual rate (£)

  Rate if rounded to nearest 1p since 1990–1991 (£)

  Gross RP cost of change in rounding convention (£ million) in 1998–1999 benefit rates

  1990–91

  28.20

  28.20

  0

  1991–92

  31.25

  31.27

  3

  1992–93

  32.55

  32.55

  0

  1993–94

  33.70

  33.72

  2

  1994–95

  34.50

  34.53

  4

  1995–96

  35.25

  35.29

  5

  1996–97

  36.60

  36.67

  8

  1997–98

  37.35

  37.44

  11

  Notes:

  1. Contributory benefits effects have been estimated by the Government Actuary's Department. Individuals who receive a combination of Category A and B pension are included in this estimate.

  2. The above costings do not take into account any corresponding effects on linked benefits.

  Pensions
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list in respect of each financial year since 1990(a) the level of the basic retirement pension, (b) the level of that pension if upratings had been rounded to the nearest one pence and (c) his estimate of the net effect on public funds in each financial year if upratings had been carried out as in (b). [64141]

  Mr. Denham
  Information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  It is not possible to provide an accurate estimate of means-tested benefit offsets for separate categories of pension. However, if all Basic State Pension rates were increased by 1 p, the magnitude of the change in expenditure on means-tested benefits would be around 28 per cent. of the increased expenditure on Retirement Pension.

  Year

  Actual rate (£)

  Rate if rounded to nearest 1p since 1990–1991 (£)

  Gross RP cost of change in rounding convention (£ million) in 1998–1999 benefit rates

  1990–91

  46.90

  46.90

  0

  1991–92

  52.00

  52.01

  5

  1992–93

  54.15

  54.14

  -5

  1993–94

  56.10

  56.09

  -4

  1994–95

  57.60

  57.60

  0

  1995–96

  58.85

  58.87

  8

  1996–97

  61.15

  61.17

  8

  1997–98

  62.45

  62.45

  0

  Notes:

  1. Contributory benefits effects have been estimated by the Government Actuary's Department. Individuals who receive a combination of Category A and B pension are not included in this estimate.

  2. Estimates are rounded to the nearest £1m. (+) denotes a cost and (-) denotes a saving.

  3. These costings do not take into account any corresponding effects on linked benefits.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the (i) task forces, (ii) review panels and (iii) advisory groups his Department has, (b) the remit of each and (c) the members of each together with their principal employment and their level of remuneration. [62815]

  Mr. Denham
  The information has been placed in the Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Relay Europe
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the resources available(a) from Her Majesty's Government and (b) from the European Communities to Relay Europe; what is the intended audience for its services and the scale of its activities; what contribution his Department makes

  721
  to the subject matter distributed; if he will deposit in the Library a copy of the videos distributed; and if he will make a statement. [64126]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Relay Europe is a private sector organisation employed by the European Commission's Representation in the UK to organise conferences on its behalf, operate its mobile information centre and lend out audiovisual material produced by the Commission to the general public on demand. HMG make no direct financial contribution to Relay Europe. It does not carry any material produced by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the total expenditure and the breakdown of expenditure in his Department since May 1997 on(a) public opinion research, (b) television, radio and newspaper advertising and (c) direct mail. [63922]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Since May 1997 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has spent, from centrally held funds:(a) £52,623.67 on public opinion research in Pakistan, the Eastern Caribbean and on British attitudes towards the EU; (b) £464,628.08 on advertising in newspapers and specialist publications for recruitment campaigns; and (c) nothing on direct mail. This gives a total expenditure on these activities of £517,215.75. It would involve disproportionate costs to establish what individual FCO posts may have spent on these activities from their devolved budgets.

  Kuwaiti Missing Persons
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate how many Kuwaiti(a) missing persons and (b) prisoners of war remain in Iraq following the Gulf War; and if he will make a statement on progress on their return, or the return of their remains where appropriate, listing the action taken by (i) Her Majesty's Government and (ii) other Governments. [64399]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Under UN Security Council resolution 687 Iraq is obliged to facilitate the repatriation of the 600 or more Kuwaitis missing since the Gulf War. The UK attends meetings of the Technical Sub-Committee in Kuwait and of the Tripartite Commission in Geneva, chaired by the International Committee of the Red Cross, with the aim of resolving these cases. Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the US, and France are also represented. Progress in these meetings has been hampered by continued Iraqi obstruction. To date, Iraq has only provided sufficient information to close three of the outstanding files.

  Argentina
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been made to arrangements for the control of exports of arms and military equipment to Argentina. [64966]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Since 3 April 1982 the UK has maintained a national arms embargo on Argentina. It has been the policy of the UK to deny all applications for licences to export goods specified in Part III of Schedule I to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, commonly 722
  known as the Military List. We have decided to replace this embargo with new arrangements, with immediate effect.

  Licences will only be granted for exports that we are satisfied would not, now or in the foreseeable future, put at risk the security of our Overseas Territories in the South Atlantic or our forces operating there. We will assess all applications for licences to export goods to Argentina on a case-by-case basis against our national export licensing criteria and those in the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. This will also be the case with applications for advance approvals for promotion prior to formal application for an export licence.

  Russia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the optimum mechanisms for multi-lateral environment projects, with particular reference to Finnish-Norwegian-USA-UK help to the Murmansk Region and Kola peninsula areas of the USSR, in respect of stabilising and rectifying armamental legacies of the Cold War. [63109]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are concerned about the environmental threat from the nuclear waste from nuclear powered vessels in North West Russia, and welcomes all initiatives which address the issue. The size of the problem is such that a multilateral approach offers the best chance of making an impact. The Government are working with international partners on tackling the problem, for example helping the Russian nuclear regulators with technical expertise to license waste storage casks. We also organised a seminar on 3 December to bring together all the interested parties, from Russia and other countries, from across Whitehall, and from British industry, to discuss the way forward.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to assist the UK nuclear industry to expand its bilateral funding to cover nuclear waste management and decommissioning in the Russian Federation. [63108]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have already taken steps to promote what British industry can offer in nuclear waste management by holding a seminar on nuclear waste on 3 December, focusing on North-West Russia and the Urals. The seminar was attended by the relevant Russian authorities, other Whitehall Departments, representatives from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the European Commission and international partners as well as a specialist cross-section of British industry. It looked at how to take forward nuclear environmental clean-up, an area where the experience and expertise of the UK nuclear industry has much to offer.

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on reports that the British Embassy in Madrid warned the Embassy of Chile in Madrid that Spain would be likely to apply for the extradition of General Pinochet if he travelled to the United Kingdom; when such warnings were given; and in what terms. [64322]
  723
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  No such warning was passed to the Embassy of Chile in Madrid.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the contacts which took place between his Department and the Embassy of Chile about the security of Senator Pinochet during his visit to Britain in the autumn. [64330]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  There were no contacts between this Department and the Chilean Embassy about the security of Senator Pinochet prior to the Senator's arrest on 16 October.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response his Department made to the request made in September to the British Embassy in Chile for Senator Pinochet to travel to the United Kingdom as an Ambassador by presidential decree on a special mission to the United Kingdom. [64332]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  When the Embassy in Santiago was told informally in early September about the possibility of a visit by Senator Pinochet, no mention was made of any presidential decree or special mission.

  Chechnya
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of the Britons killed in Chechnya on 8 December were or had been employed by the British Government. [64319]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Of the three Britons murdered in Chechnya, Mr. Rudolf Petschi had been employed by the British Government. Mr. Petschi served with the Royal Signals in the British Army from February 1976 to January 1998.

  Kenya and Tanzania
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with the Governments of Kenya and Tanzania on providing assistance to them following the recent bomb attacks. [64293]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I have been asked to reply.

  Discussions with the Kenyan Government began immediately following the 7 August bomb explosion in Nairobi. This Department has provided £2.526 million in emergency assistance, including £1.5 million worth of information technology and communications equipment for the Kenya National Examinations Council and similar equipment worth £1 million for the Co-operative Bank, the head offices of both organisations having been devastated by the bomb. Other assistance included visits by plastic surgeons and structural engineers.

  The bomb in Dar es Salaam resulted in much less loss of life, injuries and damage than Nairobi. The Prime Minister wrote to President Mkapa on 8 August offering assistance, but no request was received.

  Schengen Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the acquis of the Schengen agreement that has not been deposited in the Library. [64189]

  Kate Hoey
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Schengen acquis will not be defined definitively until the Amsterdam Treaty enters into force, at which point the Council of Ministers will be invited to adopt two Decisions defining the acquis and allocating a European Union legal base to each Schengen measure. Draft versions of these Decisions, with Explanatory Memoranda, were submitted to the House and copied to the Library on 21 May 1998. Of course, the acquis will continue to grow as the Schengen Executive Committee will continue to adopt instruments right up to the entry into force of Amsterdam.

  The Government have also placed in the Library copies of the 1985 Schengen Agreement, the 1990 Schengen Convention and the Accession Protocols and all the Decisions and Declarations of the Schengen Executive Committee covering the period up to and including June 1997 which are in our possession, except for six documents which are classified as "Confidential". Some of these documents are incomplete and there are others which we have not yet received: these are indicated in the list which accompanies the documents deposited in the Library. We are endeavouring to obtain the missing documents and hope to deposit a further set of texts up to and including measures adopted in the first half of 1998 in the Library in the New Year.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  DNA Testing (Paternity Cases)
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many men who were designated the father and subject to a maintenance court order have been subsequently proven not be the father by DNA testing. [64408]

  Mr. Hoon
  This information is not collected.

  Cabinet Office Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what has been the total expenditure and the breakdown of expenditure in the Cabinet Office since May 1997 on(a) public opinion research, (b) television, radio and newspaper advertising, (c) direct mail and (d) publicity. [64185]

  Mr. Hoon
  To date the expenditure under these headings has been:

  (a) nil

  (b) £293,091.44, all of which related to judicial appointments and the recruitment of staff.

  (c) nil

  (d) £182,263, broken down as follows:

  725

  £

  Domestic Violence leaflets/booklets/posters

  62,646

  "Who Decides?" Green Paper

  32,292

  Marriage Support Services Directory

  23,157

  You too could be a Magistrate—reprint

  3,792

  Working for Justice—guide to LCD

  36,120

  Civil justice Consultation Paper

  17,396

  Judicial Appointments application forms—reprint

  6,860

  Total

  182,263

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Trials
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the Government's response to the recommendations of the Law Commission report No. 245: Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Hearsay and Related Topics; and if he will make a statement. [64785]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government consider the Law Commission's report No. 245, published in June 1997, a thorough and comprehensive review of the law on hearsay evidence. It contains 50 recommendations and a draft bill which are intended to modernise and codify the law.

  The Government have given careful consideration to the recommendations in the report, in consultation with the Law Commission. They have concluded that the proposals will simplify the law and enable more evidence to be deemed admissible, whilst maintaining proper safeguards to protect the interests of the defendant.

  The Government have decided to accept all the recommendations in the report.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek powers to allow a judge discretion not to abandon criminal trials where a defendant's criminal record is revealed, prior to verdict, by a co-defendant or witness; and if he will make a statement. [63022]

  Mr. Boateng
  The law on previous misconduct, which includes the admissibility in criminal proceedings of a defendant's criminal record, is currently under consideration by the Law Commission. The Law Commission issued a consultation paper on this subject in July 1996 and we will await their final report, which is expected next year, before reaching a decision on this matter.

  Terrorism Legislation
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish his proposals for non-temporary UK-wide legislation against terrorism. [64784]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today published, jointly with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, a consultation document containing proposals to replace the current temporary framework of legislation against terrorism with permanent United Kingdom-wide provisions.

  The document sets out the Government's proposals for police powers and other measures which would apply throughout the United Kingdom to deal with the threat
  726
  from all forms of terrorism, including those which might develop in the future. The proposals take proper account of the peace process and the security situation in Northern Ireland. They also introduce measures to combat domestic terrorism and strengthen our response to the continuing threat from international terrorism.

  The proposals in the consultation document are designed to be both effective and proportionate in responding to terrorism whilst ensuring that individual rights are protected and that the United Kingdom's international commitments are fulfilled.

  Views are invited on all of the proposals discussed in the document, and the consultation period will last until 16 March 1999. Following this, proposals will be drawn up for new counter-terrorist legislation, to be introduced at a suitable opportunity.

  Immigration and Asylum
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many comments he has received on the White Paper on immigration and asylum; and if he will publish them. [64783]

  Mr. Straw
  334 comments have been received on the White Paper 'Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum'. A list of those who commented together with copies of their comments, with the exception of six whose authors requested that they should not be published, have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 8 December 1998,Official Report, columns 107–08, what plans he has to require courts to notify the Immigration and Nationality Directorate when someone subject to immigration control is convicted of an offence resulting in a sentence of (a) imprisonment of less than 12 months and (b) a community service order. [64688]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Asylum seekers who declare their application in-country may be eligible for support under the terms of the National Assistance Act 1948 or the Children Act 1989. In both cases, this support is provided by local authority social services departments. It is for the local authorities concerned to decide how best to discharge their responsibilities. Under current legislation, the Home Office has no role in those decisions.

  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Best) has written to me about this matter and I will be replying to him shortly.

  Mutual Legal Assistance
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the proposals discussed at the recent meeting in Brussels of the European Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in respect of the interception of communications. [64470]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government's policy towards co-operation between member states of the European Union on interception of communications remains as reported to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities and recorded in their Report Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (14th Report,

  727
  Session 1997–98). Justice and Home Affairs Ministers meeting in Brussels on 3 and 4 December addressed a number of questions relating to the latest text of the draft Convention. We have reached agreement on much of the interception provisions. We are now seeking to ensure that the text accommodates important features of our own interception law and policy as well as that of other member states. In particular, differences in national legislation should not have the effect that operations carried out in relation to the United Kingdom's security and intelligence agencies would fall within the scope of the Convention when it will clearly not apply in relation to their equivalents in other member states. The Government's position on the latest text is under consideration by the European Scrutiny Committees.

  Charity Commission
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the accountability of the Charity Commission. [64560]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 15 December 1998,Official Report, column 466.

  Police Dog Training
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what animal welfare organisations have been asked to advise police forces in the United Kingdom as to the training procedures that should be followed in police dog training; and if he will make a statement. [64521]

  Mr. Boateng
  Guidance on the training of police dogs is contained in the Police Dog Training and Care Manual which was issued in 1996 by the Home Office Standing Advisory Committee on Police Dogs. The revision of the Manual is now the responsibility of the Association of Chief Police Officers' (ACPO) Police Dog Sub-Committee.

  The Chairman of the ACPO Police Dog Sub-Committee, Mrs. Pauline Clare, has contacted Essex Police, the RSPCA, the National Canine Defence League, and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary with a view to developing a scheme for inspection of force dog training centres by a team comprising of representatives of these organisations and the ACPO Sub-Committee. A pilot scheme is to be initiated within Essex involving inspection by two members of the Sub-Committee, a representative of the RSPCA, and a member of the Essex Police Authority. The ACPO Police Dog Sub-Committee will evaluate the pilot scheme in due course.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with police authorities in the United Kingdom on the training of police dogs, with particular reference to measures to ensure that no cruelty takes place during training; and if he will make a statement. [64527]

  Mr. Boateng
  My right hon. Friend has not discussed this matter with police authorities and has no plans to do so.

  Guidance on the training of police dogs is contained in the Police Dog Training and Care Manual which specifically states that a dog handler should never resort
  728
  to physical punishment in training the dog. Revision of the Manual is the responsibility of the Association of Chief Police Officers' Police Dog Sub-Committee.

  Prisoners (Education Programmes)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effect on prison inmates of the education programmes provided; and what estimate he has made of the re-offending rate of former inmates who have done well on the courses. [64478]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information on the re-offending rate of former inmates who have done well on courses is not available.

  A pilot study on the effectiveness of regimes was undertaken by the Prison Service in 1995–96. This showed that participation on educational/vocational courses reduced the rates of re-conviction provided that they were undertaken by offenders who had a need in that area. The study showed that education may lead to improved attitudes in respect of criminal lifestyle with the offender developing a new perspective on his or her behaviour.

  Education and work programmes in prisons are increasingly being offered as an integrated package with priority given to improving basic skills. As specific basic educational standards are a pre-requisite to obtaining employment after release, these programmes are seen as potentially extremely valuable to offenders when they are seeking employment.

  Prisons (Needle Exchanges)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his present policy on introducing needle exchanges in prisons. [64318]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We have no present plans to introduce a needle exchange scheme in prisons in England and Wales. The arguments in favour are counter-balanced by the risk of increasing the number of needles in circulation and undermining the need to deter and prevent drug misuse. The Prison Service, however, continues to monitor developments in the field, both at home and abroad.

  Police Service
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if it is his policy to increase the strength of the police service; and if he will make a statement; [64405]

  (2) if he will set out the strengths of each individual police force in England and Wales on (a) 1 May 1979, (b) 1 May 1997 and (c) the latest available date in 1998; and if he will make a statement; [64328]

  (3) what arrangements he has made for collecting up-to-date figures on the strengths of individual police forces; at what frequency such information is required; and if he will make a statement; [64325]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the impact of the financial settlement for the police on the strength of the police service; and if he will make a statement. [64327]
  729
  Mr. Boateng
  Information about police personnel numbers for individual forces in England and Wales is collected twice a year, at the end of March and September. Copies of the collated information are usually placed in the Library. Additionally, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary collects annually more detailed information on police personnel numbers and their deployment.

  The Government will do all that they can to ensure that the police have adequate resources to play their key part in tackling crime and disorder. However, no responsible Government can give commitments about numbers of

  Police forces numbers—England and Wales

  Force

  31 March 1979

  31 March 1997

  30 September 11998

  Avon & Somerset

  2,825

  2,988.8

  2,965.8

  Bedfordshire

  902

  1,093.6

  1,050.9

  Cambridgeshire

  1,064

  1,302.0

  1,285.9

  Cheshire

  1,778

  2,045.5

  2,054.9

  City of London

  829

  858.9

  792.5

  Cleveland

  1,334

  1,459.3

  1,453.2

  Cumbria

  1,056

  1,143.5

  1,153.0

  Derbyshire

  1,563

  1,790.6

  1,768.5

  Devon & Cornwall

  2,660

  2,864.5

  2,918.1

  Dorset

  1,128

  1,284.0

  1,292.7

  Durham

  1,312

  1,460.5

  1,559.1

  Dyfed-Powys

  910

  1,004.5

  1,013.3

  Essex

  2,461

  2,960.7

  2,903.1

  Gloucestershire

  1,076

  1,132.6

  1,090.9

  Greater Manchester

  6,419

  6,921.6

  6,890.2

  Gwent

  965

  1,243.0

  1,254.3

  Hampshire

  2,949

  3,451.7

  3,489.9

  Hertfordshire

  1,462

  1,759.1

  1,706.4

  Humberside

  1,849

  2,045.0

  2,003.4

  Kent

  2,724

  3,260.1

  3,200.2

  Lancashire

  3,097

  3,247.5

  3,245.1

  Leicestershire

  1,701

  1,948.8

  1,974.5

  Lincolnshire

  1,171

  1,196.4

  1,159.2

  Merseyside

  4,427

  4,230.4

  4,270.4

  Metropolitan Police

  22,214

  26,677.3

  26,106.3

  Norfolk

  1,223

  1,431.6

  1,409.6

  North Wales

  1,268

  1,369.0

  1,395.0

  North Yorkshire

  1,342

  1,337.6

  1,359.8

  Northamptonshire

  905

  1,176.7

  1,162.3

  Northumbria

  3,272

  3,676.8

  3,802.0

  Nottinghamshire

  2,117

  2,323.4

  2,269.0

  South Wales

  2,936

  2,975.9

  2,945.6

  South Yorkshire

  2,546

  3,158.7

  3,170.6

  Staffordshire

  1,978

  2,211.1

  2,271.1

  Suffolk

  1,064

  1,179.7

  1,179.7

  Surrey

  1,440

  1,619.5

  1,614.7

  Sussex

  2,758

  3,084.9

  2,923.9

  Thames Valley

  2,639

  3,695.0

  3,789.6

  Warwickshire

  841

  925.9

  923.5

  West Mercia

  1,743

  2,040.2

  2,024.2

  West Midlands

  5,981

  7,112.7

  7,215.3

  West Yorkshire

  4,727

  5,208.8

  5,065.7

  Wiltshire

  997

  1,154.3

  1,147.8

  Total

  109,653

  125,051.3

  124,271.1

  1 Police numbers for 30 September 1998 are provisional

  730
  police officers. Under legislation passed by the previous Government, this is a matter for chief constables, within the resources made available to them. The additional resources to be provided by the Government, totalling up to £1,24 billion over the next three years, coupled with the two per cent. efficiency targets which have been set for police authorities, will help to release more resources for front line policing.

  The table provides information on police numbers at 31 March 1979, 31 March 1997 and 30 September 1998. The figures for 30 September 1998 are provisional and subject to validation.

  Asylum Seekers
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for political asylum have been made to date in 1998; how many were made in the same period in 1997; and if he will make a statement. [64326]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The numbers of applications for asylum from January to October 1998 was 36,625 as compared to 27,035 in the same period in 1997. The rate of applications has varied widely over recent years.

  There was a temporary fall in the number of asylum seekers after the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 and numbers then peaked again in 1995. It may be that we are seeing a similar pattern after the Asylum and Immigration Act.

  The current legislative base is inadequate and the asylum system which this Government inherited has been described as shambolic. We set out our proposals for a firmer, faster and fairer system in our White Paper in July. Legislation will be forthcoming shortly to implement these proposals.

  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he has taken to ensure that all those applicants for political asylum given indefinite leave to remain in this country are genuine political refugees; and if he will make a statement;
  [64324]

  (2) in what circumstances applicants for political asylum who are judged not to be genuine may be given indefinite leave to remain in the country; and if he will make a statement. [64323]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A person who applies for asylum may, even if unsuccessful, qualify for leave to enter or remain on other grounds either under the Immigration Rules or an exceptional compelling or compassionate

  Applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and initial decisions on applications, August to October 1995, 1996 1997 and 1998 for nationals of the former Yugoslavia

  Applications

  Total decisions

  Grants of asylum

  Grants of ELR

  Decisions2 Total refusals

  August to October 1995

  485

  355

  80

  55

  215

  August to October 1996

  270

  590

  275

  125

  190

  August to October 19973

  725

  715

  430

  150

  140

  August to October 19983

  3,065

  385

  160

  5

  220

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5

  2 Decisions may not relate to applications lodged in the same period

  3 Provisional figures

  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were granted political asylum in the years(a) 1970 to 1979, (b) 1980 to 1989 and (c) 1990 to date. [64235]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In the period January 1990 to October 1998, a total of 17,780 persons were recognised as refugees and granted asylum in the United Kingdom under the criteria set out in the 1951 United National Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. This figure excludes dependants and subsequent decisions following appeal or further representations.
  732
  basis, and Secretaries of State in successive Governments have dealt with cases accordingly. For example, in the first quarter of 1993, 57 per cent. of asylum applicants whose cases were decided were not granted asylum but were granted leave to enter or remain on exceptional grounds with an avenue to settlement in due course.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what standards he has specified for the accommodation of asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement. [63934]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Home Office is not currently responsible for accommodating asylum seekers and, therefore, has made no specification for their accommodation. Asylum seekers who are able to support themselves or those who qualify for income support and housing benefit can choose their own accommodation. Others may qualify for support provided by local authority social services departments under the terms of the National Assistance Act 1948 or the Children Act 1989.

  The White Paper "Fairer, faster and firmer—a modern approach to immigration and asylum" (Cm 4018) set out proposals for a new asylum seekers support scheme. This scheme (which will require statutory underpinning), will be included in the forthcoming Immigration and Asylum Bill. It is not expected to become operational until April 2000. A project team has been set up to take forward the proposals. They will be developing specifications for the support arrangements, including accommodation, but no firm proposals have yet been developed.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many citizens of the former Yugoslavia have sought political asylum in the UK in the last three months; how many applications have been accepted; and what were the equivalent figures for each of the last three years. [64257]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Figures on the numbers of persons granted asylum in the United Kingdom are only separately identifiable from 1984 onward. Between January 1984 and December 1989, 4,480 persons were granted asylum in the United Kingdom.

  I regret that corresponding data for 1970 to 1983 are not available. However, data on recognised refugees accepted for settlement in 1974 to 1987 after four years residence in the United Kingdom show 2,600 such persons in 1974 to 1983 and 3,000 in 1984 to 1987.

  Prisons (Bullying)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reported cases of bullying of prison inmates by fellow inmates there have been in England and Wales in each of the last three years. [64122]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The number of reported cases of bullying of prisoners by other prisoners is not recorded centrally. Establishments are not specifically required to maintain statistics on the number of cases identified, nor to report them to Prison Service headquarters. However, the Prison Service intends to make it a requirement for establishments to monitor the number of prisoners identified as being bullies on a monthly basis in the coming.

  Mr. Barry Home
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice he received in respect of Mr. Barry Home before Mr. Horne was transferred from Full Sutton Prison to York District Hospital on 24 November. [64448]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Mr. Horne was transferred to York District Hospital on 24 November on clinical grounds following an assessment of his medical condition by a consultant from that hospital.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further advice he received about Mr. Barry Horne's medical condition prior to his readmission to York District Hospital on 13 December. [64458]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The decision to return Mr. Horne to York District Hospital was taken on clinical grounds by the senior medical officer at Full Sutton prison in consultation with consultants at the hospital, following Mr. Horne's decision to resume eating and to accept medical treatment.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what costs have been incurred by his Department as a result of the hunger strike recently undertaken by Mr. Barry Horne. [64450]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The direct costs to the Prison Service of Mr. Horne's recent hunger strike have been estimated to be approximately £1,000 for the hire of agency nurses while he was held in Prison.

  Whilst Mr. Horne was located in hospital, the Prison Service provided three escort staff. However, there is no additional cost related to these staff, as additional hours accrued by them during this time will be taken off during less busy periods in the future.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the reasons for the transfer of Mr. Barry Horne back to Full Sutton Prison from York District Hospital on 10 December. [64459]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Mr. Horne was returned to Full Sutton Prison following a review of his condition by medical staff at York District Hospital. The review concluded that in view of his continued refusal of food and medical treatment, and his stable condition, there was 734
  no clinical need for him to remain at the hospital as he could be equally well cared for in the health care centre at Full Sutton Prison.

  Juries
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy with regard to the use of juries in criminal trials. [63016]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have published two consultation papers this year about jury trials. The first paper, on use of juries in serious fraud trials, invited views on the principle of whether the system is likely to operate better and with a greater degree of public confidence if, in a small number of complex fraud trials, a traditional jury were to be replaced by another method of determining the facts. The consultation paper on determining the mode of trial considered whether defendants should be able to choose to be tried by a jury in cases which magistrates have indicated that they would be content to hear. We are currently considering the responses to these two consultation exercises.

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost to public funds to date incurred in connection with the detention of Senator Pinochet; and if he will itemise those costs. [64264]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to a reply I gave to the hon. Member for Poole, (Mr. Syms) on 9 November 1998,Official Report, column 47.

  Crime (Staffordshire)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received about the level of crime in Staffordshire. [64505]

  Mr. Boateng
  In addition to the two questions by my hon. Friend about crime in Staffordshire which I replied to on 16 November 1998,Official Report, columns 388–89, and 19 November 1998, Official Report, column 734, I have received a number of representations from members of the public.

  In the 12 months to March 1998, police in Staffordshire recorded 89,820 offences. This represents a decrease of 3.1 per cent. (2,866 offences) over the previous 12 months.

  Immigration Detainees
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people, at the most recent convenient date, were detained in(a) prisons and (b) immigration detention centres under Immigration Act, powers alone; and, of these, how many were detained (i) on arrival and (ii) after enforcement action. [64514]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Helicopter Flights
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ban flights by police helicopters in London between the hours of 11 pm and 6 am [64540]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave her on 19 November 1998,Official Report, column 735.

  Police Grant
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the real terms change in funding from central Government funds for each police force in the next financial year; what was the real terms change in funding from central Government funds for each police force between 1997–98 and 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [63674]

  Police funding 1997–98 to 1999–2000

  1997–98 £million1

  Percentage change (real terms)

  1998–99 £ million1

  Percentage change (real terms)

  1999–2000 £ million1

  Avon and Somerset

  158.7

  0.76

  164.3

  0.00

  168.4

  Bedfordshire

  58.9

  0.63

  60.9

  -1.64

  61.4

  Cambridgeshire

  68.2

  2.60

  71.9

  1.50

  74.8

  Cheshire

  101.1

  0.79

  104.7

  1.57

  109

  City of London2

  61.6

  -9.79

  57.1

  -5.34

  55.4

  Cleveland

  75.2

  4.05

  80.4

  -1.10

  81.5

  Cumbria

  58.6

  -2.01

  59.0

  -0.79

  60

  Derbyshire

  95.3

  -0.23

  97.7

  1.56

  101.7

  Devon and Cornwall

  158.6

  2.72

  167.4

  1.64

  174.4

  Dorset

  66.6

  -0.92

  67.8

  0.87

  70.1

  Durham

  73.3

  3.70

  78.1

  1.56

  81.3

  Dyfed Powys

  49.9

  -0.34

  51.1

  -1.68

  51.5

  Essex

  155.9

  -1.12

  158.4

  0.39

  163

  Gloucestershire

  60.1

  -0.41

  61.5

  -1.01

  62.4

  Greater Manchester

  351.2

  1.09

  364.8

  0.48

  375.7

  Gwent

  64.5

  1.55

  67.3

  0.46

  69.3

  Hampshire

  180.0

  2.24

  189.1

  0.40

  194.6

  Hertfordshire

  92.4

  -0.89

  94.1

  3.78

  100.1

  Humberside

  105.9

  1.64

  110.6

  -0.32

  113

  Kent

  168.5

  3.33

  178.9

  -0.09

  183.2

  Lancashire

  167.7

  1.50

  174.9

  -0.54

  178.3

  Leicestershire

  97.3

  -0.88

  99.1

  0.71

  102.3

  Lincolnshire

  61.5

  -3.94

  60.7

  1.90

  63.4

  Merseyside

  227.3

  -0.11

  233.3

  -1.18

  236.3

  Metropolitan Police3

  1,688.0

  -1.10

  1,715.3

  -0.80

  1,744.1

  Norfolk

  78.1

  0.81

  80.9

  0.70

  83.5

  North Wales

  71.2

  0.06

  73.2

  0.09

  75.1

  North Yorkshire

  71.9

  2.33

  75.6

  0.14

  77.6

  Northamptonshire

  60.0

  1.87

  62.8

  1.29

  65.2

  Northumbria

  193.4

  3.36

  205.4

  1.17

  213

  Nottinghamshire

  119.3

  0.34

  123.0

  0.26

  126.4

  South Wales

  155.1

  1.21

  161.3

  -1.35

  163.1

  South Yorkshire

  158.8

  1.37

  165.4

  1.04

  171.3

  Staffordshire

  111.8

  -3.29

  111.1

  -0.77

  113

  Suffolk

  63.4

  1.31

  66.0

  1.55

  68.7

  Surrey

  91.8

  -10.73

  84.2

  6.60

  92

  Sussex

  155.2

  1.96

  162.6

  -0.16

  166.4

  Thames Valley Police

  208.2

  2.51

  219.3

  -0.08

  224.6

  Warwickshire

  50.6

  -1.71

  51.1

  -0.72

  52

  West Mercia

  106.3

  0.71

  110.0

  0.31

  113.1

  West Midlands

  353.4

  2.42

  371.9

  -0.16

  380.6

  West Yorkshire

  267.5

  1.69

  279.5

  -0.07

  286.3

  Wiltshire

  62.2

  -0.80

  63.4

  -0.13

  64.9

  1 Rounded to the nearest £100,000. The allocation is the sum of: Police Grant, Transitional grant, Police SSA, Capital Finance SSA, SSA Reduction Grant and Central Support Reduction Grant.

  2 Figure for the City includes Police SSA, Grant and SSA Reduction Grant, but excludes other SSAs (eg Capital Financing) and Central Support Reduction Grant. These are allocated to the Common Council of the City of London as a whole in respect of all its functions.

  3 Figure for the Metropolitan Police does not include funding allocated to the Receiver under the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services SSA for school crossing patrols, Magistrates' Courts and the Probation Service. It does include its Special Payment.

  736
  Mr. Boateng
  My right hon. Friend announced on 2 December 1998,Official Report, columns 194–97, the revenue funding proposals for each police authority for 1999–2000. The table shows the real terms changes between these and comparative funding allocations in 1998–99, and between 1998–99 and 1997–98. In actual terms, the national increase in Total Standard Spending on the police is 2.67 per cent. or £186 million over 1998–99.

  In addition, the Government have announced the abolition of crude and universal capping of local authority spending from April 1999. This will provide some flexibility at local level to enable police authorities to increase their spending power. Nevertheless, police authorities are expected to set budgets which are prudent and reasonable, and which do not impose an excessive increase in council tax next year.

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug free units there are in England and Wales; if he will list the prisons in which they operate; and if he will make a statement. [63670]

  Mr. George Howarth
  As part of the implementation of its Drug Strategy, the Prison Service is planning the expansion of provision of voluntary testing units from April 1999 onwards. Included in the programme of work is a specification for voluntary testing units and an analysis of the existing provision. The information requested will be available towards the end of this financial year.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of reported drug use there were in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales(a) in each of the last 12 months and (b) in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [63685]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Provisional information for 1998 showing the number of drugs offences by prisoners proved at prison adjudication are given in the table. In addition, 831 prison visitors were arrested for drug related incidents at a prison in England and Wales between January and September 1998. Figures for prison visitors arrested for drug offences for the last 5 years are shown in the table.

  Information regarding the number of drugs offences proved at prison adjudication are published in "Prison statistics England and Wales" (table 8.5 of the 1997 edition, cm 4017) and before 1997 in successive volumes of "Statistics of offences against prison discipline and punishments England and Wales" (tables 8 and 9 for 1994–96 and tables 11 and 12 for 1992–93). Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  Number of drugs offences proved at adjudication in prisons in England and Wales—January to September 1998

  Offence

  Number

  Refusal to provide a drug test sample

  326

  Falsifying a drug test sample

  35

  Unauthorised use of controlled drug

  11,902

  Possession of unauthorised drug

  2,402

  Sells/delivers drugs to person

  69

  Total

  14,734

  Visitors to prisons arrested for drug related offences

  Year

  Number

  1993

  310

  1994

  921

  1995

  1,410

  1996

  1,270

  1997

  1,130

  1998 (January-September)

  831

  Feltham Young Offenders Institution
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people have been transferred from Feltham Young Offenders Institution needing psychiatric help as defined under the Mental Health Act 1983 in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement; [63676]

  (2) what is the average length of time taken for transfers to take place from Feltham Young Offenders Institution of individuals needing psychiatric help as defined under the Mental Health Act 1983; and if he will make a statement. [63783]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The following transfers from Feltham Young Offenders Institution to psychiatric hospital under sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983 took place in each of the years in question covering the period 1 April to 31 March:

  Number

  1993–94

  7

  1994–95

  16

  1995–96

  36

  1996–97

  30

  1997–98

  31

  The time taken to deal with transfers is not available in the form requested. Each case is dealt with according to the conditions of the patient and the availability of a suitable hospital bed.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in each police force on (i) the last day for which figures are available, (ii) 31 March 1998, (iii) 30 September 1997, (iv) 31 March 1997 and (v) 31 March 1992; if he will give the figures in total and per head of population; and if he will make a statement. [63672]

  Mr. Boateng
  The latest available information is set out in the tables. Police strength figures as at 30 September 1998 are provisional and have yet to be validated.

  The population figures are those provided by the Office for National Statistics. Information on the numbers of population per police officer is based on the population figures as at mid-June preceding the date of the police strength figures. For 30 September, the population figures used are those for mid 1997; mid 1998 figures will not be available until next year.

  739

  Total police force strength, by force area

  Police force

  31 March 1992

  31 March 1997

  30 September 1997

  31 March 1998

  30 September 1998

  Avon & Somerset

  3,080

  2,989

  2,973

  2,976

  2,966

  Bedfordshire

  1,082

  1,094

  1,081

  1,079

  1,051

  Cambridgeshire

  1,243

  1,302

  1,292

  1,291

  1,286

  Cheshire

  1,879

  2,046

  2,029

  2,042

  2,055

  City of London

  804

  859

  836

  825

  793

  Cleveland

  1,481

  1,459

  1,481

  1,483

  1,453

  Cumbria

  1,184

  1,144

  1,162

  1,164

  1,153

  Derbyshire

  1,690

  1,791

  1,757

  1,772

  1,769

  Devon & Cornwall

  2,887

  2,865

  2,910

  2,962

  2,918

  Dorset

  1,273

  1,284

  1,279

  1,310

  1,293

  Durham

  1,380

  1,461

  1,479

  1,515

  1,559

  Dyfed-Powys

  942

  1,005

  1,008

  1,002

  1,013

  Essex

  2,893

  2,961

  2,944

  2,929

  2,903

  Gloucestershire

  1,178

  1,133

  1,107

  1,104

  1,091

  Greater Manchester

  7,040

  6,922

  6,908

  6,949

  6,890

  Gwent

  1,005

  1,243

  1,229

  1,233

  1,254

  Hampshire

  3,197

  3,452

  3,481

  3,490

  3,490

  Hertfordshire

  1,694

  1,759

  1,738

  1,740

  1,706

  Humberside

  2,023

  2,045

  2,030

  2,021

  2,003

  Kent

  3,068

  3,260

  3,301

  3,251

  3,200

  Lancashire

  3,196

  3,248

  3,281

  3,257

  3,245

  Leicestershire

  1,843

  1,949

  1,958

  1,983

  1,975

  Lincolnshire

  1,199

  1,196

  1,189

  1,191

  1,159

  Merseyside

  4,612

  4,230

  4,223

  4,216

  4,270

  Metropolitan Police

  28,143

  26,677

  26,391

  26,094

  26,106

  Norfolk

  1,425

  1,432

  1,440

  1,430

  1,410

  Northamptonshire

  1,163

  1,177

  1,181

  1,169

  1,162

  Northumbria

  3,463

  3,677

  3,689

  3,769

  3,802

  North Wales

  1,352

  1,369

  1,371

  1,396

  1,395

  North Yorkshire

  1,391

  1,338

  1,383

  1,367

  1,360

  Nottinghamshire

  2,330

  2,323

  2,317

  2,323

  2,269

  South Wales

  3,156

  2,976

  2,990

  2,986

  2,946

  South Yorkshire

  3,012

  3,159

  3,158

  3,182

  3,171

  Staffordshire

  2,169

  2,211

  2,230

  2,292

  2,271

  Suffolk

  1,209

  1,180

  1,198

  1,186

  1,180

  Surrey

  1,703

  1,620

  1,608

  1,608

  1,615

  Sussex

  2,984

  3,085

  3,040

  3,038

  2,924

  Thames Valley

  3,742

  3,695

  3,705

  3,776

  3,790

  Warwickshire

  995

  926

  914

  924

  924

  West Mercia

  2,038

  2,040

  2,031

  2,010

  2,024

  West Midlands

  6,927

  7,113

  7,079

  7,156

  7,215

  West Yorkshire

  5,111

  5,209

  5,250

  5,155

  5,066

  Wiltshire

  1,216

  1,154

  1,167

  1,156

  1,148

  England

  118,947

  118,459

  118,218

  118,181

  117,663

  Wales

  6,455

  6,592

  6,597

  6,617

  6,608

  E & W (excl. Met)

  97,259

  98,374

  98,424

  98,704

  98,165

  England & Wales

  125.402

  125,052

  124,815

  124,798

  124,271

  Head of population per police officer, by force area

  Police force

  31 March 1992

  31 March 1997

  30 September 1997

  31 March 1998

  30 September 1998

  Avon & Somerset

  465

  491

  497

  497

  498

  Bedfordshire

  494

  502

  511

  512

  526

  Cambridgeshire

  539

  540

  551

  552

  554

  Cheshire

  515

  479

  484

  481

  478

  City of London

  5

  6

  6

  6

  7

  Cleveland

  377

  382

  375

  375

  382

  Cumbria

  414

  429

  424

  423

  427

  Derbyshire

  556

  537

  550

  545

  546

  Devon & Cornwall

  525

  539

  533

  524

  432

  Dorset

  521

  531

  538

  525

  532

  Durham

  438

  416

  411

  402

  390

  Dyfed-Powys

  499

  475

  474

  477

  472

  Essex

  511

  511

  517

  520

  525

  Gloucestershire

  458

  491

  505

  507

  513

  Greater Manchester

  364

  372

  395

  392

  396

  Gwent

  445

  447

  453

  452

  444

  740

  741

  Head of population per police officer, by force area

  Police force

  31 March 1992

  31 March 1997

  30 September 1997

  31 March 1998

  30 September 1998

  Hampshire

  533

  508

  506

  505

  505

  Hertfordshire

  498

  491

  501

  501

  511

  Humberside

  432

  434

  436

  438

  442

  Kent

  502

  478

  474

  482

  489

  Lancashire

  441

  439

  434

  438

  439

  Leicestershire

  483

  476

  475

  468

  471

  Lincolnshire

  495

  515

  521

  520

  534

  Merseyside

  312

  336

  298

  299

  295

  Metropolitan Police

  259

  284

  289

  292

  292

  Norfolk

  533

  543

  544

  548

  556

  Northamptonshire

  505

  514

  517

  522

  525

  Northumbria

  414

  390

  388

  379

  376

  North Wales

  484

  479

  479

  470

  470

  North Yorkshire

  518

  549

  534

  540

  542

  Nottinghamshire

  436

  444

  445

  444

  455

  South Wales

  417

  414

  413

  414

  420

  South Yorkshire

  429

  413

  413

  410

  411

  Staffordshire

  483

  477

  475

  463

  467

  Suffolk

  548

  561

  556

  562

  565

  Surrey

  451

  480

  488

  488

  486

  Sussex

  479

  477

  489

  490

  509

  Thames Valley

  527

  559

  563

  552

  550

  Warwickshire

  492

  541

  551

  545

  545

  West Mercia

  539

  548

  554

  560

  556

  West Midlands

  378

  372

  372

  368

  365

  West Yorkshire

  404

  405

  402

  409

  417

  Wiltshire

  473

  514

  514

  518

  522

  England

  404

  414

  417

  417

  419

  Wales

  447

  443

  444

  442

  443

  E & W (excl. Met)

  449

  452

  453

  452

  454

  England & Wales

  406

  416

  418

  418

  420

  Young Offenders (Psychiatric Assistance)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the length of delays for transferring individuals from young offenders institutions who have been assessed as requiring psychiatric assistance; and if he will make a statement. [63675]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I am not aware of any representations. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons has, in his Inspection Reports, drawn attention to problems about the availability of hospital places for prisoners needing that level of psychiatric care. The Government's plans for addressing these problems are set out in the Department of Health White Paper "Modernising Mental Health Services—Safe, fair and supportive".

  Prisoner Programmes
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the level of purposeful activity per week undertaken by prisoners, broken down into(a) education, (b) work, (c) training and (d) rehabilitation programmes in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [63671]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information on the average weekly time spent by purposeful activity in each of the last five years is given in the table.
  742

  Average hours purposeful activity per prisoner per week

  Work

  Education and Training

  1998–99 to date

  12.9

  3.9

  1997–98

  13.3

  4.1

  1996–97

  13.5

  4.3

  1995–96

  14.3

  4.9

  1994–95

  14.5

  5.2

  Note:

  Work is defined as time spent in support to works and maintenance staff, workshops, farms, gardens, kitchens and other domestic work. Information on Education and Training activities are combined. The year to October information for 1998–99 is provisional and subject to validation by Prisons. The Prison Service does not record separately time spent engaged in rehabilitation programmes.

  Police Budgets (Pensions)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of each police force budget has been spent on pensions in each of the last three years; what estimate he has made of the average proportion of police budgets which will be spent on pensions in each of the next three years; and if he will make a statement. [63673]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested in respect of years 1996–97 to 1998–99 is set out in the table. Information on police authority budgets and pension costs for the next three years is not available. Police authority budgets are not set until the beginning of each year following the revenue settlement announced by the Government. Pension costs will in part be influenced by retirements in each preceding year.
  743

  Net police pension costs

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  £000

  £000

  £000

  Force

  Net pensions costs

  Net revenue expenditure

  % of net expenditure

  Net pensions costs

  Estimated net expenditure

  % of net expenditure

  Net pensions costs

  Estimated net expenditure

  % of net expenditure

  Avon and Somerset

  22,122

  152,087

  14.5

  24,741

  160,658

  15.4

  26,877

  167,417

  16.1

  Bedfordshire

  5,422

  56,627

  9.6

  5,997

  59,787

  10.0

  6,982

  62,317

  11.2

  Cambridgeshire

  7,140

  65,024

  11.0

  8,597

  69,286

  12.4

  8,463

  71,230

  11.9

  Cheshire

  7,917

  94,177

  8.4

  9,470

  101,787

  9.3

  11,580

  106,523

  10.9

  City of London

  6,636

  57,317

  11.6

  7,205

  61,691

  11.7

  8,291

  60,862

  13.6

  Cleveland

  8,694

  73,108

  11.9

  9,451

  78,893

  12.0

  11,108

  82,282

  13.5

  Cumbria

  7,307

  56,856

  12.9

  8,138

  59,990

  13.6

  8,715

  63,000

  13.8

  Derbyshire

  11,075

  90,420

  12.2

  12,430

  96,211

  12.9

  13,788

  100,894

  13.7

  Devon and Cornwall

  19,006

  150,392

  12.6

  20,343

  158,010

  12.9

  23,165

  167,117

  13.9

  Dorset

  7,618

  67,831

  11.2

  8,225

  70,043

  11.7

  9,486

  73,497

  12.9

  Durham

  8,233

  68,035

  12.1

  9,121

  73,698

  12.4

  10,166

  78,103

  13.0

  Dyfed Powys

  5,979

  47,869

  12.5

  6,519

  50,481

  12.9

  6,926

  52,609

  13.2

  Essex

  14,785

  151,412

  9.8

  16,300

  161,020

  10.1

  19,361

  168,889

  11.5

  Gloucestershire

  7,978

  58,420

  13.7

  8,489

  60,795

  14.0

  9,138

  63,780

  14.3

  Greater Manchester

  47,275

  341,170

  13.9

  50,089

  355,133

  14.1

  59,380

  371,497

  16.0

  Gwent

  5,735

  57,742

  9.9

  8,144

  65,162

  12.5

  7,712

  67,919

  11.4

  Hampshire

  16,432

  172,845

  9.5

  18,499

  182,512

  10.1

  20,009

  190,920

  10.5

  Hertfordshire

  7,930

  88,863

  8.9

  8,421

  93,952

  9.0

  9,499

  97,859

  9.7

  Humberside

  10,849

  99,719

  10.9

  12,428

  107,800

  11.5

  13,584

  111,587

  12.2

  Kent

  14,601

  161,625

  9.0

  19,427

  170,625

  11.4

  20,867

  178,916

  11.7

  Lancashire

  22,481

  161,865

  13.9

  22,650

  171,341

  13.2

  24,802

  178,051

  13.9

  Leicestershire

  10,273

  92,853

  11.1

  11,754

  97,454

  12.1

  12,566

  102,707

  12.2

  Lincolnshire

  7,792

  61,508

  12.7

  8,546

  65,776

  13.0

  10,057

  68,322

  14.7

  Merseyside

  35,211

  221,172

  15.9

  39,256

  235,027

  16.7

  37,483

  245,277

  15.3

  Metropolitan Police

  170,677

  1,683,181

  10.1

  172,780

  1,706,602

  10.1

  210,438

  1,778,001

  11.8

  Norfolk

  9,832

  75,547

  13.0

  11,376

  80,766

  14.1

  10,148

  82,339

  12.3

  North Wales

  8,829

  68,266

  12.9

  10,223

  72,039

  14.2

  11,138

  75,075

  14.8

  North Yorkshire

  9,515

  67,042

  14.2

  11,976

  73,456

  16.3

  12,162

  75,638

  16.1

  Northamptonshire

  5,677

  59,252

  9.6

  6,937

  64,773

  10.7

  7,067

  67,134

  10.5

  Northumbria

  27,649

  186,410

  14.8

  28,670

  195,287

  14.7

  31,500

  205,380

  15.3

  Nottinghamshire

  12,912

  113,591

  11.4

  14,651

  119,682

  12.2

  16,355

  124,828

  13.1

  South Wales

  20,376

  147,458

  13.8

  22,745

  156,800

  14.5

  24,861

  163,430

  15.2

  South Yorkshire

  13,065

  150,949

  8.7

  16,700

  162,950

  10.2

  17,248

  168,205

  10.3

  Staffordshire

  15,465

  107,832

  14.3

  15,446

  115,250

  13.4

  22,383

  122,540

  18.3

  Suffolk

  7,973

  60,963

  13.1

  8,550

  64,770

  13.2

  8,385

  65,785

  12.7

  Surrey

  8,478

  85,345

  9.9

  10,414

  90,735

  11.5

  11,021

  90,738

  12.1

  Sussex

  19,702

  150,626

  13.1

  22,624

  156,390

  14.5

  24,846

  162,664

  15.3

  Thames Valley Police

  17,256

  201,397

  8.6

  18,733

  212,162

  8.8

  20,306

  221,147

  9.2

  Warwickshire

  4,252

  49,686

  8.9

  6,191

  51,451

  12.0

  6,201

  53,617

  11.6

  West Mercia

  10,567

  102,078

  10.4

  11,496

  107,701

  10.7

  12,458

  112,879

  11.0

  West Midlands

  34,530

  337,992

  10.2

  42,150

  357,166

  11.8

  42,831

  372,296

  11.5

  West Yorkshire

  31,132

  265,233

  11.7

  34,259

  273,211

  12.5

  37,555

  280,739

  13.4

  Wiltshire

  7,828

  59,993

  13.0

  6,431

  65,250

  9.9

  7,480

  66.666

  11.2

  Total

  754,206

  6,619,778

  11.4

  826,592

  6,933,574

  11.9

  924,388

  7,220,676

  12.8

  Source:

  Taken from actual revenue expenditure figures in the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy statistics (1996–97), and CIPFA estimates of revenue expenditure (1997–98 and 1998–99)

  Sexual Offences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been in the United Kingdom for sexual offences committed against children by United Kingdom nationals in countries overseas in the past three years; and if he will make a statement. [64120]

  Mr. Boateng
  Part II of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 provides the courts with jurisdiction to deal in this country with British citizens who commit certain sexual offences 744
  against children abroad. This Act came into effect in September last year. There have been no prosecutions under the Act. However, it was always expected that the Act would be used only as a last resort where a country will not prosecute an alleged offender or where the United Kingdom cannot extradite that person. Prosecutions under Part II of the Act will always be difficult because of the problems of obtaining evidence from abroad to present to a court in this country in relation to offences committed abroad.

  The Government are committed to dealing with the evil of the commercial sexual exploitation of children. This

  745
  requires more than having appropriate legislation in place. As part of the Government's comprehensive strategy, the United Kingdom is fully participating in international action to deal with the problem and has shared intelligence and expertise and the training skills of our police with other Governments. These measures demonstrate our commitment to tackling this problem seriously.

  Minister

  Date

  Destination

  Reason for official visit

  Home Secretary

  3 September 1997

  Aylesbury

  Official visit to Thames Valley Police

  6 January 1998

  Aylesbury

  Her Majesty's Prison, Grendon

  Mr. Alun Michael

  5 June 1998

  Aylesbury

  Visit to Thames Valley Police Restorative Conference

  5 October 1998

  Aylesbury

  National Crime Beat Awards

  Mrs. Joyce Quin

  14 January 1998

  Aylesbury

  Her Majesty's Prison, Grendon

  CS Sprays
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department collates statistics on the number of times each police force has used CS sprays in public since January 1996. [63930]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many studies have been performed into solvents as potential alternatives to CS sprays; which agency or organisation carried out each study; and when each study was completed. [63928]

  Mr. Boateng
  A study was commissioned from the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, an agency of the Minister of Defence (DERA CBDE) by the Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB) to compare the toxicology of Methyl Iso-butyl Ketone (MIBK) with other solvents. This study was completed in 1996.

  A literature review was commissioned from DERA CBDE by PSDB to consider potential suitable alternative solvents to MIBK. This study was completed in 1997.

  PSDB have a programme to identify possible alternative solvents. This work is currently in progress.

  Conspiracy Convictions
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been(a) arrested, (b) charged and (c) convicted of conspiracy in the UK to commit offences abroad. [64203]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on the number of people arrested and charged by type of offence is not collected centrally.

  Section 5 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998—Conspiracy to commit offences outside the United Kingdom—came into effect on 4 September 1998, and information on convictions from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database will begin to become available in the Spring of 1999.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many official visits(a) he and (b) the Ministers in his Department, have made to Buckinghamshire since 2 May 1997; and if he will list them. [64127]

  Mr. Straw
  The information is as follows:

  Specified Organisation
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions(a) the opinion of a senior police officer has been given in court as evidence of a person's membership of a specified organisation and (b) a court has been asked to draw an inference from the failure of a person suspected of belonging to a specified organisation to mention a relevant fact; how many persons have been (i) charged and (ii) convicted of belonging to a specified organisation since September 1998; and on how many occasions a court has ordered forfeiture of property following conviction for belonging to a specified organisation. [64202]

  Mr. Boateng
  Our records indicate that since the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 came into force on 4 September, there have been no such cases in England and Wales.

  Fire Service (Pensions)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make an announcement on the future of pensions for the Fire Service; and if he will make a statement. [64083]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Following the review of the fire pension scheme, I expect to publish proposals early in the New Year.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road (Policing)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the liability of MEL in respect of the policing costs arising from the Birmingham Northern Relief Road; and if he will make a statement. [63910]

  Mr. Boateng
  We would normally expect the cost of policing operations such as the construction of the Birmingham Northern Relief Road to be met by forces from within their existing budgets. Nevertheless, we are considering bids for extra funding from the three forces concerned in respect of their estimated additional costs.

  I understand from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions that there is no liability on MEL to meet the policing costs of constructing and operating the Birmingham Northern Relief Road.

  Age of Consent
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters he has received since 1 May 1997(a) in favour of and (b) opposed to lowering the age of consent for homosexual acts to 16 years; and how many replies have been sent in a standard form. [64279]

  Mr. Boateng
  Since 1 May 1997, the Home Office has received approximately 20,000 letters about lowering the homosexual age of consent to 16. Around 3,500 of these were letters to the Prime Minister.

  No detailed records are kept of correspondents' views on this issue. However, the majority of those received following the failure of the amendment to lower the homosexual age of consent in the summer were in support of lowering the age of consent. The large majority of those received in the run up to the Queen's Speech in November were against lowering the age of consent.

  In view of the large volume of correspondence on this one issue and in order to ensure that replies to the public are sent out as quickly as possible, it has been necessary to use a comprehensive response which makes clear the Government's position on this matter.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what has been the cost to (i) Devon County Council and (ii) Plymouth City Council of maintaining illegal immigrants from Plymouth Ferry Port in each of the last three years; [64258]

  (2) what has been the cost to (a) Hampshire County Council and (b) Portsmouth City Council of maintaining illegal immigrants from Portsmouth Ferry Port in each of the last three years. [64259]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This information is not available to the Home Office. The hon. Member should approach the local authorities.

  Illegal immigrants who do not claim asylum and who have no special needs are not eligible for support from public funds. Asylum seekers and other illegal immigrants (who are given temporary leave to enter) who are not otherwise detained and who are able to support themselves are free to live within the United Kingdom in a place of their own choosing. Asylum seekers who register their application for asylum at their port of entry may be eligible for Income Support and Housing Benefit and can then find their own accommodation. Asylum seekers who do not qualify for benefits but who may be supported under the terms of the National Assistance Act 1948 or the Children Act 1989 are supported by local authorities under the terms of that legislation. The Home Office currently has no direct role in providing support and is consequently not aware of the information sought. The Government plan a fundamental reform of the asylum and immigration laws to remove cash benefits and more strictly control where asylum seekers live.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many citizens of Slovakia are currently being detained in the UK as illegal immigrants; and what were the equivalent figures for each of the last three years. [64256]
  748
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many illegal immigrants at Dover Ferry Port have been refused entry and removed from the UK within seven days of arrival in each of the last 12 months. [64253]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information on the numbers of persons removed or departing voluntarily within 7 days of being issued with a notice of illegal entry by the South East Ports Surveillance Team at Dover, between 1 July 1997 and 30 June 1998 is: 38 persons in July 1997; 38 in August 1997; 19 in September 1997; 23 in October 1997; 11 in November 1997; 23 in December 1997; 8 in January 1998; 5 in February 1998; 13 in March 1998; 12 in April 1998; 6 in May 1998; and 7 in June 1998. The data are provisional.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many illegal immigrants at Harwich Ferry Port have been granted political asylum in each of the last 12 months. [64252]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information is that no more than two persons who had been issued with notice of illegal entry by immigration officials at Harwich were granted asylum in the 12 months from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1998. The data are provisional.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many illegal immigrants at(a) Newhaven, (b) Plymouth, (c) Poole and (d) Portsmouth ferry ports have been granted political asylum in each of the last 12 months. [64237]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 16 December 1998]: The available information is that no persons issued with notice of illegal entry at Newhaven, Plymouth, Poole or Portsmouth were granted asylum in the 12 months from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1998.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many illegal immigrants who arrived at Poole Ferry Port are currently being detained; and what were the equivalent figures for each of the last six months. [64254]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information is that, as at 15 December 1998, no more than two persons who had been served with a notice of illegal entry by immigration officials at Poole were detained solely under Immigration Act powers. Information relating to the previous six months could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Prisoners (Hunger Strikes)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have embarked on a hunger strike in each year since 1987; and how many(a) died and (b) gave up but suffered permanent damage to their health. [64261]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Definitions and methods of recording this type of incidents have changed over time, and the Prison Service has employed the broader definition of "food refusal" since 1989. Information on incidence of food refusal prior to 1989 is not held centrally. The number of reported incidents of food refusal for each calendar year since 1989 is given in the
  749
  table. It should be noted that the figures may include a number of incidents concerning the same prisoner. Three prisoners have died as a result of food refusal during this period.

  Information on prisoners who ceased refusing food, but then suffered permanent damage to their health could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Food refusals in prison custody: 1989–19981

  Year

  Number of reported incidents

  1989

  60

  1990

  78

  1991

  90

  1992

  145

  1993

  220

  1994

  306

  1995

  225

  1996

  193

  1997

  222

  1998

  1981

  1 Figures as at 14 December 1998

  Note:

  To be recorded as a food refusal the period of refusal must exceed one day.

  Police (Deaf People)
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if his Department will issue guidance to police forces on the importance of recording on video interviews with criminal suspects whose first or preferred language is British Sign Language; [64229]

  (2) what plans he has to issue guidance about improving communication between deaf people and the police following the research report by the Home Office Police Research Group, Police and Deaf People: A Lack Of Communication. [64230]

  Mr. Boateng
  The report "Police and Deaf People: A Lack of Communication" was written by a police officer and published under the Police Research Award Scheme (PRAS) run by the Home Office. All PRAS publications carry a disclaimer that the recommendations are the views of the author and not necessarily those of the Home Office nor of the author's force. The report has been distributed to all United Kingdom police forces. It is for individual chief officers to decide whether the recommendations should be taken up.

  It is open to chief officers to implement the recommendation in the report to video record interviews with deaf suspects where they have video recording equipment and where the suspect consents to this.

  The Codes of Practice issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which regulate the conduct of police interviews with suspects, contain a number of safeguards for suspects who are deaf. These include the requirement for an interpreter and for a contemporaneous written note of the interview to be made as well as an audio tape recording.

  Home Office seminars are due to take place in Spring 1999 for key police personnel about the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, including dealing with people with hearing difficulties.

TREASURY

  Public Services
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish public service agreements concerning the modernisation, accountability and reform of public services; and if he will make a statement. [64968]

  Mr. Byers
  We are today publishing a White Paper, "Public Services for the Future: Modernisation, Reform, Accountability" (Cm 4181).

  National Savings
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about National Savings. [64790]

  Ms Hewitt
  National Savings has been carrying out a wide ranging programme to modernise the organisation against the background of a fast moving and highly competitive retail savings market. This has included the evaluation of a service contract in the form of a public private partnership for operational services delivery. After detailed consideration and discussion with those involved I can announce that I have accepted the recommendation of the National Savings Management Board and given it the authority to sign a contract with Siemens Business Services. The contract will be awarded for 15 years (with a break of 10 years) and there are considerable safeguards to ensure it will serve the public interest, including rigorous standards for customer service.

  This contract between National Savings and Siemens Business Services is a milestone in the Government's policy of public private partnership. It will create a new Public Service Partnership, bringing together the strengths of the two organisations to deliver real benefits to all the stakeholders involved. The public interest will be served through better service to National Savings customers, savings to the taxpayer and wider opportunities for staff. And Siemens Business Services will benefit by taking on first-rate staff who will help them build their business in the growing field of business service.

  Key features of the deal are the introduction of private sector capital and expertise which will help National Savings modernise its systems and processes, and so provide more choice to customers; a commitment by Siemens Business Services to a continual programme of customer improvements; a reduction in National Savings ongoing running costs. To offset the reduction in National Savings' operational jobs stemming from the Agency's ongoing programme of investment in new technology Siemens Business Services plans to introduce new work to each of the National Savings' sites in Blackpool, Durham and Glasgow. The outlook therefore is for a materially greater number of jobs than would have been the case without the appointment of a private sector partner. Amongst the safeguards we have negotiated are a significant commitment to job creation, with an undertaking in any event to maintain a National Savings presence in each of the three locations for at least the next five years.

  National Savings staff, most of whom are employed in operational services, are being told of my decision today. The operational staff will transfer employment to Siemens

  751
  Business Services on 1 April 1999. Under TUPE, staff terms and conditions of employment are guaranteed and cannot be changed without negotiation between Siemens Business Services and the staff through their appointed Trade Unions.

  National Savings' products will continue to be guaranteed by the Government who remain responsible for key decisions, including setting interest rates and terms and conditions of new products. National Savings remain in control over all key processes relating to the management of its market leading business—including policy, product design and delivering and pricing. The Chief Executive of the National Savings Executive Agency, who is also the Director of National Savings, will remain fully accountable to Ministers and to Parliament for National Savings.

  This contract is in keeping with the Government's policy for public private partnerships and for modernising public services so they serve the interests of all stakeholders. This Public Service Partnership offers significant benefits to National Savings' customers and staff, and to the taxpayer, as well as to the local economies concerned.

  Film Industry (Tax Relief)
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the tax relief measures for film makers introduced in 1997; what plans he has for changes to these measures; and if he will make a statement. [64451]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We are continuing to assess the effectiveness of the tax measures introduced in 1997, but first indications are that it is working well. It would of course be improper for me to anticipate what may or may not be in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget.

  International Debt
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made on agreeing international debt relief since the G8 summit in Birmingham last May. [62751]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 16 December 1998]: At the Annual Meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the Chancellor secured agreement on his efforts to maintain momentum towards meeting his Mauritius Mandate targets. Specifically it was agreed: to extend the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative from September 1998 to the end of 2000; to allow IMF post conflict assistance programmes to count towards a country's track record under the HIPC initiative; to move forward quickly on further proposals which recognise the special needs of post conflict countries, especially those with arrears to the International Financial Institutions; and to hold a wide-ranging review of the HIPC initiative in 1999.

  The United Kingdom has recently been at the forefront of international efforts to help maintain the debt service burdens of those countries devastated by Hurricane Mitch. Following UK proposals, the International Financial Institutions have recently set up a trust fund for assistance to meet the multi-lateral debt service obligations of Nicaragua and Honduras. Last week the Paris Club of
  752
  official bilateral creditors agreed Honduras and Nicaragua should not have to make payments to their bilateral creditors over the next three years.

  Euro-Preparations Committee
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the full remit of the new Euro-Preparations Committee; and if he will make a statement. [63556]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 15 December 1998]: The remit will be to act as a channel for the exchange of information and to develop cross-party awareness of the continuing preparations for the Euro.

  Taxation
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his oral statement of 9 December 1998,Official Report, column 396, if he will make a statement on his definition of a harmful tax measure. [64024]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 December 1998]: The Code of Conduct, which was adopted by the Council of Finance Ministers on 1 December 1997, sets out the criteria against which potentially harmful tax measures should be assessed. The Code of Conduct was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 6 January 1998. This journal is available from the House of Commons Library.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which elements of his proposed working families tax credit he was advised required primary legislation. [62952]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 8 December 1998]: All the elements of the WFTC will require some primary legislation but, as with Family Credit currently, detailed rules will mainly be included in secondary legislation. In those cases the primary legislation will give the Treasury or the Inland Revenue the power to make the regulations.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how many families with earnings above £20,000 will be eligible for an element of the Working Families Tax Credit. [63512]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: A reliable estimate of the number of families with earnings above £20,000 who will be eligible for the Working Families Tax Credit is not available.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the maximum earnings level at which the total amount payable in Working Families Tax Credit would exceed the total amount payable in income tax and employee and employer national insurance contributions for each of the following family types(a) married couples with a (A) one child at secondary school, (B) one child at secondary school and one child at primary school and (C) two children at secondary school and one child at primary school and (b) a lone parent with (1) one child at secondary school, (2) one child at secondary school and one child at primary school and (3) two children at secondary school and one child at primary school

  753
  assuming (i) no childcare expenditure and (ii) childcare expenditure at the average level for those with childcare expenditure. [63416]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: Any family with children with someone working full-time will not have any net income tax to pay on earnings under £220 a week.

  Figures for a single earner working at least 30 hours who is paying national insurance contributions at the contracted-out rate and with no childcare expenditure are given in the table. The figures apply to both couples and lone parents.

  Maximum weekly earnings at which the total amount of Working Families Tax Credit exceeds income tax and employee and employer national insurance contributions for 1999–2000 (£)

  (A) 1 child aged 11–15

  195

  (B) 1 child aged 11–15 and 1 child aged under 11

  214

  (C) 2 children aged 11–15 and 1 child aged under 11

  241

  Note:

  Estimates of the average expenditure childcare are not available, and hence it is not possible to give equivalent figures assuming average expenditure on childcard.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the(a) number and (b) proportion of recipients of Working Families Tax Credit who will have expenditures on registered childcare, and the average expenditure among those with such expenditures. [63417]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: The latest estimate of the cost of the childcare tax credit in the Working Families Tax Credit is £200 million in 2000–01, the first full year of the tax credit. This estimate is based on assumptions of the likely take-up of the childcare tax credit and it is not possible to provide reliable estimates of the numbers who will have expenditures on registered charities.

  European Economy
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) on 10 December 1998,Official Report, column 298, on the European economy, if he will place a copy of the Government's progress reports on product and capital markets in the Library. [64334]

  Ms Hewitt
  A copy of the first UK Progress Report on Product, Services and Capital Markets has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  ECOFIN (Tax Harmonisation)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) of 10 December 1997,Official Report,
  754
  column 297, on ECOFIN, if he will place copies of (a) the Code of Conduct Group first interim report to ECOFIN, (b) the EU Commission's first combined first annual report on the implementation of the Code of Conduct for Business Taxation and fiscal state aid, (c) the progress report for the EU Commission on work concerning the taxation of income from savings and a common system of taxation from interest and royalty payments between associated companies and (d) the draft mandate for a study on company taxation, in the Library. [64335]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Commission document containing the First Annual Report on the implementation of the Code of Conduct for Business Taxation and Fiscal State Aid and the Progress report on the work concerning the taxation of income from savings and a common system of taxation for interest and royalty payments between associated companies, was formally deposited in Parliament on 4 December 1998.

  The Code of Conduct Group's first interim report to ECOFIN is confidential. The draft mandate has been withdrawn.

  European Code of Conduct Group
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when he plans to provide a substantive answer to the question from the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton on proposals from the Code of Conduct Group (Ref. 62330); [64336]

  (2) if he will define harmful tax competition in the context of the EU. [63513]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: The Code of Conduct, which was adopted by the Council of Finance Ministers on 1 December 1997, sets out the criteria against which potentially harmful tax measures should be assessed. The Code of Conduct was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 6 January 1998. This journal is available from the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many current proposals are being considered by the Code of Conduct Group to tackle harmful tax competition; and if he will list them. [62342]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: The Code of Conduct is required to assess measures referred to it by Member States. The UK Government have five measures listed: International Headquarters Companies; special tax measures for the film industry; enterprise zones; 100 per cent. first year capital allowances for SMEs in Northern Ireland; and rollover relief for balancing charges arising on the disposal of ships. This does not imply that the measures are actually harmful under the terms of the Code. Discussions on these and the other measures are proceeding. International Holding Companies are due to be abolished in April next year following decisions made. The Government are confident that the other four UK measures are not actually harmful within the meaning of the Code and are robustly making that case. The Government are not at liberty to give details of other Member States' listed measures as the work of the Group is confidential according to Council Conclusions which all Member States agreed in March 1998.

  Third-world Debt
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many CAFOD Fair Deal on Third World Debt Postcards he has received. [63373]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 15 December 1998]: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has received approximately 18,000 CAFOD Fair Deal on Third World Postcards this calendar year.

  Productivity Gap
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the seminars and the dates on which they were held on bridging the productivity gap referred to on page 12 of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy report 1998. [63840]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 17 December 1998]: Eight seminars have been held on the following themes:

  Thursday 14 May—Overview seminar

  Thursday 11 June—Entrepreneurship

  Thursday 25 June—Case study of the automotive industry

  Thursday 23 July—Innovation and technology

  Tuesday 28 July—Management

  Wednesday 16 September—Case study of the software industry

  Tuesday 22 September—Skills

  Tuesday 20 October—Finance for investment

  Correspondence
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Paymaster General intends to reply to the letter of 20 July from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan regarding his constituent Mr. Hutchison. [63649]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 December 1998]: A reply to the hon. Member's letter has been issued.

  Tax Havens
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list current proposals from the Code of Conduct Group to tackle harmful tax competition from tax haven jurisdictions; and if he will list the jurisdictions concerned. [62330]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: Under the Code Member States have committed themselves to promoting the principles of the Code in third countries and in territories to which the treaty does not apply. Member States with dependent or associated territories will do so, within the framework of their constitutional arrangements.

  Charities
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the proposal for a common EU withholding tax on the UK charities sector. [62335]
  756
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: The draft EC directive on taxation of savings would only affect charities if they borrow from individual investors overseas. It would not apply to interest paid to a charity.

  EU Withholding Tax
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the financial services other than Eurobonds which will be affected by the current proposal for a common EU withholding tax. [62333]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: The draft EC directive on taxation of savings would apply to cross-border payments of interest to individuals in the EC.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the current proposals in the EU on the withholding tax make provision for exemptions for financial centres, with particular reference to(a) Luxembourg and (b) Dublin. [62516]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 7 December 1998]: There is no provision in the draft Directive on taxation of savings for any such exemption.

  Tax Records
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the implementation milestones with their dates for the introduction of the online tax records information system; and to what extent these have been achieved to date; [64418]

  (2) how much is planned to be spent up to 1 April 1999 on the online tax records and information system and its related computer installation; and how much has been planned for the next three year period. [64416]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue currently has no plans to introduce an 'online tax records information system'.

  Departmental Staff (Retirement)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is the policy of the Inland Revenue to enforce retirement of its staff at age 60 years. [64414]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Since 1993 the normal retirement age for everyone in the Inland Revenue has been 60 and this applies to both men and women. The Department's policy is that a decision to retain someone to work beyond 60 would be based on a business need, not on any personal consideration. So, only where there is an exceptional operational need, for example when a particular skill cannot quickly be replaced, is an exception allowed.

  Pensions
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to make the lump sum element of a pension taxable. [64251]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's policy on pensions is set out in the Green Paper "A New Contract for Welfare: partnership in pensions" published on 15 December 1998. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Collective Investment Schemes
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to publish the draft provisions on collective investment schemes to be included in the Financial Services and Markets Bill; and what opportunity there will be for interested parties to comment on the proposed regulations. [64291]

  Ms Hewitt
  There will be an opportunity for interested parties to comment when the relevant provisions have been drafted.

  Public Engagements (Ministers)
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the public engagements undertaken since 1 October by(a) him, (b) the Chief Secretary, (c) the Paymaster General, (d) the Financial Secretary and (e) the Economic Secretary. [63239]

  Ms Hewitt
  Treasury Ministers have undertaken numerous public engagements since 1 October.

  Third World Debt
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the debt burden of each of the 10 poorest countries in the world. [63338]

  Ms Hewitt
  World Bank data in its 1998–99 World Development Report show the following external debt burdens for the 10 poorest countries:

  $ billion

  Country

  External debt

  Mozambique

  5.8

  Ethiopia

  10.0

  Democratic Republic Congo

  12.8

  Burundi

  1.1

  Sierra Leone

  1.1

  Niger

  1.5

  Tanzania

  7.4

  Rwanda

  1.0

  Nepal

  2.4

  Malawi

  2.3

  The accuracy of these data should be treated with caution due to the poor data collection and reporting mechanisms of many poor countries.

  Table 1—Net contributions by Member States 1988–97 (million European currency units)

  Country

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Belgium1

  995.0

  1,123.9

  773.9

  -416.6

  -165.5

  -59.6

  309.3

  311.2

  746.2

  989.7

  Denmark

  -330.6

  -174.2

  -422.5

  -346.3

  -276.6

  -376.9

  -198.9

  -305.7

  -193.4

  -24.0

  Germany

  6,107.2

  6,530.6

  5,550.4

  8,796.8

  9,697.6

  11,830.3

  13,637.1

  13,431.0

  10,894.9

  11,228.1

  Greece

  -1,491.6

  -1,998.2

  -2,470.2

  -2,926.4

  -3,604.0

  -4,136.7

  -3,851.9

  -3,488.9

  -3,932.7

  -4,194.0

  Spain

  -1,334.2

  30.7

  -1,711.3

  -2,294.6

  -2,739.6

  -3,090.4

  -3,116.6

  -7,218.1

  -5,972.2

  -5,850.5

  France

  1,780.9

  2,946.3

  1,804.9

  2,449.5

  1,443.6

  1,019.6

  2,626.4

  1,727.2

  459.8

  985.0

  Ireland

  -1,159.3

  -1,340.8

  -1,892.5

  -2,357.3

  -2,140.1

  -2,371.9

  -1,752.0

  -1,886.9

  -2,260.3

  -2,623.6

  Italy

  -124.2

  1,428.8

  416.7

  1,388.6

  504.3

  1,525.4

  2,540.4

  614.1

  1,402.3

  323.1

  Luxembourg1

  67.4

  64.6

  60.0

  -159.7

  -164.0

  -189.6

  -253.7

  44.8

  79.3

  64.6

  Netherlands

  -1,150.0

  -1,129.4

  -368.4

  537.9

  829.0

  1,326.6

  1,829.9

  2,004.7

  2,446.8

  2,348.7

  Austria

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  905.1

  272.2

  792.8

  Portugal

  -514.9

  -487.2

  -600.8

  -1,516.2

  -2,139.9

  -2,508.4

  -1,827.0

  -2,381.1

  -2,774.3

  -2,612.3

  Euro Preparations Unit
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the minutes of meetings of the Euro Preparations Unit since 27 January 1998. [64187]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Standing Committee on EMU preparations met for the first time on 27 January 1998. Minutes of its meetings are routinely placed in the House Library.

  Human Rights
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the disciplinary provisions contained in the proposed Financial Services and Markets Bill with the European Convention on Human Rights in the form in which the Convention will be incorporated into the United Kingdom law under the Human Rights Act 1998, with particular reference to Article 6 of the Convention. [64086]

  Ms Hewitt
  It is the Government's intention that the Financial Services and Markets Bill will be compatible with the Convention rights.

  New Cars (EU)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each country in the EU the percentage tax or taxes paid on the price of a new car by the citizens of(a) that country and (b) other countries. [64201]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This information is not held.

  EU Budget
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each country in the European Union for each of the last 10 years and the current year (i) their net contribution, (ii) their net receipts from the EU Budget, (iii) what percentage these sums represented of the GDP of each nation in each year and (iv) what each sum in each case was in pounds sterling per capita of the country's population. [64194]

  Ms Hewitt
  The requested information is shown in the tables.
  759

  Table 1—Net contributions by Member States 1988–97 (million European currency units)

  Country

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Finland

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  164.6

  -27.1

  -4.1

  Sweden

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  937.3

  752.5

  1,226.8

  UK

  2,070.0

  3,353.8

  3,386.9

  666.9

  2,387.8

  3,125.8

  1,158.8

  4,720.2

  2,276.0

  1,833.7

  1 See note below on Belgium and Luxembourg net contribution.

  Note:

  A negative figure indicates that the Member State is a net recipient.

  The table above has been compiled from the annual reports of the European Court of Auditors. These reports do not attribute all EC spending between Member States, and so do not provide a full picture of net contributions. In particular the effects of administration spending are understated. Before 1995 the Court took account of part of administration spending. Since that date their reports have adopted a revised format which excludes administration spending completely. This change means that the figures for 1995–97 are not wholly comparable with those for 1988–94.

  Most EC administration spending is disbursed in Belgium or Luxembourg. The figures above for those countries must therefore be treated with considerable caution (and are shown in italics). Figures for 1992–97 only have been published by the Commission in their report on the Operation of the Own Resources System (ref 11666/98). These figures which do not take account of all administration spending, show that, for instance, in 1997 the net receipts from the EC Budget on Belgium and Luxembourg were 1,080 mecus and 725 mecus respectively.

  Source:

  Court of Auditors Reports

  Table 2—The percentage of Member States GDP accounted for by the net contribution or receipt

  Country

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Belgium1

  0.76

  0.79

  0.50

  -0.26

  -0.10

  -0.03

  0.16

  0.15

  0.36

  0.46

  Denmark

  -0.36

  -0.18

  -0.42

  -0.33

  -0.25

  -0.33

  -0.16

  -0.23

  -0.14

  -0.02

  Germany

  0.60

  0.61

  0.47

  0.63

  0.64

  0.72

  0.79

  0.73

  0.59

  0.61

  Greece

  -2.73

  -3.28

  -3.78

  -4.06

  -4.74

  -5.26

  -4.64

  -3.97

  -4.06

  -3.97

  Spain

  -0.46

  0.01

  -0.44

  -0.54

  -0.61

  -0.76

  -0.77

  -1.69

  -1.30

  -1.25

  France

  0.22

  0.34

  0.19

  0.25

  0.14

  0.10

  0.23

  0.15

  0.04

  0.08

  Ireland

  -3.93

  -4.08

  -5.27

  -6.30

  -5.31

  -5.73

  -3.86

  -3.82

  -4.06

  -3.94

  Italy

  -0.02

  0.18

  0.05

  0.15

  0.05

  0.18

  0.30

  0.07

  0.15

  0.03

  Luxembourg1

  1.02

  0.86

  0.74

  -1.81

  -1.67

  -1.72

  -2.06

  0.34

  0.59

  0.46

  Netherlands

  -0.59

  -0.54

  -0.16

  0.23

  0.33

  0.50

  0.64

  0.66

  0.78

  0.74

  Austria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.51

  0.15

  0.44

  Portugal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -3.10

  -3.40

  -3.07

  Finland

  -1.26

  -1.03

  -1.13

  -2.45

  -3.01

  -3.58

  -2.56

  0.17

  -0.03

  0.00

  Sweden

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.53

  0.38

  0.61

  UK

  0.29

  0.44

  0.44

  0.08

  0.30

  0.39

  0.13

  0.56

  0.25

  0.16

  1 See note in Table 1 on Belgium and Luxembourg net contribution.

  Note:

  A negative figure indicates that the Member State is a net recipient.

  Source:

  GDP figures taken from "European Economy" No 65 (1998), published by the European Commission.

  Net Contributions as in Table 1.

  Table 3—Net contribution per capita in £s

  Country

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Belgium1

  66.8

  76.0

  55.5

  -29.2

  -12.1

  -4.6

  23.7

  25.1

  58.9

  67.0

  Denmark

  -42.8

  -22.8

  -58.7

  -47.0

  -39.3

  -56.5

  -29.6

  -47.9

  -29.5

  -3.1

  Germany

  66.0

  70.7

  62.7

  77.0

  88.3

  113.5

  129.6

  134.7

  106.7

  94.3

  Greece

  -99.1

  -133.7

  -174.9

  -200.9

  -256.4

  -310.3

  -285.9

  -273.3

  -301.4

  -274.8

  Spain

  -22.9

  0.5

  -31.5

  -41.3

  -51.6

  -61.6

  -61.6

  -150.8

  -122.0

  -102.5

  France

  21.1

  35.1

  22.7

  30.1

  18.5

  13.8

  35.1

  24.3

  6.3

  11.6

  Ireland

  -218.1

  -256.6

  -385.6

  -468.0

  -442.0

  -516.7

  -378.0

  -429.1

  -500.0

  -493.9

  Italy

  -1.5

  16.9

  5.2

  17.1

  6.5

  20.8

  34.4

  8.8

  19.6

  3.9

  Luxembourg1

  119.8

  114.9

  112.2

  -288.8

  -306.8

  -370.8

  -486.1

  89.5

  153.1

  105.8

  Netherlands

  -51.8

  -51.1

  -17.6

  25.0

  40.1

  67.5

  92.1

  106.2

  126.4

  103.7

  Austria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  92.1

  27.1

  67.6

  Portugal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -198.0

  -225.6

  -182.3

  Finland

  -34.6

  -33.1

  -43.5

  -107.6

  -159.8

  -198.5

  -143.7

  26.4

  -4.2

  -0.6

  Sweden

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  86.8

  67.8

  94.8

  UK

  24.1

  39.3

  42.0

  8.1

  30.2

  41.8

  15.4

  66.0

  31.1

  21.4

  1 See note in Table 1 on Belgium and Luxembourg net contribution.

  Note:

  A negative figure indicates that the Member State is a net recipient.

  Source:

  Population figures taken from "European Economy" No 65 (1998), published by the European Commission.

  Conversion to £s using the annual average ecu/£ exchange rate.

  Net Contributions as in Table 1.
  760 761
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate of the total EU budget for the current year; and what percentage of it he estimates will be allocated to CAP expenditure. [63104]

  Ms Hewitt
  The EC budget for 1998 was set at 83.53 billion ecus, of which 40.44 billion ecus, or 48.4 per cent. was allocated for CAP expenditure. Latest estimates suggest that the final outturn for the overall budget will be very close to budget, although expenditure on the CAP may be some 1 billion ecus below plans. CAP expenditure would therefore account for around 47 per cent. of all expenditure.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy to seek to increase co-ordination of budgetary and economic policies within EMU in order to promote growth and high employment; and if he will make a statement. [61067]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 30 November 1998]: High levels of growth and employment depend on macroeconomic stability and reform of capital, labour and product markets. The Stability and Growth Pact and Articles 103 and 104c of the Maastricht Treaty provide the basis for co-ordination and surveillance of budgetary and economic policies.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ely.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Housing
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the number of houses they expect to be completed in the next 12 months by (a) local authorities and (b) housing associations.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we expect local authorities and housing associations to provide around 50,000 new social lettings in 1999–2000. These will be provided through a combination of new build, the purchase and renovation of private sector properties and sale incentive schemes which release existing homes for reletting. Within that total the number of newly built homes and homes provided through the purchase and renovation of private sector properties will be around 45,000. Local authorities are expected to complete less than 1,000 new dwellings themselves, but they also provide financial support for housing association schemes where high demand for social housing makes this a priority.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful for that detailed Answer. It indicates an improvement on the poor building programme—it was almost nil—of the former government. Does the noble Baroness agree that in order to deal with the established and identified shortage by the housing report commissioned by the former government—it demonstrated a need for another 4 million houses or flats into early next century in order to deal with present foreseeable shortages—it would take 40 years at 100,000 units a year? That was the production capacity of the last Labour Government under Lord Wilson and the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. Is it not time that the nation again puts social housing on a level with education and health in the bid for financial resources?
Is the Minister aware that society is a three-legged stool? I mentioned the three components. Should we now give housing the priority, with education and the health service, that it deserves?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Housing is a top priority for the Government. We took early action to boost investment through our capital receipts initiative and over the lifetime of this Parliament we shall have made available an extra £5 billion for investments in housing. We expect that the 50,000 new social lettings to be created during 1999–2000 will include a mixture of 32,000 new
1452
build, acquisition of private sector properties with renovational conversion where necessary of about 13,000, and sale incentive schemes.
My noble friend's second question is important. We are determined to join with local government, the voluntary and the private sectors in local communities, in a concerted attack against the causes of social and economic decline. Included with unemployment, crime, poor health and a degraded environment, one of the priority areas is tackling bad housing.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that despite the good will and the intentions of the Government and the building industry there is a chronic shortage through lack of training opportunities over the past few years? There is a desperate need not only for employment but also training. Have the government schemes under the new deal been warmly welcomed by the building industry? If not, those schemes should be stressed. Unless we have trained plasterers, bricklayers and others, the dreams of the Government will be as naught.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend is right. That is why the Government have included the new deal in construction as part of the employment option. The numbers of long-term unemployed have fallen sharply as a result of the economy picking up. But we hope that the scheme will be able to offer over 3,000 jobs a year. The DfEE figures so far indicate that more than one in 10 job placements for subsidised employment under the new deal are in the construction sector. That amounts to about 1,000 recruits to the industry.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, despite the figures given by the Minister today, does the noble Baroness agree that homelessness remains a serious problem? Is she, like me, disappointed that the last quarterly figures on homelessness indicate a 7 per cent. increase in families and people being accepted by local authorities as statutory homeless? I hope that the noble Baroness will join with me and others in congratulating Shelter on setting up Shelterline in the past 10 days. It is a 24-hour, 365 days a year helpline for those with housing needs. I believe that it is unique in the world.
Will the Minister tell us what else the Government will do to tackle homelessness, in particular among our young people?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness in congratulating Shelter on its new helpline. It is precisely because the problems to which she refers vary enormously across the country that the Government's strategy for housing is to consider local authority housing plans which are achieved in partnership at local level to meet local need. For that reason we believe that the planning process is best determined by those local authorities working out how to meet the needs to which the noble Baroness refers.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the latest English house condition survey indicates that some 50,000 local

1453
authority owned properties and 20,000 registered social landlord owned homes await repair and modernisation before they can be occupied. Does the Minister agree that that presents a higher priority and a better return on investment than new build? Those houses could be put in order more quickly than new construction can take place.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I agree totally with the noble Lord. I believe that I am welcoming him for the first time in his new role on the Front Bench and look forward to working constructively with him.
Perhaps I may chide him gently. The inheritance of lack of repair on local authority housing stock was one of the reasons for the capital receipts initiative and the more than doubling of the amount of resource going into the local authority sector. I share my noble friend's concern that we need to build new houses. But patently local authorities will be using the additional resources to improve housing stock. I hope that the noble Lord joins with me in congratulating the Government on that aim.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell me how many times the Government have given approval to build houses on green-belt land?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, no, I am afraid that I do not have that figure. However, I can refer the noble Lord to the fact that we are working with a number of bodies, including Ordnance Survey and local authorities, to produce a national land use database. For the first time that data will be available to local authorities. Phase one covers data on previously developed land; that is, brownfield sites. We are aiming to publish initial summary results of the work in the spring of next year. Our target is that 60 per cent. of new homes should be built on previously developed land. I am sure the noble Lord will work with us to ensure that that target is achieved.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, what proportion of those new homes will be suitable for people with physical disabilities, bearing in mind that there is an estimated shortfall of 300,000 such dwellings?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, sensitivity to the level of provision at local level is one reason that we believe that local authorities need to work very carefully within their communities. The Government are aware that the pattern of provision varies from place to place. We shall seek to ensure that local authorities are fully aware of the need to provide that specialist form of housing, as well as meeting other specialised needs within their communities.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, within the Government's overall strategy is any provision being made for housing for refugees and asylum seekers? Does not the Minister consider that, in respect of those particular needs, it is unfair that the local authorities should be left to deal
1454
with the matter in view of the fact that authorities such as Kent and the London boroughs must bear the brunt of accommodating those people when it is a national requirement and need?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government are working very closely with the Local Government Association to ensure that there is sensitivity to those particular needs and pressure points.

Train Delays and Cancellations: Cost
11.11 a.m.
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have made any recent assessment of the cost of train delays and cancellations on the rail network.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, while we have not attempted to quantify the cost, it is clearly substantial in terms of missed and late appointments and frustrated passengers. More generally, a poor train service puts people off public transport and adds to the problem of road congestion which is a cost in itself.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does my noble friend appreciate that on a recent visit to Newport in South Wales, the Deputy Prime Minister described our railways as a national disgrace? Does she also appreciate that complaints are at an all-time record level and yet those same train operators will, this year, receive a subsidy of £1.6 billion? That will happen whether the trains are late or on time. Surely incentives are needed to encourage punctuality and reliability. Consideration should now be given to sacking some of those poor-performing train operators.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Poor performance by train operators will not be tolerated by this Government and we have warned train operators that those who fail to meet the required standard will have no future in the railway industry.
On 26th November, transport Ministers met with train operators and Railtrack and agreed an action plan to tackle performance problems. Those agreed measures include 800 new train drivers, 500 new vehicles and a joint hit squad to identify and tackle the worst 50 black spots; a national troubleshooter team to tackle punctuality problems; and a new national passenger survey to find out what passengers think about their services in particular parts of the country.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, does the Minister believe that it may be helpful to let it be known that some of our services on the railways are efficient? Congratulations and thanks to them might help the whole system. I declare an interest. When travelling to London by train to attend your Lordships' House, my journey starts with a local train which plies between

1455
Maidenhead and Marlow, known as the "Marlow Donkey" from the days of steam. That train has a remarkably fine standard of punctuality.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am absolutely delighted to be able to join with a user of the railway system in complimenting good quality service provision. All I can say is that if it is possible to achieve that there, it must be possible to ensure that we achieve across the country those very high standards which give the noble Lord such satisfaction. We must seek to achieve that in the Abergavenny region where my noble friend who asked the Question lives.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the noble Baroness has acknowledged the damaging effect which delays and unreliability of rail services cause in discouraging the use of rail by passengers and freight. When will it be possible to ensure that evidence of delays and the cost evidence of those delays is used to encourage better performance and, indeed, an improved and increased infrastructure? That has been used for many years in encouraging the construction of new roads. What additional powers will the strategic rail authority have to deal with that issue?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. We believe it is extremely important to have agreed criteria against which to look at the problems concerned. The previous government took the view that there were sufficient commercial incentives for inter-city operators. But they have failed to achieve the high level needed in certain areas. The franchising director has recently imposed on Great Western a penalty scheme for lateness and cancellations. With regard to the strategic rail authority and the shadow authority which we shall set up in advance of the necessary legislation, we believe it will be able to co-ordinate and bring together the very points to which the noble Baroness referred.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell us how many women are in charge of those railway companies?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, tempts me into speculation about whether the service may be better if there were more women in charge, but that would be an unfair comment. It is certainly the case that of those who use public transport, the majority are women. Therefore, any consideration of the needs of consumers is bound to have regard to the needs of women and particularly those travelling with children or the elderly.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind the contribution and experience of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, in running British Railways a few years ago and his assistance to the Government in ensuring that the legislative timetable runs on time, do the Government have any plans to recruit him to the strategic rail authority?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am quite sure that the contributions that are made through
1456
the total membership of the strategic rail authority—whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is a member—will benefit from the noble Lord's wisdom and experience.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, to what extent do the Government consider that the number of complaints which are now being received reflects the increased sensitivity of the public towards the expectations which were aroused as a result of privatisation rather than the increase in unpunctuality itself?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, there is a worrying increase in complaint figures. It may be fair to say that there was a not a uniform opinion across the country that privatisation would lead to better services. Many people felt that it would not. I do not believe that it is fair for the noble Lord to imply that people have raised the standards of their expectations. My own experience of the West Coast Line is that I have maintained the same standards of expectation but the meeting of those expectations has not been as good as it was before.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: My Lords, is the Minister as worried as I am about the ideological precedence for boasting that the trains run on time? Is she aware also that camel trains appeared to run on time in the days of Herod the King?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sure the right reverend Prelate would expect me to say that even those who are capable of the most heinous crimes have some good qualities and therefore one can assume that those good qualities occur in other people without necessarily the bad qualities. Fortunately, even having regard to the record of the last government, the services of camel trains can neither be attributed to them as a success nor, were they ever to fail, be blamed on them.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, when a train is running late or arrives late at a destination an anonymous voice from a tannoy—not God—informs the weary passengers that, owing to circumstances beyond the control of the railway authorities, the train will be delayed. Will the noble Baroness impress upon the railway authorities that even if they cannot achieve efficiency, they might achieve good manners and be more informative as to the reasons and the timing when the train may arrive at a destination? In that way the passengers—the customers—can make alternative arrangements.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, makes a valid point. I was invited earlier to pay tribute to the North-West Line and in my experience of that line, that information is given. I am aware that circumstances arise where conditions are difficult; for example, a train may be delayed because of a tragedy on the line and reasons of that sort. However, I shall certainly pass on the noble Lord's comments to ensure that a uniformly good service is carried out in that regard.

1457
Those who run the trains in the north west inherited a good service in that respect. Indeed, on one occasion I was once informed that the reason a train was late was that the guard did not manage to catch the train and we had to wait for him to run up the track.

National Museums and Galleries: Free Admission
11.22 a.m.
The Earl of Clancarty The Earl of Clancarty asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make available sufficient funds to ensure their pledge of universal free entry to the national museums and galleries in 2001.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government remain firmly committed to broadening access to museums and galleries. The Secretary of State announced on Monday that funds had been allocated to allow trustees of those national museums in England who now charge for entry to introduce free admission for children in 1999–2000 and for pensioners in 2000–2001. That reflects our expectation that the trustees will endorse these first two stages. Funds have also been set aside to take the access programme further in 2001 and discussions will take place in that regard between my department and the museums next year. Decisions in relation to admission charges remain with the trustees of individual museums.
The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. However, does he acknowledge that there is some confusion in relation to the amount of funding national museums believe they require for universal free entry and what the Government propose is required? If so, how do the Government propose to resolve that discrepancy? If the Government have their figures wrong, will they be prepared to top them up to ensure that national museums will be free for all in the year 2001, as the Government pledged?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Earl makes clear why my Answer was a cautious one. I cannot say that whatever the museums claim is the cost of free entry will be paid over. As I said, we are in negotiations with the museums. They presented their figures in different ways and on different bases and those must he sorted out. One of the reasons it is not possible to make an announcement now in regard to free entry in 2001 is the difficulty of producing costs and agreeing a comparable basis.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although school parties have increasingly visited museums in recent years, will the Government do their best to ensure that the
1458
increasing opportunities for them to do so are brought to the notice of the schools so that the fullest possible use is made of them?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a valid point. It is only fair to say that many museums and galleries, even though they charge entry, give special favourable terms to school parties. That is why, as the noble Lord rightly says, they are so popular. However, I am sure that we can continue to give better publicity to the free entry for children which will be available from 1st April next year.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, can my noble friend say when the new Code of Practice on Access to Museums and Galleries, which was issued for consultation last year, is likely to be published? That is relevant to the Question of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is relevant but I am afraid that the preparation of finalisation of the code of practice has been given second place by the need to progress the free access proposals. A new code of practice which will cover all publicly funded museums and galleries will be published next year.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, have the VAT implications in this matter been worked out? Does the Minister agree that directors and trustees, rather than subsidise millions of overseas visitors, who are not British taxpayers, with free admission, would rather have the money to enhance and improve their collections?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord reinforces my point as to the independence of trustees. It must be their decision in the end. We are in constant communication with Customs and Excise in relation to the VAT issue. There are no VAT implications for providing free access to children or pensioners. The present situation is that, even if free access is provided for everybody, VAT will only be charged on one-third or half of the business of the different museums and galleries, though it will be different according to their business situation. However, we are still in negotiation on that point.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, does the Minister recall telling this House in a debate exactly one year ago today that government policy was not to force any specific model of charging or not charging and that the Government would not be doing so at the end of the review? How does that statement fit in with the statement one year later that the Government are pressing museums to adopt a non-charging policy.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not say that we were pressurising museums and galleries to adopt a non-charging policy. I said that we have provided the funds for the first two years to allow children and pensioners free entry into galleries. Our expectation is that the trustees, at their normal meetings,

1459
will wish to take up that offer—they will not get the money if they do not—and we shall continue to be in negotiation with them in relation to the plans for 2001. We want to provide as wide access as we can but we recognise that we do not have the authority to do so. We are not pressurising trustees to do it either.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind that the incoming tourist trade is a major asset to the United Kingdom economy and that the policy of universal free admission to museums and galleries could be a major selling point, what plans do the Government have for publicising those benefits over the next two years, particularly in the European Union and around the world, to encourage the tourist trade?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is the responsibility of the British Tourist Authority. I am sure that it will take every opportunity to publicise the greater level of free access that will become available.
The Earl of Effingham: My Lords, as the Palace of Westminster is a national institution as I understand it, and not a museum, can the Minister say whether it will be open to the public? Will entry be free or will a charge be made?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Palace of Westminster is an unoccupied Royal Palace—in other words, not occupied by the Royal Family. Therefore, it does not come within any of the categories considered in this Question. However, discussions have taken place about how to achieve greater public access to a building which some people consider to be an architectural marvel.

Business
11.30 a.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House may wish me to outline the arrangements for discussing the situation in Iraq this afternoon. At a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
I suggest that in view of the severity of the situation and the fact that the Statement will probably come at the end of business—on which I shall say more in a moment—the normal rules that govern the time spent on a Statement should be relaxed. The 20-minute time-limit for Back-Benchers' questions will be suspended.
As regards the rest of the day's business, the House will proceed through the business on the Order Paper. It is expected that that business will be concluded before 3.30 p.m. If that is so, the House will adjourn during pleasure until 3.30 p.m. to await the repeating of the Statement. The Christmas tributes will be made on the Motion to adjourn during pleasure. Royal Assent will be taken at 3.30 p.m., immediately before the Statement is repeated.
1460
As this afternoon's proceedings will be on the Statement, no speakers list will be produced. I expect that many noble Lords who will wish to take part may not be aware of these arrangements until this afternoon. Under those circumstances, I hope that the House will proceed through the business on the Statement in the orderly and self-regulating way that characterises your Lordships' House.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip for that very welcome statement. I am sure that the House greatly appreciates the fact that he is prepared to agree to relax the usual rules that apply to Statements. I hope that the House will have a good opportunity to debate these very serious matters. I join the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip in saying that we hope that all noble Lords will try to keep their remarks appropriately brief.

Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Amos: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) Bill [H.L.] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedules 1 and 2,

Clause 2,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 3 and 4,

Schedule 4,

Clause 5,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 6 to 17,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 18 to 25,

Schedules 7 to 9,

Clauses 26 and 27.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidated Fund Bill
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 16th December), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Disability Rights Commission Bill [H.L.]
11.34 a.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
At the heart of this Government's agenda is the wish to have an inclusive society. That means a society that embraces all its citizens. Disabled people form a substantial minority of the population of this country and yet they continue to suffer discrimination in their daily lives; discrimination brought about by ignorance or by thoughtlessness; discrimination which denies disabled people everyday rights which others take for granted. I am sure noble Lords will agree with me that this is disgraceful, particularly in this day and age.
We are determined to make progress to achieve that inclusive society. Establishing a disability rights commission, which this Bill will do, is a vital part of that progress. This is an historic decision. The creation of a commission will respond to a long-standing demand from disabled people—and indeed many noble Lords—for an organisation that can effectively promote their civil rights. It will enable disabled people to have equality of opportunity, access and self-determination, and it will help employers and service providers to understand the law.
Some effort has been made in recent years to tackle discrimination. The Disability Discrimination Act was passed in 1995. That Act provides some significant rights for disabled people, but it is flawed in a number of important respects—in particular, the fact that it left out the establishment of a disability rights commission. This Government came into office determined to rectify that and to put into place new approaches designed to provide practical help for people with disabilities: for example, £195 million for the New Deal for Disabled People and the publication of a wide-ranging Green Paper on Special Educational Needs last year followed by an action plan in response to that consultation last month. In June this year, we announced the timetable for implementing further provisions under Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act year. On 9th March we announced that the building regulations would be extended so that the needs of disabled people could be taken into account in the construction of non-domestic buildings. To set this Bill into context, I will need to refer to some of these achievements.
Before I do, I invite noble Lords to join with me in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester for his tireless efforts on behalf of disabled people. Many noble Lords will recall that he was the first Minister for Disabled People (or Minister for the Disabled, to be historically correct) from 1974 to 1979. They will also be aware of the work he did as principal Opposition Front Bench Spokesperson on disability issues between 1979 and 1992. Both he and my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke, who has also worked tirelessly on behalf of disabled people, have played a critical role in the work of the All-Party Parliamentary Disablement Group.
1462
Let me return now to more recent history. In our 1997 manifesto, we pledged to support comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people developed in partnership with all interested parties. A few months after coming into power, we announced a three-point plan to take forward our commitment to establish a ministerial task force to undertake a wide consultation on how to implement comprehensive and enforceable civil rights; to go ahead with implementing the later rights of access to goods and services in the Disability Discrimination Act; and to move to establish a disability rights commission.
In December last year, we established the disability rights task force. It draws its membership from business, organisations of or for disabled people, the public sector, trade unions and others, and is led by my honourable friend the Minister for Disabled People. It has embarked on an ambitious programme, looking at how comprehensive and enforceable rights may be secured for disabled people. The task force will provide its recommendations to Government by July 1999.
The first item on its agenda was to look at the role and functions of a disability rights commission. It did that and provided recommendations to the Government by Easter 1998. Those recommendations formed the basis of a White Paper, Promoting Disabled People's Rights - Creating a Disability Rights Commission fit for the 21st Century, which was launched in July 1998. Responses to that White Paper indicate that nearly 95 per cent. of respondents supported proposals on the role of the commission. There was also strong support for the commission's functions. It is encouraging that support was so widespread. It came not only from organisations representing the interests of disabled people—like the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and Scope—but also business and employer organisations, like the Confederation of British Industry, Barclays Bank and British Telecom. We expect to publish a report on the responses to the White Paper early in the new year.
Before I turn to the content of the Bill, I want to refer briefly to parallels with other areas of equal opportunities. Noble Lords will be aware that commissions to tackle discrimination in the areas of sex and race have been in existence for many years. The Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality have done a great deal to change attitudes and to reduce discrimination in their respective areas during the 20-plus areas of their existence. In establishing a disability rights commission, which in our view is long overdue, we are bringing disability into line with those other areas. There are many similarities between the proposed structure and functions of the disability rights commission and those of the other commissions.
I turn now to the detail of the Bill. Clauses 1 and 2 are concerned with establishing the disability rights commission and defining its role. The commission's duties will be to work towards the elimination of discrimination against disabled people; to promote the equalisation of opportunities for disabled people; and to

1463
keep under review the workings of the Disability Discrimination Act and this Bill when it becomes an Act.
Perhaps I may draw noble Lords' attention to two important related matters. The Bill provides for the commission to encourage good practice and to provide advice and information. It is our intention that the disability rights commission will provide a central point of information and advice for business and public sector employers, service providers and disabled people. They will be able to go to the commission for information about the law, their rights and responsibilities under it and advice about how best to comply with it. They may also seek help on good practice. Given the range and different types of disabilities and the rate of change created by new technologies, the commission has an important part to play in ensuring that we continue to bring down the barriers that disabled people face. The commission will also have an important promotional role in spreading the message that discrimination is unacceptable and helping people to understand how it can be avoided. The importance of such a role cannot be overstated, and I am confident that in fulfilling it the commission will do a great deal to change attitudes.
The commission will be able to advise Government Ministers on existing and proposed legislation emanating from this country and from the European Union where issues arise connected with the elimination of discrimination or equalisation of opportunities for disabled people. I believe it is crucial that the expertise of the commission can be drawn upon in this respect. It will have much to say on such matters.
Clauses 3 to 5 are concerned with the commission's ability to undertake formal investigations to determine whether discrimination has taken or is taking place. They also deal with the action required by those who are the subject of investigations. Of course, we want the commission to work to influence and persuade employers, service providers and others to take action to avoid discrimination. But where influence does not work and discrimination persists, it is right that the commission should have the necessary teeth to deal with it.
I am confident that noble Lords will understand the need for robust and effective investigation processes to be in place. This must be so if the commission is to be able to do its job effectively—to stamp out discrimination and to take to task employers, service providers and others who discriminate unlawfully. The investigations need to examine the structure of organisations so that they discover not only what discrimination is occurring, but why it happens. They need to deal with systemic as well as individual cases of discrimination.
The arrangements proposed are broadly similar to those which apply to the other equality commissions. But there are differences. The provisions in this Bill will modernise and strengthen the arrangements currently in place. In doing so, we have taken account of evolving practice in the other equality commissions. We also have been sensitive to proposals put forward by these commissions which are relevant to the operation of the
1464
disability rights commission. My ministerial colleagues are currently considering those proposals. Noble Lords will acknowledge the logic of adopting for the disability rights commission an approach which is consistent with the other commissions, where that can be achieved.
There are a number of matters in this context which are important. The Bill provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations supplementing provisions as far as they affect formal investigations. That makes good sense. The Equal Opportunities Commission has indicated concerns about the length of time taken to conclude formal investigations. We can learn much from examining the experience of that commission. The process clearly needs some detailed scrutiny and we will need to consider carefully whether regulations should, and how they could, streamline the process, while taking full account of the needs of natural justice. Such a process needs to be sufficiently flexible to allow for changes if experience shows a need for it. I am confident that noble Lords will see the sense of this.
Regulations may also be made to define further the scope of non-discrimination notices. These notices are served on those who have been subject to a formal investigation where they are found to be discriminating. The other commissions have submitted proposals seeking to extend the scope of notices and we would be foolish to ignore their experience. This is an area where consistency makes sense. Therefore, we wish to reach decisions on the detail of how the scope of the notices should be extended, taking account of conclusions yet to be reached on the proposals that the other commissions have put to government. I would seek here to reassure noble Lords that our purpose is not to add on a series of draconian measures; rather, to make the process more effective.
The Bill also proposes that the commission can enter into legally binding written agreements with a body which is subject to a formal investigation. The intention is that such an agreement will bring to a halt any formal investigation and avoid the need for a non-discrimination notice. Embodying such an arrangement in statute is wholly new to equality commissions in Great Britain.
We want the disability rights commission to be able to work constructively with bodies that are keen to address deficiencies identified within their organisations. We recognise that that may be best achieved through agreements. These could be reached more speedily than going through the formal investigation process and are more likely to work, with good will on both sides. However, if those agreements break down, we have made provision for aspects of them which might otherwise have been dealt with by the issue of a non-discrimination notice to be enforceable through the courts. We believe this is right. Entering into written agreements should be seen as a better option for employers or service providers who are discriminating, not a soft option.
In many ways, written agreements demonstrate very clearly one of the relationships that the commission will seek to foster. Noble Lords will not, I hope, need to be persuaded of the merits of an approach which seeks,

1465
where that can be achieved, to engender co-operation rather than grudging compliance, and discussion rather than diktats.
Clause 6 of the Bill allows the commission to assist individuals with legal support where they seek redress for being discriminated against, and defines the criteria the commission will use in determining which cases to support. We want the commission to be able to support test cases which will help to clarify the law and to help disabled people who could not secure their rights unaided. Within the criteria, the commission will be able to take account of the impact that a person's disability has on his or her ability to pursue the case unaided. The criteria will allow the commission ample scope to support those who might need its help most; for example, those with mental health problems, those with learning difficulties and those who are deaf-blind.
Clause 7 allows the commission to recover costs of representation when a court, or more rarely a tribunal, makes an award for costs. Such is the practice with the other commissions.
Clause 8 deals with codes of practice relating to employment and access to goods and services. We believe that the commission should be charged with the role of producing codes which courts and tribunals will have regard to when considering cases of discrimination. These codes will also have the function of giving practical guidance to the public, business, service providers and others on how to avoid discrimination, promote the equalisation of opportunities and encourage good practice. The commission will be required to produce a draft code for consultation before it is submitted to the Secretary of State for approval. The codes must be laid in draft before this House and another place before they can be brought into force.
Clause 9 allows for the commission to make arrangements for the provision of a conciliation service dealing with disputes under Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act—access to goods, services, facilities and premises. Conciliation arrangements are already available in the area of employment, where the function is undertaken by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS). I am sure that noble Lords will not need to be persuaded of the value of conciliation.
At present, through Section 28 of the Disability Discrimination Act, the Secretary of State provides an advice service called the Disability Access Rights Advice Service, or DARAS. DARAS provides advice to organisations which advise business and disabled people on their rights and responsibilities under Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act. A conciliation service is also available via this route where disputes cannot be resolved with the aid of the advice given.
In future we want the Disability Rights Commission to arrange for and monitor a conciliation service and we want it to be available to disabled people and service providers directly, rather than having to gain access to it by first going to a business or voluntary organisation which provides advice.
1466
The Bill provides a number of safeguards to ensure that the information disclosed during the process is not inappropriately disclosed or used.
Clause 10 replaces the bureaucratic mechanism for reviewing the small employers's threshold below which the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act do not apply. It requires the Secretary of State to consult the Disability Rights Commission—in addition to those he is already required to consult—about adjustments to the small employer threshold. At present, employers with fewer than 15 employees are exempt from the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. The commission will clearly be in a key position to advise the Secretary of State on this matter and it is important that we make use of such expertise. The Secretary of State will be required to publish summary details of any views expressed during that consultation before any changes are made.
There are a number of final matters with which I would like to deal briefly. The National Disability Council, which is—to a limited extent—a predecessor body of the disability rights commission will be abolished when the commission is established. It has been very ably chaired by David Grayson, with strong support from his deputy chair Bert Massie. Perhaps I may pay tribute now to the good work that the members of that council have done, and continue to do. Perhaps I may express my gratitude to Chris Brocksom who has steered the council's working group which recently produced a widely-welcomed and much praised draft code of practice on provisions to be brought into force under Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act.
The Bill provides for the majority of commissioners to be disabled people. This must be right for such a commission; and, indeed, such practice has been reflected in the membership of the National Disability Council. The commission must be credible with all stakeholders, and we believe that such a provision will achieve this aim. The commission will extend to England, Scotland and Wales. In Northern Ireland, arrangements set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 will apply, which noble Lords may recall were recently debated in this House. The experience of the existing equality commissions has shown that offices in each of England, Scotland and Wales have been necessary and invaluable. We will expect the disability rights commission to operate in a similar way, but think it best that it should determine what other arrangements are necessary in the light of experience.
I look forward to debate on this Bill. The decision to establish a disability rights commission is an historic one, which I am confident will be welcomed not only by disabled people but also by everyone who is committed to fairness and social inclusion. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
11.54 a.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her very clear and comprehensive

1467
explanation of the purposes of the Bill. I feel a personal connection with the introduction of this Bill and its first parliamentary discussion today. The noble Baroness said that the Bill was long overdue. It was 30 years ago, almost to the day, when I introduced a Private Member's Bill in the other place, having been successful in the annual ballot. It was the Disablement Commission Bill and I have a copy with me. It is 30 years old and, in the usual way, beside the title is printed "AD 1968".
It was a year before the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, was successful in the next annual ballot in 1969. He introduced what eventually became the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, has publicly recalled that the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, the late Mr. Richard Crossman (who held that office from 1968 to 1970), did not view that Bill with favour and tried to strangle it at birth. But the noble Lord, Lord Morris, to his lasting credit, persevered and steered his private measure successfully to the statute book. I am very glad to see that he is speaking today.
I was less fortunate a year earlier. I was able to have a full Second Reading debate early in 1969, but sensed that the government were not well disposed towards my harmless, short Bill. Supporters of my Bill in all parts of the Commons co-operated with my plan for the day: short speeches to bring the debate to an end well before closing time—and I use that expression in its parliamentary sense. As a result, the Government did not talk it out and they could not block it at closing time, as sometimes happens with Private Members' Bills. The course that the government did take, hardly believable of a Labour government now, was to force a Division with their Whip applied. Even with their large majority at that time, I only lost the Bill in that Division by about four votes. I was a member of the shadow Cabinet at the time, but was also a private Member and could enter the ballot. Noble Lords may imagine my disappointment then and my nostalgia today.
As I explained in that debate and outside Parliament, in my view the commission would have been the beginning, virtually costing nothing. My object, with my supporters, was to induce the government of the day to take action themselves, as they were in a much better position to do so than a private Member. It was a long time after that before any government initiated legislation; indeed, that was in 1994 and it led to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It is the first and, so far, the only government measure in this field of disablement. Although it is criticised as not going far enough, it is a landmark and the very first attempt by any British government to bring in laws to prevent discrimination against disabled people. It is now core legislation on the subject which can be built upon.
I declare, again, certain interests at this first stage of the Bill's passage. I am a war disability pensioner from World War II; and the parent of a disabled person.
The shape and functions of the proposed commission were to be considered and suggested by the Disability Rights Task Force. The Government issued a consultation document in July, just before the Summer Recess, which is still collecting views. That was only
1468
five months ago. I read it carefully and noted that the task force is due to report to the Government by July 1999. The Bill is before us now. What will happen if that report has further recommendations or proposals different to the provisions in the Bill? The Bill should almost have completed its passage through Parliament when that report arrives.
The functions proposed in the Bill include those now carried out by the present National Disability Council, to which the noble Baroness referred. The council was established under the DDA of 1955. I applaud the work carried out so far by the council which has been described in its annual reports, and in particular its work in preparing codes of practice. I echo what the noble Baroness said about it. The Bill would add functions for the commission to those which are now carried out by the council—initiating litigation, supporting individuals in seeking to enforce rights—and it would have powers of investigation.
I note that the Bill will use the same definition of a disabled person as is in the DDA. I regard that as sensible and convenient, but I do foresee that there will be dissent in some quarters which did not particularly like the previous definition. Also, questions and concerns are arising as to whether there will be enough finance made available to enable the commission to carry out these new functions effectively.
The Bill uses the emotive word "rights". I inform Ministers, if they are not aware already, that there are widely differing views on the meaning of that word. In more than 50 years of moving among disabled people I have met extremes. There are some disabled people who are reticent and reluctant even to claim the help and benefits due to them; others, at the other extreme, are likely to claim rights that will strain the future commissioners' imagination and budget.
The new commission will have very different situations to face from those encountered by the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. There is a very wide variety of disabilities—physical and mental—and many different kinds of disability. More than two-thirds of those falling within the proposed definition are over retiring age. Most of them were not disabled when they were of working age but are experiencing the usual disabling conditions brought on by advancing age.
The type of decision that I foresee the commission will be required to make is whether a right of access to polling booths should be enforced. Here, of course, there are alternatives—postal and proxy voting—but for that carers in particular have to ensure that disabled people are registered in good time. Personally, I would not think that that supposed right needed enforcement, for the reason that I have just mentioned. I have always voted by post, including when I was a Member of Parliament, and my home is in what was my constituency. I must explain that I was over voting age when I was wounded—I was 23—and I was 25 when I left hospital. My service vote in the election of 1945 did not catch up with my being a casualty, and ever since then I have used a postal vote and advised disabled people to do the same. If access to polling stations were

1469
to be enforced, it would mean extra expenditure for local authorities and taxpayers in order to adapt premises for about two days a year, on average, for general and local elections. I give that as an example of the sort of difficult case which I am sure will arise for the proposed commission.
As to finance, there is concern whether there will be enough made available for the range of activities and the new functions to be undertaken by the commission.
I turn now to regulations and Clause 11. All statutory instruments under the Bill are to be subject to the negative procedure. No report has yet been received, I am told, from the Select Committee on Delegated Powers. Of course, it has not had time to get round to Bills like this in the new Session, having only recently been set up again. When a report appears we should pay particular attention to it. Some of us may well think that the affirmative procedure should be required for some regulations.
The Bill will need careful examination at the later stages. I wish the commission well, while I can foresee many problems ahead for it.
12.6 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I would like to pay tribute to the admirable work that he has done for disabled people over many years, especially in the parliamentary All-Party Disablement Group. I have been chairman of that group for some 26 years, and joint chairman for the past five years since entering this House. I have watched, with great admiration, the contributions made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. Today, dotted around the Chamber, are other members of that group, notably my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Rix, and a number of others, all of whom have also made significant contributions to the issue of disability. I must also include the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his great legal expertise and contributions. These are the people who, in my view, have contributed in a vital way. The All-Party Disablement Group is the engine-room of campaigns on disability—it is where the hard, laborious work is done—and I am very proud of the work of that group of people. Today is the culmination of their efforts, the efforts of the disability organisations and the efforts of disabled people themselves. It really is a great day for disabled people.
We are debating an historic development for Britain's 6.5 million disabled people. I believe that this commission will transform their lives and will transform their dream of full civil rights into a reality. That will be a very considerable achievement. From time immemorial disabled people have had little voice, few rights and absolutely no role. They have been excluded from society because of the deep-rooted discrimination so eloquently mentioned by my noble friend when she opened the debate. The new commission will mount a head-on challenge to that discrimination. That is why it is so very important.
1470
Blind people get help across the road, but there is no rush to employ them. In the main, employers do not want to know. Deaf people face irritation and resentment. We know from the research of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People that the handicap of deafness is a greater obstacle to obtaining employment than a criminal record or a history of drug abuse. Those with uncontrollable limbs face embarrassment and exclusion rather than practical assistance. Anyone who is severely disabled encounters discrimination in one form or another practically every day of their lives—in shops, offices, factories hotels, trains and even at football matches, where there may be only half a dozen spaces for wheelchairs. Deliberate or inadvertent, disability not only hurts but damages, and over the years, persuasion has failed to end it.
The Disability Discrimination Act in 1995 outlawed discrimination but, as my noble friend said, it was badly flawed because it failed to provide a commission, like those for race and gender, which could represent and fight for disabled people. To be quite frank, many ministerial hearts of the Tory Government were not in the legislation because, after denying the need for it, they were propelled into it by public outcry. It was an Act without an engine. Although progress was made by the Act, it was rather limited because there was no commission. I have been critical of the Labour Government on disability on many occasions but to their eternal credit, which deserves the warmest congratulations, this Government are now establishing a powerful commission, something which for years disabled people feared they would never see because so many pleas for a commission were rejected. So to the Prime Minister and his Ministers, I say "Hallelujah", and I know I speak for millions of disabled people in expressing those thanks.
I turn now to my reservations. For the commission to be successful, Ministers will need to tread a minefield with care when setting it up. Worthy and well meaning people should have no place on the commission. We want people who are understanding and have backbone. The majority need to be disabled themselves, as is proposed in the Bill. That is a welcome starting point. But we need to discuss whether a simple majority is enough. Would not the commission be more effective with two-thirds or three-quarters of its members being, or having been, disabled?
Above all we need people schooled by personal experience to the harsh reality of discrimination in all its subtle, and not so subtle, manifestations. We need to remember that disability can take many forms. Some are familiar such as wheelchair conditions, blindness and deafness, while others are less well known. The sufferers are less vocal but their needs are just as great.
However, it would be a mistake if Ministers accepted the proposal that all members should be disabled. I do not accept that. Non-disabled people from many walks of life should be on the commission because one of its essential duties will be to harmonise diverse views and be sensitive to a broad spectrum of attitudes. I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Blackstone made that a clear and emphatic point in her splendid speech.

1471
Yet it will not be all harmony. The effectiveness of the Disability Discrimination Act will be mainly determined by court rulings, where there are disputes. The commission, therefore, should be active in court cases. It needs to be staffed by high quality legal experts, capable of meeting and matching the most expensive and sophisticated opposition in tribunals and courts.
Unlike the commissions on race and gender, the disability rights commission will be breaking entirely new ground. Whereas the other bodies are dealing solely with prejudice, it will have to cope with prejudice and what is "reasonable" in relation to one of the myriad disabilities being considered. The Disability Discrimination Act provides that "reasonable" adjustments should be made by employers and service providers. Disability is not a simple male or female, black or white issue. There are countless disabilities at all kinds of stages. They affect people differently and relate to jobs differently. Considering, for example, a case of alleged discrimination concerning someone with multiple sclerosis, the commission would have to take account of how serious it was, how it fluctuates, whether the job was physical or intellectual, whether the person was needed every day or periodically, how they coped and what help they required. It is by no means a simple issue.
But once a case is concluded, the Bill provides that when a disabled person has been assisted by the commission, the commission shall, under certain circumstances, be able to recover some of its expenses. I say to my noble friend that I am not too happy with that. I do not go along with that all the way because it should apply only to additional awards for costs and not to any compensation award. It would be totally wrong in principle for any compensation award to be clawed back by the commission.
A very important task of the commission will be to tackle public understanding of disability and the ignorance of the Disability Discrimination Act. This contributes significantly to discrimination and a prime task should be to raise public awareness so that people understand the problems. My noble friend emphasised that in introducing the Bill and I am delighted that she did so. The commission will have to give top quality advice to firms and service providers so that they can avoid falling foul of the law. Sensitivity, awareness and understanding are essential for all the duties of the commission, but they are particularly so for the task of promoting the equalisation of opportunities. In the long term, this positive work could be the most important and rewarding of the commission's duties.
I welcome the provision in the Bill giving power to the Secretary of State to extend the scope of the commission to other legislation. The Explanatory Notes provided by my noble friend suggest that Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 could be among those to be considered. As that Act will have an important bearing on the rights of the disabled, because it regulates the behaviour of public bodies towards individuals, it would be helpful if it was specifically included in the remit of the commission rather than be ambiguous or subject to rarefied debate.
1472
In introducing the Bill, my noble friend mentioned Clause 10 which permits the commission to consult on the exclusion of disabled people from the Disability Discrimination Act. I feel very deeply on this point. I do not believe Ministers should wait for the recommendations of the commission. Why should they? The commission has not yet been set up. We do not know when it will be set up. We do not know how it will progress. It was a scandalous decision of the previous government to exclude 92.5 per cent. of employers from the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. The Government should have a quick review of the situation and then decide that all firms except those with fewer than two workers should be included. There is no need to wait for the deliberations of the commission. Although I cannot now speak on amendments, I propose to move an amendment at the proper time to provide that Clause 10 should be deferred until the year 2000 so that the Government's hands are not tied. They can then get on with bringing in all the employers apart from those with fewer than two workers.
The funding of the commission is crucial. The Equal Opportunities Commission has an allocation of nearly £15 million a year but, despite the phenomenal complexity of disability, the amount proposed for the new commission is less. The Government have allocated £3 million to set it up and then £11 million for each of the following two years. Some disability organisations have suggested that the annual figure should be £20 million. I agree with them.
Too many hopes of disabled people rest on the future of this commission for it to be crippled by inadequate finance. If it is successful, the decades of patronage and pity, of indifference and inferiority, can be consigned to history by this potentially mighty champion of a new deal. But it will need all the help and support that we and the Government can give. I warmly commend the Bill.
12.20 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, disabled people in the UK are fortunate to have so many campaigners on their behalf. Many of the leaders are speaking today and their loyalty goes on year after year. They are from all parts of the House. I am happy to say that the All-Party Disablement Group, chaired so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is a cross-party group.
I thank the Minister for her clear explanation of the Bill. I welcome the setting up of the disability rights commission as a further step towards creating comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people in the United Kingdom. I hope that there will be spin-offs from it in Europe and other parts of the world.
There is no doubt that legislation in support of disabled people needs clout. I have not heard of an organisation for disabled people which does not welcome in general the setting up of the commission. In particular, organisations for disabled people welcome the fact that the DRC will have a similar remit to those of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission. It is important that the DRC will provide support and backing for any disabled

1473
individual wishing to take out an action against discrimination by any person or body, give advice to the Government on any aspect of law or propose changes to the law to further the end of discrimination. Such specific powers will give the DRC the ability to achieve its principal objective of eliminating disability discrimination. However, such powers will be pointless without government enforcement and backing.
As there are so many different disabilities and organisations representing the special needs of their members, I hope the commission will learn about all the different aspects and complexities of disabilities and take evidence from those concerned. What one person with a specific disability needs may be totally different from what a person with another type of disability needs. That is why education and flexibility are needed.
Clause 1 sets out the general duties of the DRC. Clause 2 enables the DRC to encourage good practice in the treatment of disabled people in any field or activity. Will this include hospitals? The Spinal Injuries Association has some horror stories of people who have been treated as emergencies in general hospitals and not special spinal units and have been denied basic human rights. If people cannot do some basic things for themselves—for example, a person paralysed from the neck down who cannot evacuate his own bowels—they need positive help to do this. They have been denied this as it was considered an invasive procedure. Patients are put in danger if they cannot get the basic help that they need.
Many taxis have been adapted to take wheelchairs. Yet so many people with a disability experience taxi drivers who are free but drive past them. Some people trying to get a taxi for a disabled person hide the disabled person so the taxi driver cannot see him until he has stopped. Will that be the kind of matter that the commission can look into?
Many organisations are interested in the disability rights legislation. The Confederation of British Industry is particularly pleased to support the conciliation proposals to assist settlement of claims on access to goods and other services. The separation of the conciliation responsibilities of the DRC should ensure that impartiality and confidentiality are maintained during the process. The CBI has two key concerns at this stage of the Bill on which I hope the Minister will be able to comment. First, it is concerned that the remit and additional powers of the DRC should be clearly defined on the face of the Bill as relating to disability discrimination and disabled persons. In particular, it seeks clarification on the proposals for the DRC's interface with the Human Rights Act. Secondly, it is concerned about the extent and potential of the DRC's investigatory role and powers.
It is good that the DRC will be offering information, advice and support and will be taking cases forward for disabled people. It will provide information and advice to employers and service providers. Are hotels service providers? Recently I was attending a fund-raising function at the Dorchester Hotel. There were no ramps at the main entrance. In the past few years the hotel has been fully refurbished with millions of pounds being
1474
spent on it. As I was humped up and down the steps, I thought what a benefit it would be for the porters who have to hump luggage up and down every day to have a ramp. What helps disabled people helps other people too. Some hotels have made excellent ramps, which make such a difference, while others, such as the Dorchester, just do not bother.
I hope that this legislation will make people sit up and think and help to change attitudes. With people living longer and with there being more elderly people with disabilities in society, access is becoming even more vital. I hope that the chairperson of the DRC will have wide knowledge of disability and be dynamic and a diplomat as one needs good relationships between all groups. Disabled people need a level playing field, but to get that one needs positive discrimination and good will.
I should like to thank the Government for bringing forward this legislation and to wish the Minister and all noble Lords taking part in this debate a happy Christmas.
12.28 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am naturally delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. She among others on both sides of your Lordships' House is familiar with my work over many years as honorary parliamentary adviser to The Royal British Legion. I have come to this debate from a meeting earlier today—attended also by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham—of the Legion's Gulf War Group. The group was formed to help the ex-servicemen and women who returned seven years ago from the Gulf conflict with undiagnosed illnesses which have left them chronically sick and disabled. Thus it may be timely and appropriate to remind ourselves today of their plight as the conflict with Iraq is renewed—with what outcome it is too soon to predict—and of how deeply important this Bill, which I most warmly welcome, is to them as it is to tens of thousands of other needful people, like the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Holderness, whose heavy physical disabilities were sustained in service to this country.
As parliamentarians, all of us know, more than most people, not only that success has many fathers but just how many fathers it can attract: the greater the success, the more numerous its fathers.
We are met today, as my good and noble friend Lord Ashley said, to celebrate a success of historic importance for Britain's 8 million disabled people, for which incredibly even William Hague almost claimed fatherhood when speaking about this Bill in another place on 24th November. Yet in advance of any DNA test, I think most of us who know the Bill's origins can agree about its true paternity.
It was Peter, now Sir Peter, Large, to whom I am sure historians will attribute this Bill's paternity, who chaired the committee of inquiry appointed in 1979 to investigate acts of unjustified discrimination which still, even today, pile handicap on handicap for people with disabilities. The Committee of Inquiry into Restrictions Against Disabled People (CORAD), as his committee

1475
was called, and of which Colin Low was also a distinguished member, had power to investigate all aspects of discrimination and published its report in 1982. It was my good fortune, as Minister for Disabled People from 1974–79, that, notwithstanding the severity of his disability, Peter Large had accepted my invitation to chair the inquiry.
CORAD' s report stressed and documented the urgent need to make unjustified discrimination unlawful by means of a commission with powers and duties to conciliate and, where necessary, to take enforcement action. But the Minister to whom the report was submitted in 1982 decided that legislation was unnecessary. He was satisfied that education and persuasion and the voluntary application of goodwill would end unequal treatment and eventually transform the lives of disabled people.
Following that decision, one Minister after another blocked every parliamentary attempt to give effect to the CORAD report during 13 years of systematic obstruction in another place. My noble friend Lord Ashley, then, as now, chairman of the All-Party Disablement Group, and for whom my abiding regard and profound respect is known to everyone taking part in this debate, gave the Government an early opportunity to reconsider their position by introducing a Ten Minute Rule Bill endorsing the report. Three such Bills were put forward by Members of another place in 1983, all of which went no further than First Reading.
My Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, with detailed provision for a commission to make the rights that it conferred enforceable, which I introduced after winning parliamentary time in the Private Members' ballot in November 1991, was blocked in three successive parliamentary Sessions in another place by manoeuvres as crude as any I have seen in 34 years at Westminster. It was blocked for the first time in January 1992, and it was not until 1993—by which time my Bill had twice been approved at all stages by this House, due to initiatives taken by my noble friends Lady Lockwood and Lord Ashley, with strong support from the noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, and the noble Lord, Lord Rix—that I was able to seek a further Second Reading debate for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in another place. But the Bill was again obstructed.
Then came the good news. My friend Roger Berry, who had worked with me to enact my Bill from the moment he first won his parliamentary seat in April 1992, secured a high place in the ballot for Private Members' Bills for the parliamentary Session 1993–94. Without hesitation, he agreed to reintroduce my Bill and I pay tribute again today to his dedication in promoting it in the face not only of further obstruction but also of prevarication and parliamentary behaviour by the Bill's few opponents that was censured on three occasions from the Speaker's Chair.
It was further good news that Harry Barnes, another active supporter of the Bill, succeeded in the ballot for Private Members' Bills in the parliamentary Session 1994–95 and achieved a virtually unopposed Second Reading. But by then another Bill had appeared. The Government had been shamed into introducing their
1476
own Bill. But it made no provision for a disability rights commission without which it was bound to be defective. The Government's Bill provided only for an advisory council, which was described by Peter Large as,
"a wheyfaced ghost of what is required".
The Government's tactics then were to talk out the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill yet again before enacting their own measure. We succeeded in Committee and on Report in extending the scope of the Government's Disability Discrimination Bill but, without the commission for which the Bill now before the House provides, it was a car without an engine—as defective as equal opportunities legislation for women would be without the Equal Opportunities Commission.
It was nevertheless an important breakthrough that the Major Government had at last conceded that education and persuasion were not enough to end discrimination against disabled people. Peter Large's judgment was now totally vindicated in having written to me 13 years earlier stating,
"The Committee on Restrictions against Disabled People, which you set up as the then Minister in 1979 and I had the honour to chair, strongly believes that campaigns to educate and persuade are too costly and ineffective in the absence of a legislative framework of acceptable behaviour".
He was echoing the view of Martin Luther King when he said:
"Morality cannot be legislated, but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless".
Had the Government recognised the wisdom of Peter Large's judgment in 1982, Britain would have led the world in making unjustified discrimination against disabled people unlawful, as we did in 1970 by legislating on access to the built environment for disabled people. Instead, we shall still lag behind many countries—not least the United States—until this Disability Rights Commission Bill is enacted. While other countries across the world read and quickly acted upon the CORAD report, it will then have taken the United Kingdom 17 years to implement the most important of its recommendations.
Much credit is due to present Ministers, including the Prime Minister, for their humanity in honouring as soon as they could their election pledge to enact this Bill. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Blackstone and to Margaret Hodge for the priority that they—with David Blunkett and Andrew Smith—have given at the DfEE to the heavy departmental work it involves. I want especially also to thank the Minister for the Arts, my friend Alan Howarth, who, as Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, set up the task force and produced the White Paper published in July. His principled and tireless support for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, from both sides of the House of Commons since it was first introduced in 1991, is worthy not only of praise but of admiration.
Nor should anyone forget that this Bill is also the achievement of countless numbers of unnamed disabled people and their organisations who fought the good fight when others wearied. Naturally, they are concerned now to ensure that the disability rights commission is hampered neither by resource constraints nor limitations

1477
on its power to vouchsafe fully enforceable civil rights. They want, in particular, our civil rights legislation to extend to all employees and to see transport and education included within its framework.
Like the Law Society, they want the disability rights commission to undertake formal investigations and to be able to impose strict time limits to ensure that the process is completed within a reasonable timescale. They are anxious to see the perverse effects of the outcome of the R. v. Gloucestershire County Council, ex parte Michael Barry case addressed with more urgency and to end the reversion to a "pot luck" system of basing rights to adequate services not on the extent of need, but on where the disabled person lives.
They want to see guidance from the Department of Health, working in partnership with the DfEE, insisting that independence is not about survival but full participation in society and the support necessary for independent living made available to disabled people as of right. After all, accessible places of employment are of no use if you do not have the independent living services to reach them.
Of course, one of the problems of spending departments like the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health is that they are often unfairly attacked for decisions that are dictated by the Treasury. In this policy area, their difficulties are compounded by a fundamental error in Whitehall's approach to costings. The costs of public provision for able-bodied people are treated differently from those of providing for disabled people. It is seen as quite "normal" to provide services to help the able-bodied by installing escalators in public places. But provision for disabled people, like lifts at stations, is treated differently as a "special" and abnormal expense. From now on, "normal" provision must include the needs of disabled people if civil rights are to become a reality. Otherwise, disabled people will still find themselves apart from and not a part of society.
The issue of civil rights for disabled people is one of social decency. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has said, it was wrong and not very creditable that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was obstructed for so long in another place. Fully assured civil rights have become the defining principle of all enlightened policy-making on disability. For without civil rights, disabled people are doubly disabled. The handicapping effects of their disabilities are made harder to bear by the gratuitous social handicaps for which there is no moral justification. And the overriding justification for giving the Bill an enthusiastic Second Reading today is that what is morally unjustified ought no longer to be legally permissible in Britain.
12.43 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I feel honoured to follow such a distinguished list of those who have campaigned for disabled people. I do not like the word "rights", but in some instances it is correct to use the word. It is a right for disabled people to be treated properly and as though they were ordinary people and not something rather peculiar.
1478
In particular, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has over 30 years of campaigning, the noble Lords, Lord Ashley of Stoke and Lord Morris of Manchester, 25 years each, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, whose length of service is probably far longer than I realise, is joined with them. The four of them together have probably been campaigning for a total of at least 100 years.
I welcome the Bill. In many ways it is totally unnecessary as it should have been part of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I am delighted that the Government have brought it forward now, because when that Act was a Bill going through this House I was one of those who wanted a disability rights commission in it.
I particularly welcome the duty of the commission to keep the working of that Act under review and to publish a summary of views of those who are consulted on the small employer exceptions. I understand that most of those who gave views when the small employer exception was recently reconsidered wanted the size of the employer reduced not just to 15 employees but to two. If those views had been published, that is where we might well be today, instead of wasting time.
I also welcome the fact that the commission is to advise the Government generally on the effects of the legislation that they are bringing forward. So often in the past I and others have talked about disability on Bills that have nothing to do with disability at all. I remember in particular the road and streetworks legislation where no provision was made to ensure that holes in the roads were properly protected, that roads were properly lit, had proper ramps, and such matters.
Clause 2(5) allows the commission to charge for any facility or service. What does that cover? Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us. For example, may it charge for formal investigations on behalf of an individual covered under Clause 3? Where the commission assists an individual in relation to proceedings, as provided for under Clause 6, does it prevent that individual from obtaining legal aid? How is that affected by the Access to Justice Bill now going through your Lordship's House?
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, mentioned the recovery of expenses from an individual. Where the commission recovers expenses from an individual whom it has assisted (recovery provided for under Clause 7) can the recovery be from damages awarded to the individual or from the repayment ordered to that individual for expenses incurred by that person, apart from expenses incurred by the DRC on that person's behalf?
With regard to the commission, I welcome the fact that the majority of commissioners will themselves be disabled. However, will at least one of them represent families with a disabled child? There is no mention of that in the Bill. Will there be an advocate on the commission for those whose disabilities are so profound as to preclude them from membership of the commission? Is not the commission to act in a quasi-judicial capacity under Clauses 3 and 4? Will it therefore have members with the appropriate legal qualifications and experience?

1479
Finally, as to codes of practice, I welcome the fact that the commission is to prepare codes of practice which should be approved by the Secretary of State. However, should they not be issued by the Secretary of State himself? The Bill gives the impression that they are to be issued by the Disability Rights Commission, which, of course, has no access to Parliament. Are not all codes of practice and regulations issued under other legislation all the responsibility of, and issued by, the relevant Secretary of State?
I welcome the Bill, but I hope that we shall be able to improve it on its passage through the House.
12.49 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, having been duly transformed from chairman of Mencap to being president of Mencap in the past couple of days, I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in the main debate on what must be considered a landmark piece of legislation in the advancement of civil rights for disabled people.
Like the Minister I wish to begin by acknowledging our debt to those in your Lordships' House who have from the outset campaigned relentlessly for civil rights for disabled people, notably the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, who sustains political momentum on this issue through his role as co-Chairman of the All-Party Disablement Group, and members of the All Party-Disablement Group themselves, many of whom have already spoken in this debate. I wish to mention also the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who is due to speak in this debate and whose name has not yet been mentioned in regard to this Bill, and of course the indomitable noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, whose Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill set out the principles which we now hope will come to fruition.
I express my relief that the expertise of this House can be marshalled at the early stages of this legislation. The significance of this Bill cannot be overestimated, but the best of Bills benefit from close and informed scrutiny. The National Disability Council has done its best, as we have heard, and has done more perhaps than might have been anticipated. However, it has been constrained by the modesty of its remit. Now we have the opportunity for a more significant leap forward, and where better to leap than in your Lordships' House eight days before Christmas!
The proper establishment of the disability rights commission will confer a right of redress for individuals who have experienced discrimination. These are men, women and children who have hitherto been awarded protection from discrimination in theory, but left without a supporting mechanism for redress of grievances in practice. The creation of the disability rights commission will mean that the law on disability discrimination will be properly enforceable, helping people with learning disabilities to participate and to contribute fully to society. The disability rights commission will have an important role in raising awareness and educating the wider public in order to promote a better understanding of disability issues,
1480
including awareness of the needs of people with learning disabilities, which have in the past sometimes been overlooked.
There is a common misconception that disability is physical and that the provision of physical access through portable ramps and wider doors will resolve most of the difficulties or barriers to access facing disabled people. However, the problems facing people with learning disabilities stem not just from physical barriers or the absence of "reasonable adjustments" such as auxiliary aids, but an unwillingness on behalf of providers of goods or services to serve disabled people or to provide a service on equal terms. Access for people with learning disabilities depends much more on people than on ramps, and the barriers are people rather than stairs. Opening minds, heads and imaginations has the edge on widening doorways, necessary as that sometimes is.
One example is the recent case—I am sure many of your Lordships may have read of this—of 10 adults with learning disabilities who were refused permission to enter a pre-booked party at a pub when the landlady considered that this would constitute—that hoary old excuse!—a breach of the fire regulations and her patrons' comfort! Quite often people with learning disabilities need no more specialised help than a positive and enlightened attitude on behalf of employers, service providers and of course the general public.
The commission's ability to monitor the implementation of the DDA is also important. The climate of opinion among businesses, service providers, the wider public, and even the Government is still in need of radical change. The Government's own surveys demonstrate the extent to which service providers are unaware of their duties to make reasonable adjustments under Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act. There is a lack of awareness of the reality that more helpful personal services as well as physical changes will make their services more accessible and attractive to everyone—such as older people and those with young children—not just those traditionally called disabled.
Thinking specifically about the structure and composition of the disability rights commission, I would like to say a few words on the issue of representation. It is Mencap's experience of mixed disability fora and seminars, that it is those with a physical disability who are well represented and are able to voice their opinions, while those with a learning disability are not represented or adequately supported to take full part in discussions.
For those reasons, Mencap was extremely disappointed that no organisation is currently represented on the Disability Rights Task Force, although Mencap and other learning disability organisations are contributing to this work at a distance through correspondence and telephone calls. The proposal that 50 per cent. or more of the new commissioners will be disabled people, is indeed right and proper. Nevertheless I would like to take this opportunity to emphasise the importance of a wide representation of impairment specific interests among the commissioners, including people with learning disabilities.

1481
Given the enormity of the tasks ahead, a realistic level of funding is imperative. The figure proposed in this Bill falls, as we have heard, between the budgets for the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Racial Equality Commission. I hope that the Government will give a commitment to review the resources available once the commission is fully operational.
In addressing the House this afternoon I would like to focus on some of the practicalities involved in enabling people with learning disabilities to exercise their rights under the law, and then say a word about the importance of keeping anti-discrimination legislation under review so that real progress can be made in improving the day-to-day lives of disabled people.
I warmly welcome the fact that the White Paper upon which this Bill is based recognises that extra support will be required by people with learning disabilities in asserting their rights. There are several matters of importance in this connection.
First, it is important to remember that while recourse to the courts is a necessary safeguard, principles can also be protected by pressure outside the court system. Going to court is not easy for people who may be expected to relive painful experiences. In view of this, coercion into litigation, no matter how well meaning, should be avoided wherever possible.
If the commission is successful in bringing cases before the courts, it is vital that judges and magistrates have the training so that people with learning disabilities are awarded the same protection through the justice system as others enjoy. Indeed I spoke about this matter in your Lordships' House only two days ago when we were discussing vulnerable witnesses. Help should also be on hand from the commission for parents and carers involved in championing the rights of the person with learning disabilities.
In terms of the commission's remuneration following litigation, I should be grateful if the Government would clarify two matters. Similar questions have already been asked by the noble Lords, Lord Ashley and Lord Swinfen. First, what arrangements are in place to cover costs incurred in unsuccessful cases? Secondly, will costs recovered from individuals be ring-fenced by the commission to fund further costs of representation?
My final point in terms of the commission's support for individuals is that it seems to be an oversight that this piece of legislation does not incorporate a right of appeal for people whose cases are refused help from the commission. It is vital that all those who approach the commission, and in particular vulnerable people, have confidence in the fairness and transparency of its judgments.
I turn now to the wider functions of the commission. Let us not harbour any illusions over what this commission can in practice achieve. The commission is new, the legislation with which it deals is not. The Government admit that the DDA is flawed. It is failing to deliver comprehensive rights to disabled people. Areas in which the rights of disabled people need protection cannot be neatly compartmentalised in the way in which DDA definitions operate. It is nonsense
1482
that the Act offers protection from unreasonable discrimination by large employers, but not small ones. I welcome the advance warning by the noble Lord, Lord Stoke of Ashley, of his intention to table an amendment to remove this absurdity at an early stage. There is only limited value in widening access to employment if health and social services care is not provided in order to make the daily routine of employment feasible. The scandal of shrinking domiciliary care and related services which enable disabled people to live independent lives has to be brought into the civil rights frame.
There are other issues, for example, access to education and transport. Can we really believe that when disabled people have to struggle in order to get education and training, and it may be another decade before some forms of transport are accessible, welfare-to-work strategies will be a resounding success?
Without wishing to digress into the realms of philosophy, there are several critical questions which need to be addressed. Perhaps some of my esteemed colleagues will pursue these ideas. How far do civil rights take us in the absence of service rights? It is a little like respecting people's citizenship but not facilitating their survival. How can we secure in legislation a right to independent living and equality which means that basic domiciliary care, accessible transport, and equality of access to education and employment are delivered as of right? The inaccessibility of services such as health, education and justice to those with learning disabilities forms the basis of Mencap's concerns and has an impact on an individual's ability to play a full and healthy part in society.
Disability organisations are examining problems that cross over the boundaries of government departments. I sense a willingness to work across the boundaries and to promote greater co-ordination of government policy in relation to disability. I can only hope that rhetoric about joined-up government will be taken seriously across all departments who plan disability policy. The commission has an extraordinary task ahead in going beyond the letter of the law and looking to identify and remedy other forms of discrimination and social exclusion. Only then can the establishment of a disability rights commission be truly celebrated. The good news is that in establishing this commission the Government are signalling their readiness for reform. Joshua walked several times around Jericho before the wall fell. We have visited this issue so many times over so many years that I hope the walls of prejudice and discrimination are near to cracking. Just a few more trumpet blasts will do the trick.
1.3 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: My Lords, I thank your Lordships for this opportunity to speak in the gap and promise to observe the convention of brevity. I can scarcely add a trumpet blast to what has already been said. What I say is no more than a feeble peep. From these Benches I should like to extend a very warm welcome to the aims and principles of the Bill and the setting up of a disability rights commission.

1483
I am delighted that in the course of her introduction the Minister referred to the disabilities of those who suffer from mental illness. So far this matter has not been raised by noble Lords in the debate. I should like to draw brief attention to the disabilities endured by such people. I take as an example schizophrenia. It is a fact that for approximately one-third of people who suffer an episode of schizophrenia it is the first and last episode because complete recovery follows. But in cases where people endure further, even repeated, acute episodes frequently there is a serious diminution in social and intellectual skills. Such diminution amounts to genuine disability. The medication that keeps them well also adds further disabilities, especially when it comes to public life and their representation in social life.
Sometimes the obstacles that people who suffer, or have suffered, from mental illness include difficulty in doing a full day's work because of accumulated reaction to stress within the workplace. It may include a fluctuation in the illness and the degree of wellness which the individual experiences. One day may be good and the next day less good. Sometimes, sadly, such people suffer a partial relapse. Despite these disabilities it is vital that these people have employment opportunities.
My experience of people who suffer mental illness is that they desperately want to escape from the company and society of those who are mentally ill, which is very often thought to be all that they are capable of. Discrimination is genuinely encountered by such people. There is discrimination where a past record of mental ill health is disclosed to an employer or, for example, where there is absolutely no opportunity for part-time work. That is not to mention the serious situation caused by the continuing poverty trap for those who attempt to work but who are then penalised when it comes to the support that may be available from public funds.
I draw attention to the importance of Clause 8 which the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has already mentioned. It is my experience of those who suffer from mental illness and their reception in the community that enforcement is, generally speaking, counter-productive. The formation of codes of practice which suggest changes in attitudes and atmosphere is absolutely vital if the stigma of mental illness, which frequently hangs around for years and years after an episode, is to be challenged. I acknowledge the existence of the very good work that is being done in the area of employment by the Richmond Fellowship and other organisations; including, notably, Clubhouse International which has a technique for developing contracts with employers that give them confidence in the performance of certain tasks.
In conclusion, I underline the importance of acceptance in the community of those who courageously, and often very successfully, cope with mental illness. I look forward to the work of the disability rights commission and perhaps—who knows?—membership of that commission by those who have experience of this enormously difficult and disabling condition.
1.8 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, perhaps I may seek your Lordships' indulgence to intervene very briefly in the gap in order to raise a short question to which I do not expect a substantive answer at this stage. The matter arises on the codes of practice referred to in Clause 8(4) of the Bill, page 6, line 14:
"The Commission may not issue a code of practice unless … a draft of it has been submitted to and approved by the Secretary of State and laid by him before both Houses of Parliament".
My short question is whether either House will be able, when a draft code of practice is laid before it, to suggest for consideration by the commission amendments to that draft before it comes into effect under subsection (6). If not, might the Government feel that it was worth considering the inclusion of such a power?
1.10 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, at this stage in the debate we have got to the point where everything has been said but probably not everybody has said it. Virtually all the speakers have spent varying degrees of time trying to get something like this Bill before the House, discussed and passed into law. One or two speeches have perhaps had a hint of triumph around them. Certainly, some people have had an extremely long battle to fight in order to gain their moment of glory. I have been engaged in it for only a few years, and that certainly feels long enough for me. When we were discussing the precursor to this Bill, I think I described it as being rather like a nouvelle cuisine meal in front of a hungry man because it did not have its main course, which was a commission. Indeed I believe I beat the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, to it by comparing it to a car without an engine on Third Reading. It was one of my purple passages on the subject.
The need for the commission is undoubted. But one fact has to be addressed straightaway. It may not have sufficient funding. For reasons already mentioned, people with different degrees of experience of disability groups have spoken about the diverse needs. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, put his finger on it exactly when he said that certain groups are seen to be the major group—the disability group of someone in a wheelchair. The person in a wheelchair has needs and those needs have to be met. However, I have spent I do not know how many hours trying to convince people that not all disabled people have wheelchairs.
Legislation on this whole subject needs to be addressed in incredibly diverse ways to cover a number of different public attitudes. The educational package alone, to make the proposals effective, could swallow up the £11 million provision overnight virtually. I hope that the Government will keep the issue under review. I ask them for some reassurance that they will do so. There is a grave danger that everything will be spread so thin that nothing is achieved. That would be the worst outcome imaginable. Having fought so hard for a commission, we must all guard against it being denied the wherewithal to become effective. If it does not have

1485
sufficient funding we might even have been better off with something with fewer powers but able to concentrate on doing one job: that is a fact.
As to the commission itself, I see that people will be appointed for between two and five years. I wonder why that divergence exists. Is it possible that the commission will have a rolling membership? I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that and perhaps give some idea of the process of appointment. It is worth remembering that the commission is going to make effective something which will become a rod for everybody's back, including any government. The appointment procedure should take that into account. Future governments, as well as the current Government, may well find themselves locked in conflict with the commission. Powers should be built in to allow the commission to work effectively. Unless that is done we are in danger of creating another poodle. As we are discussing the future of our own House and must create something with a degree of independence built into it, I would have thought that we had the expertise available in this House to ensure that similar consideration was given to this Bill.
One of the issues which has recurred throughout our debate has been that of charging for the recovery of costs. There was a certain prickle down the back of my neck when I heard that subject mentioned. I believe that the Equal Opportunities Commission had that power proposed to it and turned it down. Why are we bringing it in again? It is absolutely essential that we have ringfencing around where that funding goes, so that the money is seen to be used in a manner which will further the commission's investigative powers and its powers of prosecution. The commission has to be seen to be using the powers properly. The probity of the body will be equally as, if not more, important than any power it actually wields.
The Minister referred to accessibility on a geographical basis to the commission. I hope that the commission will have a good regional basis. I caught a reference to Scotland and Wales, but I believe it must also be regionally well based. Other commissions operate on that basis. The Equal Opportunities Commission has offices all over the place, so there may well be a case for incorporating the two, at least in the initial phase. Since there is perhaps an argument for bringing all the commissions together to give them more "bite" perhaps there could be some experimentation along those lines. I shall be interested in due course to hear the Government's thinking on that point. It seems to me that civil rights and equal rights causes have a great similarity, at least in approach.
I turn to the subject of disability discrimination exemptions. The fact that a small firm can behave unreasonably whereas a large one cannot is patently absurd. Indeed, when the Disability Discrimination Act came forward, I tried to have that removed from the Bill but I was, unfortunately, unsuccessful. I give the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, my full assurance that if he tries again to have it removed he will have my support and that of the Benches I represent—fuller, one hopes, than they are at present.
1486
The powers of investigation of the Act require clarity. There is a provision regarding the Equal Opportunities Commission which allows someone, when a judgment or submission about discrimination has been made, to stall for time. I hope that the Government will put a fixed time limit upon any referral back of any judgment which has been made.
I should like to draw a halt to my comments here on the grounds that, basically, we are all on the same side so far. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, this is the opportunity for us to stop having a disability discrimination section during debates on every major Bill that goes through your Lordships' House. There is the opportunity here for many of us to develop new parliamentary interests and the Minister will not need to waste so much time dealing with this kind of measure. I hope the Minister can give an assurance that the commission will be allowed to act quickly so that matters are dealt with. We may, in the end, be talking about the most efficient cross-party pressure group in this Chamber. That will be a tribute to its success, power and expertise, and not to its ineffectiveness.
1.19 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I rise your Lordships may be wondering what this has to do with the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. Your Lordships will be relieved to hear: not much, if anything. I suspect that my noble friend the Chief Whip decided that I should come before you and try to speak on something other than the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. Someone has intervened to say that this is an open list!
My noble friend may also have had in mind the fact that I piloted through your Lordships' House the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and listened to some of the same players making the same arguments—and resisted them, I have to say. Some of your Lordships have been very patient and reasonable in forbearing to tease me too much about the events of 1995. But I believe that that Act was a major step forward for disabled people.
From this side of the Chamber we subscribe to the spirit of the Bill before us today, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy indicated. My noble friend has had a long interest in these matters. He has shown us that physical disability does not inhibit one getting pretty close to the top of one's chosen career. My noble friend did extremely well in a number of fields including being Secretary of State for Scotland. I believe that he is an example for people with physical disability that one can achieve a huge amount in one's chosen career.
My noble friend made a reasonable point which I wish to underline on the question of affirmative and negative resolutions for secondary legislation. We shall look forward to seeing what the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee says before we tax the Minister with difficult decisions on affirmative and negative resolutions.
I always enjoyed those debates because they allowed me to share the boards with the noble Lord, Lord Rix—something I never thought that I would do. Again today

1487
I had the pleasure of listening to him. I agreed with much that he said although not all. Philosophically one should avoid adding too many things to the column headed "fundamental human rights". If one is not very careful one begins to diminish the few rights which I believe are fundamental human rights. One has to be cautious. Some of the rights of disabled people can sometimes not be fully achieved because of the disability and the nature of what those people wish to do. I believe that that is well recognised.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, rightly drew to our attention, as did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely, that there is more to disability than physical disability. It is a subject of special interest to the noble Lord, Lord Rix. The right reverend Prelate drew our attention to mental illness, and, learning disability is a particular interest of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I found it interesting when he said—I think I have it right—that when it comes to lowering barriers it is perhaps more important to work on people rather than on ranks. As I said on a number of occasions during the passage of the Disability Discrimination Bill, that is really the most important aspect. One can do a certain amount in the physical world; the important factor is to make people realise the range of disabilities and the potential of disabled people. That is important.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, made an important point: that among the membership of the commission there should be people who are interested in learning disability, and there should not be concentration on physical disability. Sometimes both problems are contained in the same person but often they are not, and people with learning disability can look perfectly normal physically but have real problems which should be dealt with.
We give the Bill a reasonable welcome. My right honourable friend William Hague said in the debate in another place on the Queen's Speech that the commission will ensure that the disability rights legislation is properly enforced and that it leads to a lasting change for disabled people. Your Lordships will realise that when we were both at the Department of Social Security we had some responsibility for these matters. My responsibility merely extended to answering the issues in your Lordships' House.
While we give the Bill general support, it does not mean that we shall not study it in detail in Committee and at Report stage, as a number of noble Lords have said that we should. I am happy to say that most of the detailed work will be done by my noble friends Lady Blatch and Lady Seccombe. I suspect that I shall be involved in the weightier matters of constitutional change. However, I wish to raise a few points. My first point concerns Schedule 1 which sets out the provisions relating to the constitution of the commission. Paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 1 stipulates that,
"after the appointment more than half of the commissioners will be disabled persons or persons who have had a disability".
I have already raised the point, and come to the support of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on defining disabilities. It is right that the commission should have people who have first-hand experience of disability, but it must also contain people who come from the business and service
1488
world on which the disability commission may well impinge. I hope that the Minister will assure us that some members will be drawn from those backgrounds and that the concerns of business and commerce and the service world will always be given a fair hearing. The best way to do that is to make sure that there is some representation on the commission.
My other point on representation on the commission is how the Bill takes into account the changed constitutional position of our country. After next May many of the matters which will affect disabled people, and which may be drawn to the attention of Government by the commission, will be the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. I think more particularly of the Scottish Parliament: it is to have legislative power and to be in many ways a more powerful body than the Welsh Assembly. Perhaps I may frame my questions more on the basis of the Scottish Parliament than the Welsh Assembly although there is a read across to Wales as well.
I believe that I read somewhere that the Government would appoint someone from Scotland and Wales to the Commission. I wish to know the basis on which that will be done. I hope that the Secretary of State for the British Government will not be the person who appoints someone from Scotland. I hope that the appointments will be on the advice of the First Minister (or the Prime Minister) of the Government of Scotland and the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly. He should not be asked just to send a list of three or four persons' names. He should be able to say, "Joe Bloggs is the person I want", and Joe Bloggs ends up on the commission. That is important.
It is important that on matters which are within the remit of the Scottish Parliament the commission will have to report to the Scottish Parliament. Will the Scottish Parliament be able to ask the commission's advice in exactly the same way as the Bill envisages that the Government here will?
Let us say that the commission gives the Scottish Parliament some advice on issues which are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. For whatever reason—perhaps because Scotland is rather hillier and different from England—the Scottish Parliament decides that it cannot go along with the advice, yet the Government here decide that they can go along with the advice for England and possibly Wales. Can I be assured that the Government here will not attempt to override or overrule the decisions made by the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament?
Those are questions which will be asked about every Bill that passes before your Lordships' House from now on. The Government have changed the constitutional arrangements of this country out of all recognition and the consequences are still not being properly considered by Government, as we know from at least one document which was leaked from a Whitehall department.
I move on from questions on composition and the interaction between the commission, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, to another point.

1489
Recently, there was some very negative publicity for the Commission for Racial Equality which highlighted the dangers of setting up a commission such as this one. A recently retired commissioner from the Commission for Racial Equality pointed out that it had chosen to,
"introduce a litigious and aggressive attitude towards race relations rather than a conciliatory one".
I seek an assurance from the Minister that the commission which we are setting up in this Bill will avoid those mistakes; that it will work and co-operate with and persuade people rather than taking them to court.
Apart from settling the composition of the commission, the Bill's true importance lies in its determination of the remit of the commission. The main point of the Bill is to replace the old National Disability Council with this new, more powerful commission. Like the NDC, it will provide advice to the Secretary of State concerning matters of expertise within its field and will be involved with the preparation of codes of conduct. However, the commission will have new powers with regard to investigation and the initiation of litigation and the provision of support for individuals seeking to support rights.
The Bill confers on that new body functions which give it significant scope for judicial action. That puts the new commission on an equal footing with the racial equality and equal opportunities commissions. It is an important step for disabled people. But I am concerned about the balance between the various powers of the commission. Nobody wants to see the commission as merely a legalistic body. I underline the point I made previously: if it is to be effective, it must have an educational, advisory and cajoling role, especially in relation to employers and service providers. On this side of the House, we should prefer to see a commission heavily into education rather than litigation.
The final point I wish to make is on the financial aspect of the matter. A number of your Lordships have already dealt with that. The transition from government side to opposition side allows one to say that the Government are not putting nearly enough money into this. I can almost guess the answer that I shall be given. The money involved here will be £3 million for the start-up year and £11 million for each of the following two years. RADAR has said:
"Given that the CRE has Government funding of almost £15 million, this is a severe disappointment for disabled people and indeed for business who need good quality advice to ensure that they do not fall foul of what is a complex piece of legislation".
I accept that it will be difficult for the Government to judge the budgets which are appropriate for those various bodies. However, comparisons will be made, whether the Government like it or not. The comparison made here—and it has already been made—is that it will be asked whether the Government attach less importance to the rights of disabled people than they do to the issue of racial equality. The Government must watch that they do not fall into traps in relation to funding.
1490
Finally, should we not await the passage of the Bill and decisions about the size of the remit of the commission before financial decisions are finally made?
We have had an interesting debate. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, will arrange for someone to send her words to the Dorchester which will probably not like the publicity it has been given.
There was one matter with which I did not agree and which was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Ashley and Lord Rix, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen, whom I am used to having behind me, if not with me, on these matters; that is, the matter of bringing small employers into the net. As your Lordships know, I batted fairly vigorously on that. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, used a statistic about the number of employers involved. But that is a fairly false statistic because the reality is that the large firms, which are involved, are where the great bulk of people actually work. Therefore, it is not a very accurate reflection just to use the number of small companies—
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend will find that 95 per cent. of people who are employed are not covered even under the revised regulations. It is the people who matter, not the number of firms.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, having debated this previously, my recollection was that the Act covers the great bulk of people in the workplace. But my noble friend has a great interest in these matters and I must certainly check before I use those figures again.
My noble friend said that lots of people had said that there should be a reduction. Your Lordships should be careful before imposing burdens of regulation and cost on small businesses, often businesses revolving around one person with his employees. If your Lordships know anyone who is involved in such a company, it will be possible to confirm by talking to them that they have plenty to do at the moment in obeying the various rules and regulations which already exist without adding yet more to them.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the noble Lord has talked about burdens on industry. Does he not agree that the Act provides that only "reasonable" adaptation needs to be made. The word "reasonable" is a quote from the Act.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I know that. I did not wish to become involved in an argument about this. I just wanted to put down a marker. For many small businessmen, it is extremely difficult to define what is "reasonable". It may involve them seeking advice from a lawyer for which they must pay. That is another problem for them. I urge caution. It is much more important that small businesses should be encouraged in these matters rather than have legislation imposed upon them.
Having said that, I look forward to my noble friends, the two noble Baronesses, dealing with the Committee stage and I wish the Bill well.
1.37 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I very much welcome the full debate that we have had on this important Bill. As I said, the establishment of the commission is an historic decision and it is one which I believe will be welcomed by disabled people and many others right across the country.
We have heard a great deal of interesting history today, notably from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and my noble friends Lord Morris and Lord Ashley of Stoke. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said that there is at least 100 years of campaigning, if we add up the number of years that noble Lords, both inside and outside the House, have worked hard to promote the interests of disabled people.
I recognise also, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, suggested the efficiency of the cross-party group on disability. I know that we shall be hearing more about them during the course of the later stages of the Bill.
We have a responsibility to ensure that we provide the most effective commission possible which will be able to perform all the necessary functions that lead progressively towards the elimination of discrimination. To that end, I welcome the many constructive comments that I have heard. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that we should like to see a commission which is not just a legislative body. We want it to provide advice and information and to educate people about the rights of disabled people. It will have a very important role, working with a whole variety of organisations in pursuit of those aims. Of course, it will also have a key role in providing employers and service providers with such advice. I am sure that raising awareness will be a central part of its work.
I was delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, was speaking for the Opposition on this Bill. As he said, he has considerable experience, having taken the DDA through this House. I am delighted to have his support for a disability rights commission, even though it is just a little belated. I am only sorry that I shall not be seeing him across the Dispatch Box when we reach the later stages of the Bill.
I turn now to some of the comments raised in the course of the debate. A number of noble Lords raised the matter of funding for the commission. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, referred to that matter, although he admitted that when in government those matters look rather different from when one is in opposition. The noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy, Lord Rix and Lord Addington, also referred to funding. We estimate that the commission's running costs budget will be around £11 million per annum. We have also put aside £3 million for setting-up costs. That estimate was arrived at by looking at what functions we expect the commission to carry out and costing them using the best available information that we have. We believe that this estimate is realistic and that it will enable the commission to carry out its functions effectively.
The commission will need to provide an effective advice and information service in the way that I have already set out, and the funding reflects that. I believe I am right in saying that the funding we propose for the
1492
commission compares favourably with that of the existing commissions where the functions are similar. However, because the commission will be a new organisation working in a more complex area, we have allocated it almost double the resources of its sister organisation, the Equal Opportunities Commission. I hope Members of your Lordships' House will welcome that. There is no reason to think that those funds will not be adequate both to undertake its enforcement work and its promotional activities. However, that is something that the Government will want to review.
A number of speakers in this debate—my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke and the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen, Lord Rix and Lord Addington—referred to the issue of recovery of costs. The provision in the Bill allows the disability rights commission to recover the costs associated with assisting an individual when an award for costs is made by a court or tribunal or agreement is reached in respect of costs as part of the settlement. That again mirrors the arrangements in place for other commissions.
I should make it absolutely clear that the Bill does not provide for the commission to recover costs from compensation, settlements reached out of court or in a tribunal in respect of compensation. The question of whether the commission should be able to recover the costs from compensation awards to an individual was raised in the White Paper. It is clearly a sensitive issue and one that gave rise to debate. There are arguments in support of such a provision which have force and we shall need to weigh them carefully against any arguments to the contrary.
The Government have not reached a definitive view on that matter. However, no provision has been made in the Bill to do so. But I hope your Lordships will see the wisdom of not ruling out now for all time the possibility that the commission may be allowed to recover costs from compensation or from settlements reached. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, asked a more specific question in relation to the recovery of costs. It is only when the DRC assists a disabled person with expenses, such as solicitors' or barristers' fees, and the court or tribunal orders the other party to pay those expenses that the DRC will be able to recover them. If a court or tribunal awards to a disabled person expenses with which he had no help from the DRC, the disabled person will retain those expenses.
Many speakers in the debate raised the issue of the appointment of commissioners. A number of different speakers pointed to the importance of ensuring that specific groups of disabled people are not left out in the work of the commission, and perhaps at this point I can assure them that the Government's intention is that all forms of disability should be covered. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, referred particularly to the fact that disability is sometimes seen as physical disability. The right reverend Prelate rightly raised the issue of those who suffer from serious mental illness. It is important that we do not forget such groups and the Government want to be absolutely clear today in saying that they will not be forgotten.

1493
The commission must establish credibility with its key stakeholders from the start if it is to be effective. It must understand the needs of disabled people and those of employers and service providers to be able to do its job effectively. In that regard I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, was saying. The Secretary of State will seek to appoint commissioners so that collectively they have a wide range of experience. As I mentioned earlier, we expect to have a commission of around 10 to 15 strong.
Noble Lords will surely understand that all the commissioners cannot have direct experience of every kind of business or every type of disability—that would be quite unrealistic. Again, as my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said, we cannot and should not aim for all or nearly all of the commissioners to be disabled people; we also need representatives of business and the service world. The provisions in the Bill reflect the Disability Rights Task Force recommendations. The recruitment process will be an open and accessible one and appointments will be based on merit. People who are not disabled will be free to apply and, other than taking account of the requirement to appoint a majority of disabled commissioners—that is the absolute requirement; it can go somewhat higher, as my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke suggested—there will be no barrier to the recruitment of a wide range of people if they are good candidates for the post.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked what would happen if a future Disability Rights Task Force were to come up with different recommendations than those embodied in the Bill before us today. I believe that the task force considered in great detail the role and functions of the disability rights commission. We have already received its advice. The July 1999 recommendations will concern other issues and not the specific question of the role and function of the commission.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, referred to codes of practice. The DRC will issue codes of practice but the Secretary of State must first approve them, place them before Parliament and bring them into force. That is similar to the arrangements that exist for the other equality commissions—they are almost the same as for the EAC.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked about assistance in relation to the health service. Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act provides rights to disabled people in the area of access to goods and services. It covers the health service, and so far as problems faced by disabled people relate to discrimination, the disability rights commission will be able to assist them.
The noble Baroness asked whether hotels are service providers. I can confirm that that is the case and we intend to bring in the rights of access provision relating to the removal of physical barriers somewhat later. It is important in the meantime that service providers, as a matter of good practice, move forward in that kind of area.
1494
The noble Baroness asked also about the whole issue of conciliation. She was concerned about the relationship of the commission to conciliation arrangements. We recognise that the commission should not be directly involved in such arrangements. That is why the Bill provides for the commission to engage another organisation to take on the function of conciliation in the area of access to goods, facilities, services, premises and so forth. To do otherwise might lead parties in conciliation to feel that arrangements were not impartial. Every effort will be made to ensure that confidentiality is maintained for both parties to conciliation. The Government also accept that the value of conciliation is very high. It can mean avoiding what could be long, expensive and distressing experiences for all parties.
The noble Baroness also referred to concerns raised by the CBI with regard to regulation powers and our intentions in respect to Section 6 of the Human Rights Act. That section of the Human Rights Act makes it unlawful for a public body to act in a way that is incompatible with the rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
When we consulted on the White Paper on the disability rights commission, we proposed that the commission should have the ability to assist individuals bringing cases under the Human Rights Act in cases where discrimination on the grounds of disability was an issue. We have included regulation-making powers in the Bill to allow us to do that. We believe that regulations will provide us with flexibility. In particular, we want to consider whether, and to what extent, the commission should be able to support cases brought under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act where they involve issues of discrimination. The relevant provisions of the Human Rights Act are not expected to be brought into force before 2000. That issue involves complex questions of law and practice and we will want to consider the detail carefully in consultation with others before coming to final decisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, made reference to polling booths. I believe he was using that as an example where one does not necessarily need to intervene because there are other provisions. The Government accept that there are perfectly good provisions in existence and unnecessary intervention would be unfortunate. It would be a matter for a DRC to focus its efforts effectively where they are needed. That is why the Government wish to appoint very strong commissioners who are able to do that.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for replying on this matter. I was not expecting a reply. I simply gave that as an example of the kind of thing that the commission will have to tackle. It is bound to be raised, but nobody would regard it as a right when there is the perfectly good alternative of postal voting.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government entirely accept that that is a perfectly good alternative. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord

1495
Campbell of Croy and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I believe they are both aware that we have not yet had a response from the committee as it has not yet had time to consider the matter. Of course, we shall look carefully at any recommendations it makes and we shall want to respond positively to them.
A number of speakers in the debate, including my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke and the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Addington, mentioned the small employers' threshold. The Bill provides for an amendment to the DDA so that the Secretary of State must consult the commission before making any proposals to alter the small employers' threshold—the threshold in terms of the number of employees below which the employer provisions of the DDA do not apply.
As I think noble Lords are aware, after our recent review that limit has been lowered from 20 to 15. It has included an extra 45,000 employers and brings another 70,000 disabled people under the protection of the provisions. I am sure that many noble Lords will welcome that as a step in the right direction, although I accept that some noble Lords who have taken part in the debate would like it to go further.
However, I must correct the figure given by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. It is completely wrong to suggest that 95 per cent. of employees are not covered. On the contrary, around 80 per cent. of employees are now covered as a result of the latest change. The provision in the Bill is concerned with the method of consultation on further changes to the threshold and it is not itself a mechanism to make further alterations to the threshold.
My noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke indicated the complexity of employment issues in some instances for people who have disabilities. The commission should be well placed to give advice on when small businesses—
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I would like to clarify that point if my noble friend will permit me. Is it not the case that the Government can hold a review, can lower the number of firms and can bring in all firms, except those with fewer than two workers, without the need for a commission? That makes this quite unnecessary. The Government can act, and act decisively, to include nearly all firms in the DDA.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government believe it is right to involve the commission in advice on an important matter of this sort. For that reason there is a clause in the Bill to make sure that can happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, asked about the right of appeal for those who are not given help by the commission. The task force considered whether there should be a right of appeal where the commission does not support an individual, and it concluded that instead the commission should write to an individual explaining why it had decided not to support that person, setting out the reasons clearly. Those arrangements apply to the other commissions and seem to work perfectly well.
The noble Lord also asked about access to education, training and transport as a right. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, the task force will
1496
consider and report on the composition of comprehensive rights. We shall be hearing from the task force later and considering the report carefully.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, also asked about the ability of the DRC to charge for any services that it makes available. It is intended that this provision should cover, for example, charging for attendance at a conference or charging for copies of reports that it has published. It will not be able to charge for support in formal investigations. The ability to make charges is consistent with those powers of the EOC and the CRE under the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, who spoke in the gap, asked about the role of both Houses of Parliament on the issue of codes of practice. The commission will ensure that all codes are subject to wide-ranging and comprehensive consultation in draft form. Noble Lords will have a full opportunity to comment at that stage. Once it is laid before the House, it will not be susceptible to amendment unless the process of consultation is started again. I hope that is clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked about regional offices. That is an issue that the disability rights task force considered. It recommended that the DRC's services would need to be available to disabled people and to employers throughout Great Britain. However, it was not convinced that regional offices were the best way to achieve that or that they would offer best value for money. Alternative methods—for example, through regional seminars, workshops and commission staff travelling round the country—will make the DRC accessible and be an efficient way of targeting services where they are most needed.
We agree with the disability rights task force that the commission should consider whether it needs more officers around the country in the light of its experience. It is not something that is ruled out, but I do not think that that should be on the face of the Bill.
The noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, asked about devolution issues. I can assure them that arrangements will be in place to ensure that there will be at least one office in each of both Scotland and Wales. In addition, one commissioner will be appointed with the agreement of Scottish Ministers and one with the agreement of the First Secretary in Wales. The commission's annual reports will be provided to Scottish Ministers and to the First Secretary in Wales. They will submit them to the Scottish Parliament and to the Welsh Assembly respectively. However, the matter of equal opportunities is reserved to the Westminster Parliament. That reflects what has been agreed. That is why we have established a commission which will have a remit to include the whole of Great Britain.
I hope that I have managed to answer almost all of the questions asked. If I have failed, I shall write to those noble Lords whose questions were not answered.
Perhaps I may return to two points raised by my noble friends Lord Ashley of Stoke and Lord Morris of Manchester. My noble friend Lord Ashley said that

1497
deafness can be a greater obstacle to getting a job than is a criminal record. We must try to resolve that and to ensure that that is not the case in the future. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for the appreciation that he has expressed for the introduction of this Bill and, indeed, for his "Hallelujah".
As my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester said—I think that he was quoting—morality cannot be legislated but behaviour can be regulated. I am grateful to my noble friend for what he said about those Members of your Lordships' House who have fought for greater fairness and equality for disabled people, and I join him in saying that the greatest tribute must be given to those many disabled people who have fought for so long for their rights. We support them. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Parole Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 1998
2.2 p.m.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The order before your Lordships will be made under Section 50(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and will extend the powers delegated to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State. Specifically, the board would have authority to take decisions on the grant of parole to determinate sentence prisoners who are serving a sentence of up to, but not including, 15 years. At present, the board has those decision-making powers in respect of determinate sentence prisoners serving up to seven years. The order does not deal with the arrangements for considering the release of discretionary or mandatory life sentence prisoners. There are no plans to change those arrangements.
The order is part of the Government's wider commitment to modernising and improving the performance of the criminal justice system. The Prison Service has a central role in taking forward this programme of change, and in working with other criminal justice agencies to develop more effective ways of protecting the public.
The parole system, introduced in its current form by the Criminal Justice Act 1991, plays an important part in reducing the cycle of offending behaviour and hence reducing the overall level of serious crime. In particular, parole offers a valuable incentive to prisoners convicted of more serious crimes to address the root causes of their offending behaviour while in custody. However, decisions about parole are primarily about risks. I am afraid that we cannot get away from that. For the parole system to operate effectively, and to maintain public confidence, the evaluation of risk must be undertaken very carefully. Above all else, decisions on releasing prisoners on parole must be concerned with the need to protect the public. It is a testimony to the success of this
1498
process that only around 5 per cent. of those released from prison on parole are recalled for reoffending while on licence.
Alongside effective decision-making, the Government are also conscious of the importance of timely decision: both for prisoners themselves and to ensure the most efficient and effective use of prison accommodation. The Prison Service is working together with the Parole Board to reduce delays. A range of improvements to existing procedures are being introduced to make the parole process more efficient; these actions are being supported by independent research and audit projects. The goal is to ensure that all those prisoners regarded as suitable for early release are freed at the earliest possible date.
It is in this context that the Government have reviewed the way in which parole decisions are taken in cases involving determinate sentence prisoners. The Parole Board currently has delegated authority—by means of the Parole Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 1992—to take decisions on the grant of parole to determinate sentence prisoners who are serving sentences of at least four years and less than seven years, and who were sentenced after 1st October 1992. In other cases involving determinate sentence prisoners, the Parole Board currently performs an advisory function, and final decisions are taken by Ministers, or by the Prison Service on behalf of Ministers. Last year, the board's recommendations for release were agreed in all but two out of 520 cases. This clearly underlines the quality and consistency of the board's decision-making and raises questions about the need for the board's recommendations to be subject to review before a final decision is made.
The Government, therefore, take the view that the Parole Board's delegated authority should be extended. We published our proposals in a consultation paper entitled, Improving Parole Decision-Making, on 6th October. At the end of the consultation period on 4th November we had received 38 responses to the paper: 33 supported the paper in their entirety; five others offered differing degrees of support. The proposals also have the full support of the Parole Board's chairman and chief executive.
The proposals outlined in the consultation paper are those which are now set down in the order that we are debating today. The central proposal is to extend the Parole Board's decision-making powers to cover prisoners sentenced to determinate sentences of up to, but not including, 15 years. I should stress that there is no magic claim for moving the cut-off point from seven years to 15 years. Certainly, there is no direct correlation between the length of the sentence and the complexity of the parole decision. Wherever the line is drawn, the board is likely to be faced with a small number of complex or contentious cases.
We have aimed to strike a balance between removing the existing inefficiencies in the system and ensuring that the release of offenders responsible for committing the most serious offences would be subject to ministerial veto. Prisoners serving longer sentences are likely to include those considered a significant danger to the

1499
public at the time they were sentenced. There is clearly a "public interest" argument in allowing decisions in these cases to involve an element of review, including the possibility of referral to Ministers in particularly contentious cases. Most importantly, the vast majority of the correspondents to our consultation exercise on this issue agreed that 15 years was an appropriate threshold. The order, therefore, sets out proposals for extending the scope of the Parole Board's delegated authority to encompass determinate sentence cases involving sentences—I say again—of up to, but not including, 15 years. This will include those sentenced before 1992 who are not covered by the present delegation.
The draft order also reflects the need for transitional arrangements for cases where the Parole Board makes a recommendation prior to being granted its new powers, but the Secretary of State has not acted upon it. We propose to limit the Parole Board's new powers to take final decisions on those cases which are considered by the Parole Board after the new order comes into force. Cases where the Parole Board has made a recommendation prior to the order coming into force, but where no final decision has been reached, will be dealt with under the current procedures. Increasing the scope of the board's delegated authority to take decisions in this area would be a positive recognition of the quality of the Parole Board's assessments in these cases. It would also allow decisions to be made more quickly. I commend the draft order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th November be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Hoyle.)
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the order has been presented by Ministers as a sort of adjustment of functions; in other words, a kind of streamlining within the Home Office. I rather suspected that the over-used word "modernisation" would creep into the noble Lord's speech and, indeed, I was not disappointed. I am sure that that will help his standing with the spin-doctors.
However, I believe that the order is more significant than just being a matter of streamlining in two respects: first, as regards its origins; and, secondly, its effects. The root of the proposals lies in the Treasury. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State confirmed that to the Standing Committee in another place when it considered the order on 8th December. He said that the proposal was part of the comprehensive spending review, that it arose from considerations of efficiency and cash saving and that it saves between £70,000 and £75,000. The Treasury is ever watchful of candle-ends. Of course, we have no indication of where this money will go.
However, this proposal does not seem to have arisen originally from a decision of penal policy, or from some consideration of the proper borderline between the respective roles of Ministers and of the judiciary and its colleagues on the Parole Board. That is important in that it throws some light on the Government's thinking in respect of the borderline, which, as your Lordships know, is a matter of controversy between the Government and others, including the Lord Chief
1500
Justice, as regards other aspects of the release of prisoners. We on these Benches are on the side of the Government, although it might perhaps be more accurate to say that we are pleased that the Government continue to follow the policy which was introduced in our day.
I am, therefore, glad to point out that the Treasury origins of this order show that the Government's view remains, as the noble Lord the Lord in Waiting said, that the Home Secretary, answerable to Parliament, should decide the release date of prisoners guilty of the most serious offences, including those serving life sentences, whether mandatory or discretionary.
That brings me to the important effects of this order. As the noble Lord said, it means that prisoners serving between seven years and 15 years will have their release dates fixed by the Parole Board directly, and not by the Home Secretary with its advice. That takes out of the direct responsibility of Ministers answerable to Parliament decisions on the release of prisoners who have committed perhaps not the most serious offences, but, nevertheless, serious enough to have warranted long prison sentences. We are talking mainly about the judgment of the risk of releasing these prisoners rather than the term "appropriate form of punishment for the offence concerned" or of "deterrence".
But the risk of releasing these prisoners is a most sensitive matter as far as the public are concerned. The Minister told us a few moments ago that some 520 prisoners serving between seven and 15 years are released under the terms of this type of legislation. He also said that about 5 per cent. of paroled prisoners are subsequently recalled from licence because of other offences. That seems to me to mean that some 26 offences, broadly speaking—these are obviously not precise figures—are likely to be committed by those released under this legislation. By definition, they are people already known to be capable of committing serious offences. That is some indication of the risk involved.
There appears to be no particular reason for choosing 15 years—"no magic" I think was the phrase used by the Minister. The Criminal Bar Association has close knowledge of these matters and, I understand, suggested 10 years. All that the Minister in another place said was that the Government thought 15 years was about right bearing in mind the need for efficiency. The Minister said much the same just now. That is not very reassuring to those who had hoped that this was a carefully judged matter based on the consideration of the seriousness of the offences involved. So far we have been told nothing, in either House, about, for example, the numbers of armed robbers or serious sexual offenders who are likely to be involved in this modified system. It would be helpful to know the numbers—if not today then in due course—as it is a measure of the risk involved.
To those concerned about the early release of serious offenders, the main reassurance is that we are told that the Government will keep an eye on the situation. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to repeat that reassurance given by his colleague in another place and tell us that the Government will, if necessary, revise the figure of 15 years downwards.

1501
This efficiency measure may involve a greater risk to the public. It will certainly reduce the answerability to Parliament for these decisions. It certainly should be kept under close review. If it appears that the protection of the public has been reduced, then the £75,000 will not have been wisely saved.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, it is not particularly Treasury led, as the noble Lord said. We believe that this is a way of increasing efficiency and reducing delay and, at the same time, not increasing the risk to the public.
The noble Lord asked me what would happen to the £70,000 to £75,000 which is estimated will be saved. We intend that it will go towards the much broader responsibility of the Prison Service for developing constructive regimes. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree with me that that is a good way for the money to be spent.
The noble Lord asked why 15 years; why not 10 or any other number. Most of the responses that we had from many people who are closely involved in this matter were in total agreement with the paper and that the figure should be 15 years. If it is less than 15 years there would still have to be a careful assessment of the risks to be taken. In only two cases in 1997–98 was there a disagreement where the Minister did not accept the Parole Board's decision. We believe that 15 years is the right length of time. Whatever the length of time, very careful consideration would have to be given to all the cases that came before the board. We believe that this is the right way forward.
I give the noble Lord an assurance that the matter will be kept under constant review. Having seen what the Parole Board has done in the past and what it has done in relation to its previous powers and in relation to the cut-off at seven years, we can all agree that we owe the Parole Board a debt of gratitude and that it is the right authority for considering these cases in the future. I am sure that it will consider public safety as a priority in arriving at what are very difficult decisions. With those few words, I hope the House will agree the order.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may raise a point with him. He promised to keep this matter under review. Can he be more specific? Would it be possible at the end of one year to show whether this has been working successfully? On this side of the House we support the measure and it has had general support in the consultative process. We should like to see at the end of one year the outcome of these applications.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I shall pass on his suggestion to my right honourable friend that it should be considered after one year. I repeat to him the assurance, which I have already given, that there will be a constant review. It may well be possible to do just what the noble Lord suggested.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Baglan Energy Park Project
2.21 p.m.
Lord Howe of Aberavon Lord Howe of Aberavon rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals they have to secure the future of the Baglan Energy Park project in Neath-Port Talbot.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in asking Her Majesty's Government what proposals they have to secure the future of the Baglan Energy project in Neath-Port Talbot, my principal purpose is to impress upon the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and indeed his colleagues the urgency of the case for enabling that project to go ahead as soon as possible and without further delay.
The problem and the related proposal for an energy park both arise from the relocation over some years of BP activities from south-west Wales to sites closer to the North Sea oil and gas fields. They started, as far as concerns Baglan, in 1994, with the closure of the ethylene cracker there. The most recent announcement, about a month ago, foreshadowed the disappearance over some time of half the remaining 300 jobs at Baglan.
Ironically, that announcement was accompanied by the further announcement of new investment by BP in Hull and Grangemouth, creating on that side of the country more than 3,000 jobs and supported by the granting of two consents under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1939, precisely the consent required for the Baglan Energy Park. The answer in the form of the energy park, about which I shall say a word in a moment, is put forward not just by BP but with the full support of all the local authorities in the region and of the Welsh Development Agency. It is a project for which Section 36 approval has so far been withheld because of the moratorium imposed under the energy policy, announced initially by the Government last December and confirmed in October this year in the White Paper, Cmd. 6041.
I wish to say just a few words about the position of BP and my own position. BP's position in relation to the project at Baglan is overwhelmingly driven by a wish on its part to mitigate benignly the consequences of its eventual departure and is much to be supported for that reason. I mention myself merely to say that I currently have a consultancy relationship with BP in relation to quite different matters outside this country altogether.
The energy park is a unique and imaginative venture. It seeks to make good use of the large site, up to 1,500 acres, which will become available on the departure of BP, alongside the M.4 between Neath and Port Talbot, with a convenient exit nearby. The project is capable of creating some 6,000 jobs if it is granted the availability of new on-site power generation. The proposal relates to combined cycle gas turbine plant which would offer competitive energy to investors. That would be the unique selling point of the location. In an ideal place, electricity would be available at up to 30 per cent. below the cost of its availability elsewhere because of the presence of the generator on site. At last there would be a chance so far as concerns south-west Wales of offsetting the disadvantage there as compared with sites

1503
further east. The volume of direct inward investment coming to south-west Wales per head of the population has been only one-tenth of the volume coming to south-east Wales.
The idea for the energy park has been developed from 1994 onwards by the Neath-Port Talbot county borough council. It is the borough in which I was born and of which I and the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General are both freemen. The idea was brought forward by that council in partnership with the Welsh Development Agency and BP and possible prospective independent power producers. It was launched formally in 1996 and the first of the two consents necessary—that under Section 14 of the Energy Act 1976—was granted as long ago as October 1997. It is the second licence under Section 36 of the Electricity Act applied for in 1996 which is still awaited and which has been held in abeyance since the moratorium was announced in December last year. A year later this project, which is so important for employment, is still waiting, and in the current 12 months some 2,800 job losses have been announced in the borough, to add to a total of some 20,000 over the past 20 years.
The most important underlying long-term cause for the decline in employment is undoubtedly the decline of the coal industry. Thirty years ago, when the cousin of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, the late Tom Hooson, and I wrote a booklet about the Welsh economy, some 10 million tonnes of coal a year were being exported from Swansea and Port Talbot; 109,000 people were employed in the coal industry in Wales; and seven pits were working in the Afan Valley and the Aberavon constituency. Now, for Wales, in effect the age of coal is all over. That is why the proposers of the energy park so desperately need that project to replace the pits. It has been advanced with the firmest possible support of the City of Swansea; the South-West Wales Economic Forum; the West Wales Training and Enterprise Council; the West and South-West Wales Chambers of Commerce; the Welsh Local Government Association; and the Welsh Development Agency, which has already committed in principle almost £5 million to the development project and has secured positive expressions of interest from 14 investors capable of creating some 1,600 jobs.
So I come to consider the only obstacle to the progress of this enormously worthwhile project. I refer to the evolution and apparent application of the Government's energy policy as confirmed in the White Paper published just over a month ago. I emphasise that it is no part of my purpose today to overthrow that policy. It would be futile to try to do so. I understand why it was brought forward. I wish merely to dispel its serious negative impact on this very positive project. The trigger for the revised energy policy was the impact of the dash-for-gas and its impact on the coal industry in places where it still survived.
The very same factor as that which inspired the project was the inspiration of the policy. The task is to achieve a sensible reconciliation of those two. It would be ironic, indeed tragic, if one should impede the other.
1504
So I invite your Lordships to consider for a moment some of the details of the White Paper CM/4071 which, in my judgment, show no reason why the policies should be in competition with each other. First, in paragraph 10.05 of the White Paper, the director of energy supply, Professor Littlechild, said that if the policy then in prospect was adopted—about which he was less than enthusiastic—it would be helpful if it could be operated in a flexible fashion and reviewed and relaxed at the earliest possible opportunity.
To that, the Government responded in paragraph 10.19 of the White Paper that their policy consisted of a general presumption that new gas-fired stations will normally be inconsistent with the policy objective. I emphasise the two words "general" and "normally" because they set out a presumption which is, by definition, a rebuttable presumption. If one turns to what is said elsewhere, the Government say:
"The policy will be short-term, temporary and aimed specifically at protecting diversity and security of supply".
More important than that, they say that, particularly where one of the two necessary consents has already been granted, in paragraphs 10.26, 10.30 and 10.31:
"The Government commits itself to taking account of all the circumstances of a particular case, taking care to weigh the impact of the interests of the promoter against the wider public interest and diversity and security of supply".
They emphasise that even more strongly in the case of any project which is a combined heat and power project.
It follows from all that that any attempt to confine approval within the precise wording of the White Paper, whether wording of principle or of the exception, would be not only unnecessary but actually misconceived. The Government are committed and, indeed, obliged—as one would expect—in law and in fact to consider any application on the basis of all the circumstances of that case. The legitimacy of that approach has been confirmed by experience, first, in Wales, at Shotton—admittedly in relation to a combined heat and power project—where a consent has been granted. Also, in reference to cases on the part of BP, at Grangemouth and at Saltend in Hull Section 36 permits have been granted. It is notable that in those places the permits have been granted where employment opportunities are expanding dramatically as a result of BP's transplantation. It would be most unfortunate if permits were denied in South Wales where exactly the opposite is happening.
I come to three closing points, the last being the most important. First, what effect will an approval here have on security and diversity of supply? The director of operations of Swalec confirms that South Wales itself suffers from a serious deficiency in generating capacity, with the coal-fired station at Aberthaw being the only operational station. So in his judgment, the addition of the Baglan Bay project would positively contribute to the Government's objective in that respect.
Secondly, environmentally there were some objections from local interests. That is understandable because I know as well as anyone that Port Talbot is not notorious for the universal permanent cleanliness of its atmosphere. The most important feature is that 1,100 megawatt CCGT, even on that scale, would represent a

1505
substantial environmental benefit because it would have lower emissions to air than the existing BP generator which burns heavy fuel oil, (HFO) and gas.
I now come to my final point. BP's application is in two alternative forms. The application remains on the table, open for approval in more than one of those forms. The original application was for an 1100 megawatt station. That is to remain on the table. The alternative application put forward quite clearly is for a two-stage or three-stage approach to the matter. The two stages of the first part of it would be, first, a 270 megawatts combined heat and power scheme. Secondly, if no investors with heat load equivalent to BP came forward, it would comprise the fitting of a steam turbine to make a single module of 400 megawatts GCGT. Both those two things together form part of that alternative. However, BP stresses that that is viable only if consent to both those two parts is forthcoming together. At a later stage BP would be happy to seek consent for the full 1100 megawatt project.
I received from the Secretary of State this morning a letter dated 14th December which states that BP had notified his officials that it would not proceed with any application for a smaller station. I want to say as emphatically as I can that that is neither my understanding nor the understanding of the Chief Executive of the Port Talbot and Neath Borough Council, to whom I spoke this morning, because we are each in possession of a letter from BP dated 16th December which states,
"Please be assured that BP has not withdrawn its application to build a power station at Baglan Bay. We remain, as ever, fully committed to the regeneration of employment through the energy park and to the provision of competitive energy. We believe that we are flexible in evaluating any options which meet the current stricter consents policy … We have looked hard to identify alternatives which meet the above criteria and thus far have been unsuccessful … A balanced CHP scheme would meet the existing consents policy".
And that has not yet been arrived at.
There is clearly confusion somewhere here about the nature, scope and impact of the existing consents policy, because CHP is not an essential feature for approval under the existing policy. It is one of the alternatives identified. The existing policy is for each proposal to be considered on its own, with all the circumstances being taken into account. That existing policy on that basis not only permits, but also requires, full consideration of all the factors adding to the merits of the case. It requires Ministers to address the right question. That question is not: does this case fit the minutiae of existing policy formulae already published? The right question surely—and above all in these circumstances—is: how can we be sure that a policy or formula originally propounded to help people or places threatened or affected by the decline of the coal industry does not work gravely to the disadvantage of one of those areas, and thousands of people, who are already most gravely affected by the decline of that industry?
The BP letter states—this is the optimistic point—that it has not found the right answer "thus far". However, BP, the borough council, the Welsh Development Agency, and all those who support them, are eager to find the right answer. So, too, are the two local
1506
Members of Parliament in whose constituencies this project arises. Happily both of them are Members of the Government. Peter Hain at the Welsh Office is the Member for Neath and my old and learned friend, the well respected lawyer, the Attorney-General, John Morris, is the Member of Parliament for Aberavon. Moreover, he is a former Secretary of State for Wales. He is a lawyer for whom I have great respect because he is the kind of lawyer of whom most laymen would most approve. He is not someone who tells you why you cannot do what makes total sense; he is someone who helps you to work out the best way to achieve an objective, if it is possible to achieve it. According to the newspapers he is due to meet the Secretary of State on the 21st of this month, three days before Christmas. I hope that nothing that the Minister will say this afternoon—I am sure I can be confident about that—will do anything to impede a lawyer of that talent and of that interest, working together with a Secretary of State of such well advertised talent, to find the right answer to this question.
The cry of the Prime Minister at his previous attendance at the European Council was, "jobs, jobs, jobs". This application is about jobs, jobs, jobs in an area that desperately needs them. The Ministers have it in their power to arrive at the right answer.
2.39 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I congratulate my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon on asking this important Question on behalf of the community in which he was born and brought up. First I must declare an interest. I am a director of Associated British Ports Holdings plc, the owner of the port at Swansea, Port Talbot dock and the Port Talbot tidal harbour, and a strong supporter of the Baglan Energy Park project.
I have interests, but not of a commercial kind, that go back much further. When I became Secretary of State for Wales in 1979 I found Welsh industry in a parlous condition. Much of it was overmanned and uncompetitive. The British Steel Corporation was forced to reduce huge overmanning at the Llanwern and Port Talbot strip mills and to close its tinplate works in South Wales. Further west at Llanelli the steel works and car component manufacturers closed down. Coalmines closed with a rapidity which exceeded even the most pessimistic forecasts. The impact on suppliers, the ports and other trades has been severe. The development of the North Sea oil fields dashed hopes that the oil terminals at Milford Haven would provide a long-term foundation for industrial development in south-west Wales. In due course it meant that long-established oil and chemical operations would move to the east coast.
In the years that followed the Welsh Office, government agencies, local government and the private sector have been remarkably successful in attracting inward investment to Wales and re-establishing a diversified industrialised economy, but it has been much easier to do it in the north east and south east corners of Wales. Further to the west it becomes more difficult.

1507
There is almost an invisible barrier somewhere to the west of Bridgend. That was a fact of which I was acutely conscious as the Member of Parliament for Pembroke.
Much has been done even in the Swansea and West Wales region. Port Talbot is now one of the two most modern strip mills in the world and BSC is one of the most efficient steel companies in the world. That is a remarkable and encouraging step forward. The Swansea valley is no longer one of the most polluted spots on earth but home to many modern industries and commercial organisations. Inward investment has been attracted to sites around Baglan. I am glad to say that ABP has been able to re-open the long-closed Port Talbot dock. The tidal harbour can now take the largest coal and ore carriers needed to service the steel works and has the capacity to handle traffic for other projects that require that kind of facility.
However, as my noble and learned friend has informed the House, much more needs to be done particularly at a time when we are confronted with another severe spate of job losses. I have no doubt at all that it will be a high priority of the Welsh Development Agency and the new Welsh Assembly to move industrial investment west to Port Talbot and beyond as far as they have the ability to influence the decisions of industrialists.
Against that background, government policy appears to be perverse and inflexible. A central object of the Government's energy policy is to assist the coal industry and to save jobs. If we are to have such a policy it makes sense only if it avoids the creation of job losses elsewhere. It needs to be flexible enough to reinforce job-creating projects and not undermine or destroy them.
The press release of Neath-Port Talbot County Borough Council issued on 26th November makes disturbing reading. It tells us that,
"A delegation from South Wales led by Noel Crowley, Leader of Neath-Port Talbot Council, walked out of a meeting with Department of Trade and Industry officials … in a row over the future of the Baglan Energy Park".
The press release goes on to say that, according to Mr. Crowley, it became clear just after one hour that all the officials were interested in was whether the precise words of their energy document fitted the scheme. He said that they were not concerned with job losses, extra jobs or the fact that the whole of south-west Wales was behind the project, despite what my noble and learned friend said with such authority about the assurances given in the White Paper, their legal implications, and the wording of the energy policy.
This is an imaginative project. Instead of blocking this BP-led initiative the Government should be seeking energetically to reinforce the company's efforts. This is a remarkable, almost unique, site of 1,500 acres, of which 750 are readily capable of development with magnificent road and rail communications, good port facilities, cheap energy and steel.
When Secretary of State I was confronted with the decision of the Nissan company to establish a major car manufacturing plant in this country. I discovered that there was no large industrial site readily available anywhere in Wales. During the planning procedures of
1508
the previous decade no one had apparently considered that such a site might ever again be needed. We learnt then, as we have learnt subsequently, the value of having such sites available.
This is a magnificent site. It is magnificently located and with the advantage of the cheaper energy and steam it surely will be able to attract significant new projects. Indeed, there are encouraging prospects from the inquiries which have already been made if—it is an important "if"—the project is allowed to proceed. I believe that if there is the political will, it can proceed. We ask the House this afternoon to assure us that they will create that political will and the desperately needed jobs in that part of South Wales.
2.46 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, for alerting me to the problem and for the way in which he couched the Question. It is interesting to note the terms of the Question which no doubt the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will bear very much in mind. The Question asks what proposals Her Majesty's Government have to secure the future of the Baglan Energy Park project in the present situation. I suppose that I have an interest to declare. I am chairman of the Severn River Crossing Company which is responsible for both bridges across the Severn. It is arguable that if there were an increase or decrease in bridge traffic it is an interest that I should declare and I so do.
Two things seem obvious about developments in industry in Wales. I regret as much as anyone the decline in industrial production and in the industrial health of this country in general, and in Wales in particular. Of two criteria for success, the first is close proximity to good communications. The Baglan Energy Park is on an all-important junction of the M.4. It is virtually at the end of the M.4 corridor. It is at the wrong end from the point of view of prosperity, and that is the great problem. Nevertheless, it is a well-placed site. The second is that any development must be close to a cheap and reliable source of energy. With the decision announced some time ago by BP to close its oil-fired electricity generating plant, and with the Government putting consideration of the future application and use of the park on ice, this area has suffered what can be called a double whammy.
The real issue seems to be this. However anxious the Government are to help what remains of the coal industry, which one can perfectly understand, can they afford in the discharge of their duty to Wales, and in particular to this vulnerable part of south-west Wales, to allow the moratorium to override the desperate need of the area for this development? There is not the slightest doubt of the desperate need. This is not a party political issue of any kind. I think that Members of all parties are very anxious about it.
It really depends upon the Government's appreciation, it seems to me, of two factors: first, the local factors, the likely short-term and long-term effect of frustrating the development by delay. What does that entail for the short-term and the long-term future of the

1509
area? I would have thought that for the long-term it would be very serious indeed and for the short-term the cause of alarm and despondency to a high degree.
The second consideration is to appreciate the depth and seriousness of the present economic problems facing this country generally and indeed the global economy. Private investors do not hang about if there are rejections or delays. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon and the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, both adverted to this point. Of course developments go elsewhere. People have been lined up by BP to assist with the development of an energy park and they are not going to hang on if the matter is delayed indefinitely.
There is really no alternative here either on environmental or economic grounds. I have had representations made to me of how desirable it would be to have a green development of the park. However much we would like to see a green development—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, who has much greater knowledge of the area than I have, referred to environmental problems throughout the area—a coal-fired generating station is not a feasible project here, on environmental grounds if nothing else. And of course on economic grounds there is no available alternative.
I have no doubt really that everything points to the urgent need to approve the development. South Wales generally, and the south west of Wales in particular, need regular, guaranteed and cheap electricity supplies. We will not attract inward investment without that kind of provision being made. It seems to me, from everything I have read, that this development would provide an additional secure source of production. I understand that Mr. Mandelson is to deal with this matter. Should he really allow this moratorium at the present juncture? I happen to believe that the economic crisis facing this country—and it is also a global one—is much more serious than most people have acknowledged so far. If we miss this opportunity, months and weeks are very important now. It is not a matter of years. There is an urgent necessity to approve the development unless we are prepared to see the prospect of 6,000 jobs disappear in a part of Wales which simply cannot afford that.
Mr. Mandelson appears to me—although I have no recollection of ever meeting him—to be introducing a much more flexible approach in his department, which I entirely commend. I hope he will listen carefully to the views of Mr. John Morris MP and Mr. Hain, both of whom are very much involved in this matter. All parties in Wales regard it as of vital importance for the future prosperity of the Principality. I warmly support all the efforts made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe. We look forward with interest to hearing the Minister today deal with the actual question: how are Her Majesty's Government going to deal with this problem?
2.55 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, first, I apologise for the poor quality of my voice due to the onset of one of those colds which has laid low so many Members of your Lordships' House over the past few weeks.
I begin by adding my congratulations to those already given to my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon on initiating this debate on a subject of great interest and relevance to the area associated with my noble and learned friend's title.
Baglan is at the heart of the new county of Neath-Port Talbot which is giving its full support to the energy park proposal along with all the other major players in that heavily industrialised area—BP Chemicals, Swalec, the electricity distributor, British Steel, the Welsh Development Agency and a host of other bodies reeled off by my noble and learned friend.
But the fact that the project has attracted the support of my noble and learned friend carries considerable weight. I am sure that the Government will pay due regard to the powerful and detailed case which my noble and learned friend advanced for this project. He has been ably supported in that by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson.
My approach to the project was via the combined heat and power station to be sited close to the Shotton Paper Mill in the Deeside Industrial Park in North Wales. That application, too, was caught for a time by the moratorium resulting from the Government's review and restatement of energy policy in the White Paper of October 1998. I was among one of those who made representations that the scheme should be allowed to go ahead. I am glad to say that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has now given his consent for that excellent scheme.
Although the Shotton scheme was intrinsically sound and fully integrated, there were planning objections of an environmental nature. Those were the main cause of the hold-up, together with the fact that the Government had to consider the scheme in the context of their new statement of policy. Some 51 planning conditions were agreed between the company and the planning authority. They are now attached to the planning permission deemed to be granted.
The difficulties facing the Baglan energy scheme appear to be of a very different order. First, there is the difficulty that BP Chemicals cannot guarantee that it will be available to provide steam to the site indefinitely. As I understand it, there is a planned run-down of the BP chemical plant. Therefore, the long-term feasibility of the first stage proposal for a 270 megawatt combined heat and power plant has been called into question.
Such a proposal, were it feasible, may well accord with the Government's energy policy and may receive the go-ahead, as Shotton has done. But as I understand it, no alternative supplier of steam to BP Chemicals has yet been identified and so the entire scheme is stymied, if I may use that golfing expression, with the Government's energy policy constraints lying between the scheme and its realisation, hence the importance of the smaller starter scheme.

1511
But it has already been pointed out in the debate that the concerns which underlie the Government's energy policy, well understood as they are, derive themselves from other factors. But there are other equally valid concerns such as the promotion of industrial and manufacturing development and the consequential preservation and creation of jobs. Those considerations are of tremendous importance, particularly to us in South Wales. It is such concerns that originally inspired the Baglan Energy Park scheme, as my noble and learned friend said in his opening speech, with the power plant as its centrepiece. The original proposal was for a 1100 megawatt plant that would provide energy on a highly competitive basis, thereby attracting new users to the site and helping to stabilise the current fragile supply situation in South Wales. The new plant was to replace the existing BP Chemicals generation plant and deliver
substantial environmental benefits by reducing emissions to the atmosphere.
That is clearly an important consideration to local people who, according to Monday's Western Mail petitioned against the 1100 megawatt plant on the grounds that Port Talbot already has,
"one of the worst records of air quality in the country".
I am inclined to agree with my noble and learned friend who commented on this; I do not believe that the petitioners fully appreciated the improvements in emissions that the 1,100 megawatt scheme was intended to bring.
The raison d'etre of such a scheme is probably stronger now than ever and arguably transcends the reasoning behind the Government's restrictive energy policy in the particular circumstances of the Neath-Port Talbot area. Those of us familiar with the area know of its high dependence on heavy industry; we have heard a great deal about coal and there is a heavy dependence on steel. There has been an abiding desire to attract alternative businesses to the area. It is estimated that some 2,800 manufacturing jobs, many at British Steel and BP, have recently been lost. The need to replace them is becoming acute and likely to become more so as time passes.
Unemployment in the area is above the Welsh average and clearly causing concern. The role of the Baglan Energy Park in creating eventually some 6,000 jobs has been well thought through and accords with the thinking of the Welsh Affairs Committee which published its report in November of this year under the title Investment in Industry in Wales. It said,
"A necessary aspect of infrastructure is the guaranteed availability of power. CBI Wales witnesses complained to us of the consequences for industry of continued uncertainty over gas exploitation and the development of power stations".
The committee concluded:
"A properly planned energy policy, though largely outside the remit of the Welsh Office, is vital to the economic development of Wales".
I wholeheartedly endorse that conclusion and trust that the Welsh Office will take a fresh and vigorous interest in the formulation of such a policy. I am bound to say that it will come as news to many people in Wales that the Welsh Office is not as deeply involved in the formulation of energy policy as it should be.
1512
The Baglan Energy Park, with its sound aims and objectives, must have a pivotal role in such a policy, especially at this time when a substantial part of Wales is likely to achieve Objective 1 status and attract European investment. Neath-Port Talbot is within the West Wales and Valleys Region which meets the GDP criterion for Objective 1 status; in short, the region's GDP is below 75 per cent. of the European Union average. In the prospect of Objective 1 status, I see a powerful additional reason for the scheme to be given consent. It will act as a magnet for new industrial and business development and help draw such developments westwards beyond Bridgend and nearer to Neath and Swansea. It would be a crying shame if projects under the Objective 1 scheme could not be developed for lack of power in the area.
As pointed out to us by the West Wales Chamber of Commerce, it should be noted that in contrast to south-east Wales, inward investment to south-west Wales has been sparse. Between 1985 and 1996 the region, which contains 25 per cent. of the population of Wales, attracted only 10.5 per cent. of the inward capital investment per head. The need is great.
I have no wish to prolong the debate. but I believe that the case for promoting the Baglan Energy Park and its power station centrepiece is overwhelming, bearing in mind the location on the coastal plain at the lower end of the valleys in what is very likely to be an Objective 1 area. As has been pointed out, alternatives to gas-fired combined cycled gas and turbine plant have, I am assured, been evaluated and found to be inadequate to meet the needs of this unique situation. Therefore, I urge the Government to act as soon as possible and grant the necessary consents.
3.6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in welcoming the Unstarred Question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, I have no hesitation in saying that he has secured unanimity in debate. Every single speaker is in favour of the Baglan Energy Park and seems to think that the Government are against it. In responding, I hope that I am able to convince your Lordships that we are in favour of the park going ahead as quickly as possible and in favour of removing whatever obstacles exist to its successful development.
It is an important element in the Government's regeneration strategy for the whole of the south-west Wales economy whether or not it involves an energy park element. Creating and safeguarding jobs in this area of Wales is seen as one of the Welsh Office's main priorities. If the business park is to be an energy park, the development must be consistent with the Government's energy policy. I need to set out our views as clearly as I can and the action that we are taking on the business park itself.
Wales as a whole has been relatively successful in securing inward investment and encouraging the growth of its indigenous industries. But the south-west area of the country has had particular problems, to which the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Roberts of

1513
Conwy, referred. That is mainly due to global market conditions in the oil, chemical and steel industries. Another factor is the chemical and oil industries' preference for siting plants nearer to North Sea developments. There have been particular problems in the west Wales area, referred to eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who knows it so well. The Government have pressed the Welsh Development Agency and other economic support agencies to focus on the area as a priority for economic development. That is clearly set out in the Government's document Pathway to Prosperity—A New Economic Agenda for Wales.
As for the business park development, everything possible is being done to support the development partners: BP Chemicals, Neath and Port Talbot Borough Council and the Welsh Development Agency. I hasten to agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, and his description of the benign motives behind BP's involvement in that project. It has been truly admirable. It is concerned about the social obligations that it feels it has as a result of the necessity to wind down some of its activities.
I agree also with noble Lords' description of the wider support for the plant in South Wales. Everything said on that was right. The only exception, which he recognised, is the opposition of some environmental groups—notably, Friends of the Earth—and the Baglan Park Pressure Group which has achieved a petition containing 10,000 names, plus 500 letters, and which has written to me on this subject. Their views deserve consideration.
The Welsh Development Agency has already committed significant sums of money on site access and infrastructure works and allocated around £4 million for phase 1A of the development. The following phase (phase 2) involves public expenditure of nearly £9 million, some of which will be European funding.
Baglan has many advantages, to which noble Lords have properly referred. One such advantage is its location. It has first-class road, rail and sea links. The M.4 is close by, as is Talbot Parkway station. The local workforce is skilled, hardworking and flexible. The area has powerful and well established economic development agencies which are available to help firms wanting to settle there. There have been firm inquiries from firms of varying sizes which could provide employment for over 1,500 people, and there have been many more expressions of initial interest.
As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, recognised, the area is likely to be designated as an Objective 1 region for European structural funds. If that happens—it looks highly likely, given the figures—development status will follow, and plant and machinery grants will be available wherever the safeguarding or expansion of employment is possible. Regional selective assistance would also be available.
It is clearly an important additional selling point for the business park if on-site, low-cost energy supplies are available. As I said, that is important, but it is by no means essential. We are talking about a difference of
1514
30 per cent. in energy costs. However, for many of the businesses that are likely to enter the park, energy costs represent a small portion of their total costs and therefore of the considerations which influence them when deciding where to locate. As has been said, the business park has many other advantages. As electricity prices are falling in any case, the energy component may now be less strong as an influencing factor. Nevertheless, the Government intend to address questions relating to the energy aspect of Baglan Park sympathetically within the framework of our energy policy. That policy was arrived at after extensive consultation and is set out in our White Paper of October this year, which is snappily entitled, Conclusions of the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation and Government Response to the Fourth and Fifth Reports of the Trade and Industry Committee. I said that without taking a breath!
The White Paper considered in detail the issues facing the electricity market, especially in England and Wales. It emphasised that our energy policy should be to achieve secure, diverse and sustainable supplies of energy at competitive prices. However, the way in which the energy industry was privatised, with the market concentration of National Power and PowerGen and with the electricity pool that the extraordinary auction system left untouched resulted in a distorted market, with electricity prices higher than necessary and with serious risk to the diversity and security of electricity supplies.
Therefore, in the White Paper the Government drew up a radical programme of reform of the electricity markets. The programme will enable us to achieve secure, diverse and sustainable supplies of energy at competitive prices. In the meantime, the White Paper concluded that it was necessary to have a stricter policy on consents for new power stations to avoid a serious risk of our security and diversity—and the option of coal playing a major part in electricity generation—being lost permanently before the distortions could be addressed.
I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, said about the report of the Welsh Select Committee; indeed, it sounded to me as if it was endorsing that policy in general. If I were to apply that policy to South Wales, because the issue of supply in South Wales has been raised, I would have to say that the electricity generation and transmission system in this country is an integrated one in England and Wales. I have been told that the National Grid company has stated that the supply arrangements for South Wales meet the set quality standards. I acknowledge that electricity prices in South Wales are slightly higher than in other parts of the country, but it is not necessary for there to be local electricity generation capacity in every region of the country. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. I should like to make a comment. I happen to have in front of me a letter from Swalec to BP, which was written in January 1998. It spells out in some detail some of the risks of interruption, and so on, that exist at

1515
present. It makes absolutely clear that Swalec considers that this plant would improve the security of supply and produce considerable benefits, quite apart from cost.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I acknowledge that. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, referred to Swalec's views. However, it is important for us to take a national view and that is why I quoted the views of the National Grid.
The stricter consent policy to which I referred will be temporary and is only required for as long as it is needed to enable our market reforms to be carried through. I can confirm the quotations which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, gave from the White Paper; he certainly quoted correctly. During that period, new natural gas fired generation, except for combined heat and power and black start units, will normally be inconsistent with the Government's policy. While the policy remains, all applications to build gas-fired generation, including Baglan, will be measured against it.
At this point I believe that I should attempt to clarify the situation of the status of the BP application, to which the noble and learned Lord referred in detail. On 27th November BP wrote to the Department of Trade and Industry stating that it does not propose to submit any new application for the 1100 megawatt plant. The noble and learned Lord referred to the two possibilities of smaller plants—one for combined heat and power and the other a 400 megawatt plant. Clearly, the economic justification for a combined heat and power plant depends on the ability of the developers at Baglan to attract the right kind of industry. I have in mind, most notably, chemicals and food and paper, which have heavy steam use and would therefore justify the construction of a combined heat and power plant. However, the example of Shotton given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, was a combined heat and power plant. We are sympathetic to that suggestion and have set it out as a reasonable exception to the general policy. We are also prepared to listen to arguments about the other smaller plant, which the noble and learned Lord referred to as coming from BP.
The result of all this is a challenge for the promoters of Baglan to find a way in which the park can proceed which is in accordance with the Government's energy policy. The Welsh Office has discussed options with the partnership and remains willing to contribute to the process of finding a way to develop a successful business park. I give way to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord says. Of course we understand the objectives and constraints set out in the policy document, but in any particular case—perhaps above all in this case—there remains available to the Government a discretion to take account of circumstances. Accepting a smaller plant at this point would be an enormous contribution and the decision
1516
would be widely acclaimed. Does the noble Lord acknowledge that the discretion exists to consider the case in that way?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I acknowledge that the noble and learned Lord was quoting correctly from the White Paper. My use of the word "normally" makes that clear. I cannot deny that the Member of Parliament for Aberavon will see the Secretary of State on Monday next. That is evidence that the issue is not closed.
I have to resist the notion that somehow the Government are opposed to this business park. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, said that we are keeping it waiting; the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, said that we were blocking it; the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said that there was an urgent need to approve the development. The development is approved; it is all going ahead. There remains only the secondary issue of the contribution of electricity generation there, and that is open for negotiation.
We are committed to the business park at Baglan. We will continue to work with the development partnership, drawing on the advantages which we have all recognised to give the project the best possible chance of success. The Government have concluded that the new energy policy which, in the longer term, has been designed to ensure that market conditions deliver competitive, low-price electricity for the whole country, should not be a barrier to the development of the business park at Baglan Bay.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, I had intended to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 3.30 p.m. The House will meet at 3.30 p.m. for Royal Assent and, following a short Business Statement by myself, the Statement on Iraq will be repeated by my noble friend the Leader of the House with a subsequent debate. It has been agreed through the usual channels that the normal Christmas tributes should be paid at this point during this afternoon's proceedings rather than at the end of what might be a rather sombre debate later this afternoon. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 3.30 p.m.—I am told that I can move the adjournment now and then withdraw it. One learns something every day about the procedures of the House.
It is a great pleasure to move the adjournment as we run up to the Christmas Recess. It has been a long year and, in many ways, a fascinating year. I find it hard to think of a year in which proceedings in your Lordships' House have been so exciting or, indeed, so thoroughly scrutinised by the media. It may be a sign of things to come.
It has been a long year, as I have said. I am sure that the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip will remind us all that we have just concluded a very long Session. There was never any doubt in my mind that we would conclude the Session before the Christmas Recess. The House sat on very many days indeed. It has been said

1517
that it was the longest Session of the House of Lords since the Long Parliament of Oliver Cromwell. If it was not, it sometimes certainly felt like it.
The long Session is occasionally cited as a criticism of your Lordships' House but I regard it as a tribute. Despite the immense upheaval caused by the general election, your Lordships' House has, almost without exception, continued to proceed with Business in the usual way and has observed the normal conventions. I will not say anything about the exceptional proceedings on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. For obvious reasons I am pleased that the House resolved the question of this Bill in the way that it did earlier this week.
My second point on the length of the last Session—and it was indeed a very long Session—is that the House was not often asked to sit extremely late into the night. Indeed, despite one or two scares, we managed to avoid an all-night sitting. I have learnt that the threat of breakfast is an effective weapon as a show of discipline in your Lordships' House.
All in all it has been a fascinating year. I am sure that the year ahead will be even more interesting. It is therefore more appropriate than ever that I should pay tribute to all those who serve your Lordships' House with quiet efficiency and dignity, both visibly and behind the scenes. Although your Lordships' House is staffed by a small and dedicated band, there are too many individuals or groups involved in the work of the House for me to praise them all. I believe it would be unfortunate were I to single out any groups for particular comment as I would not be able to mention them all. However, I should say a particular thank you and farewell to the Yeoman Usher, Air Vice-Marshal David Hawkins-Leth, for whom today is his last day on duty. He has served the House well. I know I speak for the whole House when I say that he has our very best wishes for the future.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Carter: My Lords, under these circumstances, I hope that the entire staff of your Lordships' House will allow me to give them a well deserved thank you from us all for their hard work and efforts over the past year. I therefore wish all of the staff of the House a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.
In conclusion, perhaps I should say how much I am looking forward to working with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in his new capacity as Chief Whip for Her Majesty's main Opposition party in the Lords. The noble Lord will remember well that when he was a Minister in the Department of Social Security I was his shadow for a time. We got on well then and I am sure that we shall get on well now. I am also sure that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will not mind me saying, as a new Chief Whip and new to government, that I benefited enormously from his wisdom and understanding when he was Opposition Chief Whip. I am absolutely certain that I will have the same positive and constructive relationship with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in his new capacity. I do not expect an easy
1518
ride; nor indeed did I do so last Session. It is the duty of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to oppose and I fully expect the Opposition in your Lordships' House to maintain that tradition in the coming Session—so long as they do not overdo it. But I am certain that opposition will be conducted in the co-operative and constructive spirit which so characterises your Lordships' House.
I should also say thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for his advice and counsel throughout the year and to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, who performs the difficult task of convening what I can only describe as the unpredictable ranks of the Cross Bench Peers. My Lords, I wish all of you, in the usual channels and indeed throughout the House, a very merry Christmas.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 3.30 p.m.—(Lord Carter.)
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I may start by echoing all the words of the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip, and in particular those he directed to me. As he said, he and I have worked together in different capacities for some time. We have had disagreements in the past and I dare say that we shall have disagreements in the future. But I hope we can ensure that, as far as possible, the usual channels will continue to operate in the best possible manner. Perhaps I may also echo his words of farewell to the Yeoman Usher, whom we will all miss and whom we thank for all that he has done over the years.
The noble Lord the Chief Whip said that it seemed a long time since the Session started. It seems to me to be a pretty long time since we came back in October. It also seems to be a particularly long time since I took on the onerous duties as Opposition Chief Whip only two weeks ago. Someone may have said that a week is a long time in politics. Well, two weeks has seemed to be a particularly long two weeks. I think I can say on behalf of myself and the entire House that all of us, whether Members of the House, servants or Officers of the House, are very much looking forward to the Recess that is about to start.
The noble Lord almost tempted me to say a word or two about the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. I see the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in his place. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish is still in the House but I have asked him not to come back to make a speech which, by this stage, many noble Lords will know fairly well. But my noble friend would be more than happy to do so should noble Lords so wish.
After what has been a very long Session, after what has been a very long spill-over period—from October to the new Session—and after the weeks since then, all of us can say that we need a good holiday. That is particularly true, as the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip said, of all those who serve us through thick and thin, if I may put it that way, over the year. We all owe them the most enormous thanks. In so doing, I think we must warn them that there will be a very busy and,

1519
as the Chinese might put it, a very interesting year ahead of us. I join the noble Lord the Chief Whip in wishing everyone a very happy Christmas.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I wish to associate myself and my colleagues with the comments of the Government Chief Whip and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and to echo their words in paying tribute to the work of the Yeoman Usher, who is about to retire.
We have certainly kept very long hours over the past year or more and will undoubtedly sit for many long hours in the next few months. I also pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Carter, for maintaining civilised relations between the usual channels, which is the only way in which this House is capable of operating. I wish to express on behalf of my noble friends our gratitude to the staff of the House, whose dedicated work on our behalf has done so much to make our lives agreeable.
3.30 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, I rise on behalf of the independent Peers who sit on the Cross Benches—noble Lords will note that I say "independent"; the Chief Whip said "unpredictable". Whether unpredictable or independent, we are here and we are all of independent mind. I echo the remarks made about the Yeoman Usher. To us he has been a special help, guiding us, or pushing us, whichever way we wish to go. I am told that he is to enter the recycling business. I hope that his future is recycled in the proper direction. We owe him great tribute and wish him and his wife all the best in the future.
I wish to thank a number of those who so far have not been mentioned: the Doorkeepers, whose unfailing courtesy and help has been notable during what has been a difficult Session; the attendance officers whose messages keep flowing and who bewilder us with the speed with which they get messages to us; and those in the refreshment department, who at State Opening performed a miracle in the way in which they kept body and soul together.
Those who are often not mentioned are the telephone operators and security staff. We do not see them all that much, but they do a great deal for us in keeping the House going and keeping everything working. We thank them particularly for the work that they do.
Finally, 1999 will be an unpredictable year for hereditary Peers. I hope that we shall not be booted out on tumbrels as has been threatened in another place, but that we shall go with dignity and with understanding on the part of the Government.
On behalf of these Benches I offer all noble Lords and staff best wishes for Christmas and the New Year.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to add the thanks of these Benches to those already articulated. It behoves the Lords Spiritual to mention in particular the invisible hosts as well as the visible hosts of those who serve us in this House. Speaking for myself and others on these Benches, the pleasure of serving your Lordships is very much
1520
enhanced by the courtesy and friendliness with which we are so regularly treated. Even at this particularly sombre moment, I wish all noble Lords a peaceful Christmas and a happy New Year.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Royal Assent
3.34 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Elton): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps I should say a word about how the Government intend to handle the debate this afternoon. These are unusual circumstances. As I informed the House this morning, the proceedings will not exactly follow those on a normal Statement. The purpose of that variation from our normal proceedings is to allow noble Lords more flexibility in taking part in debate.
In view of this and the fact that the Statement in another place is being followed by a debate in which Ministers from the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence will take part, my noble friend the Leader of the House will begin proceedings by repeating the Statement that is being made in another place. The Front Benchers will then speak in the usual way. My noble friend the Leader of the House will then open the debate by responding to the Front Bench speeches.
It is then proposed that any Back-Bencher who wishes to speak should do so, we hope with reasonable brevity. Then there should be a single wind-up speech from the Government Benches at the end of the Back-Bench contributions. My noble friend Lord Gilbert will respond to the debate.
I hope that the House will agree that this way of proceeding will reflect the desire of the House, expressed through the usual channels, that proceedings this afternoon should not be confined to those for a Statement but should reflect more closely those for a debate.
I should also add that allowing my noble friend Lord Gilbert to wind up in a single speech rather than intervening immediately on points from Back-Benchers will, perhaps, contribute to the feeling that this is more of a debate than a normal Statement.

Iraq
3.35 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on Iraq. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, with permission I will make a Statement on Iraq.
"Yesterday I authorised the participation of British forces in a substantial US-UK military strike against targets in Iraq. As the House knows, this attack began last night, maximising surprise through the use of sea-launched cruise missiles and precision bombing by navy-based manned aircraft. The operation is now continuing and, as I speak, British Tornado aircraft are engaged in action. I spoke to their commander last night and congratulated him on the bravery and professionalism of his forces. I know the whole House will join with me in wishing them well as they risk their lives to help ensure peace and stability in the Middle East and more widely. We are very proud of them.
"Our policy has always been to seek genuine Iraqi compliance with the demands of the Security Council.
"The objectives of this military operation are clear and simple: to degrade the ability of Saddam Hussein to build and use weapons of mass destruction, including command and control and delivery systems; to diminish the threat Saddam Hussein poses to his neighbours by weakening his military capability. These objectives are achievable and the action proportionate to the serious dangers Saddam Hussein poses to his immediate neighbours, the Middle East region and the international community more widely. The targets, throughout Iraq, have been very carefully selected to reflect these objectives. We are taking every possible care to avoid civilian casualties or damage to ordinary civilian infrastructure.
"The House will forgive me if I say no more about operational details at this stage. To go further could endanger the lives of those involved. But first reports from last night's operations suggest that they were successful and inflicted the kind of military damage we were seeking.
"Madam Speaker, when I spoke to the House on 16th November, after we and the Americans had stayed our hand because of a written Iraqi promise of full co-operation with the UN weapons inspectors, I set out in some detail why we had come to the brink of military action. The House will forgive me if I once again set current events in their proper context. It is vital that people understand that the threat from Saddam is real, not theoretical.
"After the Gulf War had revealed the extent of Saddam's arsenal, Iraq agreed in April 1991 to accept the destruction of all its weapons of mass destruction and not to develop such weapons in the future. They also agreed to a Special Commission to monitor and oversee this process. That was the price they were
1522
made to pay for the cessation of hostilities. The capability Saddam had at the time included: a nuclear weapons programme only a few years away from producing an effective bomb; long-range missile stocks able to threaten all his neighbours; a chemical weapons arsenal of huge proportions, which he had already used on the Iranians in the 10-year war he started with Iran, and on his own people; and a biological weapons programme capable of producing enough deadly toxins to destroy the population of the globe several times over.
"It was expected then that the Special Commission, together with the International Atomic Energy Agency, would complete this process in a few months. But it was not to be. What no one fully foresaw at the time was the huge effort Iraq would put into blocking it. The inspectors have been constantly harassed, threatened, deceived and lied to. A special and elaborate mechanism to conceal Iraqi capability was put in place involving organisations close to Saddam Hussein, in particular his Special Republican Guard.
"Despite this, UNSCOM achieved a huge amount, particularly after the defection of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, later murdered by Saddam, destroying for example more than 38,000 chemical weapon munitions, 48 Scud missiles and a biological weapons factory designed to produce up to 50,000 litres of anthrax, botulism toxin and other deadly agents. But much—too much—remains unaccounted for. Iraq has consistently sought to frustrate attempts to look at the records and destroy the remaining capability. Let us be clear. Saddam still has capability in this area, not least to develop more weapons in the future. To give only one example, over 610 tonnes of precursor chemicals for the nerve gas VX have not been found or accounted for.
"Meanwhile, Saddam's conventional military capabilities remain at a very high level. He has more than one million men under arms, including 75,000 in the Republican Guard and 15,000 members of the Special Republican Guard. Saddam attaches importance to only one thing: his ability to dominate his people and his neighbours by military force. He wants to retain all the weapons he can, including weapons of mass destruction. He has used them before. I am in no doubt of his readiness to use them again if he has any opportunity. His brutality and ruthlessness are too well documented for there to be any doubt of this. The UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights issued a new report on Iraq in October. He documented massive and extremely grave violations of human rights, including the widespread and systematic use of torture, a new policy of penal mutilation and amputations introduced by Saddam's son, Uday, and innumerable and illegal political executions.
"After the full extent of the weapons programme was uncovered in 1996 and early 1997, Saddam began to obstruct in real earnest. He cast doubt on the independence of the inspectors. He sought to exclude

1523
US and British members of UNSCOM. He sought to declare certain sites out of bounds, on the grounds that they were personal palaces.
"This led to a series of crises with the Security Council and the international community, and a recurring threat of force—first in October 1997, when he eventually backed down, then in February this year. The House will recall that this was eventually resolved by the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan going to Baghdad and concluding a Memorandum of Understanding with the Iraqis. In this, Saddam undertook to co-operate fully with UNSCOM and the IAEA, and confirmed that this meant 'immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access in conformity with Security Council Resolutions'.
"But the pattern continued. Then Saddam broke altogether this agreement with Kofi Annan. In August he suspended co-operation and on 31st October ended it. That was why on 14th November I gave authority for British forces to participate in a US-UK strike against Iraq. That was only averted by another offer from Saddam. The Iraqis agreed in terms that spoke of a, 'clear and unconditional decision of the Iraqi Government to resume co-operation with UNSCOM and the IAEA'. They said `UNSCOM and the IAEA could immediately resume all their activities according to the relevant resolutions of the Security Council'.
"Let me remind you that these resolutions call on Iraq to comply unconditionally with the demands of the Security Council to give up all its weapons of mass destruction, and to co-operate fully with UNSCOM and the IAEA. Resolution 707 of 15th August 1991, for example, passed after the first evidence of Iraqi non-compliance, demanded that Iraq should, `provide full, final and complete disclosure … of aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction', and that it should allow UNSCOM and the IAEA, 'immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any and all areas, facilities, equipment, records, and means of transportation which they wish to inspect'.
"There were some who thought we should have taken military action on 14th November. But, despite our severe doubts, we went that extra mile. We gave Saddam that last chance. Even at the risk to our own credibility, we were determined to avoid, if we responsibly could, the use of force. At the same time, we and the Americans also gave the clearest possible warning that, should Saddam break his word once more, there would be no further warnings or diplomatic arguments. I told the House on 16th November that if he again obstructed the work of the inspectors we would strike. No warnings. No wrangling. No negotiation. No last minute letters. President Clinton also set out what Saddam had to do: allow unfettered access for UNSCOM and the IAEA and abide by all the relevant Security Council resolutions. Otherwise the US stood ready to act without further warning.
"Saddam Hussein is a man to whom a last chance to do right is just a further opportunity to do wrong. He is blind to reason. We were not unconscious of
1524
that but we wanted to show that reason, not vengeance, motivated us. So, acting on the promise of unconditional access, Richard Butler was asked to put his inspectors back in immediately, carry out the full range of his tasks and to report back to the Security Council. He said that he would do so within a month. On Monday last, a month later, he did so. The report was very clear and damning. Copies were placed in the House yesterday. Butler summarises UNSCOM's experiences: limited co-operation in some areas, yes, but otherwise a clear pattern of obstruction over documents, access to Iraqi personnel and above all the surprise inspections of suspect sites so vital to UNSCOM's completion of its task. Co-operation has indeed been less good in some areas even than in the difficult times of the past.
"The evidence is clear, as set out by Butler. Important and relevant documents have not been handed over. Their existence has even been denied in many cases, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The documents are vital because they would reveal how many weapons Iraq has and where they are or may be located. We know that the Iraqis have deliberately destroyed as many of these documents as they can including in the second half of November as UNSCOM was resuming its work.
"The Iraqis have also blocked legitimate inspections including one to the Baa'th Party headquarters. This visit was not an idle provocation because there was reliable evidence of relevant material at the site. In another case, an inspection of the former headquarters of the Special Security Organisation was eventually allowed to go ahead, but only after the building had been emptied not only of any relevant material but also of its furniture and all equipment of any kind.
"Butler's conclusion is clear and unequivocal: 'In the light of this experience, that is, the absence of full co-operation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the substantive disarmament work mandated to it by the Security Council and, thus, to give the council the assurances it requires with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons programmes'.
"Anyone who has followed at all the pattern of events in Iraq in recent years must come to the same inescapable conclusion. Whatever the arguments about particular incidents Saddam's attitude to the inspectors and their work cannot remotely be described as full co-operation. It has instead been as much deliberate obstruction as he thought he could get away with. Moreover, he has also consistently sought in the past 18 months to use this obstruction deliberately to try to blackmail the international community into lifting sanctions—a step which we support when he has complied with his obligations but which is quite unacceptable before he has done so and while the threat remains.
"Madam Speaker, in these circumstances we had a stark choice. Either we could let this process continue further, with UNSCOM becoming more and more emasculated, including its monitoring capability,

1525
Saddam correspondingly free to pursue his weapon-making ambitions and the one-sided and unjustified bargaining over sanctions continuing, or, having tried every possible diplomatic avenue and shown endless patience despite all Saddam's deception, we could decide that if UNSCOM could not do its work we should tackle Saddam's remaining capability through direct action of our own. In these circumstances there is only one responsible choice to make. We are acting now because Butler's report, delivered on time, was so clear. And because, if we were going to act, it was obviously better that we should do so without giving Saddam unnecessary time to prepare his defences, and disperse whatever he could to new locations.
"In particular we were very sensitive to the imminence of Ramadan and very reluctant to have to start a military campaign during Ramadan, out of our respect for Moslem sentiments. On the other hand, waiting until after Ramadan would have given Saddam a month to prepare. It would have been highly risky in military terms, and likely to reduce significantly the effect of our attacks.
"I want to deal with one thing straight on. There are suggestions that the timing of military action is somehow linked to the internal affairs of the United States. I refute this entirely. I have no doubt whatever that action is fully justified now. Had it not been taken now, it would have been with my personal disagreement. I know that President Clinton reached the same conclusion for the same reasons. Had he acted differently, out of regard to internal matters of US politics, that would have been a dereliction of his duty as President. Instead, not for the first time, he has shown the courage to do the right thing and he has my full support.
"Other questions arise about this military operation. Let me deal with some of them. Is it a specific objective to remove Saddam Hussein? The answer is it cannot be. No-one would be better pleased if his evil regime disappeared as a direct or indirect result of our action, but our military objectives are precisely those I have set out. Even if there was legal authority to do so, removing Saddam through military action would require the insertion of ground troops on a massive scale—hundreds of thousands, as the British Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Charles Guthrie, made clear this morning. Even then there would be no absolute guarantee of success. I cannot make that commitment responsibly.
"What will happen once the military operation is over? The answer to that depends at least as much on Saddam as it does on us. I hope he will finally come to his senses and recognise that the only way to find support in the international community and light at the end of the tunnel is full compliance with the Security Council's requirements. UNSCOM must remain ready to resume its work and to accomplish the task set by the Security Council and agreed to by the Iraqis.
1526
"Alternatively, if Saddam will not see reason, then after this military operation is concluded, we will work to ensure that Saddam's weakened military capability cannot be rebuilt and that the threat he poses is fully contained. We have the ability to do so, even without UNSCOM if necessary. We will certainly be better placed after this military strike than if we had to go on dealing with a Saddam Hussein whose military capability had not been weakened and with an UNSCOM increasingly impeded from any serious work. We will maintain and enforce rigorously the existing sanctions. If necessary, and if we have serious evidence from our intensive surveillance, or from intelligence, that his capability is being rebuilt, we will be ready to take further military action. Saddam should have no doubt of our continuing resolve.
"We will in any case do all we can to ensure that the present arrangements of oil sales for food and medicine can continue. I trust that this time Saddam will allow the mechanism to work properly for the benefit of his people, rather than spreading lies about the effect of sanctions. He has the means to care for his people if he chooses to use them. Let me be absolutely clear once again. The Iraqi authorities can import as much food and medicines as they need. If there are nutritional problems in Iraq, they are not the result of sanctions—let us not forget that Iraq is continuing to export food to her neighbours. We also constantly look at ways we can do more to help the suffering of the Iraqi people, for example, whenever we review the workings of the sanctions and oil for food regimes, and through our own aid effort.
"The decision to take military action against Iraq was taken with great regret. It is a heavy responsibility. There will be casualties in Iraq, despite all our efforts, although I hope all concerned will be fully alert to Saddam's very well-documented modus operandi of fabrication of evidence.
"I am encouraged by the international reaction. Most of our allies have offered full support. Others who have felt unable to do so have shown their understanding. I believe that, among the Arab countries, the view expressed at their meeting in Doha in November, that Saddam must bear the responsibility for what happens, holds good.
"As I said last night, we have absolutely no quarrel with the Iraqi people. We have no desire to jeopardise the territorial integrity of Iraq. We look forward to the day when Iraq will have the government its people deserve and will once again be a great country. We have the deepest respect for Islamic sensibilities, here and in the region. But we have acted because we must act to counter a real and present danger from a tyrant who has never hesitated to use whatever weapons come to hand.
"Madam Speaker, I would rather that we had not had to do this. I am aware of the risks we are asking our forces to face. I do so, not lightly, but with a profound sense of responsibility.
"But I do so confident they will achieve our aims, and convinced we have taken the right course of action. For whatever the risks we face today, they are

1527
as nothing compared to the risks if we do not halt Saddam Hussein's programme of developing chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.
"I ask the House for its support".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, first, on behalf of the Official Opposition in this House I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating this full Statement. I also welcome the fullness of the Statement. I hope that the House will understand and recognise that if my words are considerably briefer than the Statement offered it is no criticism of the length of the Statement which we very much support. Is the noble Baroness also aware how much the House values the fact that when a Statement of such national importance is made by her right honourable friend in another place the Leader of the House is able to repeat it in this House?
On behalf of the Opposition we on this side express our full support for the action which has been taken by Her Majesty's Government, while deeply regretting the behaviour of the Iraqi dictator which made it necessary, and expressing the hope that casualties to Iraqi citizens, with whom we have no quarrel, are minimal.
The Statement includes a particularly grim record of agreements made and broken by Saddam over many months and years, and that in itself is to be deeply regretted. Is the noble Baroness aware of the unqualified admiration and unreserved support of this House for those British servicemen who are involved in Operation Desert Fox, and how much our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families at this time?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we have, I believe, the very best trained and best qualified pilots of any armed force in the world. Will the noble Baroness ensure that the support of this House is made known to those involved in this action, not just the front line troops but also those who work behind the scenes to make these operations possible?
On the more substantive parts of the Statement, can the noble Baroness inform the House what diplomatic activity is being carried out in parallel with the military operation to maintain good relations with our allies and to broaden as much as possible the coalition against Saddam Hussein? Is she in a position to tell the House which countries in the European Union have offered messages or assurances of their support to this operation—that was not entirely clear from the Statement—and whether any of our partners in Europe have criticised the operation?
I recognise what the noble Baroness said in the ministerial Statement about the timing of the development. However, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether the Prime Minister discussed the timing of the beginning of the United States part of the operation with the President of the United States? Was he among those who urged the President to start the operation at this time?
1528
Is the noble Baroness the Leader of the House also aware that one of the concerns of British citizens is the potential risk of direct or proxy terrorist action against British nationals or their property here or abroad? Will the noble Baroness assure the House that all possible steps have been taken to guard against such threats?
It is also important that the political objectives of military action are clear. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness will therefore again confirm to the House the purpose of the operation. Am I right in understanding from the Statement that its aim is to destroy known or suspected weapons of mass destruction and the ability to make them: that it is to degrade the Iraqi military capability overall, presumably by killing soldiers and destroying material and command and control systems, but that it is not to unseat the Saddam regime? Can the Minister also say whether, after this action, the British Government will be prepared to resume efforts to negotiate with Saddam Hussein?
Finally, and on a slightly different note, can the Minister inform the House of the plans that she and the Government have to ensure that Parliament as a whole, and this House specifically, is informed and consulted in the event of any major change in the operation or its objectives during the coming Recess? I understand the special arrangements which are being taken today to deal with the Statement. I am also aware that I have asked many questions and I will accept answers at the end of the debate from the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert.
It is coming up to Ramadan in the Middle East and Christmas in the United Kingdom and the western world. It is a particularly sad time for the world to come into conflict. As I said earlier, our thoughts and our prayers should be with all those involved.
4 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Rodgers as a result of a family bereavement outside London, I rise to support the Statement on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches. In the circumstances, it was unavoidable that Britain should take action with the United States. Clearly, Saddam Hussein has broken all the terms of the UN conditions attached to his regime. Under those circumstances, we had no choice but to intervene. The hardest question to answer is: what follows? How do we avoid endless destructive confrontations with the Iraqi regime?
I welcome the declaration in the Statement that it is not the intention of the British Government that the action is intended to remove the current regime and the recognition that it is impossible for us to do so. Does the noble Baroness note that within the United States much comment has been that the objective ought to be the removal of Saddam Hussein? Are we clear that from the British Government's point of view, our objectives remain limited?
I also note in the Statement the suggestion that UNSCOM is unlikely to be able to continue with the task and that from now on we are into the business of containment and surveillance most likely from the outside. We on these Benches recognise that the most

1529
useful way forward is sharper military containment with the further easing of economic sanctions to aid the civilian population.
I wish to ask the Minister about some of the wider issues within which the confrontation has to be seen. After all, it is part of the whole problem of western policy towards the Middle East. This morning I was told by one of my friends that in Amman one can buy pictures of Saddam Hussein and Yassar Arafat together. There is an unavoidable linkage between the Arab confrontation with Israel—the Israeli/Palestine peace process—and the extent to which the current Iraqi regime is able to count on popular support within other Arab countries. One recognises that Saddam Hussein's chances of destabilising other regimes in the Middle East is considerably increased by the collapse in the international oil price and that not only weakens other regimes in the Gulf but, potentially, Saddam Hussein himself.
How far do the British Government consider that in dealing with the future of Iraq we must also look at the immensely complicated Kurdish question which overlaps Iraq, Syria, Turkey and Iran and which nearly brought Syria and Turkey into a conventional armed confrontation only some weeks ago?
Does the Minister believe that there is more that the British Government might be able to do in the current extremely delicate process of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations? I understand that today the Israeli Finance Minister resigned and has called for the formation of a government of national unity in Israel as a means of furthering the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. From these Benches we welcome that. It seems to us that that is a step forward in the direction that we and other European governments would welcome. Are the Government now pursuing much closer European co-ordination in relation to future policy towards the Middle East as a basis for a closer US-European dialogue?
I ask two other final questions. Given that the build up in arms throughout the Gulf, the original build up of Saddam Hussein's original capacity, was aided by arms sales from the West, and others, to that region, do the Government now consider it important to reduce future arms sales to the Middle East? Do we believe that there is potential in building a closer understanding among the major member states of the United Nations so that it is possible on future occasions to build a Security Council consensus which, unfortunately, on this occasion we have been unsuccessful in building?
4.7 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to both noble Lords who have commented and asked questions on the Statement. In particular, I thank them for their general support for the action which the British Government have taken with, as both noble Lords made clear, great regret which I know is shared on all sides of the House.
I reinforce the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about the support of this House for the servicemen serving in the Gulf. I shall, of course,
1530
convey that support and the good wishes which he expressed to them on behalf of the whole House. It was important that he also mentioned those who served behind the scenes and not simply those in the front line. Again, I shall make that very clear to people when I pass on those messages.
The noble Lord asked about the reaction of our European allies, and, in particular, whether comments had come from them. They are still coming in. There are a variety of actions. For example, a French news agency quotes the French Foreign Minister as saying that he regretted that Saddam Hussein had not demonstrated the necessary co-operation and he deplored the serious human consequences that would follow. On the other hand, he supported the necessity for the air strikes on Iraq for which, he said, Saddam Hussein bore the prime responsibility. The Spanish Government has issued a statement saying that Iraqi behaviour has forced the international community to have recourse to force. Italy has said that the crisis caused by Iraq's continuing obstructive attitude produced this result. Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a persistently negative attitude. From Austria it was said:
"We understand the action and we hold Saddam Hussein responsible".
That is not a comprehensive record of everything which has come through diplomatic channels but those remarks are still coming in. The Prime Minister of the Netherlands has said that the air strikes are necessary.
The noble Lord asked also—and this was reflected in some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire—about the diplomatic efforts that are continuing alongside military action. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, as well as the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister of State, Mr. Fatchett, who has special responsibilities for that region, have all had, and continue to have, extensive contacts with a wide variety of countries in the region, including those about whom the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, was particularly concerned. That responsibility to continue diplomatic efforts, in so far as is possible in this very complicated military situation, is continuing. There is no question of those efforts being suspended or ignored.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, referred to the reaction from the Arab world. As I said in repeating the Statement, we understand that those countries stand by the statement made at the beginning of November when they met in Doha on the question of the responsibility for any military action lying firmly with Iraq. It is important to look more broadly at the issues which the noble Lord rightly raised in relation to Israel and they will be part of the ongoing diplomatic initiative which I described as continuing with my right honourable friends in the Foreign Office and in the defence department. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Gilbert will speak later about his own efforts.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked whether the President of the United States and the Prime Minister had spoken on the subject of the timing of this military action. I can confirm that they have done so and I believe that they did so yesterday before any

1531
announcements were made. On the question of terrorism, we are all aware of the difficulties that that potentially poses to citizens of our own country and the necessary steps are being taken to minimise that threat.
Both noble Lords asked about the purpose of this military action and, without unnecessarily repeating the words used in the Statement, perhaps I can paraphrase that again. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, it was a long Statement and the purpose was given at the beginning. The purpose was,
"to degrade the ability of Saddam Hussein to build and use weapons of mass destruction and to diminish the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his neighbours by weakening his military capability"
to threaten them across a broad front. It is not—as was said in the Statement—the explicit purpose to remove Saddam Hussein himself; it cannot be. In any form of international legal situation it would be impossible for that to be an explicit aim. But, again to quote from the Statement and as the Prime Minister said in another place:
"No one would be better pleased if his evil regime disappeared as a direct or indirect result of our action".
But the military objectives remain the clear and simple ones described in the original Statement.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked whether it would be possible for UNSCOM to continue, whatever the result of the military action. That is the aim of the allies involved and of those involved from the United Nations perspective in this international work. We hope that it will be possible for UNSCOM not merely to resume, but also to complete its original task and do so with greater vigour, clarity and support than has been possible in the many years since it tried to start to do this work.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked what arrangements will be made for this House to be kept informed over the Christmas Recess. We are aware of that on this side of the House and I know that my noble friend the Chief Whip has in his mind—as he always does—various fall-back arrangements which could be invoked if that became necessary. I am sure that will be taken forward through the usual channels and the usual constructive dialogue will help us all to achieve what we need to do.
Mention of the Recess re-emphasises the point made by both noble Lords; that is, that this is a sad moment to have to make this kind of Statement and to respond to noble Lords at the time of the beginning of the Christmas holidays. I know that we all feel the weight of responsibility which the Prime Minister personally described for this action and hope that it will have at least a satisfactory outcome without extending the appalling suffering which we know the Iraqi people have been enduring for many years.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, as Chief of Defence Staff during the Gulf War I have great sympathy for the Government and my successor as members of a war Cabinet which must decide whether or not to commit forces. It is of course the Government's responsibility to decide when to commit
1532
hem but there must always be a clear understanding of what the military objectives are. The Prime Minister said last night, and it was repeated again this afternoon in the Statement, that,
"Our objectives in this military action are clear. To degrade his capabilities to build and use weapons of mass destruction and to diminish the military threat he poses to his neighbours. The targets chosen therefore are targets connected with his military capability".
The two words "degrade" and "diminish" are not precise. I am not necessarily asking for precision, but I believe that it is very important, when military forces are committed, that there is a clear understanding between those who are committing and those who are committed on how the objectives are to be measured.
In the Gulf War I set out to ensure that there was a very clear military objective. It was perhaps easier then than on this occasion. In the Gulf War of 1991 the objectives were to evict the Iraqis from Kuwait and to destroy and damage the Iraqi military capability, particularly the Republican Guard, so that they could not return immediately to Kuwait when the coalition forces had departed. That second part was generally taken to mean that there was about a 50 per cent. reduction in the fighting capability of the Iraqi Republican Guard.
My intention is not to seek any particular percentage but to suggest, I hope, that such measurements are clearly understood between our Government and the American Government and between the two armed forces. Now that Saddam Hussein is aware that we are seeking to diminish and degrade his capabilities, he will be extremely tempted to delude and deceive us on those two scores. Our intelligence and reconnaissance of the results of our attack will be extremely important so that we can judge whether the diminishment and degradation have been sufficient.
I finish with one other thought. At the moment we are relying entirely on military action to achieve the objective of stopping Saddam Hussein—I hope, for good—but no other methods of dealing with that objective appear to have been addressed with quite the same clarity. I may have misunderstood the position. It would have been nice to have heard more about an Iraqi government in exile which was getting greater and greater support. It would have been nice to know that internal resistance in Iraq had been helped and aided much more than appears to have been the case, at least from what one reads in the newspapers.
Those sort of actions—a government in exile and assisting resistant forces—paid enormous dividends in World War II. This is a much smaller type of engagement, but I do not think that it necessarily means that those types of activities should be overlooked. Certainly, to all those on the military side who are committed, and who are willingly and bravely doing that which is required of them, I believe that those other activities have a very important part to play in the overall strategic objective of Her Majesty's Government.
The Lord Bishop of Ely: My Lords, the outbreak of hostilities between nations and the use of deadly force is never anything less than an evil from which we pray

1533
to be delivered. On occasion, it may be the lesser of evils, when the threat to peace and justice is so concrete, so actual, and so insistent that no more constructive or hopeful alternative exists.
The most reverend Primates the Archbishops of Canterbury and York have issued their own statement urging the importance of clear objectives and well-defined limits in a conflict that is unsought and which the leadership in Iraq has had the means to avoid.
For most of us, the circumstances of modern democracy and the extraordinary reach and penetration of the media give the lay public the illusion of knowing what has driven those who were ultimately responsible for the decision to fight to their sombre conclusion. In fact, so bewildering is the flood of instant comment and opinion that the outcome is, if anything, a deepening of public feelings of helplessness.
However, I still believe that two things are beyond dispute. The first is the fact that our own Prime Minister and his immediate advisers are fully conscious of the gravity of the course upon which they have embarked and they have publicly acknowledged the risk to innocent lives. At this time, he and they deserve our prayers and understanding, as they wrestle in the days ahead with agonising choices. Secondly, it is the case that the men and women in our Armed Forces, committed by our democratically elected Government to serious dangers including the loss of their own lives, deserve our support and prayers. For their sakes, and for the sake of the innocent people who will inevitably be caught up in the outcome of this conflict, I believe that none of us can hope and pray for anything other than that this time may be very short; nor, I believe, are we permitted to suspend the requirement of prayer for those who at the moment are our enemies in battle.
At the same time, we can, and should, be extremely clear about the evils which have been committed by the regime which we oppose and its potential for still worse. Only time will clarify the wisdom of our past policies and actions or of our present decisions, but opposing this evil with courage and resolution commands respect.
I pray—I ask others to join me in praying—that justice and peace will quickly be restored to Iraq and the Middle East and to all who believe in the one God, especially at this poignant season of Advent and Ramadan. Men and women of Christian and of Moslem faith never cease to believe in the ultimate victory of good over evil and to long for the triumph of justice, compassion and peace within human affairs.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that comprehensive Statement and in particular for bringing together the most powerful and persuasive reasons why it was necessary to take effective military action against that odious and threatening dictator.
My noble friend will be aware that a considerable debate will now begin not only in our country but probably throughout the world on whether this was the right thing to do. It would help us to convince people if the Government could marshall in some suitable form
1534
those very persuasive arguments to which I have just referred and which my noble friend was good enough to put before us.
In putting such material together will my noble friend have in mind three particular targets? The first is public opinion here, which cannot be taken for granted. Secondly, I refer to our friends in Europe who, although I am glad to hear that a number of positive reactions have been recorded, seem to lack a full understanding of, and concern about, what is going on outside the Continent of Europe but in an area which should be of enormous importance to them. Thirdly, and finally, will the Government continue to increase, if they can, the flow of information? I refer not only to our Arab friends in the Gulf and the Middle East because if we could find a way of penetrating the "Iron Curtain" around Iraq and of reaching the Iraqi people I am sure that that would only be to our very great benefit.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, following the remarks of my noble friend Lord Shore, I should like to point out that the Government have already anticipated his requirement for a statement on their position on the subject. A remarkably fair statement was in fact issued a few hours ago. I very much regret that I find myself unconvinced by it, but it is a good statement of the position. It shows that this matter is a pretty close run thing. We have not heard much dissent so far and, therefore, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I enter one or two notes in that regard.
When the Prime Minister announced what he felt to be the position into which he had been forced, I believe that he should have added a few words to his conclusion. He said:
"We act because we must".
But I believe that he should have added to that the following,
"in spite of the Russian and Chinese dissent".
If he had done so, because it was being done in that light, the attack could not have taken place. However, it had in fact already started, so the Prime Minister was announcing something that had already happened. Therefore, I think that I am contradicting myself there. Nevertheless, your Lordships will understand what I mean.
The great power unanimity rule would have applied. There is a rule in the Security Council that, in this kind of matter, there must be unanimity among the great powers—and Russia still rates as a great power in the Security Council, although it is only a single superpower now—otherwise the action taken is illegal. That was the original position taken by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. He made it clear during the course of discussions that he needed unanimity from the Security Council. However, he did not get it. The matter was then put to one side, and we are now proceeding on what is basically an illegal operation. That, to say the least, is unfortunate.
I do not know whether my noble friend the Leader of the House was asked about this or whether she volunteered it. I have in mind the question of what will happen after the military operation is over. In effect, my

1535
noble friend said that discussions would then take place with the Government of Iraq. My view is that those discussions should have taken place before the military action rather than after it. The situation will remain roughly the same after the military action. There was no reason why a further step could not have been taken in an attempt to find a solution.
I join enthusiastically in the descriptions which have been made of the leader of Iraq. Indeed, no words could describe the sheer impossibility of dealing with this man. Nevertheless, certain steps could have been taken before the military action and will have to be taken after it. I shall give your Lordships an example of one thing that might have been done. The Russians and the Chinese could have been asked to provide a force to protect the UNSCOM people. That prospect could have been discussed and this action might then have been avoided. The trouble with war is that, although one knows the point where it starts, one never knows where it will end. We do not know where this one is going to end; it might end in an almost unimaginable disaster.
The Russian ambassador to the United Nations said that he "rejected outright" the justifications given by the US and UK—I am reading from a government document—and declared that no one country could act for the council or,
"assume the role of a world policeman".
The Chinese ambassador said:
"There is absolutely no excuse for attacks to use force against Iraq. The use of force not only has serious consequences for the implementation of the security council resolutions but also pose a threat to international peace as well as regional stability".
France was more guarded in its remarks, stating it deplored:
"the spiral which led to the American military strikes against Iraq and the serious humanitarian consequences they could have for the Iraqi population".
Without much further ado, I have indicated to your Lordships the line along which I think we should have gone. We should not have embarked upon an unannounced military attack; we should have made further attempts, of the type that I have indicated, to reach the peaceful settlement that at some stage in these proceedings will still have to be made.
Lord Munro of Langholm: My Lords, I have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said about the Royal Air Force. May I add, as the Secretary General of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, that the standard of airmanship of the Royal Air Force is the highest in the world and the standard of our ground crew is quite exceptional. We wish all of them the very best over the next few days and weeks and hope that they all come through unscathed.
As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, will recall, the build-up took rather longer during the Gulf War and that war looked as though it might continue for a longer time. Some of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force squadrons were called out then in support of the Royal Air Force, particularly the medical squadron and the movement squadron. As a reserve in the order of battle, all of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force squadrons are keen and anxious to fulfil any
1536
duty called upon them in support of the Royal Air Force. We are keen and anxious to be involved, if required, but I hope that this short, sharp, quick strike over the next few days will make that unnecessary. I hope that we are extremely successful and come through the whole operation with the minimum number of casualties.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, like many other noble Lords, I get no great satisfaction from the events unfolding in Iraq, but many of us must feel that we have no alternative but to support selective military action by the Americans at this time. You cannot go on making threats and giving final warnings and not being as good as your word. I give everyone freely the benefit of the doubt that the timing has had more to do with the imminence of Ramadan, and perhaps other military factors, than with impeachment proceedings in Washington.
I naturally support our Armed Forces, some of whom, yet again, may have to put their lives at risk at the drop of a hat—the ultimate commitment. I hope that none of us forget that. We can only hope and pray that the Smart weapons of the United States will live up to expectations and surgically take out the relevant targets at which they are aimed.
Is it not high time that we tried to introduce a more positive side to our policy towards Iraq and the Iraqi people, as opposed to the clearly negative side of the necessary present air offensive? You cannot go on making a desert and calling it peace. Our military offensive may succeed in doing irreparable and irretrievable damage to Saddam Hussein's capacity to make weapons of mass destruction and then to employ them, but if with all the intelligence at our disposal we cannot do this, I cannot see much point in attempting it at all. Would this not be a good moment, having administered the stick and from a position of strength, to offer some carrot to the Iraqi people, with whom, as the noble Baroness said, we have no quarrel? This could be in the form of a pan-Arabian Marshall Plan or the full, partial or gradual withdrawal of sanctions. Yes, of course this may, at least for the time being, confirm Saddam's position; although no more, I suspect, than a stronger, non-Arab power with little risk to itself knocking hell out of a weaker Arab one with as yet little capacity to hit back.
I am quite convinced that, eventually, destiny and retribution will catch up with him. But at least such a move would give our policy in that part of the world some constructive end gain which I believe would be increasingly widely welcomed by Arab countries, by the third world, by some of our European partners and, above all, by the United Nations.
I remember so well, when I went out to the Middle East with a parliamentary delegation under the noble Lord, Lord Pym, soon after Iraq invaded Kuwait, how all the Arab governments were adamant that, however much they wanted Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and taught a lesson, they did not want Iraq broken up as a country. That for the moment meant, and may still mean, Saddam Hussein for a little longer. So I do hope that the Government can come up with some

1537
constructive thoughts about the future as opposed to merely having to justify what we have to do at this particular moment.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I call for pity for the Iraqi people. Tomorrow is Ramadan, when all serious Moslems fast from dawn to dusk to mark the sanctity of their faith. For the Iraqi people, Ramadan has lasted for more than seven years. Their starvation, lack of drugs and lack of clean water supplies have been laid bare in front of us as sanctions have continued. The tragedy is that they have been misled by those in their government.
I made great efforts recently to meet the Iraqi minister for health. I obtained an invitation to visit a World Health Organisation conference in which I had no part to play but where the Iraqi health minister was to be. With great efforts I managed to arrange a meeting with him. He did not want one at all. Your Lordships will be saddened to hear that when I offered millions of pounds of aid—in food, clothing, medicines, bedding and civil engineering projects to assist in creating clean water supplies and sewage treatment facilities—the health minister refused the lot. He said to me personally and before witnesses that the Iraqi people had no need of anything at all. Your Lordships can weep for the Iraqi people because of the evil people they have as their leaders.
As wars roll on and follow other wars, the victims of earlier tragedies are forgotten. Today I wish to place before your Lordships the plight of the prisoners of war from Kuwait. We rescued Kuwait, and a number of people were kidnapped by Iraqi forces as we drove them out of the city. Those people have never been seen or heard of again. I ask your Lordships: please do not forget them. Those prisoners of war from Kuwait have families who mourn for them.
Probably the next war in the Gulf will be over water. I draw the attention of the House to those poor people, the Marsh people of Mesopotamia, who have lost their water, their living, their capacity to survive. I have assisted in the caring for hundreds of thousands of those people and other Iraqi refugees inside the Islamic Republic of Iran. Their suffering is devastating.
During this debate noble Lords have called for solutions other than those of military assault. I see no other immediate solution. What can we do? Surely, even this assault cannot contain the biological weaponry. This is a dreadful man in charge of huge weaponry that can be used against us all.
I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, and other colleagues who assist in dialogue. Where the US is so suspected in the Gulf, Britain, as a leading member of the European Union, has a major role to play. AMAR and UNESCO have together been carrying out dialogue in recent days with 50 eminent thinkers on Islam. Here we can in the long run play a strong part in altering the hearts and minds of those inside Iraq and around Iraq in bridging the gap that has arisen between Islam and the European Union,
1538
so wrongfully, in recent years. The conference has concluded that there is no faultline between Islam and Europe. Let us join hands, cross that bridge, and together work hard for peaceful solutions through dialogue and other constructive methods. I support the Government wholeheartedly.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm the proportion of Iraq's gross national product that is devoted to defence? Is it not the highest in modern history? Will my noble friend confirm that Iraq, with a population of barely 20 million, has almost a million people in full-time military service, with hundreds of thousands more in a reserve capacity? Is it not the case that the children of Iraq are in great need but that Iraq maintains 500 helicopters, over 300 combat aircraft, and 3,000 tanks and armoured vehicles? Does that not present a very serious threat to its neighbours? If the world were to allow that regime to develop the more horrifying weapons that Saddam Hussein wishes to develop, it would be madness.
Is it not the case that the natural wealth of Iraq, even with sanctions in place, provides it with a capacity to feed its children? Would it not be better for the children to be fed? Is it not the case that Iraq cannot maintain a literacy rate of 50 per cent? Would that not be a better use of its resources? Is it not the case that in Iraq three-fifths of children are denied secondary education? Would it not be a very good idea if those children had that opportunity, and an opportunity to live in peace, which is currently denied? Would it not be appropriate for us to remind the Middle East and those who are concerned, as we ought to be, about Ramadan, that Saddam Hussein and his executioners and torturers have never been particularly scrupulous in their observation of that festival? Would it not also be appropriate for us to remind Russia, China and those who are hesitant in relation to the Middle East that it would be better for them to act as statesmen rather than salesmen and to help us in seeking to secure peace and decency in that part of the world?
4.45 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, first, I wish to congratulate the Government and the Government of the United States on taking this decision. The decision to free Kuwait in the first stage was right. The decision to cease the Gulf War at the time we did was right. And the decision not to attack Saddam Hussein a few weeks ago was also right. I believe and hope it will be proved that the decision to attack him yesterday was right.
However, there are one or two matters which concern me, one of which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Craig: the objectives. I was a military man for a long time. The objectives are not all that clear, either politically or, so far as we understand, militarily. They need to be more clearly defined. I hope that that has already been done for the benefit of our servicemen on the ground.
Perhaps we do not want to obtain full compliance from Saddam. We will never get it. He may pretend, but we will never get it. Perhaps what we are trying to do

1539
is to create an environment for his replacement that will facilitate his being replaced by, we hope, a more reasonable regime.
Secondly, I am concerned about the real support we have had from our European partners. I believe that some people have an eye—and I have, because it is an interest of mine—on the Caspian Basin. It is close to Iraq and Iran and holds the core, the nub, for the future of the petrochemicals industry and petrochemicals of the world. Control of the Caspian Basin, not so much the minerals there but the routes out, is critical. I am not sure how much interest our European partners have in it, other than those on the Black Sea. I ask the Government to look over their shoulders to see whether the interest is perhaps—cynically—a little economical.
Lastly, having spoken to a few people today such as taxi drivers, I ask the Government to ensure that the reasoning behind the decision—which I and all noble Baronesses and noble Lords in the House support—is understood clearly. It has nothing to do with the timing of Mr. Clinton's problems in Washington. It is sad that it is Ramadan and Christmas. I understand the difficulties, as I am sure everyone in the House does. One question is: can we achieve what we want between now and Ramadan? Shall we take any notice of Ramadan as a religious festival starting tomorrow? Alternatively, shall we continue the war if we have not achieved our objectives? I hope the Minister will not answer if it is a security problem.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, a few weeks ago we had a discussion here in the middle of the night. The House was packed—there were six people. We talked about the United Nations and international law and the rights and wrongs of commencing military action. I do not wish to repeat it, although it would be interesting to go over some of the fundamental points again.
Two days ago, my noble friend Lady Symons, answering a question from the noble Lord, Lord Judd, spoke eloquently about the importance of the United Nations acting co-operatively together, with or without clear legal justification. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, to tell the House what is the news from the United Nations today—this morning, as it is there. Have there been any developments since what was reported in the morning press here today?
You can legally make war on another country—and this is an act of war—in self-defence against aggression. That is one justification, but that is not the case here; there has been no aggression against the United States or this country. Alternatively, you can do it under a UN Security Council resolution. There has been endless argument about whether the existing Security Council resolutions would justify, or do justify, this type of action. However, it jumps to the eye that the Security Council is divided; that is extremely obvious. If it had not been divided, no doubt we should have been going there as quickly as we could, obtaining the agreement of at least all the permanent members. As it is, the Americans and ourselves are taking the action. The Russians and the Chinese have entered the most vivid dissent and France has taken a position one can describe
1540
only as one of extreme reserve. I have hardly ever seen a cooler note struck without it being an outright disavowal of a course of action.
I wonder whether the Government have reflected sufficiently. Let us remember that we are not talking about the general attitude they should take to Saddam and Iraq, we are talking about the quite specific choice of backing by our own military force the action taken unilaterally without us by another permanent member of the Security Council. I wonder whether the Government have thought sufficiently about the repercussions of this on Europe and on the Government's new hopes of achieving a European defence identity, the St. Malo agreement and all that, and whether there is a sufficient basis for going ahead with the, in some ways, rather easy course that we are taking with the Americans—strike now and think later—and rejecting the more difficult course of going back to the machinery of world co-operation.
Let us think for a moment what would happen if there were at this moment a Sino-Russian bombardment taking place against some country—I shall not name it as it is impossible to find an equivalent to Iraq in this context—without clear UN cover. What would the United States and ourselves say about that? This is a mirror image, in a way, of what is happening. It is always useful to glance in the mirror from time to time, even if the glass is a little distorting.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I hope that these events produce a conclusive answer. I fear not, but hope that I am wrong. Is the Minister aware that a cruise missile destined for Iraq landed in the Iranian city of Khoramshar causing damage? That is regrettable and has, in part, produced a negative attitude in the near region.
By extension, what is known about the approach of the Israelis? Will they contain themselves, or be contained, in the event of any Scud missile attack on Israeli territory? Is there a broader strategy in the event that this bombardment is unlikely to remove totally Iraq's capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction, as I fear this time Baghdad will possibly react by expelling UNSCOM, thereby terminating the international community's inspection and monitoring capacity?
Finally, can the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, say whether we are finally to be rid of the scourge of Saddam, together with his ne'er-do-goods and arsenal?
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I add my support to the Prime Minister and the Government for the resolution and the action that they have taken. I wish to raise one or two questions and points. First, during the Gulf War the cost of operations was largely borne by the Gulf states themselves. Have any arrangements been made, or are they envisaged, in respect of the costs which the British forces, at any rate, will incur in this action?
Secondly, on the question of dealing with Saddam Hussein, I noted at the time—as I am sure many others did—that the Memorandum of Understanding signed on 23rd February, which ended the earlier crisis (the

1541
memorandum of Secretary General Kofi Annan), was not signed by Saddam Hussein but by Tariq Aziz. I wondered at the time whether this meant that Saddam did not feel himself bound by it. If at the end of this action Saddam is still in place and if—I accept that we do not know—there is again an agreement made of any kind with the Iraqi Government (if it is still led by Saddam Hussein) I hope that on this and any future occasion we ensure that he personally signs any such document. It is perfectly clear that no one else can act in his name.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, referred to the Russians. It is well known that given their present economic situation the Russians are desperate for sanctions to end in order that they can get the dividend that they would otherwise get from their very large investment in the development of new oil reserves in Iraq. We are talking about billions of dollars of revenue to Russia per year. Mr. Primakov, the former Foreign Minister who now heads the government although not the state of Russia was very active in attempting to negotiate the end of sanctions for this purpose. We should take into account the motives of the Russians in being at the very least lukewarm in their support of what has happened. I am not concerned by the reaction of the Russians in considering whether or not we should be taking this action.
What is to happen in the future? The question is whether Iraq will survive as a country. There may well be a possibility of civil war in Iraq. There will be real dangers from other countries on its borders. For example, on its eastern border with Iran there are a number of Iraqis, and perhaps Iranians dressed as Iraqis, waiting to go in. Of course, the Turks have a considerable interest in Turkestan. It must be in the interests of that part of the world that the territorial integrity of Iraq survives. Possibly the best outcome is a non-Saddam-led provisional government. I hope that anything that can be done to support that will be done.
We in Britain have two particular contributions to make in addition to the professionalism, valour and integrity of our Armed Forces. First, we have a great deal more knowledge, understanding and empathy with the Middle East than the United States who are, and probably always will be, regarded with deep suspicion. Secondly, we are quite good at strategic thought for the future. I am not convinced that America has taken that on board. I hope we ensure that we are really plugged into the major decision-making apparatus in Washington which we presently support in its military action. I hope that we can make a real contribution to strategic thought as to what happens next.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, a leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, Mr. Abraham Ahmed, is quoted in today's Evening Standard as saying that although he is sure that Saddam Hussein must go before any progress towards democracy or decent government can take place in Iraq, the present action will not help but will have the converse effect. Does the noble Lord who is to wind up
1542
the debate have any fears that as a reaction to the US-British attack Saddam will once again turn on the Kurds in the north or the Shiah in the south?
To echo the words of the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Craig of Radley and Lord Bramall, how will this action encourage opposition to Saddam within a positive plan? Reading comments by various residents of that area and neighbouring countries, I am afraid that it may well have the opposite effect.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I welcome the Statement and I wish both the teeth arms and their supporting services every success in bringing this application of force to a successful conclusion. What in fact, we might ask, is a successful conclusion? One in which Saddam Hussein goes back to the United Nations and complies with its requests? Not enough mention, I believe, has been made in the Statement of the role played by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Kofi Annan. I hope that the Minister, in his reply, will not only recognise that but will also state that we shall give every support to the Secretary-General if he has to go back again to Baghdad to discuss further matters with Saddam Hussein and his Government.
Secondly, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, suggested offering a carrot in the way of reducing the application of sanctions. I ask the Government to be very wary of that. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, for stating in Written Answers to me that Saddam Hussein depends on the export of oil. Cut off the money from that export of oil, and he will not be able to pay his Republican Guard.
Thirdly. a question about Saddam Hussein's neighbours. Are we doing enough, ourselves and the Americans, to safeguard those neighbours while we are applying force? We know what happened over Scud missiles in the last Gulf War and that the Americans and ourselves have assisted the Israelis with Patriot anti-missiles.
Finally, we always have to talk about our own resources and housekeeping. Can the Minister assure us that the costs of the operation will not be borne out of the Defence budget entirely and that the Treasury will be generous in its assistance so that our Strategic Defence Review is not knocked sideways by this conflict?
Lord Monson: My Lords, unless Saddam Hussein is insane, which is a theoretical possibility although not many experts seem to believe that he is, he must have realised that an attack was likely if he continued to defy the United Nations resolutions. Why therefore has he exposed his country to aerial bombardment? Either he has something exceptionally nasty up his sleeve for the countries doing the bombarding or he calculates that the attacks will somehow result in medium-term or long-term benefit for him and his clique, or both.
The noble Baroness did her best to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the Government were well prepared for coping with the first danger. One hopes that her optimism is justified. Obviously she cannot give any

1543
details publicly; but I wonder whether she or the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, can comment on the second danger. That is to say: is there any possibility that the attack could in some strange way strengthen rather than weaken Saddam in the long term?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, as one who has had a fairly long time in political life both before and during the war, and some very minor military experience during the war itself, I feel bound as a member of my party to give my full support to the Prime Minister for the very agonising decision that he must have had to make. It is a very comfortable posture to be able to sit on the fence and take the middle line on the basis of indecision, possibly lack of knowledge or possibly a regard for a future political career. But a decision has to be made, and I feel sure that the Prime Minister has made the correct decision. It is not the custom of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom on such important matters to sit on the fence. Decisions have always contained an element of risk, and the rights are not always overwhelmingly on one side.
For those of us who had experience of the last war, the decision at that time was comparatively simple. Our war aims were clear because they were immediate and involved our own survival. It is much more difficult to make a decision on a world-wide scale concerning a part of the world with which the British population as a whole has had little contact.
In the time that has elapsed since the repeated breaches of undertakings offered to the world and to the United Nations by Saddam Hussein, one's mind must have vacillated considerably one way and another. But bearing in mind the necessity for making a political and military decision, I am convinced that the Prime Minister has made a correct one; subject only to this. It is offered not by way of criticism in the slightest but because the pressure of events must bear heavily upon the time of any individual at the head of his own country. I refer to the definition of the aims and the purpose of the whole exercise. In that respect I agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, who has enormous experience. One of the first things before embarking on a military operation, either on one's own or in conjunction with allies, is to make quite sure, and to articulate clearly, precisely what one's military aims are. I believe that in that respect we should do so quickly within the next few days. Provided we do that, and provided our aims are honourable, I have no doubt that ultimately right will prevail.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I fully support the action that the Government have taken to date and agree in particular with what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, said especially in regard to the support of the Iraqi Opposition.
I should like to emphasise one aspect. It is absolutely vital that the current military action is 100 per cent. successful, and, to ensure that, it must be given sufficient time for it to succeed. Perhaps the Minister will reassure the House on that point.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, noble Lords will remember that in Kipling's novel Kim the hero on one occasion pressed his face to the window of an officers' mess in the north-west frontier and overheard the colonel saying to the adjutant, "Remember, remember, this is punishment not war".
That recollection is relevant for two reasons. First, the colonel was wrong. I think that the implication of all we have heard today in this extremely interesting and important debate following the powerful and important Statement made by the Minister is that we are not involved in a punishment activity. We are concerned with the first stages of what could be a long conflict—a war in fact. The war aims have been mentioned several times and they should be looked on as such. That is why all noble Lords were so impressed by the powerful speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig.
When talking about supporting the Iraqi Opposition, for example, one is plainly not concerned only to diminish and degrade Iraqi military force. One is concerned with the implicit as well as the explicit background to the whole affair, which might involve the destruction of the Iraqi Government. "Destroy" might be a better word than "degrade" and "diminish".
The story is also relevant because in these circumstances the colonel is the President of the United States and the adjutant is the Prime Minister. The Government ought to explain to your Lordships and to the public at large why, during the past years, we have elected to give such strong support to the United States in respect of Iraq. Is it because we have such long experience of the Middle East, particularly of Iraq which this country invented and ran during the first 30 years of its independence? Is it because of the special capacities of our Armed Services? Is it because we have some particular weapons which the United States does not have and needs? Is it because we want to be involved in the war or punishment process? I do not say that that is a wrong identification, but it is desirable for us and our European allies to know exactly why we are there and they are not thought to be essential.
5.11 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, I begin by addressing the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, as to why we find ourselves always alongside our American friends and allies in dealing with the dictator in the Middle East. I submit that it is for none of the reasons which the noble Lord put forward. It is simply that our two Governments totally agree as to the right course of action to take in the circumstances which we face. We are two responsible Governments who believe that we should live up to our international responsibilities. We take it upon ourselves to enforce the spirit of the international community as set out in successive United Nations Security Council resolutions. That is all that needs to be said and I am pleased to see that the noble Lord nods his assent.
We are not involved in punishment. I make it absolutely clear that we are not punishing the Iraqi people. We are trying to get compliance and in failing

1545
to do so we are determined to do what we can to reduce the military capabilities of Saddam Hussein and, most particularly, his capabilities in respect of the production and possible use of weapons of mass destruction.
The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, asked whether we would give the operation time to succeed. I am sure that your Lordships would not expect me to share with them my knowledge about the operational plans of the British and American commanders. However, I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the language that has been used on several occasions, and not just in the past few days, is that this time the action against Saddam Hussein will be substantial and sustained. Sustained is the word which matters.
I was grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Bruce for the Prime Minister. He is right in saying that it is easy to sit on the fence and to do nothing. I entirely agree with him about the necessity for our military aims to be clear. That point has been repeated many times by noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I can do no better than refer your Lordships to the text of the Prime Minister's remarks which will appear in Hansard tomorrow morning. I shall not repeat them because I am sure that your Lordships will find that the Government's position is set out very lucidly in that Statement which was repeated by my noble friend the Leader of the House at the beginning of the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked why on earth Saddam Hussein should have exposed his country to aerial bombardment. He offered various possibilities and theories as to why that may have been the case, including that he might have something nasty up his sleeve. There are many other possibilities. From what I know, this time, Saddam Hussein has made a very serious miscalculation. It is quite possible that he thought he had far more time. He thought he could go again this far to the brink and then, as he did in November, put his hands up and make some conciliatory gesture and get away with it. He thought that he would get the armed forces of the United States and the United Kingdom all psyched up so that they would have to be wound down again. He thought that he would win another psychological victory over us. This time, he has miscalculated very badly. It is most improbable that any attack on Saddam Hussein, in the long run or even in the short run, will strengthen his regime because I am quite sure that the effect on the targets which we attack will be so devastating that it will be clear to the Iraqi people the devastation which he has brought down upon them.
The noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, talked about he role of Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary-General. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will give him full support at such time that it is appropriate for him to go back to Baghdad, as we have always done in the past.
The noble Earl suggested that we should be chary of giving a carrot to Saddam Hussein, which was an argument rather in the contrary direction to that advanced earlier in the debate by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. There is constantly on offer to Saddam Hussein and any successor Iraqi government the carrot of total suspension and removal of sanctions
1546
as soon as there is full compliance with Untied Nations Security Council resolutions. The matter is as simple as that. I do not believe that any other carrot is appropriate. We hope that, as a result of the activities of today and yesterday, Saddam Hussein will be aware of his responsibilities to his people and will realise that he has currently embarked upon a path of insanity.
I was asked about the costs of the operation by the noble Earl and whether or not they would be borne by the defence budget. I am not aware yet that my Secretary of State has had any discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer but normally, costs of military operations are borne by the contingency reserve.
My noble friend Lord Rea asked whether or not Saddam Hussein would turn again on the Kurds and the Shi'ites. I must be perfectly candid with your Lordships. It is quite possible that he will, if not turn on them, seek to make absolutely certain that there is no threat to his regime from either of those directions. With any luck, the result of the allied attacks will be a weakening of the revolutionary guard and its ability to impose the sort of iron discipline on Iraqi society which we have seen in the past. But it is quite possible, in the short term, that he will step up his reign of despotism in relation to those two wretched groups of people.
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, asked whether or not a cruise missile had landed in Iran. When I came from the Ministry of Defence, we were still concerned about that report. We are inquiring into it. I regret that I can give your Lordships no further information on that matter but I am sure that, as soon as we have the answer to that question, it will be put in the public domain as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, asked whether or not there were any agreements with Arab states on cost sharing. I am not aware of there having been any negotiations in that regard. However, one of the crucial elements in the decisions of the past two days was to create, as far as possible, an element of surprise. The last thing we wanted to do was to go around tipping our hand throughout the Gulf, having negotiations with people and saying, "Next week or the following week we are contemplating doing this or that. Will you divvy up a certain proportion of the cost?".
Discussions will take place when the present operations are over but that is as far as I can go in answering the noble Lord's question today. His idea of having Saddam Hussein sign any future document is an intriguing one. I do not know why he thinks that Saddam Hussein's signature on a piece of paper will be any more reliable than any other guarantee he, or any member of his government, have given in the past.
The noble Lord talked of civil war in Iraq and dangers from bordering countries. I can assure him that it is firmly the policy of Her Majesty's Government and that of our American allies to preserve the territorial integrity of Iraq. We have no desire whatever to see greater turbulence in that part of the world which might result from the break-up of that country. The noble Lord asked whether or not we contribute to the United States' strategic thinking. The answer is that we do, regularly,

1547
at every level of government both between the State Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office here, between the Ministry of Defence and the Pentagon, and of course between the Prime Minister and the President.
My noble friend Lord Kennet asked whether there was any news today from the United Nations. As far as I know there is none but it is still fairly early in the morning in New York. I suggest—this is not intended as a flippant remark—that any news bulletins will be more up to date than my information by the time they come to his screen.
My noble friend talked of possible unfavourable repercussions with our friends and allies in Europe. It is always possible to find arguments for doing nothing. If we have disagreements with our friends in Europe, they were not at the top of our considerations in the decisions we were taking today. We know that a lot of our friends in Europe support us; some disagree. Many of our friends throughout the world support us and we rely on that support and our belief in the rightness of our actions. I must tease my noble friend a little because he fairly admitted when he asked what we would do if there was a Russo-Chinese attack on another country like Iraq, that it was impossible to find an equivalent of Iraq. My noble friend answered his own question.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, my noble friend teases me sufficiently to make me rise. That was not my point. It was not the obvious moral inferiority of Iraq in relation to any other imaginable country that preoccupied me, but the danger of making a comparison, for instance, with Burma, Malaysia or some real country which many people would feel to be quite different from Iraq and that would therefore invalidate my point.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I was listening to my noble friend's interjection. I cannot say that I quite follow it. I shall read Hansard tomorrow and if I think of anything new to say to him, I shall write to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked questions about the Caspian Basin. I understand that the Foreign Secretary has already said that the Caspian Basin and access to it is a priority in British foreign policy and will be the subject of increased diplomatic effort on the part of Her Majesty's Government over the next couple of years.
I turn to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, and the extremely moving remarks that she made in relation to the plight of the Iraqi people. We all know of her long dedication to the suffering of the wretched people, the Marsh Arabs, in the southern part of that country. It bears repeating in your Lordships' House that, while all that military activity yesterday and today has been going on, we have not forgotten that we are enforcing a no-fly zone in both north and south Iraq and, through that, doing what we can to reduce the burden of Saddam Hussein's rule of those wretched people. What the noble Baroness had to say about the cynicism of the Iraqi minister of health was extremely moving, as I am sure all your Lordships will agree.
1548
I was asked to say what will happen when the guns fall silent. I cannot do better than quote directly from the press notice that was circulated by the body with which the noble Baroness has a close acquaintance, the AMAR UNESCO Standing Conference:
"When the guns fall silent the suffering goes on and so does our work of rehabilitation".
That task will face the entire international community. As that press conference pointed out,
"the AMAR international charitable foundation has, day by day, sustained 100,000 refugees who have been forced to flee from Iraq to Iran".
We also have to think of those poor wretches who have not managed to escape from Iraq to Iran.
My noble friend Lord Hardy asked about the proportion of Iraq's gross national product devoted to defence. He rattled off at great speed an impressive number of statistics about the size of the armed forces in Iraq. The figures sounded roughly right to me, but if he wants a precise reply I shall have to check the figures. There is no doubt whatever that Saddam Hussein could have fed his people better and could have provided them with more medicines had he not spent the money he obtained from the sale of his oil on palaces and armaments which threaten his neighbours and his own people.
I am sure that everybody in the House agrees with my noble friend that the children of Iraq should be encouraged to live in peace and have a better education. That is, of course, what we hope for all of them as soon as possible.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monro, for what he said about the standard of our pilots and the ground crews. It is our objective not just to minimise Iraqi casualties but also to minimise the casualties among the brave young men flying in Royal Air Force planes.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, referred to Ramadan and to whether or not the timing had anything to do with Ramadan. There may be some misunderstanding about Ramadan. As I understand it, Ramadan is not a fixed feast. It may be proclaimed on different days in different countries. So there is uncertainty at the moment as to when Ramadan will be proclaimed in any one of the countries in that part of the world.
The timing of this military operation was set simply by two things: first, the fact that Mr. Butler presented his report, saying that he had had absolutely no compliance and, in fact, had had obstruction, deceit and difficulties from the Iraqi Government who were clearly in breach of their responsibilities. The decision taken to engage in military operations obviously reposed on the need to get the UNSCOM inspectors out of Iraq as safely and as soon as possible. I am delighted to say that that operation has been 100 per cent. successful. It was speedily arranged.
Secondly, there was a need, as far as possible, to preserve the element of surprise. That is one of the main reasons why no land-based aircraft were used last night. No British aircraft were used last night because we did not want anyone to see the planes being bombed up.

1549
The planes that took part in the attack were carrier-based aircraft so no one could see what was happening. There were no journalists aboard the American aircraft carrier. Nobody knew that the Tomahawks were going to be launched by the American forces.
Many other elements of guile were involved, not least the fact that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State went all the way to Brussels for dinner last night because he had that outstanding engagement. He did not want people to know that he was cancelling his appointments because that would have led to suspicion that things were about to start happening immediately. The element of surprise was of crucial importance in deciding the timing. I am glad to be able to report that our evidence is that at the very least we were partially successful, if not wholly successful, in gaining the advantage of surprise.
Perhaps I may say finally to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that we have constantly been discussing with our Arab friends whether they can see any other way of dealing with Saddam Hussein. However much, from time to time, they might deplore force and talk about the suffering of the Iraqi people—their feelings on that are understandable—I have yet to encounter a senior Arab leader who has come up with any other way of dealing with Saddam Hussein.
My noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney referred to the need for the great power unanimity rule. I do not want to put words in my noble friend's mouth, but he seemed to imply that, in the absence of that rule, our actions were illegal. I refer him to the fact that the American-British actions in this case were based on previous United Nations Security Council resolutions which were not vetoed. The advice of Her Majesty's Government is that everything we are doing is fully in compliance with international law although my noble friend—
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the situation is that the unanimity rule is in force and that is why their actions were illegal.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, my noble friend and I will have to part company on this one—
Lord Jenkins of Putney: It is admitted in their own Statement.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I repeat to my noble friend that the advice that we have is that we are fully in compliance with the requirements of international law. Our actions are based on former United Nations Security Council resolutions. Nobody attempted to veto those resolutions.
I was not quite clear what my noble friend had in mind when he referred to the possibility of the Russians and the Chinese going into Iraq to protect UNSCOM officials. I do not think that they have been physically under threat. The problem is that we have not succeeded in achieving compliance with UN resolutions.
1550
My noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney rightly referred to the importance of public opinion in this country and said that it could not be taken for granted. I hope very much that the message that goes out today from both this House and another place will make clear why the Government have taken the steps that they have and that in these circumstances the Government have the support of the overwhelming number of Members of both Houses of Parliament.
My noble friend is absolutely right: my ministerial colleagues and I, in both Houses, will be at pains to try to convey, through every element in the media that is open to us, our arguments for doing what we are doing. An opinion poll conducted today in the United States shows that something like 74 per cent. of the American people support this action, with between 14 and 15 per cent. against. I have yet to see any figures from an opinion poll taken in this country, but I should be surprised if the proportions here are very different.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely rightly drew our attention not only to our own forces' need for our support and prayers but also, as one would expect from him, to the fact that many innocent people will be caught up in this conflict. Although we shall be attacking military installations, there will, unfortunately, be civilian casualties. I should like to make a few brief comments on that. Some of the casualties, particularly in civilian areas, will be caused by the enormous amounts of armaments that the Iraqis fire up into the air and which eventually come down again, hitting people and houses and injuring people. That will certainly be one of the elements in central Baghdad which will cause injuries.
There is evidence to suggest that we have not been hitting civilian targets. I can do no better than to draw your Lordships' attention to the sights on our television screens of cars driving perfectly normally around the centre of Baghdad while the attack was going on. So it is perfectly clear that citizens in Iraq in the centre of Baghdad have been going about their business in a perfectly normal way, while the attacks have been taking place on military installations far away from the centre.
There is one further point that I should like to make clear relating to a comment of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. He talked about the precision of American weapons. I believe that the noble and gallant Lord may not have realised quite how more precise our own weapons have become since the Gulf War in 1991. At that time we were relying, not exclusively but very largely, on what are known as dumb bombs without any sophistication or precision guiding systems available to them. On this occasion, I can tell your Lordships that Her Majesty's forces will be using exclusively precision guided weapons. They will be either Paveway 2 or Paveway 3, which are laser guided thermal imaging systems with a remarkable degree of accuracy. Those will be the only types of weapons which Royal Air Force planes will be dispensing in these circumstances.
I turn, finally, to the remarks of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, whose experience in these matters makes me highly diffident about coming to this Dispatch

1551
Box. As he reminded us, he was in fact in charge of Britain's defences at the time of the Gulf War. I listened very carefully to what the noble and gallant Lord had to say. I entirely agree that it is absolutely essential for us to convey not only to the British people but also to the British forces the precise nature of our military objectives. I can assure the noble and gallant Lord that we are sparing absolutely no effort in that direction.
The noble and gallant Lord also asked whether or not the objectives were understood between governments and armed forces. I am sure that he will accept my assurance that there is total clarity and agreement between the governments as to what needs to be done and as to what the objectives are. Again, I am sure that he will understand from his past experience that we have senior British officers talking daily to one another. The Chief of the Defence Staff is talking to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs almost every day; indeed, he must be talking to him every day now. The American general in Florida has a British two-star officer accredited to him and similar arrangements apply in the Gulf. So there is the most intimate collaboration and understanding between the armed forces and the governments of our two countries.
1552
The noble and gallant Lord thought that it would be wonderful if we had an Iraqi government set up in exile and suggested that it would be excellent if such a government could feed assistance through to an opposition resistance in Iraq. All I can say is Amen to all of that. Unfortunately, I am afraid, the world is not quite as simple as that. Not long ago, one of my right honourable friends at the Foreign Office entertained some Iraqi Opposition groups. I think that 15 or 16 of them came in, and they found it very difficult to come to an agreed message; they found it very difficult to accept that they could work closely together; and they found it rather difficult to agree on objectives. We will be working further in that direction, but these matters are, unfortunately, not wholly within our hands.
I have taken up too much of your Lordships' time but I wanted to be sure that I had addressed as many of the remarks as possible of each and every one of your Lordships who have spoken on this extremely solemn and sombre occasion. As we speak, I repeat that brave young men in Royal Air Force uniforms are in the air at this very moment over Baghdad. As the right reverend Prelate said, our prayers must go with them all.
House adjourned for the Christmas Recess at twenty minutes before six o'clock until Monday, 11th January next.

  Access to Justice Bill and Human Rights Act 1998
  Access to Justice Bill and Human Rights Act 1998
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link: Compensation for Blight
  Channel Tunnel Rail Link: Compensation for Blight
  Airline Passengers: Violent and Disruptive Behaviour
  Airline Passengers: Violent and Disruptive Behaviour
  A.12: Hoardings
  A.12: Hoardings
  Development: Guidance to RDAs
  Development: Guidance to RDAs
  MV "Derbyshire"
  MV "Derbyshire"
  Rent Increases: Green Paper
  Rent Increases: Green Paper
  Operation Lifeline Sudan: Nuba Mountains
  Operation Lifeline Sudan: Nuba Mountains
  Sudan: Diversion of Food Aid
  Sudan: Diversion of Food Aid
  Council of Europe and WEU Assemblies: UK Delegation
  Council of Europe and WEU Assemblies: UK Delegation
  House of Lords: Hereditary Peers' Contribution
  House of Lords: Hereditary Peers' Contribution
  G7/8: UK Presidency
  G7/8: UK Presidency
  Human Genetics Advisory Commission Working Party
  Human Genetics Advisory Commission Working Party
  Human Embryos: Cloning
  Human Embryos: Cloning
  General Pinochet
  General Pinochet
  Agriculture Council, 14–15 December
  Agriculture Council, 14–15 December
  Dr. Bishop
  Dr. Bishop
  Brazil
  Brazil
  Unidentified Flying Objects
  Unidentified Flying Objects
  UN Charter: Article 53
  UN Charter: Article 53
  UN Charter: Article 51
  UN Charter: Article 51
  Council of Europe: Fact-finding Mission to Turkey
  Council of Europe: Fact-finding Mission to Turkey
  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Turkey: Human Rights
  Turkey: Human Rights
  Assassinations
  Assassinations
  European Union: Economic and Financial Sanctions
  European Union: Economic and Financial Sanctions
  Sudan: IGAD Peace Process
  Sudan: IGAD Peace Process
  State Immunity Act
  State Immunity Act
  General Pinochet: Extradition Proceedings
  General Pinochet: Extradition Proceedings
  Argentina: Arms Exports
  Argentina: Arms Exports
  Northern Ireland: Community "Alternative" Groups
  Northern Ireland: Community "Alternative" Groups
  Northern Ireland: Electricity Generation
  Northern Ireland: Electricity Generation
  Hearsay Evidence: Law Commission Report
  Hearsay Evidence: Law Commission Report
  Immigration and Asylum White Paper
  Immigration and Asylum White Paper
  Counter-Terrorist Proposals
  Counter-Terrorist Proposals
  Prison Visitors: Training Courses
  Prison Visitors: Training Courses
  Human Rights Convention: Compatibility of Bills
  Human Rights Convention: Compatibility of Bills
  Domestic Violence: Counselling in Schools
  Domestic Violence: Counselling in Schools
  General Pinochet: Drafting of Warrants
  General Pinochet: Drafting of Warrants
  Human Rights Act
  Human Rights Act
  Firearms (Amendment) Act
  Firearms (Amendment) Act
  Human Rights Act 1998
  Human Rights Act 1998
  Immigration Detainees
  Immigration Detainees