Sitting of 17 July 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

NATO Enlargement
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
9.34 am
Mr. Michael Colvin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are debating three protocols relating to the North Atlantic treaty. The protocols have been tabled. They are Command Papers and are available to the House, but the explanatory memoranda are not available in the Vote Office. May I suggest that, in our quest for ways in which to modernise this place, we might think again about the Ponsonby rule, under which treaties, conventions and protocols are ratified in the House? We are lucky to get a debate on the enlargement of NATO. As the House is considering how it administers its proceedings, the Ponsonby rule might fruitfully be reviewed.
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. It seems to me that the Modernisation Committee could look at that. I shall see that the relevant section of the Official Report is given to the Modernisation Committee.
9.35 am
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): For almost half of this century, Europe has been divided between east and west. That division would have been incomprehensible to previous generations. For the preceding two centuries, Berlin, Warsaw, Prague and Budapest were part of a common European heritage expressed in shared culture, music and architecture. Their separation from the rest of Europe after the war was brutal, and was enforced with frequent brutality.
The restoration of those capitals and their countries to our common European heritage has been the most exciting change in political geography of our generation. It began a decade ago in Berlin with the destruction of the wall that symbolised the iron curtain. It will continue for another decade, as we continue the process of enlargement of the European Union to embrace the new democracies of central and eastern Europe. Countries that have emerged from former communist rule to share our democracy and our freedom of speech must also be given every opportunity to share in our prosperity. We cannot allow the iron curtain between east and west to be replaced by a velvet curtain, dividing the haves from the have-nots.
682
Today's debate is another step in rolling back the division that has scarred Europe for too long. Just as enlargement of the European Union will enable the people of central Europe to share in our prosperity, so the enlargement of NATO will enable them to share in our security. It is a mark of the momentous change in our continent that three countries that, only a decade ago, were among our potential enemies will, from now on, be among our firm allies.
That step is in the interests of the new member states, but it is also in the interests of the existing states. We, too, have everything to gain from increased security in central Europe. The division of Europe has lasted since a war that began with the invasion of the Czech lands and of Poland. Today, we put such conflict between us firmly into the history books by bringing those countries into a common military alliance based on the principle of mutual defence.
NATO has been the foundation stone of Britain's security for 50 years. As the iron curtain parted, there were those who claimed that NATO would become redundant. Some still say that, with the Soviet Union dead and buried, NATO has done its job and should be given an honourable discharge, but, 10 years after the cold war, NATO has a new role. We have learnt that there is a continuing need for a military organisation of NATO's competence and strength. We have learnt that NATO is still essential to maintaining peace and stability. NATO's role now is not solely one of the territorial defence of its members against any external military threat. The mission most often undertaken by NATO forces is to act as the instrument of regional security by building peace rather than deterring war.
In Bosnia, we saw war wreak its misery once again in our continent. NATO played the key part in bringing that war to an end, and is playing an equally key part in building the peace. Without NATO's resolve, the brutal repression in Kosovo in early June would have remained unchecked. It is NATO which is providing comfort and solidarity to the neighbouring countries of Albania and Macedonia by high-profile military visits and exercises. Therefore, there is a clear, continuing role for NATO, facing up to new threats to security and stability.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On NATO's role in southern Europe, will my right hon. Friend reflect on whether there is a case for expanding the work of the United Nations, giving it the capability it needs to ensure that ceasefires are observed and peace is upheld, rather than handing matters to a military alliance which is not answerable to the UN?
Mr. Cook: The United Nations remains at the centre of the Government's policy in creating a strong, healthy and peaceful international community. Indeed, over the past year, we have ensured that key decisions on peacekeeping and conflict prevention are taken to the UN. Also, we have made proposals in the strategic defence review for ensuring that Britain is ready to respond to calls by the UN on our forces in order to meet challenges to peace around the world. Senior UN figures are of course adamant—as we are—that the UN must be the body which provides the mandate and the international community's response to threats, but, by its culture and nature, it is not a military organisation, and is not well placed to provide command and control of military

683
operations. That is why the UN's recent history in peacekeeping operations has been to use military regional organisations to respond to its mandate and requirements. NATO must be able to respond to such UN calls when they are made.
This Government can speak with some authority on NATO because, of course, a Labour Government negotiated the North Atlantic treaty. Britain has remained one of NATO's major allies and contributors ever since. NATO has served our country well; it has given us security against external threat, confidence in our relations with European partners and the means by which to police the security of our region. NATO is also the most powerful pillar of the partnership between Europe and the United States.
We who owe so much to the alliance must now be generous in admitting as members the central European countries on our borders. As the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) mentioned on a point of order, that is achieved by three protocols—one for each of the three countries. Incidentally, I have made inquiries; the explanatory memoranda will be in the Vote Office as soon as they can be copied this morning.
There are three fundamental components to NATO's effectiveness: collective defence, armed forces that can work together and a commitment to common values. We believe that each will be strengthened by admitting Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic as new members.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The new york times reports that a majority opinion in Czechoslovakia is against joining NATO. Having said all that about NATO's advantages, what is my right hon. Friend's assessment of the effect of NATO expansion on nationalist forces in the Soviet Union, which do not love democracy and which might exploit for their own purposes such expansion to their borders—especially the Baltic states?
Mr. Cook: It is not for the House to decide the state of Czech opinion. That is a matter for those who are elected to represent Czech opinion; they are unanimous in their wish to accede to membership of NATO. The one occasion on which public opinion in any of the three lands was tested was in Hungary, where a referendum organised by the Hungarian Government produced a thumping majority in favour of membership. We NATO members must recognise and accept the advice of those who represent the three countries that it is the settled view that they wish to share the security that NATO membership confers.
Mr. Frank Cook: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Robin Cook: I have not yet finished answering the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but I shall happily take another one on board.
Mr. Frank Cook: I apologise to the Foreign Secretary; I thought that he had finished the point. Will he reflect on the public opinion that used to be registered in Spain and the way in which the Spanish view has changed considerably?
Mr. Robin Cook: Spain is now so comfortable and at home with the alliance that the alliance's Secretary-General is a former distinguished Spanish Minister.
It may be appropriate to respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, who anticipated part of my speech, by making the following points. We have always maintained that Russian concerns were misplaced. NATO is a defensive alliance; its primary duty remains the defence of its member states against aggression from any quarter. Its most urgent work at present is securing stability in parts of Europe where there is instability, such as the western Balkans. It is in Russia's interest that NATO should be able to restore stability in such regions of common interest. Indeed, Russia has worked with NATO to secure that objective in Bosnia. I accept my hon. Friend's point that Russia's concerns about NATO remain, although we have established valuable dialogue with Russia on wider issues.
On the eve of the Madrid summit on enlargement of NATO, all members of the alliance signed the NATO-Russia founding Act, which has established a new relationship based on co-operation not confrontation. The founding Act provides for a permanent joint council between us. I have attended ministerial meetings of that council, which have been extremely productive and conducted in a friendly spirit. The permanent joint council has a wide agenda, covering a variety of common interests from assistance with economic and employment consequences of defence reduction to greater transparency of force levels and capability. A year on from the summit, I find it welcome that we can talk constructively with Russia about issues of common interest without the matter of enlargement getting in the way of the dialogue.
I return to the issue of the three countries that are seeking to join us. I said that the principle of collective defence still lies at the heart of NATO. Article 5 of the Washington treaty makes an attack on one NATO member an attack on all. It is the strongest possible guarantee of our security, and sends the clearest possible message to anyone with designs on the territory or freedom of action of a NATO member. The three new members of NATO will enjoy that guarantee; they will accept, too, the responsibility that it imposes on them. We will help to defend Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic; they will help to defend us. The principle of collective defence will not be weakened by the expansion of NATO's numbers. On the contrary, the capability to deliver on that principle will be strengthened by the increase in numbers and the greater security of our present borders.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: The Foreign Secretary has said that it is in all our interests to secure stability in the western Balkans. Might we not be able to enhance our security in that area by admitting Slovenia to NATO? The United States made clear its opposition to that at the Madrid summit. Does it remain United Kingdom policy that Slovenia should be admitted at an early opportunity? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that would enhance the stability of the western Balkans?
Mr. Cook: The case for Slovenia becoming a member of NATO stands on its own ground and does not require

685
to be approached tangentially by reference to the western Balkans. It is well known that, in the lead-up to the Madrid conference, Britain supported the case for admitting Slovenia.
Two main schools of thought emerged in discussions before and during Madrid. One was that there should be an enlargement by the admission of three countries, and that is the proposition that we are debating. It is manageable, and I shall later deal with why it is important not to have an unmanageable enlargement.
The second proposition was that there should be an enlargement by five countries to embrace both Slovenia and Romania. There was no support in the alliance for an enlargement of four. However, this will not be the last enlargement, and other countries, including Slovenia, have made applications which will continue to be considered on their merits
I have said that, in debating enlargement, we must reflect on three considerations. The first is the maintenance of our collective defence; in our judgment, the enlargement will strengthen, not weaken, that. The second consideration must be the military effectiveness of the alliance.
The former communist countries have had to face a series of daunting tasks. They have had to re-create democratic institutions, restore individual freedoms and restructure and modernise their economies. They have also had to address the need to reform their armies as modern military forces that are accountable to civilian rule. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic have all approached that challenge with determination and energy.
Through NATO's "Partnership for Peace" programme, we have provided training, advice and joint exercises. Britain has provided extensive programmes of education in the English language, which is a key part of integration into NATO in which English is the common language of command. Britain has also sponsored seminars in the new member states on subjects such as air traffic control, the role of the junior ranks and military law. We have first-hand knowledge of the competent and disciplined character of their armed forces from working alongside them in Bosnia. Armies that once exercised in readiness for war against each other now work together to impose a common peace.
Working alongside our forces in Bosnia is a mechanised infantry battalion from the Czech Republic, another such battalion from Poland and an engineer battalion from Hungary. The contribution of those countries to the NATO-led peacekeeping forces in Bosnia demonstrates their commitment to fulfilling their obligations as allies
Mr. Jim Marshall: I am listening to my right hon. Friend with great interest. He places great credibility on the military input of the three new countries to NATO. I ask him to back-pedal a little on that proposition, because the contribution of those nations to the campaign in Bosnia is currently the total contribution that they will be able to make to NATO's future defence.
Will my right hon. Friend re-emphasise his earlier comment that we are not debating a military decision? It may have military significance in a decade, but the important aspect at present is the political decision to expand. Those three countries have given a commitment to increase defence expenditure. When that happens,
686
they will be able to make a real military contribution, but that will be in perhaps five or 10 years' time, rather than at present.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes an interesting contribution. I do not go along with him in the limited character that he ascribes to the military forces of those three countries. They would be the first to recognise that they have further to travel. As one of the existing members of NATO, we are willing to help them to travel that road and to continue to work with them. We shall be able to do more with them as allies in the alliance than we can do while they are not. Of course, my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the powerful political character of the decision. His contribution leads me naturally to the third consideration in debating enlargement and whether those countries are ready to join NATO.
Mr. Colvin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cook: I shall give way, but, at some stage, I must be allowed to make my speech.
Mr. Colvin: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that another key factor in those countries' eligibility for membership of NATO is the democratisation of their armed forces so that they are under civilian, political control rather than military control?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman takes me to my third consideration, which is about how we assess those countries.
NATO's fundamental strength is not its military capability: it is the common values of the alliance countries. The strength of the alliance derives from our respect for democracy and human rights, individual liberty and the rule of law. The Washington treaty reaffirms the faith of NATO members in the United Nations charter and their wish to live in peace with all peoples and all Governments.
Ernest Bevin, the first Labour Foreign Secretary after the war, laid that treaty before the House. He said that it was
"an endeavour to express on paper the underlying determination to preserve our way of life—freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and the rights and liberty of the individual."
Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic have shown that they share those values. Perhaps they treasure them even more than we do, because they had to struggle for their freedom and democracy and they know their worth. Perhaps that helps to explain the great enthusiasm within those countries for membership of NATO.
NATO is effective because all its members share common principles. That is why 16 countries can still be effective, even though every decision is by consensus. The same will be true of a NATO of 19 allies with shared principles. The enlargement by three countries that was agreed at Madrid still leaves on the table applications for membership by other countries. In an intervention, the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) drew attention to one such country.
Those countries are also seeking to address the modernisation of their armed forces, and we are playing an active part in assisting them through "Partnership for Peace". We are also in close political dialogue with them on security through the Euro-Atlantic partnership council.

687
It was no easy decision to choose which among so many applicant countries should be successful. The consensus that emerged from long discussion in Madrid was that they should be the three countries that we are debating. Critical to that judgment was the broad view that NATO enlargement should proceed at a pace that is consistent with NATO absorbing its expanded membership. We would do no service to the other countries that aspire to join NATO if we expanded so rapidly that NATO lost its effectiveness as the military guarantor of peace on our continent. As I have said, this will not be the last NATO enlargement. No one should be under any illusion about the magnitude of the current enlargement.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I hope that, when the Foreign Secretary amplifies his remarks, he will address the issue of Russia. Early in his speech, he said that the expansion of NATO was an export of security to central and eastern Europe. In view of the NATO-Russia founding Act, will the culmination of that process be Russian membership of NATO, or is that not the Government's view?
Mr. Cook: As was famously observed by a Prime Minister, "never" is one of the longest words in the English language. Nobody rules out any option for the future of NATO. At present, Russia has not applied to join NATO, and we are a long way from the time when that will be a credible proposition. However, we work hard for the success of the permanent joint council, and that is the basis of our current dialogue with Russia. In the same way, we are working with Ukraine through the charter that we have formed between it and NATO.
At present, NATO has not only a good relationship with applicant countries, but a strong relationship with many countries such as Russia and Ukraine which have not submitted an application to join, but who work with us through "Partnership for Peace". Many of those countries are participants in the Euro-Atlantic partnership council, which has met four times, and proved successful when it has done so. We particularly welcome the relations with Ukraine.
Although Ukraine and Russia may not be part of the enlargement, it is still a substantial enlargement. The admission of the three countries will increase the territory within NATO by a sixth, and will increase the borders of NATO by a third. The immediate priority must be to make a success of such a large expansion of the alliance by ensuring the integration of the new members into the command structure and the interoperability of their forces. The costs of doing so are modest, and well worth the price.
The UK may have to pay an estimated additional £110 million to NATO's common budgets; that will be spread over a decade. The costs to the new members might be higher, but they will not be excessive. It is a cost which, in large part, they would have had to undertake if they were to modernise their forces, whether or not they were members of NATO.
Mr. James Gray: The figure of £110 million over 10 years is called into question in the
688
Select Committee report. Has the Ministry of Defence examined the £110 million projection? If so, are the Government prepared to stand by it?
Mr. Cook: I assure the hon. Gentleman that any figure given by a Cabinet Minister to the House is one which the Government are prepared to stand by. There is a memorandum in the Library—hon. Members are welcome to consult it—which compares our estimates of the cost with those made by others.
Mr. Dalyell: Two years ago, The new york times reported that the congressional budget office had estimated that the price tag might be as high as $125 billion over 15 years. The American estimates seem very different from the one that my right hon. Friend has given the House. Is he saying that the American estimates are baloney?
Mr. Cook: The agreed NATO costs, which embrace the Americans' support, is a total of $1.5 billion, of which the UK share is the £110 million to which I have referred. I invite my hon. Friend to consult the papers in the Library, which go into some detail about why we believe in the figures and why we believe that other estimates are exaggerated.
I have explained the costs to the House, and I welcome the interest of hon. Members in making sure that it is convinced of the figures. However, it is broadly agreed that the cost of enlargement will not be great, to either existing or new members. I hope that the House will agree, without the necessity to consult the Library, that the rewards of a successful enlargement will be great for both existing and new members.
The reward is a NATO that unites, rather than divides, our continent. Enlargement of NATO is a logical response to the end of the cold war and the collapse of the iron curtain. I therefore hope that the whole House will join today in offering a warm welcome to our new partners in the Atlantic alliance.
10.2 am
Mr. John Maples: I agree with much of what the Foreign Secretary said, but I am slightly more cautious than he is. He made a diplomat's speech, but there are military considerations in the further expansion of NATO which I wish to touch on in rather more detail than he did.
Before I go on, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House, as I cannot stay to the end of the debate. I have already apologised to the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence. I also wish to say to the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), that, in preparing for the debate, I found the Committee's report extraordinarily valuable and comprehensive. We all owe him a debt of gratitude.
Like the Foreign Secretary, I wish to spend a moment on the background. NATO was formed as a defensive alliance nearly 50 years ago, in response to a clear military threat from the Soviet Union and its allies. It is worth reminding ourselves that it is and was a collective defence organisation with a commitment to mutual military defence. The Foreign Secretary referred to

689
article 5. That is a serious commitment for one state to make—that it will consider the invasion of another state or a threat to its territory as a threat to itself.
As a result of that commitment, we developed in NATO a highly integrated military command structure, and we committed troops and equipment in Germany to resist any attack. That was a commitment to the forward defence of the whole NATO area, and it has been an incredibly successful venture. By any standards, the result of the cold war has been victory for the west.
That victory poses problems and challenges about the identity and purpose of NATO, which we must address. The Madrid summit last year contained many items in its further programme of activity, but I wish to mentioned four: the admission of the three new states, on which the Foreign Secretary spent time and which we wholly support; NATO's commitment to an open-door policy; the enhancement of the programme for peace and the creation of the European-Atlantic partnership council; and the instruction that NATO staff should examine the strategic concept of NATO and come back to the conference next year to carry the discussion forward.
The purpose of NATO after the end of the cold war is the big question that ought to be addressed before we consider how far NATO's expansion might go. The old objective was substantial and involved the possibility of total war, including the use of nuclear weapons. Those threats have largely disappeared, and all member states of NATO have significantly reduced defence spending as a result.
The future role of NATO must be to defend the vital interests of NATO members. That extends from resisting external attack on NATO territory—improbable though that currently seems—to intervention in non-NATO regional disputes and to defending NATO interests outside the NATO area.
The immediate threat of a Russian attack has considerably diminished, but territorial threats remain, at least potentially—the poverty and Islamic fundamentalism of the Maghreb countries in north Africa; rogue states, such as Libya and Algeria, with biological and chemical weapons capability and, in some cases, the possibility of nuclear weapons; and potential instability in Russia, Ukraine and other countries in the region.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned nuclear weapons twice in the last few moments, and he emphasised earlier the importance of the security guarantee to be extended under article 5 to all members, including new members. That security guarantee includes, if necessary, the use of nuclear weapons, which tends to underline the solemnity of the guarantee and the extent to which we should appreciate what we are to extend.
Mr. Maples: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes his point very well, and I agree. We are extending our military umbrella, which includes the availability of nuclear weapons from the United States, France and ourselves, to the defence of those other countries. That throws into stark relief the extent of the commitment we are making.
Mr. Dalyell: How does the hon. Gentleman reply to the view of Dr. Arbatov that the Russians have admitted
690
that the parlous condition of their conventional forces makes them more reliant on their nuclear weapons? Does not that have serious consequences for East-West tensions?
Mr. Maples: I wanted to look later at the problem from the Russians' point of view. It may be the fault of the lawyer in me that I like to look at things from the other side, but it is probably a virtue in a diplomat as well—to try to see things from a different point of view.
Mr. Corbyn: I thought the hon. Gentleman was a politician.
Mr. Maples: I am a lapsed lawyer, I am afraid.
It is worth reminding ourselves that there are many heavily armed states with modern weapons outside NATO—40 have modern aircraft, 20 have ballistic missiles, 12 have chemical and biological capability and some, as we know, are developing nuclear capability as well. Threats to our interests remain—for example, the instability and war in the former Yugoslavia, the possibility of a spillover into south-eastern Europe from middle east disputes, and the need to protect commercial interests, as we saw in the Gulf recently.
Such threats—which are unforeseen precisely because no one can predict what they will be—will arise. The possibility of a resurgent Russia may be remote, but we should take it seriously. When we consider the conflicts in which we have been involved over the past 16 or 17 years, we should remember that the Foreign Office did not predict the Falklands conflict or the Gulf war, so the chances that the next conflict will be predicted are remote.
An advantageous feature of NATO is that it has made war between its member states unthinkable. Without its military structure and the integrated military command, that may change, which would be a dangerous departure.
Mr. Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the whole thrust of NATO expansion—right up to the borders of Russia and down through south-east Europe—may encourage increased militarism in the countries that it borders? The military in those countries will be encouraged to demand increased resources at the expense of an often very deprived population. Should we not demilitarise Europe rather than increase militarisation on its borders?
Mr. Maples: I shall deal later with how expansion appears, and what the consequences may be, in Russia and some of the other countries of the former Soviet Union. I do not agree that our response should be to demilitarise NATO; I have enumerated some of the threats that we may have to meet with military force.
We must decide what kind of NATO we want—do we want a hard NATO or a soft NATO? We clearly need it to have a crisis management, peacekeeping function, as has been shown over the past few years. As the Foreign Secretary said, we need to foster understanding and good relations with the countries of the former Warsaw pact and the former Soviet Union.
The three successful applicant countries—and, indeed, the other applicant countries—want to join NATO because of the territorial security guarantee. They do no

691
want to join it because they regard it as a nice western political club; they want the security guarantee that article 5 of the NATO treaty will give them.
It would be foolish to disband NATO's integrated military command structure, which gives it the capability to handle such military threats; if we did, we might have to put it together again at rather short notice. We should remember that, in the Gulf war, the NATO command structure enabled the British and the Americans to work closely together. Indeed, the French found it difficult to work with their allies; as a result, they played a somewhat peripheral role.
NATO keeps the United States committed to European defence and involved in any military operations, which I regard as vital. We should ask whether the United States would be involved in Bosnia if NATO did not have a hard military element and whether, without the United States, we would be involved in Bosnia. Europe has been reluctant to become involved in such disputes without the support of the United States—most of NATO's hard dimension depends on the United Kingdom and the United States.
NATO is not a political club; it is a military alliance. Membership is not a reward for good behaviour; it is about mutual military defence and the efficiency and rapidity of response. We are all aware of the letter that was sent to the Prime Minister in May by 23, I think, distinguished military and diplomatic figures, who referred to the
"vital need to preserve NATO's ability, in the new Europe where, by common consent, potential threats to the peace are diffuse and unpredictable, to make rapid decisions and take quick and effective decisions on what action, if any, to take."
We must ensure that NATO retains those characteristics.
Any new members must be defendable without huge extra expense or risks to the existing members, and they must make a real military contribution. We must ask some difficult questions. Are we prepared to go to war to defend their territory under article 5 of the NATO treaty? How practical would it be for NATO to defend the Baltic states? NATO obligations could lead to a general war in Europe. Are we prepared to allow that to happen for the sake of the defence of some of the applicant countries? We must consider the military commitments very carefully.
Mr. Gray: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend's point that, as NATO is only as good as its weakest link, we must be cautious about too rapid an expansion. The most recent expansion was in 1990, when east Germany became part of west Germany, so to speak; the Bundeswehr had fundamentally to restructure east German forces to integrate them into the west German army. Does he agree that we should be cautious about the time and money that will be required to restructure the armed forces of some of the new countries, so that they can play an active and useful part in NATO?
Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend is right. The United States Department of Defence estimates that the restructuring and development of the armed forces of the three successful applicant countries will take about 10 years.
692
The current round of enlargement increases the length of NATO's borders by 31 per cent. Hungary, one of the three new countries, does not have a border with any other member state; it sits alone with other non-NATO countries between it and its allies, although that would, of course, change if Slovakia became a member.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Slovenia.
Mr. Maples: I am talking about the geographical gap, and Slovenia would provide only a narrow corridor between Italy and Hungary.
The fact that new members will have to restructure and upgrade their forces will, in the short term, reduce NATO's overall military effectiveness; as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) pointed out, that is likely to take some time.
What should the criteria be for new membership? The military and strategic considerations that I have mentioned should remain paramount, but we must remember that, as the Foreign Secretary said, many of the applicant countries regard themselves as European; they believe that, over the past 50 or 60 years, they were temporarily detached from Europe by Russian imperialism. If we denied them membership, we should be sending a clear and unwelcome message, and perhaps drive them back into the Russian orbit.
Difficult decisions must be taken. Although we must encourage progress towards greater democracy and freedom, we must be careful that that does not lead states into thinking that they will be entitled to membership if they meet certain conditions. No state should be ruled out from membership, but there can be no timetable or fixed commitments. The essential conditions for membership must be that an applicant country is internally stable and at peace with its neighbours and that it has stable and responsible Government and political institutions. Moreover, it must be able to make a real military contribution to its own defence without imposing heavy military or strategic commitments on others.
The intermediate status of membership in the "Partnership for Peace", the European Atlantic partnership council, the European Union or the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe should reinforce the confidence of former Warsaw pact countries that are not members of NATO. All those organisations have great value in their own right, not only as stepping stones to something else. We do not regard membership of the European Union as a stepping stone to NATO membership; it is, and should continue to be, possible to be a member of NATO without being a member of the European Union, and vice versa
Mr. Colvin: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, will he say whether he agrees that some countries that want to become members of NATO—and the European Union, for that matter—have equally important bilateral relations with their neighbours? The Baltic states collectively have a bilateral agreement with the United States of America, which has important security implications for them as they wait and hope to join NATO.
Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend is right to say that we should not regard NATO membership as the only solution

693
to many of these problems. Membership of the organisations that I have mentioned may offer something, and he suggests other possibilities.
As I said, I want to look at the matter from Russia's point of view. We must remember that Russia was one of the world's two super-powers. It had a large empire, and was the second biggest military power in the world. Now, it is much diminished—it is much smaller, its economy is in a parlous state and its military capability is a pale shadow of what it was. Although we cannot allow Russia to have a veto on NATO's future, NATO must recognise Russia's legitimate interests and how it sees things. Rightly or wrongly, Russia regards NATO's expansion with suspicion.
We must acknowledge that it is a legitimate aim of Russian foreign policy to seek security and secure borders. Russia no doubt feels that there is a need for there to be other states between NATO's eastern borders and its own western borders. I am not pretending that the issue is not difficult, but we cannot ignore it or pretend that it does not exist.
I wholly agree with the Foreign Secretary that it is vital that Russia, Ukraine and the other countries of the former Soviet Union are brought back fully into the international community. The west has devoted substantial resources and efforts to that end, and we all hope for success.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would not be to the benefit of European security if we were to let the Russian Government believe that they could ever exercise a veto on the decision of any free, independent, democratic country, on its borders or elsewhere, to come into a collective security arrangement in its own interests and the interests of its neighbours?
Mr. Maples: I agree entirely, but it would be foolish and short-sighted not to take into account the Russian point of view. In 10 years' time, Russia's view may be completely different, but we should never consider the question solely from a western, or even American, point of view.
Russia seems to have accepted the three new members, and there are one or two others to which it would probably have no objection, but would it take the same attitude to, for instance, Romania and Bulgaria or the Baltic states, which involve specific problems, such as the substantial Russian minorities living there, and access to Kaliningrad? The United States has recently been supportive of the Baltic states' desire to join, but Russia has made it clear that it would view that as a serious threat.
According to the BBC's summary of world broadcasts, a Russian Minister said in June that he viewed NATO's planned expansion eastward, and especially the possible admission of former Soviet republics to the alliance, as a "serious threat to Russia". In May, the Russian President himself warned in The Guardian that NATO would cross a perilous red line if it invited the Baltic states or Ukraine to join. We have to take those views seriously, even though they may change over the next five or 10 years—I hope that they will.
There is a danger of NATO expansion helping the cause of the ultra-nationalists in Russia by undermining the position of the western-oriented democrats, who may 694
not be able to persuade other Russian politicians that it is a benign development. That would be a tragedy, because it could help to create a new threat. There is obviously suspicion in Russia, because the START 2 treaty is stalled in the Duma, and doubts are being expressed about the conventional forces agreement.
I agree entirely with the American Secretary of State and the Foreign Secretary that Russia cannot have a veto, but we would be foolish to ignore its concerns.
Mr. John Smith: Russia may have fears, but if those fears are misplaced, our duty is to allay them. The expansion to include the new east European countries offers Russia far more security, because they will come under the umbrella of NATO military doctrine and discipline, with civilian control of the military, which will make them far more stable neighbours than they might otherwise have been.
Mr. Maples: The hon. Gentleman makes two points, one of which I agree with and the other of which I am not so sure about. I agree that we must try to allay the fears. There are a variety of programmes to try to do that, and to develop constructive and peaceful relationships with the countries of the former Soviet Union and Warsaw pact.
I have tried to say why I do not agree with the second point. Russia has some suspicions. I entirely agree with the Foreign Secretary that those are unfounded and that we are not a threat to Russia, but that is not how Russia sees it.
Mr. Dominic Grieve rose—
Mr. Wilkinson rose—
Mr. Maples: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson).
Mr. Wilkinson: The fundamental point that needs to be put on the record is that the Baltic states were free and democratic before they were incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1940, by force of arms and against their will, so no one should take away their legitimate democratic inheritance by bullying or cajoling.
Mr. Maples: Of course that is true, and I completely agree with my hon. Friend. My point was simply that this is a two-way street: the Baltic states may want to join NATO, but we have a say in whether we accept them, and, when we come to make that decision, I hope that we will consider seriously the military commitment that we are making to them. One does not have to be a great historian or geographer to realise that that will be a difficult commitment to fulfil.
There are significant Russian minorities living in the Baltic states, and there is a piece of Russian territory, at Kaliningrad, which can be accessed only through those states. In any case, their accession is probably a long way off, so the issue remains somewhat theoretical. I simply want to put more emphasis than the Foreign Secretary did on the military aspects of our commitments.
There are widely differing estimates of the cost of having the new members. That is incredibly important, because it relates directly to the military and strategic

695
factors involved in defending the territory of a new member state. The mainstream estimates vary from $1.5 billion up to about $10 billion, although, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, the congressional budget office at one point had an estimate about 10 times higher than that.
The Select Committee said that it thought that the likely cost was in the middle of that range, and the Government say that they are confident of their estimate. I only hope that they are right; otherwise, we will all pay a very high price for NATO expansion, despite being told that there is no military threat. I am concerned that the low estimate is effectively based on the assumption that NATO has no enemies, which implies that, if a threat emerges in future, there will be extra spending to be met. I hope that we can be more confident of such estimates in future, and that there will not be quite such a wide range.
It is a significant task to integrate Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary into the alliance.
Mr. George Robertson: The hon. Gentleman said that he would not be here at the end of the debate, and that he would not want to divide the House on the issue, but he has made a very long speech setting out all the reasons against taking the three countries into NATO. Will he say outright whether he and his party are in favour of NATO enlarging to incorporate those countries?
Mr. Maples: The right hon. Gentleman anticipates me, because I was going to say that we fully support those countries' membership. I have taken an awful lot of interventions. Apart from those, I have spoken for only about 15 minutes, which is half the time that the Foreign Secretary took. I am sure that his contribution was worth more than mine, but I nevertheless think that the Defence Secretary's stricture was not fully justified.
We fully support the accession of the three new members, but it will be a significant task to integrate them into NATO's military structure, and that must be substantially completed before there is any further expansion. We should be cautious about having more new members until it is clear how the situation in central and eastern Europe is developing. Almost all the countries that want to join fail at least one of the tests that I set out earlier.
NATO has an enormous current agenda without further enlargement: the integration of the three new members; developing a new strategic concept; and building relationships with Russia and its former allies. Those are all significant tasks, which will take much effort and time. Let us ensure that they are concluded satisfactorily before proceeding any further.
10.28 am
Mr. Bruce George: I am relieved that, at long last, the House is discussing NATO enlargement. When the Defence Select Committee visited NATO very early in the new year, we met the Secretary-General, Mr. Solana, who ever so politely expressed his hope that Britain would be the first, or at least almost the first, country to endorse enlargement. Now we are into July, and four member states—Canada, Denmark, Norway and Germany—have completed all their ratification
696
procedures and formally ratified the enlargement protocols. They have deposited the protocols with the depository state, the United States of America.
The Parliaments of Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Iceland, France, Spain and the USA have all approved the enlargement protocols, but their Governments have not yet deposited the instruments of ratification. The Belgian Senate has approved the protocols, and its lower house will do so shortly. That leaves the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Portugal and Turkey as the member states whose Parliaments have yet to approve the protocols, or in our case even to debate them in full.
Frankly, I am not entirely happy with that arrangement. As has been said, we were the instigator of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in 1949, and it has been embarrassing, bordering on humiliating, going to the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary to talk to diplomats and politicians who have been asking, "When will your Parliament ratify our membership of NATO?" The business managers and the Government have had an enormously hectic programme, but it is with some relief that we are now finally to approve ratification.
Mr. Denis MacShane: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that neither of the principal Opposition spokesmen will be here for the reply? Last week, the shadow Defence Secretary was not present for the important land mines debate. Frankly, that shows a lackadaisical, if not frivolous, approach by the Opposition Front-Bench team to such important defence and foreign policy matters. The sooner that they are replaced by people who would do the job, the better for Parliament.
Mr. George: The last thing that I want to do is contribute to a descent into partisanship in what is basically a non-partisan environment, although I would have preferred the debate to take place on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday.
My second parliamentary point is not directed at my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs and for Defence, and I am not patronising them when I say that I admire what they have done and what they are doing. They are both exceedingly competent. My criticism is that of hon. Members for many decades and is about the process of ratification. The deputy Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin), raised that matter when he jumped up to retaliate early in the debate.
Our Parliament is about the only one—bar Canada—that has no real role in the ratification process. I dignified our proceedings today deliberately, although erroneously, by saying that we were ratifying, but we are doing nothing of the sort; we are debating. Clearly, the Modernisation Committee must realize—the Defence Select Committee report spelled this out in great detail—what is wrong with our alleged ratification system.
The hon. Member for Romsey referred to the Ponsonby rules and said how important they were. We should go beyond those, because few Ponsonby treaties have been debated here unless we have been compelled to debate and formally ratify them. This Parliament has no formal input in treaty-making, which is the prerogative of the Executive acting on behalf of the Crown, as we all know. That system is profoundly unsatisfactory, and this Parliament is in a minority in being totally marginalized

697
in the process. In virtually every other democratic country, it is not simply the prerogative of the Government or the Crown to ratify a treaty. Why is that not the case here? It should be up to us.
The Foreign Affairs and Defence Select Committees, or the relevant Select Committee, should consider the matter and make representations to the House, and there should be a formal vote as part of the treaty-making process, not simply a polite add-on to ratification. That is a general principle, and I hope that, in due course, the House will unite to demand, not ask, that we function as a legislature is supposed to and not be seen as simply an appendage to the Executive in decision making.
Having got that off my considerable chest, I can move on to the subject of debate. Perversely, I shall start with the conclusion of the excellent Defence Select Committee report. Paragraph 117 answers some of the criticisms of the Opposition. We produced earlier reports on NATO enlargement in the 1994–95 and 1995–96 Sessions. We shall also be producing a report before the 50th anniversary of NATO in the middle of next year.
As we said in our latest report,
"We should embark upon this new era … with our eyes open."
We concluded:
"A long period of debate has culminated in the current proposals which the NATO governments have put before us."
We recommended
"that the House endorse the admission of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland to the North Atlantic Alliance."
We are unequivocal about our recommendation, but we are cautious, because we must consider the legitimate anxieties of Russia and listen carefully to the anxieties of the countries in eastern and central Europe that were hijacked into the Soviet orbit just before or just after the second world war and that are desperate to return to our political and democratic culture. Not all of them subscribed in the 1930s to that culture—the Governments of eastern Europe then were not all perfect democracies by any stretch of the imagination.
However, can one imagine what the message would have been from NATO Parliaments or Governments if we had said, after such a lengthy period of debate as to who should join, "Sorry lads, you're out—Russians in, Hungary out"? It would be Russians in, in the sense that we would be accepting their veto, and we would just have to tell those other countries to wait. The consequences would have been politically disastrous. Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic deserve to be reincorporated into Europe—into its security, political and economic environment.
In due course, although again one has to be cautious, Slovenia, Romania and perhaps in a few years Slovakia and Bulgaria—but not yet—will be added to the list. We must develop NATO's absorbative capacity. When the three new countries have been formally admitted, NATO should consider further enlargement, but it should be selective.
We must be concerned about the effect on Russia. To a large extent, we have accommodated that country's views. We have done so in a variety of ways. Russian officers are now in NATO and Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, or SHAPE—no longer do the Russians have to employ Soviet military intelligence, as the information is largely there for them and is handed to 698
them. There are the "Partnership for Peace", the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, and the NATO-Russia permanent joint council. There are treaties with Russia and the Ukraine. The G7 has admitted Russia. Russians are working alongside troops from NATO countries in Bosnia. There are enormous financial injections from western countries into development and democratisation in Russia.
Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend accept that NATO's expansion to the borders of Russia provides the Russian generals and military-industrial complex with strong arguments for expanding expenditure at the expense of the poorest people in Russia? NATO will also cause large increases in defence costs for the new applicant members.
Mr. George: I disagree with my hon. Friend, as he might expect. The Defence Committee hoped that the accession of the three countries would not be seen by American, British, German or French defence manufacturers as a chance to step into countries that can barely afford existing security expenditures. We do not want to destroy developing economies by lumbering them with enormously costly aircraft. Clearly, those countries must spend sufficient money to join NATO, but many countries are drifting down towards the level of expenditure of those three countries. As our spending is projected to be 2.3 per cent. of gross domestic product, we are going perilously close to the spending of countries that cannot afford to be in NATO.
There is anxiety among generals, and among both Russophobes and Russophiles, about the weakness of the former Soviet Union. In talking to generals and politicians in Russia, I often hear the same attitudes that were expressed by the State Department in the United States just after the Falklands war. The State Department official then responsible for relations with Latin America, now deceased, was visited by a large delegation of Latin American Foreign Ministers and ambassadors, and they admonished him and the United States Government for supporting the United Kingdom in the conflict. They gave him hell, but as they left, one after another of them walked past him out of the view of their fellow ambassadors and Foreign Ministers, and winked at him as if to say, "I had to say that, didn't I?" One feels that many people raise ritualistic objections.
One of the contributors to my seminal Jane's NATO Handbook, which was purchased only by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell)—at £125 a copy, I can understand why—was Rainer Rupp, who is well known to some hon. Members. Rupp is now doing 12 years in the slammer in Germany for transmitting 29,000 pages of classified NATO documentation to East German intelligence. That must have been the greatest exercise in confidence building in world history. Comrade Rupp's transmission of information surely led the Soviet Union to realise that we were weak, and that we were not aggressive. I hope that the Russians will realise that they do not confront NATO in an eyeball-to-eyeball cold war environment. We are partners, and we are working together. It is as much in our interests as theirs that they should democratise and modernise their economy and their political culture.
Khrushchev said more than 30 years ago that NATO would one day include the Soviet Union as a member, and everyone laughed. Who knows what will happen five,
699
10 or 15 years from now, but anyone who argues that NATO is superfluous, or that Russia should be incorporated now, is being premature, to put it politely.
Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend may not be aggressive, but the Russians are faced by the 10 conditions set out by Senator Jesse Helms. The third of those conditions is the explicit rejection of a nuclear-free central Europe. Did my hon. Friend's Defence Committee reflect on the Helms conditions?
Mr. George: It would be unfair of me to criticise the chairman of another country's Foreign Relations Committee, but Jesse Helms does not, thankfully, sit alongside Bill Clinton in decision making. Senator Helms's Committee has a great deal of power, but, even as a proponent of more power for our Committees, I realise when I see the powers exercised in the United States that there must be some exceptions.
I do not regularly read the Morning Star but, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) contributes, I do. Earlier this week, the paper reflected the paranoia in some circles in both the west and the former Soviet Union. There are fears that war is about to burst out, or that we are all aggressive. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence would have smiled to read:
"Our own defence review in Britain, for instance, provides for greater expenditure".
Perhaps I have been asleep for the past week. If that statement were true, I would be frankly delighted, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be delighted, too. However, it is not.
Such collective paranoia suggests that the end of the cold war has left us all spending more on defence. However, our spending has gone from 5.2 per cent. Of GDP under the previous Government to about 2.5 per cent. now, and we are drifting a little lower. I see no evidence of a build-up of military equipment and threats. We have only one mechanism—Trident—for delivering nuclear weapons, and the numbers of warheads and missiles are dropping way below the numbers in France, which some hon. Members consider, although I do not, a greater threat than Russia. I say that in jest, so no one should think that I am totally paranoid.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: A practical example of the unfounded paranoia to which the hon. Gentleman refers is the fact that Russian troops took part in NATO's intervention force in Bosnia. He and I saw at Tuzla that they were under direct command of the United States general who was in overall command, and they were able to operate reasonably, sensibly and constructively.
Mr. George: I agree.
We are used in the House to dealing with the paranoid, but the situation in Russia can be terrifying. Several of us attended, in Copenhagen, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and the Russian delegation included Zhirinovsky. With the security of parliamentary privilege, I can say that he is, at least in his public pronouncements, certifiable. I suspect that he is much saner and more rational than the public image that he creates would suggest.
700
About three months ago, I went to a meeting of the Duma, which was headed by people who had recently been converted to the idea of parliamentary control of the Executive. The meeting was held in a Communist party caucus room where there was an enormous bust of Lenin. We should remember that the words emanating from the Duma are those of true unreconstructed cold warriors. While we must listen, we must not get obsessed by what we hear.
Dr. Julian Lewis: In support of what the hon. Gentleman says, does he agree that there is a parallel between the argument that we must not take certain steps for fear of upsetting or strengthening the warmongers in Russia and that of unilateralists between 1981 and 1987 that, if NATO pressed on with nuclear deterrence, it would make war more, not less, likely? The reverse was the case, and he was one of a relatively small minority of Labour Members who stood up for that view.
Mr. George: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. He knows a little about penetrating left-wing organisations from his early political career. I am sure that much of the work of the Stasi and KGB was based on his successful penetration of the Labour party in early 1980s. We have to be balanced, and we are.
I have examined costs, on which much nonsense has been written. There are reports by the congressional budget office, Rand, the United States Department of Defence, NATO and the Polish Euro-Atlantic Association. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) published a report under the auspices of the North Atlantic Assembly. Much of the confusion arises because some studies are based on there being four new entrants and a longer time scale. They were made rather early on. We concluded that the cost of NATO enlargement is a bargain for the UK. The Secretary of State for Defence had said that it represented each year the cost of a quarter of a Eurofighter. Even if it doubled to a half, the UK would have gained enormously from its contribution to NATO enlargement.
We strongly argue that the cost may eventually fall between the alarmist costs suggested by the congressional budget office and Rand reports and that suggested by the NATO study. The Committee states:
"We conclude, therefore, that it would be as well, in choosing to endorse the process of enlargement, to be prepared for the costs shared among the 19 members of NATO to drift up at least towards the mid-range between NATO's $1.5 billion over ten years and the US DoD's $5–6 billion over thirteen years."
That might seem expensive, but the decision to endorse enlargement will be made not on economic but on political grounds. I firmly believe that the costs are manageable, and not high.
There are some hon. Members—there were more before 1 May last year—who are as enthusiastic about joining NATO as about joining the masons. They believe that we should have kept out. I have no sense of guilt about supporting NATO, even in the heyday of the cold war; quite the reverse. Like any sane person, I knew that it was necessary in 1949 to establish a defensive military and political alliance.
People seem to forget, because they do not want to remember, that NATO has always been as much a political as a military alliance. It incorporated new
701
members and it will incorporate more. It has reformed incredibly. People who are prepared to look can only admire how NATO has adapted to the new world environment. NATO is still necessary. It would be lunatic beyond words to subscribe to the old mid-1980s philosophy of peace groups that the alliance should wither away or collapse precipitately and be replaced by a collective security organisation that I would have regarded as akin to the League of Nations.
Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman is describing the Foreign Secretary's views in the mid-1980s as lunatic beyond words.
Mr. George: The Foreign Secretary is exceedingly competent. Like the Labour party, he has adapted over the years, but, even when he was anti-nuclear weapons, he was unequivocally pro-NATO. Many people on the same side of the Labour party as me in the early 1980s thought that money spent on Trident could be better spent on enhancing our conventional capability.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. George: No, I shall not give way.
The policy is right now. It is not that we have been converted to being pro-defence. Conservative Members should invest in my other study, "The British Labour Party and Defence".
Mr. Menzies Campbell: How much?
Mr. George: It is much cheaper. If Conservative Members invested in it, they would see that all that we are doing is returning to our roots of being very pro-defence. If I were in a provocative mood, I would invite them to read our parliamentary debates in 1940 to find which parties favoured a strong effort against Nazi Germany. It was the Liberals and the Labour party. I shall not make that point.
I do not feel guilty about the NATO of the past or of the future. I believe that, in enhancing our security, it will enhance not only the security of the three countries that will join it formally next year but that of people in the countries that have not yet had their requests for membership agreed. It is certainly enhancing the security of people living in the former Yugoslavia, Kosovo, and, even more certainly, Bosnia. This is an alliance for the future. The day may come when it can wither away, but I suspect that it will not be in the lifetime of any hon. Member in the Chamber at the moment.
Having spoken at excessive length, for which I apologise, I urge all hon. Members to endorse the recommendations of the Government, of all NATO Governments and of the countries that are desperate to join, backed, in most cases, by their public opinion. Above all, I urge hon. Members to accept the 702
recommendations of the Defence Committee by saying a resounding yes to enlarging the alliance to include the three additional members.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some of us have waited for more than a year for this debate. It is intolerable not only that it should be held on a Friday when most Members have gone to their constituencies but that it should be interrupted by a Government statement that will interfere with an important debate. We protest in the strongest terms.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not a matter for the Chair how the business of the House is arranged. In view of the tightness of time, making such points only detracts from the time available. Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith.
10.57 am
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I did not realise that I deserved this honour, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that you had recognised me for another reason. I shall take advantage of the minute or two left before the statement that the Government feel it necessary to make today. It could have waited.
The North Atlantic treaty would not have been signed had it not been for the Soviet threat but NATO has never been regarded by those of us who have studied it as a purely military alliance. One has only to examine the treaty preamble, which clearly articulates support for
"democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law".
I make that point because it explains why, with the end of the cold war and with no imminent Soviet threat, NATO was not disbanded.
My view is that, had NATO not responded to the challenge of building a new security architecture for Europe following the end of the cold war, the people of western Europe would have said, "What is the purpose of this military alliance? The cold war has ended. Russian communism is dead and buried and the Soviet threat has disappeared." The answer to the question "Why not disband it?" that was posed in people's minds was based on the statement made in 1967, when the Harmel doctrine, as it was called, was adopted. It made it clear that NATO strategy was to be based on a twin-tracked policy of maintaining adequate defence while seeking a relaxation of tensions between east and west Europe.
In short, NATO was not just a military alliance; it was and continues to be a political alliance—
It being Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings).

Pensions
11 am
The Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women (Ms Harriet Harman): With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
The Government are modernising the welfare state to meet the changing needs of the 21st century. We inherited a system that was failing on all counts. It was failing to tackle poverty, despite spending more. It was failing to help people work, and was writing them off to benefit dependency.
Reform is necessary—work for those who can work and security for those who cannot. We have already set about the task. We have established the new deals—with the biggest ever investment in opportunities. We are not only helping the young and long-term unemployed, but for the first time helping those whose aspirations had not previously been recognised, whose benefit dependency had simply not been addressed—lone parents and people with disabilities and health problems. We are overhauling the child support system, setting up a comprehensive counter-fraud strategy and raising child benefit with extra help for the poorest families.
We are committed to fundamental reform of incapacity benefit for new claimants. We aim to spend less on incapacity benefit, and to provide more help for severely disabled people with the greatest needs and more help for disabled people to return to work. We will improve gateways into disability benefits, and we have already begun discussions with disability organisations about that.
Helping people into work helps them to be better off than they can be on benefits, but it will also help them to provide more for themselves in their retirement. Later this year, we will publish a Green Paper setting out our long-term strategic proposals for pensions. Now we are starting pensions reform for today's pensioners.
This House rightly places great emphasis on the concerns of older people—people who have worked hard all their lives either out at work or bringing up a family; the generation who fought in the war. They are entitled to security in their retirement. They deserve dignity in their retirement.
There has been much focus on the basic state pension, and that is right. It must remain the foundation of income in retirement. We will uprate it at least in line with prices, but we know that pensioners feel that their concerns were not central to the previous Government, and they want action now.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced to, the House the abolition of charges for eye tests for all pensioners. On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will announce new concessionary travel for all pensioners. Today I can announce to the House, as part of the comprehensive spending review, extra help with winter fuel payments for all pensioners.
We have already made a winter fuel payment of £20 to all pensioner households and announced our intention to do so again this winter. As a result of cutting VAT on fuel, our winter fuel payments and other changes, average pensioner fuel bills are as much as £100 lower this year. As part of the comprehensive spending review, we have
704
allocated a further £0.5 billion to make those winter fuel payments a permanent feature of all pensioners' income. All pensioners will know that, in addition to the help with their fuel bills from our cut in value added tax to 5 per cent., they will get a winter fuel payment of £20.
There are elderly people for whom even the extra help of the basic state pension increase and the winter fuel payment is simply not enough. These are the pensioners whose income has fallen furthest behind. Typically, they have no occupational pension, no private pension, no savings, no state earnings-related pension scheme, sometimes not even the full entitlement to the basic state pension. They fall back on income support. They have fallen further and further behind. In a divided Britain, the gap between the poorest and the richest pensioners has been widening. It has been widening for 30 years, and without decisive Government action is set to widen further.
This Government are committed to tackling poverty and social exclusion and we are not prepared to let that happen. We are taking action. We will establish a guaranteed minimum income for pensioners. So, for the poorest pensioners, we are increasing their income by three times the increase in income support that they would have received had we awarded only the usual price uprating. For 1.5 million of the poorest pensioners, this is the biggest single increase they have ever had.
For the first time, all pensioners will have a guaranteed minimum income of not less than £75 a week. For the first time, pensioner couples are guaranteed a minimum income of £116.60. The oldest pensioners will get even more.
There are some pensioners who are even poorer than those on income support. They are some of the very poorest people in Britain. They are the pensioners who are entitled to income support, but are not getting it; those who are slipping through the safety net altogether—the forgotten pensioners. This is not a marginal issue involving just a few slipping through the net. We estimate there are as many as 1 million of these forgotten pensioners. They are mostly very elderly, and nearly all women. Now we are taking action to bring the guaranteed minimum income to them, too.
Starting from next April, we will be introducing, for the first time, a new national programme of personal advisers for pensioners. We have already set up, and are running, nine pilot projects to help us shape this new service. Through new technology, we will for the first time use the information that pensioners have already given us throughout their lives. We will match the data that we already hold on their personal records in the Contributions Agency, the Benefits Agency and the local authority records to identify those who are likely to be over pension age, entitled to income support and not receiving it.
The pensioner will then be contacted by the personal adviser, who, over the telephone or through a visit, will assess their entitlement, and then fill in the forms for them. All that pensioners will have do is sign, and their extra money will come through the following week.
Yesterday, I visited one of the pilot projects in Torfaen in Wales and met some of the pensioners who had already been helped. The pensioners were all absolutely clear about two things. First, the extra money, even where it was only a small amount, meant a great deal to them. It is desperately needed. Secondly, without the personal

705
contact, there would have been absolutely no chance of their getting the money. It is right that we are taking this service nationwide. It will begin to tackle the hidden problem of pensioner poverty.
Today, my announcement marks a major modernisation of the pensions system. We have been able to deliver real help for pensioners within a social security budget that is set to grow more slowly in this Parliament than it did in the last, to take a lower share of gross domestic product, and to take a lower share of public spending as a whole. It is part of our pensions reform and marks a new approach to tackling the problem of pensioner poverty and inequality.
We promised to reform the welfare state around work for those who can work. We have made progress on that. We promised security for whose who cannot work. Today we make progress on that too. This marks a major step forward in our determination to deliver security and dignity in retirement for all.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of her statement, although I did not receive the last two minutes, so some of the details will have to be studied later.
Today's statement is as fascinating for the detail, which I shall address later, as for the omissions. The way in which we account for how we pay for the changes and how pensioners receive the increases depends to a large extent on how well the economy does, which clearly depends dramatically on how the social security budget is either kept in check or reduced. What has happened over the past few days is a deliberate attempt by the Government to talk themselves out of a pledge that they gave at the time of the last election.
The quotes are straightforward and simple. The Prime Minister said at the time of the last election:
"we have said as we get the welfare bills down, these appallingly high bills for social and economic failure under the Conservatives, then we can release more money into education and health and the services…we really want".
Therefore, my first question for the Secretary of State is this: why are she and the Prime Minister now trying to pretend that the Labour party did not pledge to reduce the costs of social security?
The 1996 Labour document, "Getting Welfare to Work—A New Vision for Social Security" states clearly that they had "three fundamental goals", the second of which was,
"to save money for the taxpayer, as the benefit bill reduces."
That is the key: the Government are acting like a bunch of con men, trying to persuade the public that they never made such a pledge. It is not an easy pledge to meet, but the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State must answer the question—why are they trying to avoid it?
In her statement, the Secretary of State spoke of reducing dependency and of the pledges in that respect, but it is clear that, like a number of the Government's measures, the working families tax credit—I know that the Secretary of State does not want that to be in the social security budget, but the fact is that it replaces benefit payment, so it is in that budget—raises dependency quite dramatically, as more than 400,000 extra people will enter dependency as a result. That is another broken pledge.
The key to today's statement is the question of how the pensions are to be afforded. We need to determine how much of the money will be long-term and sustainable,
706
so let us look at the reality of the welfare budget—how much the Government have managed to secure through reductions, and what that means overall. The document about which the Chancellor made a statement on Tuesday is significant for the absence of most of the money within the social security budget of which it is necessary to take proper consideration.
For example, we saw that the Government had taken out administration costs—roughly £3.5 billion a year. They have also taken out the working families tax credit, with most of it hidden in accounting adjustments, but with 20 per cent.hidden elsewhere. Those figures should have been included, because they represent money that was family credit and part of overall benefit payments.
When we look at the figures, despite the absence of calculations on housing benefit, council tax benefit and other benefits, we begin to get a much truer picture of what the state of the budget is and, more important, is likely to be over the next few years. The figures tell us that, before Labour's arrival in government, the welfare budget was falling each year, year on year; and that, as a direct result of the previous Government's actions, it went into negative growth in the first year of the new Labour Government—it actually fell to less than 12 per cent. of GDP. That figure was clearly the result of the activities of the previous Government—so to say that the Conservatives did not reduce the overall burden of welfare or reduce the costs of welfare as a proportion of GDP is utterly absurd. The figure fell below 12 per cent. and was likely to fall further.
When we then examine the Government's figures with all the relevant figures having been added back in, as the Library has done for us—
Mr. Tony McNulty: When is the hon. Gentleman going to talk about pensions?
Mr. Duncan Smith: I shall get on to pensions, all right.
The point about affording pensions lies absolutely in whether or not the costs of welfare are being reduced or increased. In reality—even according to the Government's own predictions—once working families tax credit has been added back in, the budget is set to rise to 12.3 per cent. of GDP by 2001. From what independent analysts have calculated in the past few days, we can begin to see that, even if there is only slight variation in growth, that budget forecast is likely to rise to more than 12.5 per cent. of GDP; and if growth becomes worse, it will rise to nearly 13 per cent. of GDP by the end of this Parliament.
All that bears directly on the Government's ability to afford what they say they want to pay to pensioners and others, so why did the Secretary of State allow such misleading figures to be published? Does she accept that the figures in the book that was published on Tuesday are not correct; and that, when the money relevant to the social security budget is added back in, the proposal breaks the Government's pledge about reducing the overall burden of welfare as a proportion of GDP?
Several questions remain to be answered, even after today's statement. The statements on health and education dealt with the entirety of the changes and the implications for the budget, but today the Secretary of State has chosen not to talk about the entirety of the changes, so a huge number of questions arise. The comprehensive spending

707
review says that the new education maintenance allowance will be "linked to parental income". Will the Secretary of State clarify whether child benefit—
Mr. McNulty: When is the hon. Gentleman going to talk about pensions?
Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman probably does not realise that child benefit is part of the social security budget.
Will child benefit be taxed or means-tested as a result of that declaration? Will the Secretary of State also tell the House how much money the Government expect to raise from the announced switch to education maintenance allowance, or will spending on child benefit and EMA remain the same as the total spending on child benefit, but simply be reallocated?
Why were no decisions on the future of disability benefits explained in the statement? Why was there nothing on housing benefit and council tax benefit? Why was there no mention of the change programme? Part of the proposal to hold costs in check relies wholly on what happens in respect of restraining administrative costs, which remain fairly flat in the Government's forecast. What are the Government likely to receive in terms of such cuts?
In his statement on Tuesday, the Chancellor announced a target of 40,000 lone parents going back into work as a result of the new deal programme, which bears directly on the social security budget, which has a bearing on pensions, to which subject I shall turn in a second. In a debate on Monday, the Secretary of State said that she would announce no targets until she had received the full understanding of what was entailed in the programme currently in place. Did she receive that understanding overnight? How is it that the Chancellor was able to announce on Tuesday a target of 40,000 lone parents going back into work as a result of the Government's programmes?
Conservatives have always upheld, and will continue to uphold, the principle that the most vulnerable, especially pensioners, should be assisted in claiming their full benefit entitlements; and that those entitlements should reach the level required for people to have a sustainable income in retirement. Yet the question remains whether the increases announced today are real and sustainable and will not be clawed back in due course as a direct result of the Government losing control of the economy, as has happened so often under Labour Governments. The Government have already clawed money from pensioners through their hit on advance corporation tax dividend tax credit, which has taken £5 billion a year from pensioners who bother to save.
The new higher so-called guaranteed income is a massive increase in means testing. It represents a complete U-turn from the more sensible policies advocated by the Labour party when in opposition, and, more particularly, some of the more sensible utterances of the Minister for Welfare Reform, who said that extending means testing would be a retrograde step. Not only will it have a devastating effect on the incentive to save of people on modest incomes, who have been encouraged and who want to save, but it will deprive them of the enhanced means-tested benefit.
708
The Government now have a policy that will simultaneously greatly increase both dependency and Government expenditure. How do the Government propose to persuade more people to claim their means-tested benefits? How much more money will be lost in bureaucracy?
The Secretary of State talked about advisers, but I want to know how many she expects there to be. There are 10 million pensioners in this country, of whom only 1.7 million claim income support, so, if the Government's intentions are to be taken seriously, that must mean that more than 8 million pensioners will have to be screened or visited. If one civil servant can screen roughly 1,000 pensioners a year, that means more than 8,000 new civil servants, at a cost of £250 million every year, spent just on bureaucracy. How much of the money for pensioners will have to be allocated to the bureaucratic mechanisms that will be necessary?
Does not that also mean that the Secretary of State's proposals will begin the erosion of the contributory principle which so many hon. Members on both sides of the House think should be enhanced rather than clawed away? In the present proposals, the Government have sounded the absolute cry that they no longer consider the contributory principle to be the mainstay, and bit by bit, they will extend the means-testing process across the whole state income.
As the Secretary of State knows, one of the reasons why many pensioners do not claim income support is that they do not like the idea of taking what they view as charity, but they believe in taking their basic state pension because they view that not as charity but as a provision to which they have contributed. How is the Secretary of State building on that? Surely she is asking all those people, to whom income support may not be at all relevant, to declare their incomes when they did not do so before.
In conclusion, the issue is sustainability and whether the Government, like so many Labour Governments, have for short-term reasons declared that they will somehow raise incomes only to claw them back as the economy fails and they fail on their pledge to cut social security and welfare dependency. In a few years, pensioners up and down the country will find their incomes falling, not rising, as a result of the Government's actions and failures.
Ms Harman: The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) has failed to address pensioner poverty and to say whether he thinks that we are right to tackle that problem by investing in help for pensioners and giving the greatest help to the poorest, who have been left behind. If, in addition to the help that we are giving all pensioners, we gave them the £2 billion that we have set aside for the poorest pensioners, the poorest would get just pence—they need pounds. We cannot limit the help that is needed by the poorest to that which we could prudently give to all. The problem is that the pensioners who have fallen behind—the very poorest—need extra money.
I shall tell the hon. Gentleman about one of the pensioners I met yesterday. She is an elderly widow who had been identified through our pilot project and given extra help. She told me that, instead of being able to buy only two apples at a time, she could now afford to buy a

709
pound of apples. We are talking about people who are living on the margins, while the hon. Gentleman is pursuing high-blown theory. The proposal aims to tackle pensioner poverty and give pensioners the help that they need.
The hon. Gentleman said that the proposal will lead to means testing and bureaucracy. He has not listened. Personal advisers will not have to visit all 10 million pensioners. Of course that is not our proposal. We are doing what his Government did not; we are using the data that we already hold on our computer systems to identify those who are likely to be vulnerable. The personal advisers will visit only those people, who are screened by new technology, so the question is not simply one of bureaucracy.
The hon. Gentleman said that there will be a massive increase in means testing. Presumably he opposes the measure, but he has no proposals to stop the poorest pensioners falling behind, and none to tackle the problem of the 1 million pensioners who, under his Government, fell through the net altogether.
The measure has nothing to do with the devastating effects on the incentives to save, which were caused by the rip-off of private pensions, in which £1 in every £4 was eaten up in costs and administrative charges. The devastating effect on personal pensions was caused by the scandal of pension mis-selling. This is a practical, sensible and socially just proposal for giving immediate help to those who are most in need, and we are right to make it.
The hon. Gentleman talked about overall spending figures. He made two points. He accused us of being misleading about the figures, and he took issue with the overall spending plans. He said that we had hidden social security administration figures. We have not; they are not hidden. They are on page 16 in table 1 of the comprehensive spending review, clear for all to see. Those figures cover three years.
The hon. Gentleman said also that the working families tax credit was an accounting fiddle and a broken promise. It is not; it is a promise being kept, to give more help to low-income working families and to make sure that work pays as part of our welfare-to-work programme.
Mr. Duncan Smith: The Government have fiddled the figures.
Ms Harman: We have not fiddled the figures. There are times when figures move, as they did under Conservative Governments, from the social security budget to the health budget, from health to social security and in and out of the tax system.
I shall give examples. Did not the hon. Gentleman's Government remove spending on residential care in nursing homes? That was switched from the Department of Social Security to the Department of Health under community care. We did not argue that it should be put back into the DSS figures. It moved from the social security budget and the same amount was dealt with under community care. The Conservatives removed the cost of statutory sick pay from the social security budget. We did not argue that it should put back, because it was being paid differently.
We are restructuring the help that we give to low-income families in work. We are rightly paying that money through the tax system as part of a major reform of tax and benefit. All the figures are there to see, and we have accounted for them properly and publicly.
710
The hon. Gentleman talked also about the level of social security spending. Under the Conservatives—we have their record on which to judge them—the social security budget rose from 9.7 per cent. of gross domestic product to 12 per cent. Under this Government, it is set to fall from 12 per cent. to 11 per cent. While the social security budget was increasing in cash and percentage terms, poverty was also increasing. There was less help for those who needed it, but extra help was being given overall because more people depended on benefits who could and should have been in work. That is why we have said that we shall cut the cost of social and economic failure.
We shall invest, through the new deal, in opportunity and help those who can to work. All the lone parents who have gone to work under the new deal are, on average, better off by £39 a week than they were on benefit. That is tackling poverty. However, their benefit dependency has also decreased by £42 a week on average. That is our approach. We are investing in opportunity and cutting the cost of social and economic failure. At the general election, we set out what we would do to tackle poverty and social exclusion and to broaden opportunity. We said that social security would be part of reforming the welfare state. We have done that.
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Despite the icy-hearted response from the Conservative Front Bench, a great number of British people will applaud the measure to support citizens, many of whom are in their 80s and 90s, who are not only some of the most decent people in this country who have served us so well over the years, but some of the poorest.
However, I have a suggestion. As personal advisers will be calling on that group, could we ask them also to find out whether they are missing out on other parts of the welfare state, such as insulation grants—some elderly people make a choice in winter between eating and heating—and to advise them about the new free eye tests? Those are just two examples. The personal adviser system will be relatively expensive, and rightly so, but could we use it more generally as a human access point for the wider welfare state for people who ask so little but deserve so much from the rest of us?
Ms Harman: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The pensioner personal advisers—I pay tribute to the work that they are doing—are changing the face of social security and bringing help to people who have fallen through the net. They also advise on free eye tests and insulation grants.
Yesterday, I spoke to one pensioner and her personal adviser in Wales. She had a problem with another bill altogether—she was told that she owed more than she did—and her personal adviser helped her to sort it out. It is an overall service that helps vulnerable people with their problems and gets them help in their own homes when they need it. It is less expensive than spreading help thinly to all pensioners, although we are concerned about all pensioners: that is why we are providing free eye tests, concessionary travel and winter fuel payments and will retain the basic state pension as a foundation of income in retirement. However, we must get extra help to the very poorest.
Mr. Steve Webb: Unlike the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith),

711
I congratulate the Secretary of State, first on not keeping the Prime Minister's pre-election promise to cut welfare spending, and secondly on focusing help on poorer pensioners, about whom I have made representations on many occasions.
I welcome her statement this morning, but does she accept that, when history comes to judge the first two years of the new Labour Government, it will view them as a wasted opportunity because of the unnecessary adherence to Tory spending plans? Does she accept that, for many very elderly pensioners who are in the last years of their lives, two years is too long to wait? Would it not have been better as an immediate measure to increase the basic state pension for all older pensioners so that people got the money straight away?
Does the Secretary of State propose to link the proposed pension guarantee to earnings or prices? We very much welcome the above-inflation increase next April, but beyond that what will happen? If it is not linked to earnings, first, the Government will break their manifesto pledge that pensioners would share in general prosperity, and, secondly, the growth in pensioner income inequality that the Secretary of State professes to oppose will continue. So I hope that she will reassure us that it will be linked to earnings.
Finally, does the Secretary of State believe that she is subject to the Trade Descriptions Act? Can the minimum income guarantee to which she referred justify the word "guarantee"? For want of a better word, is it guaranteed, or is it the case that, even when the so-called guarantee is in place, tens of thousands and probably hundreds of thousands of pensioners—particularly those who are not claiming benefit—will still miss out, so that it is not a true guarantee?
Ms Harman: Before the election, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised to cut the cost of economic and social failure—the cost of people who depended on welfare and benefits but who could and wanted to work—and that is what he has delivered. I am happy to acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman and many of his hon. Friends have urged that we should give extra help to the poorest pensioners and criticised an approach that simply gave help to all and allowed the poorest to fall further behind. I acknowledge the part that his arguments have played in the change.
Reform of the welfare state has been under way since we took office. Last July I set up the new deal for lone parents. That is welfare reform, extending opportunities to those who did not have them before in order to increase their incomes and cut the cost of economic and social failure.
We started pensions reform very shortly after taking office, by investing millions of pounds in establishing pilot projects. We would not be in a position to target help nationally to the poorest pensioners had we not conducted piloted projects. The previous Government made no attempt to help the poorest pensioners. As soon as we were elected, we set about establishing pilot projects in order to be confident that we could take the policy forward. We are not announcing the start of activity, but going national on activity that we have been piloting, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that.
712
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the minimum income would be guaranteed. That is an important question, as it goes to the heart of the issue—those who are falling through the net altogether. We have not simply announced an increase and said that it is there for those who can get it; we shall make sure that we get it to those who need it through our system of data matching and personal advisers. We are investing in a new delivery system. It would have been the utmost cynicism to announce in the House a guaranteed minimum income for pensioners who were already identified and claiming income support. It is right that at the same time we are introducing a new delivery system to reach something like 1 million forgotten pensioners.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I have to protect the main debate of the day, so I must appeal for short, single questions and short replies.
Mr. David Winnick: Is it not a blot on the country that so many pensioners are forced to live in acute poverty? Many of them are ex-service men who sometimes wonder—and ask me at my surgeries—who actually won the war. Is it not absolutely essential that they are assisted, having been betrayed by the Tory Government? In respect of the concessionary travel to be announced on Monday, I hope that my right hon. Friend will try her very best to see to it that there can be a reduction in the cost of TV licences, as that, too, would be helpful to many retired people.
Ms Harman: My hon. Friend has been a long-standing advocate for pensioners in his constituency and throughout the country, and I warmly welcome his comments. I am sure that they will be borne in mind by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Surely what is important is not whether it is called a minimum income guarantee or income support, but how much extra money will be in the pockets of pensioners. What does it mean for the contributory principle? Is not the statement, with its narrow focus, rather like the dog who did not bark in the night? Why is there not more talk about how cuts in total welfare spending—as promised at the election—will finance increases in public spending on health and education? Is it not time to admit that welfare spending has risen remorselessly in all western countries in the past 40 years; that the bulk of welfare spending falls quite rightly on pensions, the disabled and child benefit; and that it is impossible for the Government to deliver their promise to cut the total welfare bill?
Ms Harman: We promised to cut the cost of social and economic failure. The reduction in benefit dependency allows us to prioritise our resources on our manifesto commitments in health and education. As we are not spending money on those who could be working, we are able to direct the resources to those who are not working because they are in retirement.
Mr. John McAllion: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that receipt of the new guaranteed minimum income will not affect entitlement to income

713
support? It would clearly be wrong to give increased pensions with one hand and take away entitlement to housing benefit and council tax rebate with the other. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that today's pensioners are demanding the restoration of the link with earnings and that, until that happens, her generation will not have redeemed their debt to them?
Ms Harman: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Many pensioners in Scotland are struggling to make ends meet. In fact, 156,000 pensioners do not have enough second pension or savings and depend on income support. However, we estimate that a further 100,000 pensioners in Scotland are entitled to income support but are not receiving it. My hon. Friend has been a long-standing advocate of our determination to tackle poverty and inequality. I am sure that he will agree that we should get help not only to the 156,000 who need a better standard of living, but to the 100,000 who are falling way behind. The guaranteed minimum income will ensure that all those pensioners will be much better off than they could ever have been with the previous rates of income support.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Although I very much welcome her statement, I have noticed that on two occasions now the Secretary of State has refused to make a commitment to restore the link between pensions and earnings. Given that, obviously, it is now the Government's position that the link will not be restored, will she recognise that, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, the issue of concessionary payments will become even more important? Can she confirm, therefore, that the announcement that will be made on Monday on concessionary travel will mean that it will be available to all pensioners at the same level, wherever they live, and will she make it clear that the Government will reconsider the issue of concessionary TV licences?
Ms Harman: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to wait until Monday for confirmation of the details of the Deputy Prime Minister's statement. May I say, however, what an urgent issue the poverty of the poorest pensioners in Wales is? We estimate that probably more pensioners in Wales are entitled to income support and are not getting it than are entitled to income support and are getting it. As a result, of all those pensioners in Wales who fall below income support level, only about half receive income support. That is why I believe that the measures that we have announced today—a guaranteed minimum income for pensioners and an increase for all the poorest pensioners—will be especially important for pensioners in Wales.
Mr. Tony Colman: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, which will be welcomed by the pensioners of Putney and, equally important, by my 87-year-old mother and her friends. However, no mention has been made of the scandal of excess winter deaths of pensioners. Will the Secretary of State outline her action plan to deal with that scandal?
Ms Harman: My hon. Friend has raised an important issue—that of excess winter deaths. More people die in the winter than throughout the rest of the year. There are about 48,000 excess winter deaths among pensioners
714
every year. If one compares that situation with that in countries where there is a much wider fluctuation of temperature, I am afraid that one can draw only one conclusion: pensioner poverty is contributing to the toll of deaths in the winter.
We were not prepared to stand by and allow that problem to continue growing when the prosperity of the country has increased in each of the past five years. The measures that we take today, which specifically focus extra help on the poorest pensioners, are urgently needed.
Mrs. Theresa May: The Secretary of State has made several references to a pledge to cut the costs of social and economic failure. With the number of unemployed people and those claiming benefit rising, we are actually witnessing an increase in the costs of the Government's economic failure. Will the Secretary of State answer the very simple question that was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith)? How many personal pension advisers will be employed, what will be the cost of employing them, and what will be the cost of the data-matching exercise, which presumably will be on-going, in order to obtain the names of those pensioners who should be approached by their personal pension adviser?
Ms Harman: The hon. Lady made two points—first, on the issue of the cost of social and economic failure, and secondly, on the issue of personal advisers and costs. The number of lone parents on income support was increasing under the Conservative Government. There was no programme to help them to return to work. Married women were returning to work, and it was obvious that it should have been possible for lone parents to do so too, especially once their youngest child had started school.
We have introduced the new deal for lone parents. The number of lone parents on income support has fallen below 1 million for the first time, as the Prime Minister told the House on Wednesday, and it is forecast to fall by a further 40,000 next year. That is not a target; it is a forecast. We hope to move things even further forward with the new deal for lone parents. We are cutting the cost of economic and social failure. The bill to keep lone parents on income support at a low standard of living, with their children being brought up in a workless household, was rising. Under the present Government, backed by our programme of action, which will be augmented by the child care and the working families tax credit, that bill, which is a cost of economic and social failure, will fall.
The hon. Lady also asked about the number of personal advisers. As I have said, we are piloting their introduction. Details of the numbers of personal advisers and the costs of the new technology will be available when we have finished and evaluated the pilot project.
Mr. Duncan Smith: When?
Ms Harman: When I announced our plans, I said that that would be early next year. We have no doubts that it is better to do things this way. We cannot help the poorest

715
pensioners with pence; we must help them with pounds. The previous Government did nothing to tackle that problem.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State tell us how pensioners are to cope with the twin problems that they currently face—a state pension that has been increased only in line with prices, not earnings, and is therefore £25 a week or more less than it should have been had that link been maintained; and the poverty trap in which many pensioners find themselves because they have a small secondary pension which takes them just above income support level and thus lose out on council tax and housing benefit entitlements? How will her proposals today affect those entitlements? Is she still considering a longer-term increase of the pension in line with earnings—the link that was so callously broken by the previous Tory Government?
Ms Harman: The Green Paper, which we shall publish in the autumn, will look at the level and future of the basic state pension. As a result of the announcements that we are making this week as part of the comprehensive spending review, all pensioners—not just those on income support—will be better off. They will not have to pay the cost of their eye tests; they will receive permanent help with winter fuel bills; and they will get concessionary travel.
Mr. Michael Colvin: The Secretary of State will be aware that many British pensioners live overseas, some of them in countries where their pensions have been frozen at the rate that they were receiving when they emigrated. Why has not her review addressed that injustice? Does she recall that the Minister of State, when Chairman of the all-party Select Committee on Social Security, recognised that injustice and recommended that there should be a debate in the House in Government time with a free vote? I believe that that would be a good idea now, so that the 144 people who have signed the early-day motion calling for the unfreezing of those pensions may air their concerns.
Ms Harman: We are aware of the representations that many hon. Members have made. I believe that, bearing in mind the scandal of the very poorest pensioners in this country, about which we have been talking today, the overseas pensioners are unlikely to be a priority.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that we must now move on. We have an important debate, in which many hon. Members seek to participate.

NATO Enlargement
Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
11.47 am
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith rose—
Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman as he is about to speak, but earlier Madam Speaker said that she would refer to the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons the issue of debates such as this. Will you also ensure that the Speaker considers the whole issue of what happens when so much of a debate like this, for which we have waited a year, is taken up with a very important statement? Should not statements be better timetabled?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter to take up directly with the Modernisation Committee.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I agree with what the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has said. I believe that what we have experienced today represents a gross discourtesy to the House. It certainly interrupted the flow of the debate. Anyway, we shall make the protest at another time.
Before I was interrupted, I was saying that, ever since I can remember, the NATO alliance has been not just a military, but a political, alliance. That probably accounts for the fact that the alliance did not end when the cold war ended. We recognised that there were good reasons—including political reasons—for extending the scope of NATO to fulfil one of its original aims in its preamble: that it should be there to protect democracy in Europe. We also recognised that there were good reasons for extending that remit, after the end of the cold war, into eastern Europe by opening the alliance to European states that wished to join and meet the requirements of membership.
From the beginning, the enlargement process has produced differences of opinion. Some of those opinions have already been expressed during the debate. The differences have emerged in debates of the NATO parliamentary assembly that I have attended. The American Government's influence on the other Governments and in debates in the assembly has persuaded most people to look favourably on the principle of enlargement. There is nothing new about enlargement. NATO has been enlarged before, when Germany, Spain, Portugal and Turkey joined the founder members. The development came as no surprise and was affirmed in July last year by the NATO Governments, who said:
"A new NATO is developing; a new NATO for a new and undivided Europe."
Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary emerged from the pack as the principal contenders for entry to NATO. All three suffered dreadfully at the hands of the Nazi and communist dictatorships. Before and after the war, the west did nothing to help them in their moments of distress. I have taken a positive view about the inclusion of those countries, because refusing their request for membership would have been a dreadful act of insensitivity.

717
Mr. Brzezinski, a distinguished former adviser to a President of the United States, once said:
"The expansion of NATO is an important milestone in European history. It is an important step forward in that unique relationship that binds America and Europe together. It expands the role of the alliance from an alliance that has defended freedom and deterred war to an alliance that promotes the scope of freedom and enhances peace."
That is a fine sentiment, but it should not stop us from questioning the wisdom of ever more expansion. NATO should be used as a political force to help build a political consensus in Europe, as well as to back up our diplomatic initiatives and political goals with military options.
The prospect of NATO enlargement has already given central Europe greater stability. It has helped to strengthen democratic procedures and settle border and other disputes. The NATO-Ukraine pact is one example. There has been no opposition to enlargement from Ukraine. Poland has already created a joint peacekeeping battalion with its neighbour Ukraine and with Lithuania.
However, it is reasonable to ask whether expansion can go on without undermining the cohesion of the alliance and playing into the hands of Russian nationalists. On the other hand, can we or should we risk disappointing those countries that contend that they should not be excluded if the Visegrad countries can join? It is difficult to give a precise answer to such questions from countries known to be keen on joining NATO.
Since NATO accepted the idea of enlargement, certain events have moved the argument further than was originally envisaged. Those events should cause us to pause and reflect. The development of "Partnership for Peace" has fundamentally changed our attitude towards co-operation between the nations of western, central and eastern Europe. When "Partnership for Peace" was first raised, it was described as a "policy for procrastination". It was regarded as a tool or a sop to defer enlargement. Its recent progress has been substantial. It has had impressive success and achieved a momentum in military exercises in which the UK and other western NATO countries have participated. It has also given non-NATO countries opportunities to work with NATO in military exercises, helping to strengthen democratic control over their armed forces. We had feared that, when the cold war ended, democratic practices, particularly democratic control of the armed forces, might not be introduced.
The establishment of the new co-operative arrangements, such as the Euro-Atlantic partnership, will also provide new possibilities for closer dialogue on a broad range of political and security-related issues in Europe. Then there is the NATO-Russian Founding Act, signed on 27 May this year in Paris, which provides a unique framework for improving relations between NATO and Russia on a new basis of partnership and co-operation.
The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) said in his excellent speech that Russian officers can be seen swanning around NATO headquarters. They are obviously enjoying themselves, not feeling shut out from anything. They can get hold of all the relevant information that anyone needs to know about NATO. We have taken that on trust, but we have agreement from the Secretary-General of NATO to go into the HQ. We want to assure our Russian friends that, as democrats, we do not just take for granted what the Executive tells us;
718
we go and see for ourselves. When we have reported back to the NATO parliamentary assembly, we shall go to Moscow and say what we have seen.
Mr. Colvin: The Russians are not privy to discussions about article 5 issues.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: That is a fair point. There is some concern about how far article 5 protection should be extended to those states that seek membership. That is an important issue. If they join NATO, they will expect that we would respond to any attack on them. One has to question the wisdom of that protection, particularly to countries close to the Russian border or to other areas of tension. Many initiatives have been drawn up since expansion was first considered, which should encourage the stability and co-operation we seek with the nations of eastern Europe.
Mr. Frank Cook: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that candidates for membership should not be admitted to the alliance unless they are willing and able to engage fully on article 5 issues in relation to other nations?
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The hon. Gentleman has made a valuable point. I have a high regard for the "Partnership for Peace". I am indebted to a report that the hon. Gentleman submitted to the NATO parliamentary assembly, which went into the issue in detail. He showed how convincing a system it is for ensuring that those nations feel more protected, not more vulnerable, and enjoy the benefits of closer co-operation with NATO. Asking them to take article 5 on board is a serious step, which we cannot impose in the immediate future.
That is why I ask for a pause in the examination of which nations we should allow to join NATO and which we should encourage. Nothing is more devastating to people than to be told, "Don't worry; spend a little more money, hold a conference for us and we will ensure that you have a good opportunity—perhaps not next year or the year after, but in five years' time—of joining NATO." To encourage people in such a way provokes dissension in their countries and mistrust of our way of dealing with them; it is not fair to them.
The initiatives that I have mentioned have permitted central and eastern Europe to participate in a wider range of NATO activities. In so doing, membership of NATO has become less urgent—indeed, for some countries, unnecessary. It would therefore be wise not to encourage those involved in "Partnership for Peace" to believe that it provides a passport to NATO. It should not necessarily do so. For that reason and others, further expansion of NATO should be treated with caution.
11.58 am
Mr. Frank Cook: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith)—not that I follow his politics. I follow him more in friendship. We have shared quite a few exchanges in defence debates over the years. I have been a Member of the House for more than 15 years and have taken part in quite a number of defence debates. Some might say that my contributions have been mediocre, but I hope that today's might be more helpful to the House.

719
As a delegate to the North Atlantic Assembly—NATO's parliament—I am vice-chairman of its defence and security committee, and its special rapporteur on reform of Russian forces, for which I must consult and work with a Russian general and two senior members of the Duma. As the right hon. Member for Wealden said, I am the author of the assembly's report on "Partnership for Peace". Therefore, I hope that my comments will be helpful in filling out some of the structures laid before us.
If I had been consulted on NATO 25 years ago, it would have been apparent that I was an ardent opponent of it. Indeed, I was a passionate advocate of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the organisation. Today, of course, I am a firm supporter. As I have said more than once in the House, if it did not exist we would have to invent it.
What have I learnt that has made me change my mind? I suppose that I must start by saying that NATO has always been a thoroughly defensive alliance. It was formed as a defensive organisation in response to fears of a threat from the east. The offensiveness of its character—it was offensive in part—was purely economic. Its existence and activity compelled the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact satellite states to commit very scarce resources to arms production rather than industrial development and infrastructural schemes.
However, NATO proved its unthreatening posture when, as the cold war began to thaw, western analysts began to postulate and propagate the principles of inoffensive defence. They began to promote the ideas of exchanging details of force structures and deployment so that the opposite side would understand, if not agree, that the configuration and deployment of such forces were thoroughly defensive rather than threatening. That was a major change in climate.
Such a change proved to be welcome in the Soviet Union, as it began to admit more openly what it had acknowledged privately for several years: it could not sensibly afford the continuing madness of a Gadarene arms race. Indeed, the United States of America came to the same conclusion at about the same time. The House will recall that President Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev admitted as much jointly at their meetings in Reykjavik.
However, easement of the bipolar conflict following Mikhail Gorbachev's declaration that his secret weapon was that he could deprive the west of its enemy has been only partial. It is true that the wall has come down, trade links are being developed and there are even joint ventures in arms production—although small. A burgeoning democratic pluralism is evident in central and eastern Europe and in the Russian Federation, and civilian control of the military is improving steadily.
Mr. Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that, on the break-up of the Soviet Union, NATO member states might have done better to heed Mr. Gorbachev's words about wanting a better European home? Does he agree that they could have looked to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe as a base for future European co-operation and security rather than to the expansion of NATO up to the Russian borders, which puts pressure on the Russian military and encourages it?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend's intervention pre-empts some of my comments. I remind him that the European
720
home has not been forgotten. The OSCE consists of 55 nations. It is top heavy and does not have many resources, apart from its archival filing cabinets and the intellectual initiatives of its diplomats and observers. It does not have the resources of NATO, which has been proved over a couple of generations and is structured to provide the architecture for common, collective European security.
I have said that there have been some improvements since the thaw in the cold war. However, there is a long way to go. There are still blocks of strong doubt and great mistrust. There is great mistrust between the Russian Federation and the west, and even more mistrust between the Russian Federation and its previous satellite allies. Ironically, NATO is proving to be the most effective single instrument in removing the doubts and building the missing confidence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, gave some examples of how NATO is building confidence. It is slowly and surely changing its declared aims and processes, engaging in a liberal application of its globally acknowledged planning resource, and making use of its integrated military command structure. It is also employing its exchange training programme and its "Partnership for Peace" programme.
One of the disadvantages of the exchange training programme is that, at least until recently, Russian officers who returned to the former Soviet Union after attending military academies in the west were consigned to command posts towards Siberia. It is thought that some of the senior Russian military suspect some contamination of those who have been trained in western establishments. That is sad, but the problem is easing.
Article 5 of the treaty commits member states to enter armed conflict in defence of other full member nations. At the moment, 16 nations are so committed, but, after ratification of the protocols, there may be a further three. In Hamburg in 1998, I was proud to move a resolution in the political committee of the North Atlantic Assembly that Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic be admitted to the assembly as observer nations. That was not to every nation's liking. The French referred to me as an imbecile. They may have been right and that may still be true, but the motion won the day and, within 12 months of its acceptance by the political committee, at the assembly in Rome, Vladimir Lobov was on one side of the defence and security committee and, I think, Bernard Rogers was on the other. The meeting was chaired by the right hon. Member for Wealden. All that happened in 12 months—it was very sudden.
Article 4 of the treaty commits members to a form of operational crisis management and peacekeeping, not involving outright armed conflict. NATO's "Partnership for Peace" programme offers nations an opportunity to improve and enhance their capacity to co-operate effectively with NATO members in those international peacekeeping operations. Each partner for peace can pick its own profile and work towards it at its own pace as it qualifies for that co-operation.
The effectiveness of that programme can be seen in Bosnia, where every informed military analyst would assert that there could not have been a successful operation in Bosnia-Herzegovina had it not been for the previous work done through the programme. We have

721
heard about the co-operation between the Russians and the Americans under American direct control, and several hon. Members have seen that in visits to Tuzla.
The "Partnership for Peace" programme has 27 signatory nations. The present candidates for membership—Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic—are signatory nations, and could be called "gonna-bes". A number of other countries, such as Romania, Bulgaria and Slovenia, would like to join the alliance, but are in limbo. Nevertheless, they are active within the partnership programme. They could be called "wanna-bes".
There are other signatory nations within the partnership programme, including Finland and Sweden, who are fiercely protective of their declared neutrality. They want to take an active role in the creation of a collective European security architecture, but they do not want to do it on a declared basis. We are lucky to have nations of that calibre and expertise.
Finland and Sweden have a particular history. Each stood out against the former Soviet Union when it was at its most threatening. Both nations won—one more than once. Their relationship with the Russian Federation is based on respect. The Russian Federation respects them, and they respect the Russian Federation.
Finland and Sweden have a measure of confidence in their relationship with the west. There is also a large measure of confidence—because of their historical example—between them and the previous satellite states. They serve a useful purpose in working on the block of mistrust between the Russian Federation and the west, and the even larger block between the former satellite states and the Russian Federation. We must cultivate and encourage the continuation of that relationship.
We have heard about the prospect of the Russian Federation adopting its old outlook. The Russians are not unaware of that, and understand it just as much as people on the centre and centre-left in Germany worry about the far right in that country. The Russians are afraid also of a return to totalitarianism. One has only to consider the news from Russia. The good news is that Lenin's mother is alive; the bad news is that she is pregnant. The Russians make a jest of their past, but they are fully aware of it. They joke seriously.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) rightly spoke of the danger that Russia may become antagonised and alienated. I promise him that we are fully alert to that. I believe that we should embrace the Russian Federation, as it has a unique experience and talent. It may have led the Warsaw pact unsuccessfully, but the threat was big enough to worry us for many years.
We have an opportunity to allow article 5 nations to focus around the United States of America, as we do now for article 5 actions, and to allow the "Partnership for Peace" nations, which are not full members of the alliance, to concentrate on article 4 operations—the crisis management and peacekeeping—using Russia as a focal point. The two bodies could act as drayhorses in a common harness, pulling European security in the same direction. Ironically, Russia cannot afford to adopt that leading role, because the arms race left its economic structures in such a terrible mess. None the less, I believe that we should give Russia a more active role in the partnership programme.
722
Another obstruction to Russian confidence is our failure to make progress on the review of the conventional forces in Europe treaty. Most alliance member states have reduced their force structures and deployment to levels that are way below those set out in the treaty.
Mr. Tyrie: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the arms race destroyed the Soviet economy, but, because of the failure of state planning, the whole economic system would have collapsed regardless of whether it was designed to make weapons—that is what led to the current malaise in the Russian economy.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is looking at the same thing from a different angle. Because Russia was compelled to take part in an arms race—which was just as deleterious for the United States, except that the Americans had greater resources—and consigned so much of its effort into arms production, it was not able to develop sufficiently rapidly to take care of its social structures. He and I are saying the same thing, and I do not understand his intervention. Perhaps I did not make my point sufficiently plainly, but I hope that it is plain now.
As I said, alliance member states have reduced their forces to the levels determined in the conventional forces in Europe treaty or below. However, those levels were set when Russia had its Warsaw pact allies. The Warsaw pact has collapsed, so there is a huge imbalance. That is a cause of great concern to the Russian Federation, which feels itself—we have been talking about perception—to be outgunned. NATO is in danger of hugely increasing that imbalance by admitting two and half former Warsaw pact nations—Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. The perception of imbalance in Russia is in danger of getting ever greater, and we must address it urgently if we are to avoid further alarming the Russian Federation.
We will not make any decisions today. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North has expressed dissatisfaction about that, but democracy is not only about decisions: it is about expressing disagreement, disapproval or whatever one feels. We will decide today only whether to adjourn, but we have a valuable opportunity to express our opinions.
Democracy involves the capacity to accommodate disapproval, disagreement and differences of opinion, although that was not evident in the previous Government, and some take the view that it is not over-common in the present Government.
We have an opportunity to comment on the three protocols. If we seek a stronger, broader-based, more effective collective European security architecture, NATO is the only means to achieve it. If we seek a vehicle by which the United Nations can effectively offer appropriate means of giving protective cover to people and nations under threat, NATO is the most experienced and capable organisation, with the necessary resources and commitment.
When enlargement was first discussed, I and one or two of my colleagues were opposed to it in principle—why change a winning team, I thought—but changes in circumstances and in the character of NATO have altered my views. Exchanges with representatives from central and eastern Europe have accelerated that change.
I support paragraph (r) of the summary of conclusions and recommendations in the Select Committee report. To those who say that we cannot afford enlargement, I say

723
that we cannot afford not to have it. The broadening and strengthening of a collective European security architecture are essential precursors to developing the state of play that will doubtless be achieved some time after we have departed this life: global governance. The approval of the three protocols will be a small but positive step in that direction.
12.21 pm
Mr. David Heath: This important debate should have happened some time ago. I absolutely concur with the view expressed by the hon. Members for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and for Romsey (Mr. Colvin), as well as by many other hon. Members, that our mechanism for dealing with overseas treaties is simply not satisfactory. I made that point to the Leader of the House in an attempt to secure earlier progress on the Ottawa convention and land mines legislation.
Mr. Corbyn: The procedures are not only unsatisfactory but non-existent. Under the royal prerogative, the Government can sign treaties and make war or peace with any country they choose, and Parliament has no say in it whatever. Before we lecture the world about democracy and the mother of Parliaments, we should at the very least bring treaties within the orbit of Parliament.
Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman makes the point extremely well, and perhaps I was understating the case. I am not given to hyperbole.
Mr. Corbyn: Nor am I.
Mr. Heath: That is something we share.
The mechanism does not work effectively, even when a treaty requires changes in domestic legislation, because of the inevitable delays. I, like other hon. Members, have had the embarrassment of talking to friends from Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic who simply cannot understand why Britain appears to have taken a lead on the matter but cannot get the procedures right and give the appropriate support.
Lest I fall into the trap into which Ministers accused the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) of falling, let me make the Liberal Democrat position absolutely plain from the outset. We have supported NATO and we support the new concept of NATO and enlargement to encompass the present three applicants. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) has made it plain on a number of occasions that we see no difficulty in being both Atlanticists and Europeans. The two are not mutually exclusive, and our only concern is that some of the structures within Europe do not sufficiently take account of that fact or enable us to construct the arrangements by which Europe could speak with a strong enough voice in the negotiations.
If this debate had taken place a little while ago, one major question would have been whether NATO should continue. With the changing situation throughout Europe, there were doubts about its role in the security of the
724
European continent. To a large extent, that is a dead argument, because NATO has made the adjustment and has sought a new role. It still makes an important contribution to the concept of the defensible entity that provides enhanced security within Europe and provides stability to areas that have historically been unstable points of tension between powers—not merely the Warsaw pact and modern western Europe but, going further back in time, those areas that have always been areas of difficulty for the continent. Providing stability in such areas is an important role.
NATO is also developing its peacekeeping role, and I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that that should be an enhanced role for the United Nations, too. NATO should offer a service, often mediated through the UN. We would go further, and make designated forces regularly available to the UN—not a standing army, but forces that would be available for peacekeeping, but that is a different debate.
The military structures of NATO need to change to allow rapid deployment. That is a downgrading of the normal state of readiness.
Mr. Frank Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind, when he talks about rapid reaction deployments, that the shortfall is due not to the military, but to the fact that we do not have rapid reaction politicians?
Mr. Heath: We need both, I am grateful for that intervention, as that is an important point. One of the many difficulties that bedevil any negotiations on a European front is the inability to seek early consensus.
On the questions whether enlargement is possible and desirable, and whether there is a rationale behind it, let me say that this would not be the first enlargement of NATO. Other major enlargements have been mentioned. It has enlarged in the past 10 years with the incorporation of the eastern lander of Germany—part of Germany was on the other side and is now on our side, and its armed forces have had to be incorporated, although we have perhaps not had the same agonies over that decision.
Enlargement has some important ground rules. I would be greatly concerned if it were seen as some sort of second prize for countries that aspire to be members of the European Union, but are not economically ready for the task. That would be a distortion of the intention behind NATO and would not be an appropriate way to deal with the aspirations of the countries of central and eastern Europe. Vice versa, it would be wrong if the EU were considered the short cut to NATO, without having to go through the business of providing support for it, and we must be aware of that. There must be genuine mutual security benefits to both NATO and the applicant countries.
We cannot divorce accession from economic considerations, not only as they relate to control of the armed forces but as they affect the applicant countries which will incur expenditure and will hope to nestle in a security blanket that provides an environment in which economic investment can take place. That is crucial to countries whose fragile economies are trying to grow in a democratic context.
Acceding countries must form part of a defensible area. It makes no sense to incorporate countries that cannot be defended in any real sense. That may preclude some countries that might wish to develop an interest in NATO at some stage.

725
The Visegrad three—the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary—pass all the tests. They would pass with even greater aplomb if Austria would finally take the tortured decision to end neutrality and join NATO. In Vienna last week, I spoke to senior Austrian politicians and found that great differences of opinion have yet to be resolved, but there are strong advocates of accession to NATO. That would correct the geographical problem that has been referred to. Routes around Slovakia take us around one side, but Austria provides a more direct route of connection for Hungary to the rest of NATO.
All that is important in terms of the points made by the Foreign Secretary. We are discussing mitteleuropa, the core of Europe. At the heart of the European continent, countries share with us many cultural and political aspirations that were submerged for so long by the Russian empire. It is symbolically important that mitteleuropa should rejoin the European family of nations.
Other countries may apply. I have no problem with Slovenia's application, although it is slightly offensive that it appears to have been subject to American veto before reaching the negotiating table. I accept that Slovenia will not make a massive contribution, but it passes all the tests, and I see no reason why it should not eventually join NATO.
Romania has strong advocates among French politicians, who can instantly list all the reasons why it should be a member. That may be based on a slightly odd view that Romania remains Francophone: when one talks to the Romanians one finds that they are not, despite the perception in Paris that Romania forms part of the French sphere of influence. Romania would be a valuable ally. Its democracy is still tentative, but is developing quickly.
The Baltic states are more difficult, because they are inextricably linked with Russia. Other hon. Members have mentioned that we cannot entirely eliminate the Russian view. There can be no Russian veto, and Russia cannot arbitrarily decide with whom we shall do business on defence, in economic terms or in any other sense. No veto, no surprises, must be the right way to deal with Russia.
We should recognise the difficulties that inclusion of the Baltic states would present to Russia. It would mean the encirclement of Kaliningrad, which, as a highly militarily engaged enclave, would be a node of instability. It would worry me if Russia felt that part of its sovereign territory was so encircled in an area where there is high level of military activity. There is a problem. To incorporate the Baltic states while the other Scandinavian countries lie outside NATO might seem an unnecessary provocation. It is not necessarily a good enough reason for not doing it, but it should be considered in examining the benefits.
I do not accept that Russia has some area of influence that we have to respect under all circumstances, and into which we can never intrude, but we must be sensitive to what Russians feel about what is happening near their borders. We should base our decisions on what creates stability and security in Europe rather than on that which does the opposite. That is a proper consideration.
We have another problem with Estonia, which may soon be in the European Union. There are few obstacles to its accession other than those common to all applicant countries. As an EU member, it has virtually automatic membership of the Western European Union. It is a conundrum that will cause us difficulty.
Mr. Jim Marshall: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the possible entry of the Baltic states into the European Union. He said that they would automatically enter the WEU. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will correct that impression. It does not work that way around. It has become a precondition of entry into the WEU that a member state of the European Union must also be a member of NATO. He may argue, as I intend briefly to argue, that we should change that configuration, particularly in the cases of the Baltic states so that their entry into the EU—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. This is a very long intervention. 1 know that the hon. Gentleman hopes to catch my eye later. Perhaps he could make those points when he does.
Mr. Marshall: I apologise. I hope that it will be sooner rather than later. Perhaps we could alter the rules so that entry into the EU would mean automatic entry into the WEU.
Mr. Heath: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point, and he will no doubt expand on it later.
There is the further difficulty with the extension of NATO to Russian borders. It is not a matter of principle that the Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus should not be incorporated, although in the case of Belarus it seems unlikely. It is a matter of identifying the objectives of NATO, how they work in the geopolitical climate of Europe and whether it is anyone's interest to create what might be perceived as a new cold war front along the Russian border. We must consider whether that would create instability where it does not exist.
I want to discuss what is commonly called the architecture of NATO, which is not always a helpful term. A proliferation of pillars bedevil the European Union, and they are beginning to bedevil NATO. I do not like the analogy of two pillars. If architecture is based on two pillars and one becomes weaker, we get a lopsided structure. I prefer to use the term "a twin foundation". We clearly have that with the United States, which is a very important player, and with the states of Europe, which would form a much stronger player than they currently do, were they able to come to a common position.
I believe that we have to have concerns about the position of the United States. One has only to listen to the debates in the Senate and Congress to realise that there are proper concerns that we as Europeans must face about the attitude of United States politicians and their potential attitude in the future. I thought that the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) was exceedingly polite about Jesse Helms, his American colleague, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Such American attitudes are the sort of thing that we in Europe could frankly do without.
It is essential to develop the positive contribution that the European dimension within NATO can provide. We have the European security and defence identity, and combined joint task forces. All those are moves in the right direction, but we are not there yet. I should like to see much more consolidation within Europe—for instance of the defence industries—as that is essential if we are to maintain competitiveness with the Americans. I should like to see the review undertaken by the Secretary of State

727
for Defence encompass the European dimension much more overtly. He knows that we have applauded a great deal of what has emerged from the strategic defence review, but what was missing was the view of how that fitted into a wider European context. We should also see an extension of common procurement.
None of the development that has taken place ought to preclude further strengthening of the consultative machinery to which several hon. Members have referred—the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, which is an underdeveloped area of activity. All our Governments should pay a little more attention to CSCE and provide better resources if it is to do its job effectively. We have in it a process for de-escalation of potential tension. That must be the name of the game. We must seek to avoid conflict, rather than having to resolve it once it has arisen. That is an essential component.
The one area that has not been discussed, yet I believe will be essential to European and world politics in the 21st century, is the development of sub-regional organisations. In this sense, "sub-regional" means anything up to half a continent, but it means that people can talk about security, economic and environmental issues that transcend boundaries in the context of a smaller unit that takes people outside the fixed certainties of the blocs and enables them to make quicker progress. We have seen that developing in the Baltic council, the Barents sea, to an extent in the Caspian sea and rather unsuccessfully in the Mediterranean. Those are the areas on which we need to concentrate.
I have not referred yet to the costs of enlargement. As other hon. Members have said, they are terribly difficult to get a grip on in any accurate sense. They are unlikely to be as high as the highest expectations in America or elsewhere. I believe that those expected figures are wrong. We can be sure that the costs will certainly not be as high as the costs of failure in defence in Europe. If we fail to incorporate other countries into NATO and give them reason to develop their armed forces and security machinery outside the envelope of NATO, the costs will inevitably be much higher.
It is important that we do not saddle the applicant countries with inappropriate costs. There is a clear necessity to improve their command structures and their training, but I do not believe that there is an enormous need to improve the military material that they have at their disposal. Enlargement should not be a licence to Lockheed to go hawking its wares around central and eastern Europe. Instead, we should concentrate on the contribution that the applicant countries can make best.
I have taken enough of the House's time, so let me say finally that the Czechs, the Hungarians and the Poles have been waiting for a clear message from the House, as from other Parliaments across Europe. We have a significance as one of the countries that has often taken a lead in these matters and it is a shame that we were not able to do so earlier, but I hope that the message that will go forward from this morning's debate is a clear one.
We accept the protocols that have been laid before us but, more than that, we embrace the countries in central and eastern Europe and we want them to be part of the European family. We believe that they have contributions
728
to make; the contributions will be not entirely one way, as some hon. Members have suggested, but reciprocal. Those countries have a contribution to make to NATO and we look forward to ratification at the earliest opportunity. It has the Liberal Democrats' full support.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should like to point out that many hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. We have already lost quite a lot of time because of the statement, so, unless hon. Members' speeches are brief, many will be disappointed.
12.45 pm
Mr. Jim Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not allowing my perhaps over-long intervention on the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) to prejudice your judgment as to who should follow him. I am grateful.
I share the concern expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the nature of the ratification process for the protocols and treaties. I hope that the Modernisation Committee, as part of its work on improving the working methods in this place and within Government machinery as a whole, will find some more sensible method of allowing Parliament not only to discuss such matters but to be involved in the decision-making and ratification processes.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have drawn attention to the fact that the debate is a short one, but that is not our fault. I shall try to heed your request, but we were presented with a maximum of four and a half hours for this debate, and three-quarters of an hour disappeared because of a statement. I welcome that statement, but it means that the House will have only three and three quarter hours at most to discuss a crucial issue. That is a message that the Government and their business managers should take to heart.
I do not want to introduce a note of political acrimony into the debate, because there appears to be cross-party support for the measure in hand, but I am slightly disturbed by the attitude of the official Opposition. The Government fielded my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to introduce the debate, and it will be wound up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. But who do we have on the Opposition Front Bench? There is no shadow Foreign Secretary—in fact, the shadow Front-Bench team is a real shadow today. I do not know what urgent business is keeping the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) away from the House, but—
Mr. Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The time for the debate is limited, and you have previously spoken to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) about a lengthy intervention. What the hon. Gentleman is talking about is not germane to the debate, and I wondered whether we could get on.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.
Mr. Marshall: You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker; nor do the hon. Gentleman's remarks have any relevance to the point that I am making.
Mr. Michael Trend: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe

729
(Mr. Howard) is sorry to be unable to be here today, but he is travelling abroad. From time to time, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence have been unavoidably absent from the House for the same reason, and we quite understand when that happens.
Mr. Marshall: I am grateful for that information. I realise that shadow Ministers, as well as real Ministers, have appointments that they have to keep; however, I pointed out the absence of shadow Ministers today because it shows the degree of importance that the Opposition attach to the subject of our debate. Many of us have important things to be doing elsewhere in the United Kingdom today. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) would prefer to be in his constituency, and I would prefer to be in Leicester. I only wish that the shadow Foreign Secretary were here to speak on behalf of the official Opposition.
Bearing in mind the point made by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), I shall move on to my constructive contribution to the debate. Like many of my hon. Friends, I have often, throughout my adult life, had equivocal feelings towards NATO. I have never been anti-NATO, but I have been more sceptical and critical of it at some times than at others. I have been a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament for most of my adult life.
Dr. Julian Lewis: If the hon. Gentleman has been a member of CND for most of his adult life, either he does not realise the implication of that or he is not being fully open with the House. CND's constitution requires the one-sided abandonment by Britain not only of nuclear weapons and nuclear bases but of nuclear alliances. If he has been supporting CND for most of his adult life, he has, like the Foreign Secretary, been supporting withdrawal from NATO and a policy of neutralism, unless NATO gave up all its nuclear weapons, which of course it never had any intention of doing.
Mr. Marshall: As I was saying, I have been a member of CND most of my adult life. One of my criticisms of NATO was its undue emphasis on the possible use of nuclear weapons. I still hold that view, and I do not intend to apologise for that to the House or to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis).
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that NATO has been one of the most successful military and political alliances of all times. Fifty years ago, it brought together nation states, many of which were traditional enemies, under the hegemony of the United States. A decade ago, it defeated its enemy without having to resort to physical warfare.
With the end of the cold war and the emergence of pluralistic democracies in central and eastern Europe which are committed to market forces, to respect for human rights and to peacefully settling disputes with neighbours, it was inevitable that NATO's future would be debated in the context of future security arrangements in Europe. In that regard, there are three possible scenarios. The first, which is favoured by some of my hon. Friends, is to disband NATO; the second is to remain an alliance of 16; and the third is to expand, particularly in central and eastern Europe.
The first scenario—the disbandment of NATO—would lead to the withdrawal of the United States of America from Europe, and to Europeans making the decisions and
730
taking any necessary action to protect European security interests. Events in Bosnia, later in Albania and currently in Kosovo have shown clearly the inability of European states to act in concert to deal with their own problems without the political involvement and leadership of the United States. Events on the ground in Bosnia, through the actions of NATO, have shown the value of NATO planning and the integrated command structure.
That leads me to two inevitable conclusions. First, there is a need to maintain the involvement of the United States in European security through the proven structure of NATO. Secondly, it demonstrates the efficacy of NATO as a military machine.
The second scenario—to remain an alliance of 16—has received publicity in recent weeks, which is a bit late in the day to contribute to the debate. One of its supporters is my noble Friend Lord Healey. Advocates of this position argue that there should be no expansion because the alliance would become too unwieldy and would therefore be unable to deal with the delicate political problems that are likely to occur on the military map in the next century. Their basic argument is that consensus among 16 is difficult enough, and that that situation would be an order of magnitude worse if there were 19-plus members of NATO. They also argue that it would adversely affect relations with Russia.
I believe that NATO remaining an alliance of 16 would ignore political reality in Europe. There is no doubt that the end of the cold war created in central and eastern Europe a vacuum waiting to be filled either by a volatile Russia or by the western democracies. In that regard, it is interesting to note that the three countries invited to join NATO—Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic—and other applicant countries want to join NATO and the European Union because those organisations are seen to have contributed to the peace and prosperity of their member states over the past 15 years. It would be a grave strategic error to bar them from admittance to NATO because of possible future difficulties resulting from increasing the size of NATO.
For Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, NATO membership could well have a positive outcome. In respect of relations with Russia, there is a real prospect that NATO's expansion will prompt a genuine reconciliation between the Russians and their central European neighbours. Once in NATO, the central Europeans will no longer fear that their closeness to Russia can lead to a mortal embrace—a fear that is undoubtedly deeply rooted in painful historical experience.
On that basis, I welcome the admission of Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic to NATO. As I said in an earlier intervention—not one to which you were privy, Mr. Deputy Speaker—it is right that the current round of enlargement is based more on political considerations than on purely defence-related calculation, as I believe political considerations are paramount.
Despite what we may hear from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, it is generally accepted that the three candidate countries will not be able to make a proportionate contribution to NATO for at least another decade. However, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, we should not forget that those three countries are prepared to pay the price of membership of NATO and of European Union membership, for which

731
they have also applied, in terms of accepting the acquis of the European Union. We could not have a surer indication of the value of those institutions to those three countries and to others than the economic price that they are prepared to pay in defence expenditure and in public expenditure to bring their social and environmental infrastructure up to scratch to join the European Union.
Finally, we must have regard to countries that are unsuccessful in their applications, and make it clear to them that enlargement of NATO is an open exercise and will not be closed. We have to make it clear, particularly to central and eastern European countries, that they will be part of the next enlargement within the next decade to 15 years if they can meet the minimum requirements for NATO membership. It would be foolish to close the door to those countries permanently; that way lies future instability. We must ensure that there is a continuum allowing them to move toward membership of NATO in the foreseeable, rather than the distant, future.
As I said when I intervened on the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, I share the concern about the Baltic states. There are grave dangers in encouraging them to believe that membership of NATO is on the immediate horizon. It would be unfair to allow them to believe that. It would create instability in that part of northern Europe around the Baltic.
I favour the solution proposed by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome—that the best way for those countries to get into the European security architecture is via membership of the European Union. Despite what we say about the European Union and defence, the European Union has an indirect security context. No one could persuade me that, if a member state of the European Union was attacked by any foreign country, we would not go to that member state's assistance. There is therefore an implicit security guarantee in membership, which I believe we should encourage the Baltic states to accept.
As I said in response to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, I believe that we must alter the configuration between the European Union, the Western European Union and NATO, so that member states of the European Union that are not members of NATO have the right to join the WEU. That would not only solve the problem of the Baltic states, but cover the case of Slovenia, which is likely to be accepted into the European Union at the next enlargement, and which is keen to join NATO.
In our relationship with Russia, we must ensure continuing close co-operation and consultation through the Permanent Joint Council of the NATO-Russia Founding Act, but obviously there must be no veto. Finally, I believe that we must try to make it evidently and credibly clear to the Russians that the expansion of NATO and the expansion of the European Union are open-ended historical processes, without fixed geographical or time limits, and that, eventually, a more formal association with both is on Russia's political horizon.
1.1 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: This has been a consensual debate. No contributor to it has opposed the entry to NATO of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, and I confirm that I support that. The debate has been consensual as between Labour and Conservative
732
Members. The admission of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland is consensual, accepted by the United States and Russia. However, that consensual attitude—that harmony—has not always existed.
When I trained as a pilot, 40 years ago, the wing commander in charge of flying called in the newly training pilots and told us, "At this moment, in the Soviet union, a young pilot will be starting his training today, and one day you may meet him above the skies of central Europe. If he is better trained than you, he will kill you." That was the atmosphere in which my generation grew up. We believed that there might be a war, and we were prepared to fight in it.
The 1960s, 1970s and 1980s were a difficult period, and not a consensual one. Many of us fought the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Labour party conference after Labour party conference passed resolutions demanding the abolition of nuclear weapons. I was chairman of an organisation called the Campaign for Defence and Multilateral Disarmament. We tried to tie CND's shoe-laces together, with some success. We fought things such as the Lambeth nuclear-free zone. We watched Michael Foot march to Aldermaston. There were organisations such as socialists against the bomb and scientists against the bomb, and various fellow travellers. I once received a missive from an organisation calling itself Streatham lesbian dentists against the bomb—I am still not sure whether that was meant to be serious. It was a period when there was absolutely no consensual attitude.
The security and safety of this country owes nothing to the Labour party at that time. It took Margaret Thatcher's support for President Reagan in the deployment of cruise missiles at Greenham Common to face down the expansion of the Russian and Warsaw pact missile programme. Fortunately, history will not say what would have happened had we had a Labour Government at that time. No Labour Government would have given President Reagan the support that the Americans needed to face down the Warsaw pact. That was a period of triumph for us, and I am proud that we were there. I have mentioned the Labour party, but the Liberals were even worse. Woolly of clothing and of mind, they were even more firmly in favour of CND, if that is possible, than was the Labour party.
I am questioning not the patriotism of the Labour party or the Liberals, but their judgment. Their judgment was wrong: thank God we had a Conservative Government to support NATO.
Mr. Harry Cohen: The hon. Gentleman has given a list of dirty tricks that the Conservatives used to undermine CND—an organisation that reflected the will of the majority of the population, who were worried about nuclear war after the Cuban missile crisis. The Conservatives seem to have no policies and are useless at reflecting what people need. Are they going to employ such dirty tricks to try to undermine the Labour Government?
Mr. Viggers: That is unfair of the hon. Gentleman, who should know me well enough to realise that I would not engage in dirty tricks. I went round the United Kingdom, going to universities, colleges and open meetings. I debated several times with Monsignor Bruce Kent and put forward the argument for nuclear weapons,

733
which was unpopular in many circles, although most of the population believed in their retention. CND had to be fought. That was a difficult period, when we were seriously concerned that CND would undermine the defence of the country. I am proud that we fought that battle and won it on intellectual grounds.
Dr. Julian Lewis rose—
Mr. Viggers: I am sorry, but I cannot give way because there are too many people waiting to speak.
NATO was created to counter-balance the Warsaw pact. It was a military and political alliance—both aspects were important. NATO brings United States and Canadian military force and political support to Europe. NATO has always had some weak points. Some years ago, I travelled around NATO countries. In Greece we were given a presentation on "the threat". We were surprised that a map of Turkey was put up when the threat was mentioned. Some members of NATO have always been stronger and more allied than others. Some of our allies have armed forces far weaker than ours.
There has been some discussion about whether NATO was required and whether the Western European Union could make NATO less relevant. That argument is in the past. The thrust is for mutually reinforcing institutions. We have the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and "Partnership for Peace", which has 27 members and has been exceptionally successful in promoting understanding and the use of military facilities between different countries, not all of which are or, wish to be, members of NATO. It is vital that NATO should retain its core value and its ability to fight a high-intensity war.
The concept of NATO expansion is not new: Greece and Turkey joined in 1952; the Federal Republic of Germany joined in 1955; Spain joined in 1982; and, more recently, eastern Germany has joined. Why expand now? The motor for expansion is the United States of America. It is worth remembering that only 7 per cent. of Americans have travelled abroad and that 40 per cent. of Congressmen do not even possess a passport.
All those people had to come from somewhere. As we have seen, the Irish in America tend to become more Irish the longer they are there. There is a strong feeling among the American people that the nations from which their ancestors came should not be deprived of the benefit of NATO membership. There has also been a rapturous response in central and eastern Europe, where membership of NATO is seen as a western credential and a way of joining prosperous western nations as well as enjoying NATO's support in defence.
I have been agnostic about the expansion of NATO. I am not at all sure that we should expand too fast. My doubts are focused on three main areas. First, several central and eastern European countries have very insecure foundations as democracies. I was recently briefed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Washington. It is not for nothing that the FBI has a special division which deals with countries which are, effectively, controlled by organised crime. Several of them, including those whose names have been mentioned in this debate as candidates for NATO, have extremely insecure foundations as democracies. In some of their elections, their Members of Parliament have been accepted as having strong links with organised crime. We must be careful that countries that are admitted to NATO are true and secure democracies.
734
My second argument for being cautious about NATO expansion concerns the costs of defence of countries that are admitted. That is a respectable doubt for a person to have; Lord Healey has been mentioned as one such person. An article last year in Defense News referred to 46 people who came together to write a letter to the President of the United States on the matter. They included former Senator Sam Nunn, two former ambassadors to Moscow, a former ambassador to Poland, a former Under-Secretary and a former NATO Assistant Secretary-General, all of whom argued:
"Instead of expanding … NATO should boost its Partnership for Peace program, which aids nonmembers in military training and helps Eastern and Central Europeans join the European Union."
Much of the expenditure on defence could be better spent on improving economics. Having said that, I reiterate that I do not oppose Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic joining NATO. I just feel that we should be cautious about expanding still further.
My third main reason for being cautious about NATO expansion is the attitude in Russia. I am saying this not because I am afraid of Russia but because I think that we have stronger links, through the Founding Act of 1997, at presidential and governmental level with Russia than we have at parliamentary and people level. No one who has seen—as I have—a Duma packed with people who are seriously concerned that the expansion of NATO will cause instability in Russia can doubt that that needs to be taken seriously. We need to build on and expand the Founding Act, which states that one of its purposes is to improve public awareness of relationships between countries.
Most changes in the former Soviet Union have been greatly for the better, but in Russia in particular there has been seismic shock. Communism is—was—a way of life; it is virtually a religion. The people have lost not only the illusion of military might but their faith. The nearest parallel I can think of is this: it is as if the Vatican had been told that God did not exist and that the Roman Catholic Church was a myth, corrupt and incapable.
The people of Russia are baffled, disillusioned and angry that their faith has been taken from them. More than half the members of the state Duma have signed a resolution stating that expansion of NATO will create new dividing lines and barriers in Europe. The question that has always been asked in Russia is against whom NATO is expanding. Instability in Russia is not surprising, bearing in mind the arrears of pay and appalling housing conditions in the armed forces. We hear that even officers and their families are living in tents.
Russia and the Warsaw pact countries had military-industrial combines and much employment depended on military and industrial expenditure in military areas. A month ago, the Pentagon told me that, in 90 cities in the former Soviet Union, more than 75 per cent. of the population work in the defence industry. Think of that industry being undermined and people realising that they are losing their former markets—the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary—because those three countries and others will re-equip with NATO-compatible equipment.
The NATO-Russian framework is sound at Government level, but it needs to be broadened and strengthened. One way to do that is to have Russian delegates at our North Atlantic Assembly meetings. It is surprising to me that I am on conversational terms with Mr. Zhirinovsky. I have had several conversations with
735
him and have chaired meetings at which he spoke. We have experienced the calming and reassuring influence of personal contact with people from the former Soviet Union countries and from Russia.
There should be more military contacts between NATO and Russia, and I welcome the fact that there are now Russians in Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe. The "Partnership for Peace" programme has been an outstanding success in promoting a sense of common purpose in defence-related activity of all kinds, including even air traffic control. Russia is losing markets in former Soviet Union countries, and we must seriously face the loss of business and currency to Russia. If currency does not enter Russia, reform may not happen.
How can we co-operate? I shall put to the House a thought that may seem eccentric. It is that the former Soviet Union, and in particular Ukraine, has the Antonov aircraft factory, which is without orders. It manufactures aircraft that are similar to those that are contained in plans for the future large aircraft. I welcome the fact that the Germans are seeking to co-operate with the Antonov factory, and regret that no other NATO country seems to want to co-operate with Antonov, which has a world leader in the field. Similarly, the Mig 29 Fulcrum and the Sukhoi 35 have airframes which, as far as I can see, are far superior to any in the west. I regret that we have not found ways to co-operate with Russia or to pass orders to it to demonstrate that the confidence that we express in the expansion of NATO does not mean that we are seeking to do it down.
As the Foreign Secretary said, the expansion of NATO involvesa geographical expansion of one sixth of territory and a borders expansion of one third. That is a large expansion. I would resist further expansion in the foreseeable future, and I would avoid a timetable for further expansion. Meanwhile, we must retain the core role of NATO and its ability, if necessary, to engage in high-intensity warfare.
1.17 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am vehemently opposed to the expansion of NATO. When occupants of both Front Benches are united, they are sometimes united in error. In view of what the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) said, I should like to place on record the names of those who share the view that expansion is a folly of historic proportions. They are Ken Aldred, the director of the Council for Arms Control; Sir Michael Atiyah, the President of the Royal Society; Sir Hugh Beach; Sir Michael Beetham; Frank Blackaby; Field Marshal The Lord Bramall and Field Marshal The Lord Carver; Sir Frank Cooper, the former permanent under-secretary at the Ministry of Defence; Sir John Curtiss; Sir James Eberle, who ran Chatham House; John Edmonds, the former ambassador to the comprehensive test ban treaty; Sir Stephen Egerton and Sir John Graham, former ambassadors; Dr. Helga Graham, who put the letter together; Hugh Hanning; Lord Healey; Sir Michael Howard; Sir Arthur Hockaday; Lord Kennet; Sir John Killick; Sir Ian McGeoch; Sir Harry Tuza and Mrs. Elizabeth Young. They are not exactly CND marchers. They say:
"Our misgivings are manifold, but what lies at their heart is the vital need to preserve NATO's ability, in the new Europe where, by common consent, potential threats to the peace are diffuse and
736
unpredictable, to make rapid assessments and take quick and effective decisions on what action, if any, to take. This is difficult enough with 16 members, as the Bosnian experience as shown; with more it risks becoming impossibly slow and ineffective."
There are other disturbing implications:
"Actual and potential arms control and arms reduction agreements, both nuclear and conventional, will be more complicated and difficult; their ratification and implementation may be jeopardised … The security threat to those states not admitted in the first wave is liable to be increased; yet it is they, the Baltic states for example, who are already the most vulnerable. On the other hand, we fail to identify any countervailing advantages for the Alliance in enlargement. It will therefore continue to antagonise Russia for no good reason."
I hope that the Defence Secretary will give a serious answer to those distinguished people. I hope he will answer another question. I do not think that I do the Foreign Secretary an injustice in saying that he implied that, somehow or other, what we are doing was okay by the Russians. That is not their view.
Dr. Alexei Arbatov—whom some of us have met at Labour party groups and, doubtless, Conservative groups—of the Russian state Duma has said:
"First the enforced reconcentration on strategic nuclear forces is ruinous to our [economic] development. Second, our need to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in the Western military regions of the country and in the Northern fleet damages our prospects significantly. Thirdly, there is the need to expand anti-missile defences at great expense in European Russia. And fourth, the increased vulnerability of Russian strategic nuclear bases and conventional forces means increased defence commitments and expenditure."
Dr. Arbatov concluded by complaining that one third of the west's military power in Europe is close to Russia's land frontiers, and that historical hostility to Russia is part of the policy and attitudes of some of the new countries.
We are assured that the NATO-Russian Founding Act establishes the framework for co-operation between NATO and Russia and creates the foundation for a lasting friendship, yet arguably, the 10 conditions imposed recently on US ratification of NATO enlargement by the ultra-conservative Republican Senator Jesse Helms, according to the Russians,
"guts this incipient co-operation of any realistic content and revives the spirit of the Cold War."
What are the facts of the matter? What are the Russians saying to us? In particular what are they saying about the Helms conditions? As I understand it, the Helms conditions have created considerable worry in the Russian Duma. The conditions are:

"1. Outline a clear, complete strategic rationale for NATO expansion.

2. Agree that no limitations will be placed on the numbers of NATO troops or types of weapons to be deployed on the territory of new member states, including nuclear weapons.

3. Explicitly reject Russian efforts to establish a nuclear weapons-free zone in central Europe.

4. Explicitly reject all efforts to tie NATO decisions to UN Security Council Approval.

5. Establish a clear delineation of NATO deliberations that arc off-limits to Russia, including, but not limited to arms control, further Alliance expansion, procurement and strategic doctrine.

6. Provide an immediate seat at the NATO table for countries invited to join the Alliance.

7. Reject Russian efforts to require NATO aid for Russian arms sales to former Warsaw Pact militaries joining the Alliance …

737

8. Reject any further Russian efforts to link consensus in arms-control negotiations including the … ABM treaty and the CFE treaty.

9. Develop a plan for a NATO ballistic missile defence system to defend Europe.

10. Get a clear advance agreement on an equitable distribution of the cost of expansion, to make certain American taxpayers don't get stuck with the lion's share of the bill."

What is the attitude to those conditions? Any foreseeable Russian Government must surely deeply resent them.
The worries are not only British, but American. I shall spare the House the list of the American signatories to a letter to President Clinton, but the fact that it includes people such as Nitze shows that there is at least a queasy attitude to what we are doing. I believe that we are unnecessarily alienating and isolating Russia. Such vindictive handling will encourage revanchism; a genuine comparison can be made to Weimar Germany in what we are doing to the fragile and flawed democracy of current Russian politics.
Enlargement along the lines that are proposed will be counter-productive. It will undermine the efforts of the reformers in Russia and support the rise to power of reactionaries, whether of the communist left or the authoritarian right. Even in the short term, the alienation of Russia may remove its incentive to co-operate with the west in other areas of international affairs, such as the non-proliferation and nuclear arms control treaties.
The START 2 agreement on nuclear arms reduction, which was signed in 1993, has not come into force because of the Duma's refusal to approve it.
What is the assessment of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of the likely effect of enlargement on START 2? Until the situation is resolved, there will be no movement on further START negotiations. Indeed, Russia has revealed that, until funds are found to modernise its armed forces, it will place a greater onus on its nuclear arsenal in its defence strategy. In February 1998, the Duma passed a motion calling NATO enlargement the biggest threat to Russia since the end of the second world war.
Elsewhere, Russia has followed policies that are not consonant with those of the US and Britain, notably on the treatment of Serbia, and particularly on Kosovo. If we want Russia to co-operate on such delicate matters, is it really wise to provoke it?
We must also consider the interests of the applicant states. As envisaged, NATO will never be able to achieve the consolidation of a peaceful and undivided Europe unless Russia—a European country—is made a full member of the alliance, which is most unlikely. Dangerous military or psychological imbalances could occur between those countries that are in and those that are out. New members, such as Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic, will have access to military communications and nuclear intelligence that regional neighbours such as Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria will be denied.
That is a difficult situation. Senator Moynihan pointed out that, if the Baltic countries of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, which are panting for membership, were brought in, the United States and other signatories would have a solemn obligation to defend territory further east than the westernmost border of Russia. Is that wise?
738
Sam Nunn, who has been mentioned, said:
"Russian co-operation in avoiding proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is our most important national security objective".
He pointed out that NATO expansion makes the Russians
"more suspicious and less co-operative".
When Mr. Gorbachev was directly approached by Sir Hugh Beach, Dr. Graham and Sir John Killick, he said:
"In 1990 I was assured by, among others, Chancellor Kohl and the then US Secretary of State James Baker that there were no plans for the expansion of NATO Eastwards and that there would not be any. Of this we have documentary evidence. James Baker, in particular said to me on 9 February 1990: 'We understand that, not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries, it is important to have guarantees that, if the US, in the framework of NATO, maintains its presence in Germany, that will not lead to the extension of the jurisdiction or the military presence of NATO by one inch Eastwards.
Mr. Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dalyell: Forgive me. I am rushing through my speech, because so many hon. Members want to speak.
The expansion of NATO means Russia relying more and more on nuclear weapons. It is NATO's hope that co-operation under the Founding Act, and especially joint operational experience of peacekeeping, will help to dispel Russian mistrust of NATO and its enlargement, but the existing member states should not be deluded about the extent of the psychological trauma suffered by the Russian political elite as a result of the collapse of the Soviet empire. We really had better be careful about what we are doing.
What is the likely cost of equipping central European countries for NATO membership? What proportion are they supposed to pay, and what would be the effect on, for example, the Polish economy? What will it cost to make central European weapons systems compatible with those of NATO?
The Pentagon recently came up with a new estimate of the cost, at $1.5 billion over 10 years, but the new york times said that the figure was laughable, and clearly cooked up to reassure the Senate as it approached a vote. Only a few months ago, the Pentagon calculated that the cost could run as high as $35 billion over 13 years. One is entitled to ask what costs are involved.
The entry of the Baltics would create huge problems in Moscow. NATO expansion may damage paramount security interests for decades to come. The American President and the British Government may mistake Yeltsin's seeming acquiescence for permanent Russian acceptance. Other Governments will come along in Russia, and they may not acquiesce.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) said, the whole American plan seems to be at the expense of the United Nations. Why cannot the UN be involved? It is not clever to give grave offence to a weakened Russian state. We are encouraging the slow candle of Russian nationalism. I beg those on both Front Benches to be careful.
1.32 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: I am tempted to follow some of the thoughts of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but I will resist. I am amazed that so many

739
intelligent, well-informed and experienced people could put their names to the documents that he told us about. Much of what he and other hon. Members have said today rests on how Russia will respond to NATO enlargement, which I welcome, but with caution, as expressed in the Select Committee's third report.
The House may have overlooked Russia's capability to mount a military reaction to enlargement. There is concern about Russia's economy and internal politics. There is a danger of that enormous country, with all its human and natural resources, imploding. A reactionary leader might then be tempted to go on an external adventure.
Following what my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) said, one has to ask oneself how quickly Russia could tool up for war. At present, its armed forces are totally demoralized—most of them are unpaid and there is massive desertion—and if it made any attempt to tool up for a military adventure, the west would get so much warning that we would be able to respond and, I think, deter any aggression. That is what deterrence is all about. Also, before Russia went on any external adventure via its front door, it would have to bear in mind the 3,500 miles of its back door, which is the People's Republic of China all the way along.
There has been much discussion of enlargement of the European Union as well as of NATO, and the two have a certain synergy. If I were from a central or eastern European country, in terms of security I would far rather go for membership of the EU than of NATO, because achieving comparability with the other NATO member countries and interoperability with their weapons would impose considerable costs. Implicit within membership of the European Union is a mutual security obligation. It is inconceivable that, if any member state were attacked, it would not expect other EU members to come to its assistance.
Much has been said about membership of the Western European Union. However, the Brussels and Washington treaties both contain a fifth article—the mutual security article—so it is inconceivable that any country joining the EU that qualified to join the WEU would not also qualify to join NATO. The Select Committee on Defence has always pointed out that a European country cannot belong to one without belonging to the other.
Another important point is that the EU will enhance trade. In 1975, when we were debating Britain's continued membership of what was then the European Economic Community, a history master in Andover told me that to him the matter was simple. He said, "Where you trade, you have peace, and when trade breaks down, you often have war." My advice to the countries of central and eastern Europe that are concerned and disappointed about the lack of a quicker way to join NATO is to concentrate on achieving EU membership and on maintaining and enhancing the trading links that they had with Russia when they were part of the Soviet Union.
It is time that NATO redefined its mission. For example, at the moment it is geographically restrained—its southern flank is the north coastline of north Africa. We must understand that the world security situation is now completely different. Gone is the stability of the cold war, and the loss of cohesion means that everyone is much freer. All sorts of new problems now face us.
740
For instance, a crescent of crisis stretches from the Caspian sea right across the southern flank of NATO, following the fault line between Christian and Muslim communities. In the north African states, there is much fundamentalist Islamic terrorism. By undermining the economies of those countries, the terrorists are sowing the seeds of the sort of problems that could well harm the soft underbelly of the EU and NATO. Therefore, NATO must rethink its strategic concept, which was first drawn up in 1991. It is high time for a new concept, and that should be top of the agenda at the NATO Washington summit next year.
I suggest that the concept might contain, first, the clear mission statement that I asked for; secondly, guidance to the military and defence planners; thirdly, reassurance to world audiences that NATO is still a vital part of the free world's security system and that it is flexible enough to react to anything, anywhere in the world. Finally, it must accommodate the European security and defence identity and the common foreign and security policy without undermining the North Atlantic alliance.
I shall refer briefly to Spain's membership of the integrated military structure, and to Gibraltar. Earlier this week, at the annual general meeting of the British Gibraltar parliamentary group, an event which does not usually generate much parliamentary excitement, concern was expressed about agreement at Madrid that Spain should join the IMS. We were assured by the Foreign Secretary at the time of that agreement that it would not mean a sell-out of Gibraltar. However, many of us felt that, as Spain was so keen to join, the British Government should take the view that, unless Spain stopped harassing the civil population of Gibraltar, it should not enter the IMS of NATO.
The Foreign Office has assured me that a deal has been done with Spain. I should like to know a little more about that. COMGIBMED, the NATO headquarters in Gibraltar, is to close, which will have an impact on the economy of Gibraltar, and there is much concern on the rock, as hon. Members who have visited recently have confirmed. If Spain is to enter the IMS, we must have firm assurances that harassment of military ships and aircraft and of movements connected with NATO exercises will stop. Harassment of the civil population must stop, too.
The Defence Committee has repeatedly said that NATO remains the cornerstone of our security and defence policy. I welcome Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, but I sound a note of caution about further enlargement.
1.40 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) was kind enough to mention my reports to the economic committee of the North Atlantic Assembly on the costs of NATO expansion. Those reports helped to clear obfuscation about the costs of expansion, to which NATO unnecessarily added by its secrecy about the costs.
On 2 December 1997, NATO's meeting of Defence Ministers adopted the conclusion of NATO's senior resources board's study that the costs of new infrastructure would be $1.5 billion over 10 years, as the Foreign Secretary said. That might be an underestimate, but the figure is certainly significantly lower than the Pentagon's estimate, and a fraction of estimates in reports from other bodies such as the congressional budget office.

741
Earlier reports made three assumptions. They believed that five countries would join, but there will in fact be three. They believed that there would be forward deployment of forces from current member states into the territory of new members, something that is not necessary. They believed that infrastructure for new member states would have to be compatible with that of existing members, a belief that is not supported by the threat environment or by facilities in the new member states. Those reports therefore came up with such high costs on a flawed basis.
The estimate of $1.5 billion is for common funding of NATO infrastructure. It covers only one category of costs that analysts have linked to enlargement. Other costs will fall to national Governments, not to NATO, and they include restructuring and modernising, particularly for states' own armed forces. The three new countries have agreed to increase defence spending by between 10 and 30 per cent.
Mr. Frank Cook: Has my hon. Friend taken account of the tendency of those in the United States who plump for the higher estimates to use the argument to support their consistent demand for more burden sharing and to justify a higher European contribution?
Mr. Cohen: That is a factor. Some would like European nations to put in much more money, but that is not justified, in my view.
The main emphasis should be on interoperability—which will not happen overnight—better communications between the new members' forces and their allies, training and joint training. The new countries should not be harassed to upgrade their weapons quickly. As long as there is a benign security environment, there is no case for that, or for the excessive cost estimates.
We must resist pressure from militarists and United States right wingers to insist on high defence spending across Europe and especially in the new countries. We must resist United States and other defence contractors who want to use hard sell and make up false threats to try to get those countries to buy weaponry.
Much has been said about Russia. Whatever happens with NATO, one of the most important issues will be how the treaty is seen by non-members, especially Russia. The effects of capitalism are much more likely to lead to trouble in and from Russia than any alliance configuration. Democracy, anti-corruption and economic stability should be the priorities. We have partnership agreements with Russia, which even has a full-time delegation at NATO headquarters. It could be said that Russia is at least a little on board with the new security arrangements whereas, during the cold war, it was not on board at all.
I am not in favour of any return to cold war blocs or cold war thinking. Territorial expansion after military victories invariably breeds resentment and the potential for future wars. The end of the cold war has that potential. It is essential that its end should be seen in terms not of victory and defeat but as an opportunity for a more inclusive new world order incorporating security arrangements for all, including Russia. It is essential to improve NATO's inclusive arrangements for Russia.
Such arrangements must include a conventional forces in Europe agreement, tightened by all NATO countries, as well as Russia, holding fewer arms. NATO countries
742
should take the lead in having fewer conventional forces in Europe. The arrangements should lead to nuclear weapons reductions. They are still the greatest danger to the world, and we should take this opportunity to get significant reductions everywhere, not just in Europe. We should play a role in that.
There should be no duplication of militarism. I oppose the expansion of a military role based on the European Union. I do not think that the European Union should have a military wing in addition to what exists in NATO. That would be duplication.
NATO must change. That it changes is more important than expansion. The shadow Defence Secretary's comments about NATO being hard or soft were most unhelpful. The combined military force of NATO countries is massive. It could more than ably deal with any conventional threat. The weak link is political liaison and the potential for mistrust and misunderstanding. So, with the cold war over, there has to be far more of a political role for NATO. That is why I welcome the defence diplomacy aspects described my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in the strategic defence review last week. That has to be extended to NATO.
We must have observation, verification and joint exercises with the non-member countries such as Russia, in order to increase mutual trust. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe should have an expanded role as well.
The three new states are joining NATO because they want to. I believe that they have unduly high expectations of what they will get out of membership. Some may view it as a panacea, and I certainly do not think that it is that, but they want to join, and those views should be respected. However, that does not make any automatic case for their joining. Existing NATO members can also say no or not yet if they choose. I believe that they should say that in respect of any significant future expansion. Integration should be tilted towards the European Union instead in the first instance. That is where the emphasis should be over the next decade.
Defence is an insurance policy, but it can be costly. Money for social purposes such as schools and hospitals is lost as a result of defence spending, so it should be kept to the minimum deemed essential. Alliances and co-operation between states can lead to improved security for all and to less cost than defence which is born out of mistrust. I favour greater communication, co-operation and partnership between states. I favour far greater inclusivity rather than isolation, within which threats are imagined and exaggerated to dangerous proportions.
A security system is better than none at all. However, it should not be at exorbitant cost or be unnecessarily heavily armed. It must be an institution for peace, not a threat to world peace in itself. It must be inclusive, not exclusive. That is why NATO must change politically. NATO's peacekeeping role in Bosnia, including the non-NATO states, points to one of the ways forward to that change.
The way in which NATO is run also needs to change. It is a different animal now than it was in the cold war. The United States' tendency to insist on, or dominate, decision making, or to threaten not to engage if it does not get its way, should give way to a more open, equal, consensual decision-making process involving all the

743
NATO members. NATO expansion is going ahead, but it is its political role, with an emphasis on inclusivity and co-operation, that needs to be expanded.
1.53 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: Grand strategy and high diplomacy do not merit long speeches. I want to refer to the issue that is central to our whole debate. What does NATO exist for? It exists for the preservation of liberty and the safeguarding of democracy—values that are now shared across our continent, thank God. It is an alliance to which all ought to be able to aspire. It is an alliance which all ought to be eligible to join.
The Foreign Secretary, quite rightly, said that he wanted the process of enlargement to include Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland and not to produce any further divisions in our continent, of which we have seen enough in our lifetime. For me, the coming down of the Berlin wall was the most exciting event of my time in politics. The interment in a fitting manner of the Tsar, the Tsarina and their family in St. Petersburg today has a symbolic aspect that we should not forget: it is a beacon of hope for restitution and reconciliation within Russia, on which a new relationship within our continent can be built.
Vulnerability should not exclude a country from membership. Had it done so, would we have allowed Norway to be in NATO? During the cold war, there was only one Norwegian battalion in position in Finnmark, and in the whole of the northern part of Norway, there was only one Norwegian brigade. There were no NATO troops, nor any nuclear weapons stationed in Norway; there were exercises, it is true, but never were they stationed there. Norway, a country contiguous to the Soviet Union at a point of particular strategic vulnerability to the Soviet Union—northern Norway is adjacent to the Kola peninsula, which had the greatest concentration of offensive Soviet military power—was able to maintain a satisfactory relationship with its totalitarian neighbour and preserve its own integrity as a country as a full member of the north Atlantic alliance. That is a model which we should follow.
We should remember that never in its history has NATO acted in an offensive manner. That is in complete contradistinction to what the Hungarians suffered at the hands of their Warsaw pact allies in 1956 and the Czechoslovaks suffered in 1968. Similarly, the Poles have little to be thankful for, what with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the Yalta agreement, the way in which the workers' uprising was put down in 1956 and the struggles of Solidarity against what ultimately became military rule.
All three countries—Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic—are now to be warmly embraced in our collective security apparatus in NATO, but we should not exclude others—for example, the Baltic states. How can they be a threat in any sense to their neighbours? They do not possess the armed forces to be a threat; they are democratic; and they have the rule of law. Estonia and Latvia are trying to come to a satisfactory accommodation with their Russian minorities, offering them citizenship and full participation in the democratic processes of their
744
respective nations. I have had the privilege of leading parliamentary delegations to both those countries in the past three years.
People may point out that there is a border dispute between Estonia and Russia, but it is not of Estonia's desire. Estonia hoped that the Tartu treaty would be recognised by the new Russian Federation, but it has not been. Estonia has put forward new proposals to accommodate Russian concerns but, so far, those have lain on the desk of the Russian Government, unsigned. As for the Latvians, they are doing everything that they can to extend citizenship to the Russians living within their border.
If we are to say that a nation should be excluded because it is small and can make very little military contribution, how is it that Luxembourg, which has only one battalion, is a member of NATO? How is it that Iceland, which has no troops at all, is a member of NATO? We should not be too critical of NATO nations' internal affairs, because all countries go through difficult periods. We accepted Portugal under Salazar. We allowed Greece under the Greek colonels to remain in the alliance. We even allowed Turkey to remain in NATO after it invaded northern Cyprus.
We should bear it in mind that freedom is indivisible. We were prepared to launch the Berlin airlift 50 years ago to ensure that freedom was retained in the western part of the city. Had we not done so, Berlin could have fallen, which would have been a dire precedent. As a consequence of our action, the Brussels treaty was signed later that year and the Washington treaty the year after. It is because of the collective security arrangements that were put in place at that time that western Europe has enjoyed liberty. I do not see why central and eastern Europe should not also, under NATO, ultimately enjoy that liberty.
2 pm
Mr. Michael Trend: If any hon. Member had stood up in the House 10 years ago and said that NATO would enlarge its membership into central and eastern Europe in the next decade, he or she would have been regarded as unhinged.
We have heard much today about how the enlargement of NATO is an historic development—which it is—on a scale that is still hard to grasp. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) made an important point about today's events in St. Petersburg. There has been a remarkable transformation of the landscape in Europe, which is an historic development indeed.
It is also an historic vindication of those who bought the western alliance to its present position. There would have been no possibility of enlargement if Baroness Thatcher's Government in the 1980s had not, in the recent words of the Leader of the Opposition,
"rejected the simple-minded arguments for unilateral disarmament, and stood up for NATO and the western alliance in the years when that support counted the most".—[0fficial Report, 9 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 939.]
Mr. Frank Cook: The hon. Gentleman's quote referred to "unilateral disarmament". I believe that he and his right hon. Friend meant unilateral nuclear disarmament. There is a difference.
Mr. Trend: I happily confirm that that is what my right hon. Friend and I meant.

745
The road along which Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary have travelled towards NATO ran through Greenham Common, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) reminded us, that road ran within the perimeter fence of Greenham Common, not outside it.
It gives all Opposition Members enormous satisfaction to hear the Foreign Secretary concede, if not in so many words, that he is now one of Thatcher's children. He referred to
"We who owe so much to the alliance".
That transformation of his view is a matter for congratulation. Never mind about seeing the light on the road to you know where. He pronounced only 10 years ago:
"It is nonsense on stilts"
for Britain to
"pretend to be a nuclear power."
On 20 September 1985, on page 6 of Tribune, he put his name to the view that Britain should not be aligned to any major power, such as NATO. Thank heavens he is now one of us. We welcome the Foreign Secretary in his role as a full-hearted supporter of NATO and its nuclear deterrent. It can be said that, on this issue at least, the Foreign Secretary is sound.
Continuity in policy—[Interruption.] This is an important point. Continuity in policy towards the extension of the NATO alliance to the east is welcome. The Madrid summit, where Britain was represented two months after Labour's general election victory by the Prime Minister, brought to a successful conclusion the work begun at Brussels in 1994. The Opposition today whole-heartedly support the three former Warsaw pact nations seeking membership of NATO.
Two weeks ago, I was in Poland at a conference that included politicians from all three Visegrad countries. We were discussing their approach to the enlargement of the European Union. They were disappointed at how little progress had been made on that in the past six months, but they were immensely enthusiastic about their coming membership of NATO. In Poland, that is a cross-party matter. From their point of view—and from ours, as Opposition Members—the Madrid summit was more successful than the Amsterdam summit.
So much for the past—the old certainties that existed when NATO kept watch on the iron curtain have gone, or at least changed beyond recognition. A new question has arisen and will continue to be the central concern for the foreseeable future: what is NATO for?
We have heard many interesting views on the subject today and there has been general agreement on many, if not most, points. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) spoke with huge authority, based in part on his distinguished role in the NATO parliamentary assembly. Much the same is true of the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who made an excellent point about current economic realities in Russia.
Our debate has been most lively in respect of the Russian question. While not agreeing with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), he put the case against expansion with great passion. The view of almost all others who spoke, starting with my hon. Friend the
746
Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), was that, while Russia's perception of its own interest is vital, we must not allow it to have a veto over the alliance.
It would also be right to include the important contribution to the debate by the Defence Select Committee, whose Chairman, the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), made an important speech. The Select Committee sought to find answers to some difficult questions, including the particularly astute question put to it by Mr. Ronald D. Asmus, who said:
"If Russia is no longer the question to which NATO is the answer, what is the question? And how does enlargement help answer the question?"
The Committee's conclusions are important, and I should like to pick out one or two. The vital issue in terms of enlargement is not whether there will be an extension of NATO, but its pace and manner. That was the view reached by the predecessor Committee in 1994 and endorsed by today's Select Committee. It is the right view.
Particular concerns have been expressed about the effect of enlargement on NATO's military effectiveness, especially in the light of the need for new entrants to improve their military capabilities. The Select Committee rightly concluded that the benefits in terms of increased ability in central and eastern Europe should outweigh the short-term costs.
Others have questioned the effect of an increase in NATO's size on its flexibility and the speed of its decision-making processes. There is, however, no reason to believe that the new NATO partners will wish to step out of line with the existing 16 or that they will be anything other than model members.
In the context of relations with Russia, we welcome the signing of the Founding Act in May 1997, which provides mechanisms for co-operation between NATO and Russia, including the establishment of the permanent joint council. However, we urge the Government to take serious notice of the views of the United States Senate's Foreign Relations Committee and our own Select Committee that the Founding Act should not become a means by which Russia could gain a veto over alliance decisions.
We also welcome the formation of the Euro-Atlantic partnership council in May 1997, building on the existing "Partnership for Peace" initiative and offering central and eastern European countries enhanced co-operation with NATO. The operation of the NATO-led SFOR in Bosnia, drawing NATO and non-NATO countries together has helped to ease fears over NATO's expansion. Perhaps the Government will clarify their position on the boundaries of NATO operations for the future. Will NATO's capacity to act out of area be increased?
There are other important questions on which we should like to hear the Government's views today. Indeed, I should like to bring the focus of the debate back to the Government. Greater clarity is needed on the financial costs of enlargement, both to new entrants and to existing NATO members.
The Prime Minister told the House last year that there was
"no reason why Britain's financial contribution … should rise significantly in real terms."—[Official Report, 9 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 937.]
Is that still the Government's view?

747
Have the Government had any reason to revise their opinion since then? The Defence Select Committee's third report of 1997–98, on NATO enlargement, noted that the figure of $1.5 billion as the estimated cost of enlargement was a minimum figure, and said in paragraph 77 that the actual cost "may well be greater." The Committee concluded, in paragraph 86:
"we cannot share the Secretary of State's confidence that $1.5 billion represents the probable limit on the true costs of enlargement."
Will the Secretary of State clarify the position? Might the United Kingdom pay more than the current estimate of 1 1 million per annum for enlargement during the next decade?
Conservative Members were not bowled over by the recently announced strategic defence review. We shall watch very closely indeed how the Secretary of State manages with his greatly reduced budget. Britain must always be in a position to honour in full its NATO responsibilities. May we have a specific assurance on that point today?
Perhaps the Secretary of State will help us by setting out the Government's position on the future enlargement of NATO. I return to the subject of the Russians. The widely predicted Russian backlash against the existing extension of NATO never materialised. Should we now allow supposed Russian intransigence to be used as a reason to block further NATO expansion into, for example, Slovenia or Romania—about which my hon. Friends spoke well? In 1997, the Prime Minister said that those countries were
"strong candidates for any future enlargement".—[Official Report, 9 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 937.]
Perhaps the Secretary of State will expand on that view today. Is future enlargement a clear priority for NATO, and is it a clear priority for the UK Government?
It must be acknowledged that Russia will vigorously oppose the Baltic states' entry to NATO. What is the UK Government's reaction to that? It is a commonly held view that Russia should not have a veto on NATO expansion, yet Russia's attitude is central to the debate on the possible entry into NATO of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. If those countries are judged to have made the necessary progress in, for example, their treatment of the Russian-speaking populations, will the bar to NATO membership remain? Washington recently reassured the Baltic states of its continued support for their right to seek NATO membership. Is that also the position of the British Government?
The Secretary of State heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden that we believe that the greatest caution should be exercised in that area. This debate illustrates the importance of NATO as the basis for European defence and the main guarantor of European security. However, some would favour another solution to the question of European security, through the integration of the Western European Union into the European Union, as foreshadowed by the Amsterdam treaty. We believe that that move was driven by political considerations and a desire in some quarters to advance the cause of European federalism.
748
We welcome the fact that European countries are doing more to defend themselves, and we support initiatives such as the combined joint task forces, which enable the WEU to support NATO more fully. However, the WEU should not be used to undermine the Atlantic alliance, or to question the role of NATO and the vital United States contribution as the cornerstone of our defence. I hope that the Government share those sentiments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin) and the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) made interesting points on the relationship between NATO, the WEU and the European Union. No doubt we shall debate the subject in greater detail in future.
Comparisons between NATO and EU enlargement are instructive. The two are complementary but not symmetrical. Of the two, NATO enlargement is proceeding more rapidly, despite the obvious obstacles in the way of extending a military rather than a political alliance. That shows what can be achieved when there is real political momentum behind the reforms.
NATO enlargement will achieve two aims. First, it will provide security guarantees for the individual states involved. Secondly, it will enhance the prospect of peace and stability for Europe as a whole.
However, in considering enlargement, we must recognise that, although prospects of NATO membership act as a spur to democratic and constitutional reform in central and eastern Europe, NATO, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford on Avon said at the start of the debate, is a military guarantee, not a political club. In that I must disagree with the hon. Members for Leicester, South and for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen). Expansion has to be manageable and credible. New entrants need to be able to contribute to the collective security that NATO membership entails. Military considerations should be at the heart of discussions about NATO expansion.
In the 1980s, the Conservative Government got right the question to which NATO was the answer. It is a matter of some regret that the Labour party did not. Now that the Labour party is in government, let us hope that it helps to frame the right questions for the future. The right answer will remain the Atlantic alliance.
2.14 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Let me begin with a simple, but, I hope, clear statement about the importance of the North Atlantic alliance to the Government and to this country. Unlike the Conservatives, I give Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic an unambiguous and warm welcome to the NATO family.
Since its foundation in 1949, when another Labour Government were in power, the transatlantic alliance has been the cornerstone of European security. It established a community of nations committed to promoting shared values and defending common interests, and it still forms a concrete link between the influence and interests of European democracies and those of the United States and Canada. By doing so, it enhances the political and military capability of every member of that community.
Every British Government and official Opposition since 1949 have been firmly committed to the alliance. The House should have no doubts about the Government's

749
continuing commitment. As the strategic defence review amply demonstrated, we are determined to ensure that strong British defence is maintained and that the alliance remains the key instrument in ensuring peace and security for our citizens.
The strategic defence review which we published last week reaffirmed that a strong and relevant NATO is central to the security of Europe and to Britain's defence and security policy. The outcome of the review, with its emphasis on the need for forces that are deployable, mobile, flexible and sustainable, means that we shall maintain a highly effective commitment to the full range of alliance missions, including peace support and collective defence. We shall continue to play a leading role in the vital work of transforming the alliance, including the admission of the three invited countries.
I will not have been alone in finding the speech of the Opposition's chief defence spokesman grudging, confused and mean-spirited, and a remarkable transformation from previous Conservative positions on the rights of newly freed nations to make their own decisions about their security. For more than half a century, we have yearned and worked for the day when the great countries of central Europe returned to democracy, pluralism and enterprise economies, and the unwanted chains of the Warsaw pact were cut from their armies.
It is sad that it took my intervention to prompt the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) to get round to saying outright that he was in favour of our old but temporarily enslaved allies rejoining us in a free alliance of nations. I assure him that the people of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary will notice with some concern the change in tone and content from the Conservatives.
Dr. Julian Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman is reading too much into what was said earlier. A little humility would be in order from the representative of a party three quarters of whose Members of Parliament wanted this country to give up its nuclear deterrent and wanted NATO to refuse the vital cruise and Pershing missiles that saw the end of the Soviet Union. The people of Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia—as it then was—remember which party stood up to the Soviet Union and which party wanted to lie down in front of it.
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman, of all people, should not be castigating others for changing their minds. Let him be reminded that, from 1949, when a Labour Government took us into the North Atlantic alliance and a Labour Foreign Secretary was the architect of the treaty, the Labour party has never wavered for a moment in its support for NATO and continued membership of it.
I turn briefly to a political party that is not represented in the House today. No member of the Scottish National party has contributed to or been present for this important—indeed, historic—debate. That is hardly surprising, given that the SNP does not believe in NATO. Despite the fact that the alliance has helped to maintain peace and security in Europe for the past 50 years, and despite its magnificent efforts in Bosnia, the Scottish nationalists would turn their backs on NATO.
While other small nations in Europe are desperately trying to get into NATO, the SNP is scrambling to get out. What more obvious example could one give of the narrow nationalism and isolationism of that party?
750
What more potent symbol does one need of the nationalist empty-chair policy in the councils of Europe? As part of the United Kingdom, Scotland is able not only to enjoy the security that comes from being part of NATO but to offer leadership to the world. The SNP wants to throw all that away and turn Scotland from a world leader to a spectator on the sidelines.
Mr. Blunt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robertson: No, I want to address some of the many points that have been made in the debate. I may be generous to the hon. Gentleman later, as he has sat through the entire debate.
Enlarging the alliance is, of course, no small step. As many hon Members have said, it requires careful thought. I therefore welcome all the thoughtful speeches in the debate, as well as the admirable report of the Select Committee on Defence, which was published in April. I also welcome the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) in amplification of that report. I welcomed the report when it came out, and I gladly and sincerely welcome it now. It was a considered analysis of the issues. I was heartened by its broad support for the policy that the Government have pursued on this important issue.
The Committee commented on the need for a parliamentary and public debate on NATO enlargement. Although some hon. Members have expressed dissatisfaction with the delay and interruption in the debate, I should point out that we are debating this important issue before the Government ratify the treaty—under the Ponsonby rules, we are not obliged to do so—and following the publication of the strategic defence review, which has helped.
The Defence Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South, produced another report yesterday, which dealt with a further letter that I had sent to it. The report asks that the confidential study on costs published by NATO and made available to the Committee in confidence be put in the public domain. We shall ensure that NATO is informed of the Committee's request. The matter is one for collective decision based on consensus among allies. The report is not the property of the Government, but we will certainly tell NATO of the Committee's views.
The broad political considerations that underpin the alliance's decision to add to its membership have been set out amply by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. As Defence Secretary, I shall stress the practical and military implications of enlargement of the alliance. I shall remind the House of the commitments involved. When we undertook to defend Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, they undertook to defend each other and all other NATO members. In the memorable words of the Washington treaty,
"an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an armed attack against them all".
Those historic and momentous words in 1949 are still as important and significant today. I have no doubt that the three invited countries will meet the obligations involved in such a commitment with honour, dedication and military professionalism.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), who apologised for having to leave before the end of the debate, was wrong when he

751
suggested that the contributions of Poland and the Czech Republic to SFOR in Bosnia represented the limit of their military capabilities. That is simply not true. The new members have substantial armed forces and have plans to modernise them and make them interoperable with NATO forces as a whole. The three new countries understand that they must develop such capable forces and must commit them to NATO.
It will take time to integrate the armed forces of the three countries into NATO. We seek a contribution to common defence, not rapid rearmament or crippling defence expenditure. For their own security, the three countries would have had to invest anyway for their own defence, and it is easier and more effective to do that collectively inside NATO.
We have heard much about the importance of Russia and of Russian views. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has changed his views a number of times on these issues, but we always listen to him with interest for a view that may be different from those that are expressed throughout the House. However, he was wrong to say that the two Front-Bench teams were united. If he reads the speech by the Opposition spokesman, he will see a clear difference between it and the warm welcome for NATO enlargement from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
My hon. Friend read out the names of the distinguished signatories to the letter to The Times that objected to further NATO enlargement. I disagreed with it when I saw it, and I disagree with it now. My hon. Friend asked for a response to that letter. There was one from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the signatories, and I will ensure that a copy is placed in the Library so that my hon. Friend can see it.
My hon. Friend asked about assurances that might have been given to the Soviet Union about NATO enlargement. No British Minister has ever given any formal undertaking that NATO would not expand eastwards; nor should any have done so. The Government believe that it is a decision for the three countries and for NATO, and for nobody else. He asked about the impact of NATO enlargement on the START 2 process. We all hope that the Duma will soon ratify START 2. The Russian Government are confident that it will do that. I hope that, when Mr. Primakov reads the copy of the strategic defence review that I sent him yesterday, he will see what this country is doing about reducing strategic warheads. Perhaps the Duma will follow our example.
The opponents of NATO enlargement cite Russian resistance to it, but Russia has nothing to fear from that enlargement. The stability that it will bring to central Europe will be in Russia's best interests. We have said that to the Russians. Their opposition to the new NATO is misplaced, because NATO is not designed to threaten Russia, or its legitimate interests or those of any other country. NATO simply provides its members with a guarantee of collective defence.
Of course, we must consider the impact of these decisions on Russia and on other countries, and we should be open and honest about our intentions and those of the alliance as a whole. As many hon. Members have said, Russia cannot exercise a veto on the decision to join or to
752
be admitted to NATO. NATO members made the intentions clear and gave specific assurances to Russia and to others.
I ask the Russians, whether the Government, the Opposition or the various parties in the Duma: can we really believe that Russia is less secure as a result of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland being governed by democratic and moderate Governments and able to participate fully in the system of collective defence that has done so much to defend peace in Europe? The answer to that question is self-evident.
I cannot say which country will be next invited to join the alliance or when, but we will not close the door on the legitimate aspirations of countries that wish to join the alliance, whatever their location in Europe. Our guiding principle will be the effectiveness—
Mr. Blunt: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Robertson: At 28 minutes past 3, even my generosity would be stretched to the limit. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not giving way.
Our guiding principle is, and will continue to be, the military effectiveness of the alliance. It will be important to assess the process of absorbing the three new countries and the practical military implications of the current enlargement before making decisions on further invitees.
Much has been made of the cost of enlargement, but the new figures presented by NATO have been accepted by all major countries, including the Americans, as well as by the invitees. The figures form a solid, sensible basis for moving forward into enlargement.
I should like to close the debate with a statement which I think expresses the feelings of the House and this country. This decision is a landmark in our relationship with the three fellow European countries which have suffered so much from the turbulence of this century. Their commitment to NATO represents—
It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

NORTHERN IRELAND BILL (PROGRAMME)
Ordered,
That in the following provisions shall apply to proceedings in the Northern Ireland Bill.

Second Reading
1. Proceedings on Second Reading shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on Monday 20th July; and when the Bill has been read a second time it shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any question being put.

Committee stage
2. Proceedings in Committee shall be taken in the following order, namely, Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 4, Schedules 2 and 3, Clauses 5 and 6, Schedule 4, Clauses 7 to 13, Clause 23, Clause 14, Schedule 5, clause 15 to 22, Clauses 24 to 32, Schedule 6, Clause 33, Schedule 7, Clauses 34 to 54, Schedule 8, Clauses 55 to 59, Schedule 9, Clauses 60 and 61, Schedule 10, Clauses 62 to 69, Schedule 11, Clauses 70 to 76, Schedule 12, Clauses 77 to 80, Schedul1e 13, Clause 81, Schedules 14 and 15, Clause 82 and new Clauses and new Schedules.
3. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed at the four sittings specified in the following table, and

753
peach part of the proceedings shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at the end of the allotted period (calculated from the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on that day) or at the time specified in the following table—

Sitting

Proceedings

Allotted period of time

Wednesday

Clauses 1 to 13

22nd July

Schedules 1 to 4

three hours

Thursday

Clause 23

three hours or Seven o'clock (whichever is the earlier)

23rd July

Clauses 14 to 22, Schedules 5

six hours

Friday

Clauses 24 to 53

24th July

Schedules 6 and 7

six hours

Monday

Clauses 54 to 82,

27th July

remaining Schedules new Clauses and new Schedules

six hours

Remaining stages
4. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at the two sittings on Thursday 30th and Friday 31st July and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at half-past Two o'clock on Friday 31st July.

Conclusion of proceedings
5.(1) For the purpose of concluding any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others):—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any Amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown; and

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(2) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(3) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour.
(4) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (1) (c) on Amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, or under sub-paragraph (1) (d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single question in relation to those Amendments, Motions or provisions.

Miscellaneous
6. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to proceedings on the Bill.
7. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which proceedings on the Bill are taken.
8. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the bill at the sittings on any of the days specified in paragraph 3 above for any part of the allotted periods which falls after Ten o'clock or (where Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings) applies) after half-past Two o'clock.
9. (1) If a day specified in this Order is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion; and

(c) paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for the period after Ten o'clock for which sub-paragraph (b) permits them to continue.

(2) If a day specified in this Order is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over from an earlier day

(a) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion; and

(b) paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for the period after Ten o'clock for which sub-paragraph (a) permits them to continue.

Supplementary
10. (1) If a Motion is made by a Minister of the Crown to amend this Order and if an effect of the Motion would be to provide a greater amount of time for proceedings on the Bill, the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour.
(2) If a Motion is made by a Minister of the Crown to supplement the provisions of this Order in respect of further proceedings on the Bill, the Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, at any hour and the proceedings, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion three-quarters of an hour after they have been commenced.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Monday 20th July, the provisions of paragraph 1 of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Dewar relating to the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 2) Order 1998 and the Question thereon shall be put forthwith.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Airport Development
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
2.30 pm
Mr. John McDonnell: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce a debate on the subject of limiting the environmental impact of airport developments.
In the next week, the Government will publish a White Paper setting out their proposals for an integrated transport policy. The House and large sections of our community await with considerable interest the Government's statement. Most of the publicity heralding the White Paper has focused on how my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and his team will tackle the damage to our environment caused by the unfettered use of the car, and the largely unplanned expansion of the road transport system over the past century.
It is now well over 20 years since society began to take seriously the need to limit the environmental impact of the car, yet it is only in the last few years that there has been a growing realisation that the massive expansion in air traffic, and the associated development of airports, cannot be left to a combination of free market forces and the isolated planning inquiry decisions which have often permitted incremental environmental devastation.
My hope is that the White Paper will start in earnest the debate on how we can plan the future of air transport in this country in line with the Government's manifesto commitment:
"The guiding principles of our aviation strategy will be fair competition, safety and environmental standards."
Central to the debate will be the question of how we can limit the environmental impact of airport developments. There is a growing body of opinion which says that we need a new approach to the development of airports. Before the last general election, the Deputy Prime Minister argued that it was time to think afresh about airport policy.
Until now, airport growth has been almost totally reactive to air traffic demand, and extremely little account has been taken of the long-term environmental impact of any development. The corollary of that approach is that the aviation industry has generally dominated policy making over airport expansion, while the wishes of communities and environmentalists have largely gone unheeded. If the preservation and improvement of our environment is to be among the core guiding principles of our integrated transport strategy, we can no longer simply react to the demands of the BAA, or any other section of the industry.
Instead, we must be proactive and set environmental standards and limits in advance of any proposed airport development or expansion. In that way, we should establish set criteria against which any development proposals would be judged and clarify an environmental cap placed on any particular airfield.
If anyone doubts the need for a new and proactive approach, I would simply draw to their attention the historical development of Heathrow, located in my constituency. Heathrow is a classic case study of the reactive incremental expansion of an environmental nightmare.
756
The history of Heathrow has been drawn together in a fascinating book by Phillip Sherwood, a local historian. He describes the small, picturesque villages and hamlets that existed in the south of my constituency before the second world war, including Heathrow, Longford, Harmondsworth, Sipson and Harlington. The fields near what was then Heathrow village became the location for a small civil airfield, which was brought into military use during the war. It is now clear that, at the end of the war, the Government decided that the Heathrow airfield should expand into a major airport for London.
For the following 30 years, the creeping development of the airport obliterated Heathrow village and began to erode the quality of the environment of the remaining villages and beyond. In the late 1970s, a proposal was submitted for a fourth terminal at Heathrow; it was eventually agreed to after an inquiry. However, lain Glidewell, the inspector at the inquiry, made a firm recommendation to the then Secretary of State:
"all possible steps should be taken to satisfy those living around Heathrow that this is the last major expansion at the airport."
Initially, that was accepted by the Government. The then Under-Secretary of State for Trade, now Lord Tebbit, assured the House that the Government would not permit a fifth terminal at Heathrow. I regret the fact that, within six years, that commitment had been discarded and the inspectors' conditions ignored. As hon. Members will know, applications to construct a fifth terminal were submitted; they have been the subject of a public inquiry that has now entered its fourth year of deliberations.
The environmental impact of Heathrow is best illustrated by the representations being made to the terminal 5 inquiry by local community organisations and environmentalists. I pay tribute to the local residents who have led their David and Goliath struggle. I pay tribute to all those in the various residents' associations who have campaigned against the airport industry to protect our local—and, indeed, Londonwide—environment.
Leaders such as Dennis Gould and Rita Pearce from Longford, Mr. and Mrs. Sobey, who have campaigned for the Harmondsworth and Sipson association, and our former local councillor Keith Dobson have all had to fight hard merely to put their arguments at successive inquiries. Moreover, HACAN—the Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise—has estimated that more than 1 million people are seriously affected by aircraft noise from Heathrow.
Mr. Tony Colman: Does my hon. Friend agree that a ban on night flights is needed? I am sure that his constituents, like mine, have to put up with flights as early as 4 am every morning, which keeps them awake and makes life intolerable.
Mr. McDonnell: That is a pertinent point. At the terminal 5 inquiry, HACAN has made it clear that the noise generated by the four-terminal Heathrow is causing widespread suffering. Thousands of families are persistently deprived of sleep, as my hon. Friend said, by the noise of jumbo jets flying over London; the noise starts at 4 am and continues throughout the day. Even on BAA's evidence, 50 per cent. more people will be affected by aircraft noise in 2016 if terminal 5 is given the go-ahead.
From my constituency, residents' associations, the community health council and local doctors have combined to research and expose the impact on the health

757
of local residents of air pollution from the airport and its associated road traffic. A key finding of surveys undertaken by the community health council and residents was the high level of respiratory illness among people living on the estates round the airport. One local doctor has reported an incidence of asthma among local children of twice the national average and a similarly high comparative incidence of asthma and respiratory disease among other patient age groups.
The residents' associations have also expressed strong concerns about the risk to public safety posed by the location of one of world's largest airports in an area of such high population density. We should never underestimate the risk to life and limb of an aircraft coming out of the sky over such a densely populated area. Hanging over the heads of all the residents is a sense of inevitability that, if terminal 5 is given the go-ahead, the increase in the number of passengers passing through Heathrow from 15 million a year to 19 million a year will result in the next development—a new application for a third runway.
A third runway could result in the demolition of up to 4,000 homes in my constituency, wiping off the face of the earth the remaining villages to the north of the airport and displacing a whole community. That prospect creates uncertainty, which blights a whole area and a whole community.
The experience of my community with Heathrow should never be repeated, there or anywhere else. It could be avoided by the process advocated by numerous community and environmental organisations: the setting of environmental limits for existing and new airports. Those limits are nothing more than a set of permanently fixed environmental criteria that must be adhered to at each airport or planned airport.
The limits would be enshrined in the area's local development plan, and would involve an extensive range of environmental impact assessments. They would protect the local environment from continual expansion of airports and relieve the uncertainties and blight that expansion pressures create in any community.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about Heathrow's impact on his constituency. He will also be aware of the possible sale of RAF Northolt to the private sector, or the increase in the number of commercial flights that has been touted by people from various sources. Does he agree that, if either scenario were to materialise, local communities in both his constituency and mine would suffer blight, and there would be considerable environmental consequences?
Mr. McDonnell: That is a valid point. The consequences would be devastating for the whole region. My constituents would be sandwiched between two major airports, with all the pollution that that involves, and my hon. Friend's constituency would suffer not only increased noise and pollution but road transport gridlock, which would affect the whole of north-west London.
Environmental limits would relieve pressure and give certainty, as well as demonstrating to the aviation industry exactly what the operational limits of a particular airport are and what standards would be expected in any planned new airport. Stability would be provided both for the communities and for the industry, and the need for lengthy planning inquiries would be obviated, or at least reduced.
758
Environmental limits could be established either by agreement between the local planning authority and the airport operator, or by the Government. Their effectiveness would depend on their virtual irreversibility once agreed or set. The range of impact assessments or criteria that would comprise the agreement for a particular airport would naturally reflect the local environment.
There could readily be local flexibility, but several core limits are obvious: the airport's geographical boundary and its proximity to residential properties; the appropriate noise contours; the types of aircraft to be operated and the maximum number of air traffic movements per annum; the runway configuration and approved tracks for aircraft; the times of operation; the need or otherwise for the use of reverse thrust, night running of engines, ground power units, and other high-noise sources; the location of public safety zones and built-up areas overflown by aircraft on landing and take-off; the development of infrastructure to support the airport; and the protection of the green belt.
In its evidence to the Transport Sub-Committee, the Aviation Environmental Federation provided a checklist of environmental concerns relating to the use of airports, including an exhaustive list of issues to be addressed, under the broad headings of noise and vibration; emissions and effluents; land take; and infrastructure.
Serplan, the south-east regional planning conference, recently published a consultation document on a sustainable development strategy for the south-east and recommended that local authorities identify environmental limits at existing airports and set capacities in relation to surface access, noise and associated developments.
The advantages of setting such limits are obvious. They would establish how much air and road traffic would be generated by an airport development; how many air movements would take place, and between what times; the noise levels permitted; and, combined with local development plans, the area beyond which the airport cannot expand.
For the aviation industry and local businesses, it would be clear what developments were applicable. It has been proposed that the monitoring and enforcement of environmental limits would be the responsibility of the local authority, which would have strict enforcement powers. However, with the advent of a strategic authority for London, that may well be one of the environmental powers that we could attribute to the mayor and the assembly.
The use of environmental assessments is not new, especially under European legislation. In the past year, the Government have been consulting on a European Union directive on the extension of impact assessments to the environmental effects of public and private projects. That directive provides for greater public access to the environmental information on major development projects, such as airport developments, which enhances accountability and democratic control and ensures that decision making is more open and transparent. That would be a first for the aviation industry. Environmental limits would give purpose and teeth to the assessment.
Clearly, the country has recently woken up to the need for a thorough debate on the future of airports and the aviation industry. Like other forms of transport, air transport has brought considerable benefits, but the massive growth in air traffic and the substantial growth of airports has also imposed significant environmental costs.

759
In my constituency, we know of the effect on each generation—each generation of asthma sufferers, of people with respiratory problems and of people who cannot sleep at night and whose pleasure in their own gardens is undermined because of noise pollution.
If we are to tackle the environmental implications of that growth in airports, we must go beyond the protection of local environments from overblown airport development. We will need to combine the environmental limiting of airports with measures to promote the "polluter pays" principle within the aviation industry. That is a principle to which the Government have adhered since their election—they are now developing not only green policies but even green Budgets.
That could mean reviewing the existing tax exemptions on aviation fuel, for example, and negotiating via the European Union an environmental levy on airline fuel purchases. As in the car industry, that would increase the incentives for airlines to put pressure on manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency. In addition, Britain could follow other European countries by basing charges to airlines on the noise and weight of an aircraft, and fining individual companies for off-track flying.
I look forward to all those issues being tackled in the integrated transport strategy, which is to be published next week. I hope that, despite the proximity of that publication, the Minister will be able to throw some light on the Government's thinking on the impact of airports on the environment. That issue affects not merely my constituency and those of other hon. Members represented here today, but the whole of London. We have endured that problem for decades. It requires urgent attention, and I believe that this Government will give it such attention.
2.47 pm
The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) on his success in obtaining this debate and raising a matter that is of considerable importance not merely to residents in his constituency but those living throughout London, as he rightly said in his conclusion.
I shall do my best to respond to the issues that he raised, but I hope that he will appreciate that my responsibilities are primarily in the planning field and that wider matters of aviation policy are more strictly the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London. I know that my hon. Friend has contacted her about these matters and will continue to do so.
Our aim, like that of successive Governments since aircraft noise became a cause for concern, is to strike a balance between the economic benefits that airports bring and the numerous other effects on the surrounding communities, some of which are far less beneficial. Noise is usually the paramount concern of local residents, but we are also concerned about aircraft emissions, as they can affect both local and global air quality, and the surface access implications of airport developments, which are always carefully scrutinised.
Every airport has to tackle a range of waste and energy management issues, as well as development pressures, which are often concentrated in the areas surrounding an
760
airport. Those pressures must be managed both by the airports and through the planning system to ensure that environmental consequences are acceptable.
Not surprisingly, much current interest in the subject surrounds BAA's current application for a fifth terminal at Heathrow airport. The House will appreciate that I may not address that issue in any great detail. The applications were accompanied by an environmental assessment, and the environmental impact has been the subject of much written and oral evidence to the inquiry. All information will be fully considered by the inspector, who is responsible for the conduct of the inquiry and for the consideration of evidence.
The Secretary of State's quasi-judicial position in the planning process precludes me from discussing the merits of the case, except to say that my Department's position on the application remains one of neutrality. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has appeared twice at the inquiry, and he will understand the constraints that I am under. Our factual evidence is already on the public record, and I do not propose to recite swathes of it here.
Ministers are, however, committed to speeding up the planning process, and the way in which proposals for major infrastructure projects of national importance are dealt with—a stance that we reiterated in a policy statement in January. We are examining various options, ranging from modifications to inquiry procedures to alternative processes such as special development orders, hybrid Bills and Transport and Works Act 1992 procedures. We intend to consult widely on proposals to improve planning appeal procedures generally, with a view to reaching quicker decisions and minimising uncertainty while safeguarding the ability of all interested parties to participate fully and effectively in the appeal process.
Mr. McDonnell: One matter that does not appear to have arisen during the consultation process is the power of compulsory purchase, which the BAA inherited from the nationalised industry. The BAA uses that power ruthlessly to pursue its objective of developing the airport beyond what the local community believes to be legitimate environmental parameters.
Mr. Raynsford: As I understand it, the proposals being considered at the inquiry concern land within the existing curtilage of Heathrow airport, so no compulsory purchase powers are required. As for the time scale for inquiries, the long-running inquiry into terminal 5 at Heathrow is very much the exception rather than the rule.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) mentioned Northolt. I reiterate what my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces said in a recent Adjournment debate, when he made it clear that early proposals on the future of RAF Northolt were highly unlikely. In any case, the concerns of the local community, which my hon. Friend rightly aired today, will be an important consideration, as will matters raised by the White Paper on integrated transport when my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister publishes it in the near future.

761
Noise is of great concern to my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington and for Putney (Mr. Colman), whose constituents are much affected by the noise of aircraft flying over them. Planning policy guidance 24 on planning and noise advises local authorities in England on the use of planning powers to minimise the impact of noise, at aerodromes and elsewhere. It sets out criteria for permitting both noise-sensitive and noise-generating developments, and it advises on the use of conditions to minimise the impact of noise. I am well aware, from my mailbag and from the views expressed by my own constituents who are affected by aircraft noise, of wide concern about noise in the vicinity of aerodromes. We will review PPG 24 and will take action, if necessary, to ensure that its principles are followed by local authorities and developers.
Regional planning guidance will apply national policies for airports at the regional level, taking full account of the Government's objectives for sustainable development, integration with surface transport and regeneration.
Mr. Colman: My hon. Friend will join me in welcoming the Heathrow express, which has just opened as extra access to the airport, access to which by public transport is difficult. Does he support the Sweltrac—South and West London Transport Conference—concept of a dedicated line from Waterloo through Putney and Wimbledon to allow direct access to the airport from the south-west?
Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend about the merits of the Heathrow express, but I cannot be drawn into commenting on a matter that is not strictly my responsibility. I am sure that he has been assiduous in pressing the case for the Sweltrac proposal on my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London.
The Government recognise that it is essential that the potential impacts of development options, including airport development, are rigorously appraised as an integral part of the RPG preparation process. To that end, we have proposed that RPG should be subject to a sustainability and environmental appraisal from the outset. We have let a research project which will produce good practice guidance on the application of this technique, which is in its infancy, to RPG.
The Government are directly responsible for certain noise control requirements at Gatwick and Stansted, as well as at Heathrow, under section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. Under this power, we set night restrictions, noise limits and routes for departing aircraft, and regulations relating to arriving aircraft. Noise insulation has been provided.
The Government are engaged in a two-stage consultation on night flying restrictions, which were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, at the three airports. A preliminary consultation paper was issued at the end of February which sought views on all aspects of the current arrangements. All responses to it will be considered before specific detailed proposals for night flying arrangements are drawn up. These will be consulted on in the second stage paper, which we intend to issue at the end of September. Hon. Members will appreciate that I cannot comment in detail on this matter while the consultation process continues.
762
Proposals to reduce the departure noise limits, by 3 dB(A) for daytime and 2 dB(A) at night, were made by the previous Administration. Following representations by the International Air Transport Association, the Department has undertaken to issue a supplementary consultation paper on these proposals. When this paper is issued, eight weeks will be allowed for consultation.
Noise preferential routes for departing aircraft are of long standing and have been designed to minimize—subject always to the need of safety—overflight of the more densely populated areas. In a city such as London, it is impossible to avoid overflight completely; even in the vicinity of Gatwick and Stansted, it is inevitable that substantial numbers are directly overflown. Efforts are being made to improve compliance with the routes.
The Department, through its aircraft noise monitoring advisory committee, is also examining noise from arriving aircraft and the feasibility of operational limits, and the scope for improvements in operational practice by airlines and air traffic controllers. That issue has assumed increasing importance, not least as the noise climate attributable to departing aircraft has improved over the years at Heathrow, Gatwick and some other airports.
Ground noise is subject to separate arrangements, managed by the airports. It comprises a range of activities, including taxing, ground engine running and movement of airport vehicles, which can cause significant nuisance to people living in close proximity to the airport, including constituents in Hayes and Harlington. The Department's technical advisers, the department of operational research and analysis at National Air Traffic Services, have recently undertaken a study of ground noise at night at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, and intend to publish the results soon. BAA, partly in the light of this work, has taken steps to improve practice—for instance, by the increased use of fixed electrical ground power supplies instead of noisy auxiliary power units.
Returning for a moment to Heathrow, we have given a commitment to do everything practicable to ensure that the noise climate there continues to improve, even though, after the phase-out of chapter 2 aircraft, this will be more challenging to achieve than hitherto. Because of uncertainty about the future aircraft fleet mix at Heathrow and retirement dates for Concorde, we cannot be sure of achieving such improvements year on year, every year. However, we have offered a further assurance to local people around Heathrow that the Government will take all practicable steps to prevent any deterioration in the noise climate after the chapter 2 phase-out is complete.
The regulations made in the UK implementing agreements made through the International Civil Aviation Organisation for the limitation of noise and emissions from aircraft also bear closely on the environment around airports, both large and small. The Government participate actively in the international forums responsible for developing environmental standards for new aircraft, and we are pleased that the older, noisier chapter 2 jet aircraft will be withdrawn from service by March 2002. We are pressing for a new standard, quieter than the preset ICAO chapter 3 requirements, to lock in advances in technology, and work on that will start shortly.

763
The only other issue that I wish to discuss is that of environmental limits, the case for which was eloquently espoused by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. He made some interesting suggestions, not least on the role of the mayor and assembly. We will
764
consider those points. I hope that I have assured him that the Government are actively considering the issue of noise and the environmental impact of airports and doing our best to improve matters.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans his Department has to correspond electronically with(a) hon. Members and (b) members of the public. [49812]

  Dr. David Clark
  [holding answer 13 July 1998]: A variety of different methods of replying electronically to Written Parliamentary Questions is being tested in consultation with the authorities of both Houses of Parliament. These tests are continuing, and we will report on the conclusions as soon as possible.

PRIME MINISTER

  Lord-Lieutenants
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will list the 10 longest-serving Lord-Lieutenants; [50258]

  (2) how many Lord-Lieutenants he has appointed. [50364]

  The Prime Minister
  On my advice, Her Majesty has appointed 3 Lord-Lieutenants.

  The ten longest serving Lord-Lieutenants are:

  Sir Thomas Dunne, KCVO (Herefordshire and Worcestershire)

  His Grace the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensbury KT VRD (Roxburgh, Ettrick & Lauderdale)

  The Earl of Leven and Melville (Nairn)

  The Viscount of Artbuthnott KT CBE DSC FRSE (Kincardineshire)

  Sir Richard Hanbury Tenison KCVO (Gwent)

  Colonel Sir Michael McCorkell KCVO OBE TD (County Londonderry)

  The Right Honourable Lord Kingsdown KG (Kent)

  Sir David Mansel Lewis KCVO JP BA (Dyfed)

  Sir Timothy Colman KG (Norfolk)

  Lieutenant Colonel James Stirling of Garden CBE TD (Stirling and Falkirk).

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the President of the Council what plans she has to correspond electronically with(a) hon. Members and (b) members of the public. [49881]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  [holding answer 13 July 1998]: Under plans for the development of the Government Secure Intranet (GSI), my office expects to be in a position to correspond electronically with hon. Members
  316
  and the general public by the Autumn. I would also refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave today, Official Report, column 315.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Notarial Services
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received concerning the Scriveners Company and the provision of notarial services in central London. [50131]

  Mr. Hoon
  My Department wrote to interested parties on 29 May to ask for their views on whether the Government should seek to abolish the current statutory requirement that public notaries can practise in the City of London and the surrounding three miles only if they are members of the Scriveners Company. Representations on this subject have been received from a number of individuals and from:

  Messrs. Hartwig;

  Messrs. John Venn & Sons;

  The Association of Solicitor Notaries in Greater London;

  The Faculty Office of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury;

  The Law Society of England and Wales;

  The Notaries' Society;

  The Office of Fair Trading;

  The Scriveners Company;

  The Society of Public Notaries of London.

  The Lord Chancellor hopes to announce the Government's decision in due course.

  Magistrates
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to modify his Department's restrictions on deaf people serving as magistrates. [50073]

  Mr. Hoon
  There is no absolute prohibition on deaf people serving as magistrates. The Lord Chancellor welcomes applications for the magistracy from deaf people who have the capacity, whether with technical aids or otherwise, to follow court proceedings and carry out the range of magisterial duties.

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what meetings he has held with individuals, companies or other organisations regarding sponsorship of zones within the Millennium Dome; if he will list them; and who was responsible for taking the notes at each meeting. [51276]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I attend meetings with individuals, companies and other organisations on sponsorship of the Millennium Experience on a regular basis in the course of my Ministerial duties.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Vulnerable Road Users
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he plans to reduce the injury rate amongst(a) cyclists, (b) pedestrians and (c) motorcyclists in London; and if he will list his Department's advisers on accident reduction. [48191]

  Dr. Strang
  The emphasis in London, as for the rest of the country, will be on a continuing programme of initiatives co-ordinating education, enforcement and engineering.

  The Government are funding the London boroughs, the Highways Agency and the Traffic Director for London, to implement safety schemes. In addition, they are seeking ways to achieve further understanding of the causes, and co-ordinate that knowledge to promote good practice for the reduction of accidents among vulnerable road users, by working with the Association of London Government and the London Accident Analysis Unit. We will be bringing forward further measures to improve the safety of vulnerable road users as part of our new road safety strategy.

  The Department has the following external advisers on road accident research:

  Eur.Ing Robert Watson, Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders

  Ms Clare Holman, Environmental Consultant

  Professor Margaret Galer-Flyte, Loughborough University of Technology

  Professor Richard Allsop, University College London

  Mr. Geoff Maycock, Transport Research Laboratory

  Mr. Richard Lowne, Transport Research Laboratory

  Mr. Geoff Day, Freight Transport Association

  Mr. Edward Chorlton, Devon County Council

  Professor Mike McDonald, University of Southampton

  Professor Derek Elsom, Oxford Brookes University

  Mr. M. Sadeghi, Cranfield Impact Centre Limited

  Professor James Reason, University of Manchester.

  In addition, in drawing up our new road safety strategy, we are taking advice from a wide range of representatives of local government, the police, voluntary organisations and individual experts. The following external advisers and road safety research are members of the Road Safety Targets and Strategy Steering Group or Sub-Groups:

  Hugh Alford, Association of Chief Police Officers

  Henry Marks, British Motorcycling Federation

  John Moss, Cheshire County Council

  Mike Hayes, Child Accident Prevention Trust

  Alan Silver, Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Stuart Reid, Cyclist Public Affairs Group

  David Harvey, Derby County Council

  Bob Doughty, Despatch Association

  John Partridge, Local Authority Road Safety Officers Association

  Wendy Broome, Local Authority Road Safety Officers Association

  Rosemary Welch, Local Authority Road Safety Officers Association

  Kevin Kelly, Motorcycle Training Association

  318

  Rob Gifford, Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety

  Dave Rogers, Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents

  Fiona Murray, Scottish Road Safety Campaign

  Kristine Beuret, Social Research Association

  Bob Watson, Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders

  Bill Carcary, Stirling University

  Supt Alistair Anderson, Strathclyde Police

  Lynn Sloman, Transport 2000

  Chris Lines, Transport Research Laboratory

  Richard Lowne, Transport Research Laboratory

  Heather Ward, University College London

  Professor Richard Allsop, University College London

  Jeremy Broughton, Transport Research Laboratory

  David Lynam, Transport Research Laboratory

  Vince Christie, Local Government Association

  Chris Kay, Local Authority Road Safety Officers Association.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Salisbury, dated 22 May, about delays on the A316 in Twickenham. [49873]

  Dr. Strang
  The Chief Executive of the Highways Agency replied on 6 July. I apologise for the length of the delay in replying to the hon. Member's letter.

  Vehicle Fuel
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many £500 grants have been made for the conversion of vehicles to cleaner fuels. [50332]

  Dr. Strang
  As announced in the Budget, on 17 March 1998,Official Report, columns 1097–1112, the Government intend to introduce from 1 January 1999, concessionary rates of vehicle excise duty (VED)—worth up to £500—for lorries and buses meeting stringent emissions standards. Thus no vehicles have yet benefited from this concession.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what grants the Government propose to make available for the conversion of taxi cabs to use road fuel gas. [50965]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are funding the Energy Saving Trust's Powershift programme which provides grants towards the conversion of vehicles to run on alternative fuels. The duty on road fuel gases has been frozen for two successive Budgets with a commitment in the July 1997 Budget to maintain the differential that existed at that time between the duty on road fuel gases and the duty on diesel.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce a pilot scheme to monitor the benefits of taxi cabs running on road fuel gas. [50966]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department has already been involved in research on the environmental benefits of running a taxi on road fuel gases and we will continue to monitor developments in this area. In addition, the Public
  319
  Carriage Office is working with manufacturers to encourage the development of alternative greener engines and fuels. The Cleaner Vehicles Task Force has also set up a sub-group to consider the merits of the potential for wider use of alternative fuels. The Energy Saving Trust's Powershift programme, funded by Government, provides grants towards alternatively fuelled vehicles, and the costs and performance of vehicles purchased under the scheme will be monitored and evaluated.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he proposes to assist the conversion of buses to use road fuel gases. [51034]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are funding the Energy Saving Trust's Powershift programme which provides grants towards the conversion of vehicles to run on alternative fuels. Operators of eligible bus services also receive 100 per cent. rebate on the duty they pay on road fuel gases. The Chancellor announced at the last Budget on 17 March 1998,Official Report, columns 1097–1112, that operators of buses and HGVs, meeting stringent emission standards, would receive a rebate of up to £500 on VED.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce pilot schemes to monitor the advantages and disadvantages of converting buses to use road fuel gases. [51035]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department has kept closely in touch with the work that some operators have done on the advantages and disadvantages of converting buses to use road fuel gases, including a number of tests carried out by London Transport Buses.

  Brown-field Sites
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what financial incentives exist to encourage the development of urban brownfield and derelict sites. [50333]

  Mr. Raynsford
  English Partnerships, the Government's regeneration agency, supports physical regeneration projects across England. An important part of their programme is the reclamation and development of brownfield and derelict sites. Applications to English Partnerships are handled within the framework of its single Investment Fund. The operation of this Fund emphasises flexible partnerships and funding mechanisms and seeks to maximise private investment. The Challenge Fund, which is part of the Single Regeneration Budget, is also available for local regeneration partnerships and operates in a similar manner to English Partnerships.

  In addition, The Government are committed to exploring the scope for using economic instruments to achieve our planning objectives, including modifications to VAT on housing, a greenfield tax, and reform of planning obligations. A key objective of all these options would be to discourage greenfield development and promote brownfield development.

  Refrigerant Gases
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he 320
  is taking to ensure that the fire risk posed by hydrocarbon refrigerant gases is minimised and that these gases are properly and safely disposed of after use. [50577]

  Angela Eagle
  The use of hydrocarbons as refrigerants is covered by the standards BS EN 60335-2–24 and BS4434. When hydrocarbons are used in refrigerators appropriate safety precautions must be taken, encompassing design, operational and maintenance procedures. The Health and Safety Executive also produce guidance on the safe handling of liquefied petroleum gases (LPG) including hydrocarbon gases used as refrigerants. The guidance, which can be applied to a wide variety of circumstances, gives practical advice on the safe storage and use of LPG and also offers advice on basic fire precautions to be taken when handling such gases.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that HFCs used in refrigerators are recycled or disposed of properly so that they are not released into the atmosphere. [50576]

  Angela Eagle
  Sections 33(1)(c) and 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 oblige the producers and holders of waste to prevent its release to atmosphere. The application of these controls to CFC refrigerants is explained in DOE Circular 11/94 paragraphs 4.95–4.103, but the guidance is also applicable to other waste refrigerants.

  The Government have also agreed a Declaration of intent with the refrigeration and air conditioning industry with the aim of reducing emissions of HFCs, which are global warming gases. The Declaration recommends that the servicing, maintenance and decommissioning of equipment containing HFCs are carried out only by competent persons. It also encourages all reasonably practicable precautionary measures to minimise refrigerant leakage, and recommends that refrigerants are recovered for re-use, reclamation or disposal during servicing and prior to equipment decommissioning. The Government will be issuing a consultation paper later in the summer on policy options for meeting their commitments to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, including HFCs.

  Allotments
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what encouragement he is giving to local authorities to(a) maintain and preserve allotments and (b) provide replacement land where land formerly used for allotments has been subject to development. [50655]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government are currently considering the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee's report into 'The Future for Allotments', and will produce a formal response in due course. Section 8 of the Allotments Act 1925 provides that the Secretary of State must consent to the disposal of statutory allotment land by a local authority.

  (a) Since 25 March 1998, statutory allotment land has been given increased protection by placing a requirement on authorities to demonstrate the steps they have taken to promote allotments in their area before they can dispose of such land.
  321
  (b) Consent under section 8 of the 1925 Act may not be given unless the Secretary of State is satisfied either that adequate provision will be made for displaced plotholders, or that such provision is not necessary or is impracticable.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to encourage the use of allotments with particular reference to their potential for growing organic vegetables. [50651]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government are currently considering the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee's report into the 'The Future for Allotments', and will produce a formal response in due course.

  Occupational Illness or Injury
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many working days were lost in the last year for which figures are available as a result of occupational illness or injury, separately identifying self-certificated absences; and if he will make a statement. [50631]

  Angela Eagle
  In 1995 an estimated 19.5 million days were lost due to a work-related illness in Great Britain based on a five day week. There were an estimated 9.8 million days when workers were unavailable for work as a result of occupational injury in 1994–95, the latest year for which figures are available. This figure will include weekends and other days which are not workdays for some workers. The number of self-certified absences due to occupational illness or injury cannot be separately identified.

  East London Line
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has evaluated for the re-opening of the East London Line between Dalston and Shoreditch. [50713]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  At the request of the Deputy Prime Minister, London Underground prepared a report on the options for extending the East London Line and submitted it to the Deputy Prime Minister in December 1997. The Government are considering with London Transport how best to take the project forward.

  London Government
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what date the official figures from London's local government elections and referendum held on 7 May were disseminated to libraries in London; and by whom this task was carried out. [50822]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I understand that the London Research Centre will publish "London Borough Council Elections 7 May 1998" (ISBN 1 85261 271 2), a publication containing details of voting figures in London local elections and the referendum, on 27 July, and that copies will be sent to, among others, the Chief Librarian in each London Borough.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the species of (i) flora and (ii) fauna identified as being in danger of extinction within the United Kingdom in(a) 1986, (b) 1991 and (c) 1996. [50931]

  Mr. Meacher
  I will ensure that the information requested—which is of a complex nature—is made available to the hon. Member shortly. It will be placed in the House Library next week.

  Foodstuffs (Seal Oil)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy in respect of foodstuffs containing oil derived from seals; and if he will make a statement. [50934]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department of Health report that there is no evidence that foodstuffs containing oil derived from seals are widely consumed in the United Kingdom.

  Monk seals (Monachus spp.), Fur seals (Artocephalus spp.) and the Southern elephant-seal (Mirounga leonina) are protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) to which the UK is a Party. Under Council Regulation EC 338/97 which implements CITES in the EU, imports and exports of specimens of protected species and their parts and derivatives, including foodstuffs, are controlled under a licensing system. The most endangered species (ie Monk seals, and the Juan Fernandez (Arctocephalus philippii) and Guadelupe (Artocephalus townsendi) fur seals) are banned from international trade. Within the EU this extends to any commercial use, including buying, selling and display.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to improve the legal protection of sites of special scientific interest. [50929]

  Mr. Meacher
  We are presently considering a number of means for improving the protection and management of Sites of Special Scientific Interest. Officials are preparing a consultative paper which we hope to publish later this year. If legislation proves necessary we will look for a suitable opportunity.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what factors underlie the rate of damage to SSSIs over the last five years.[50930]

  Mr. Meacher
  The annual reports produced by English Nature summarise the key factors underlying damage to SSSIs. The number of incidents of damage has now decreased to well below 1 per cent. of SSSIs by area per year compared to 3 per cent. in the early 1990s. The main cause of damage is agricultural activities such as under and overgrazing, high levels of fertiliser application and the pollution of water courses. Other impacts include over-abstraction of water and 3rd party damage, such as the use of off-road vehicles. Occasional losses occur for housing, roads, and industrial development, although this has decreased considerably over the last five years.

  River Levels (Wildlife)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent assessment he has made of the impact on wildlife of the present abstraction levels from rivers; and if he will make a statement. [50933]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency is responsible for licensing water abstraction in England and Wales, a function it exercises in conjunction with its other statutory duties which include the conservation of flora and fauna which are dependent on an aquatic environment. In its May 1998 submission to the Government entitled A Price Worth Paying, which is in the Library of the House, the Agency, in consultation with English Nature and the Countryside Council of Wales, has listed sites which are considered to be affected by abstractions. A number of these sites are designated for their international importance for birds or other wildlife. We shall take the Agency's advice on these sites into account in determining the guidance we give to the Director General of Water Services on the environmental obligations which water companies will be expected to meet through the Periodic Review of water prices.

  Recycled Land
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 13 July 1998,Official Report, columns 9–10, concerning recycled land, what completion date he has set for local authorities undertaking the identification work. [50935]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Data collection from local authorities for phase one of the National Land Use Database, which covers vacant previously developed land which may be available for redevelopment, is scheduled to take place between August and October. This should enable English Partnerships to publish information on an initial set of sites suitable for redevelopment by the end of the year, and DETR to publish summary statistics based on information on all sites by March 1999.

  Greater London Authority
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will assess the recommendations of the Electoral Reform Society, contained in the report Predictable and Unaccountable, with reference to the electoral arrangements for the Greater London Authority. [50941]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Following extensive consultation, which included representations made by the Electoral Reform Society, we set our proposals for electoral arrangements for the Greater London Authority in the White Paper, "A Mayor and Assembly for London". The proposals were endorsed by the people of London in the Referendum held on 7 May. We intend to bring forward legislation to implement our proposals as soon as the legislative timetable permits.

  NHS Staff (Accidents)
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many NHS employees in Wales were killed or injured at work in each year since 1991. [51236]
  324
  Angela Eagle
  The information is as follows:

  Injuries in Wales to employees in the NHS as reported to HSE 1991–92 to 1997–98

  Year

  Fatal

  Major

  Over 3 day

  Total

  1991–92

  0

  24

  234

  258

  1992–93

  0

  29

  298

  327

  1993–94

  0

  30

  338

  368

  1994–95

  0

  32

  440

  472

  1995–96

  0

  44

  344

  388

  1996–97

  0

  74

  495

  569

  1997–981

  0

  83

  603

  686

  11997–98 figures are provisional

  Notes:

  1. Years commence 1 April

  2. 1996–97 and 1997–98 non-fatal injury figures cannot be directly compared to previous years' figures as they were reported under different legislation (Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR 85 and RIDDOR 95)

  3. 1997–98 figures are provisional

  Roads Review
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the forthcoming Roads Review will announce the completion of the dualling of the A 11. [50959]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We shall be announcing the conclusions of the Roads Review shortly.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the number of registered British fishing vessels(a) under 12 metres and (b) over 12 metres in length and the number of fishermen's lives lost from each in each of the last five years. [46477]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [pursuant to her reply, 23 June 1998, c. 434]: The number of vessels on the UK fishing vessel register at 31 December in each of the last 5 years, both under 12 metres and 12 metres and over in length, and the numbers of fishermen's lives lost from vessels in those length ranges in each year are as follows:

  Fishing vessels under 12 metres

  Fishing vessels 12 metres and over

  year

  Vessels on Register

  Lives lost

  Vessels on Register

  Lives lost

  1993

  9,219

  10

  1,871

  8

  1994

  8,470

  12

  1,729

  14

  19951

  7,499

  8

  1,652

  11

  1996

  6,583

  9

  1,493

  11

  1997

  6,354

  8

  1,425

  21

  1The total figure for the number of deaths for 1995 is reported as 16 in the MAIB Annual Report 1995 but has since been revised to 19 following the assumption of 3 deaths aboard the missing fishing vessel Provider

  Sources:

  RSS for numbers of registered fishing vessels by calendar year (Note MSA Annual Report 1997–98 will quote MAFF figures for 1993 to 1996 and RSS for 1997). MAIB for the numbers of deaths by calendar year.

  OSPAR Convention
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his objectives at the forthcoming Oslo-Paris convention in Lisbon. [49322]

  Mr. Meacher
  The main purposes of this first Ministerial Meeting of the Commission established by the 1992 OSPAR Convention for the protection of the marine environment of the North East Atlantic are to round off certain aspects left unresolved by the 1992 Convention and to set the strategies for the Commission over the next generation.

  When the OSPAR Convention was negotiated in 1992, the then French and UK Governments insisted that the Convention should preserve a potential future option for France and the UK to re-start the dumping at sea of low-and intermediate-level radioactive waste. Last September the UK and France announced that they would give up that option. The Ministerial Meeting is expected to approve a formal instrument to terminate the option. There will thus be a complete ban on dumping radioactive waste.

  In 1992, there was insufficient support for extending the competence of the OSPAR Commission beyond land-based discharges, dumping, the offshore oil and gas industry and the monitoring and assessment of the marine environment. Largely as a result of UK initiatives, the Ministerial meeting is expected to approve a new Annexe to the Convention on the protection of marine wildlife and habitats. This will fill an important lacuna.

  The Ministerial Meeting will also aim to adopt new rules on the disposal of disused offshore installations. The UK is committed to returning all disused offshore installations to land wherever it is safe and practicable to do so. The problem is to settle how to deal with the exceptions.

  There is substantial agreement to a regime which would provide for a general ban on dumping such installations or leaving them in place, subject to:

  a. derogations for some large steel installations, all existing concrete installations and exceptional and unforseen circumstances; and

  b. an assessment framework and consultation procedures before such derogations can be allowed.

  The definition of the category of large steel installations where derogations are to be allowed remains to be agreed. There is also a question about future concrete installations.

  The UK is making a new proposal on large steel installations. We have already accepted that it will generally be safe and practicable to return all topsides to land. Discussion of large steel installations has therefore been about the substructures. So far, all parties have considered these substructures as a whole. We now think that it would be helpful to distinguish between the footings of the substructures and the rest of them.

  In order to help achieve consensus, the UK is now prepared to accept a general obligation to return all the parts of all large steel structures above the footings to land
  326
  for recycling or final disposal. My hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry has played a large part in developing this idea. This would mean that there would be a complete ban on dumping steel installations, which is what many have sought. Such a ban would also prohibit the toppling of all steel installations. Footings will be considered on a case by case basis but with a presumption that they will be removed wherever practicable and safe to do so.

  With the new Convention, Ministers from the Contracting Parties need to agree the basis on which the officials will work internationally over the next decades. We want to agree strategies that are demanding but achievable and which will guide the work of the OSPAR Commission over the next twenty years or more. These strategies need to be acceptable to all the Contracting Parties, and we shall therefore be considering with our colleagues the various proposals on the table. We must be satisfied of our ability to deliver on any commitments we enter into. The strategies under consideration are:

  a. Hazardous substances: The proposed strategy on hazardous substances represents a major new initiative. The strategy should make a clear commitment to ultimate goals of reducing concentrations of hazardous substances in the marine environment to background levels for naturally occurring substances and close to zero for man-made synthetic substances, and to a time frame of moving towards the cessation of discharges of hazardous substances by 2020. There should also be a mechanism to identify the hazardous substances that we should be tackling as priorities. This strategy would be a major new step, working in parallel with the EC Framework Directive on Water. The strategy should also provide for new efforts to identify and tackle endocrine disruptors.

  b. Radioactive substances: At the September 1997 meeting of the OSPAR Commission, we restated our wish to make progress on reducing radioactive discharges to sea and we will fulfil this commitment. To ensure that we are able to foresee and avoid problems related to radioactive discharges in future, we shall be asking nuclear operators to prepare forward looking strategies for the next twenty years.

  c. Nutrients: The main action to reduce the substances that cause eutrophication comes from the EC Nitrates and Urban Waste Water Directives. The proposed strategy would complement these by setting up a mechanism to identify eutrophication problem areas and potential problem areas, and to develop further actions to deal with these where existing programmes are not good enough.

  d. Wildlife: To flesh out the new Annexe on Wildlife, the proposed strategy would provide for assessing a wide range of human activities that may adversely affect wildlife at sea, and the development of measures to address the problems which are identified. This would represent a new departure in trying to get international agreement on programmes that will protect marine wildlife outside territorial waters.

  e. Offshore oil and gas: Work in this field has been concentrated on the proposed decision on the disposal of offshore installations. But we will support commitments to develop a long-term strategy to validate environmental management systems and to set their goals.

  Finally, we want to find ways of getting wider membership of OSPAR. The Czech Republic (through the Elbe) and the Russian Federation are important for OSPAR waters: we would like to open a dialogue with them. We also need to find ways to help the lessons OSPAR has learnt to be applied in other regions.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Civic Forum
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the estimated timetable for setting up the consultative Civic Forum to work with members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. [50403]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has referred the establishment of the Civic Forum to the shadow Northern Ireland Assembly. In the period before devolution the Government intend to consult with the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Assembly so that arrangements can be put in hand to help secure its earliest appropriate establishment.

  Northern Ireland Assembly
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will ensure that papers produced by the New Northern Ireland Assembly are made available to hon. Members through the Vote Office; and if she will make a statement. [50419]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Copies of the Official Record will be laid in the Library at Westminster, but the circulation of other papers produced by the Assembly should be a matter, initially, for the Assembly itself to determine.

  Cancer Treatment
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of the capital expenditure needed to develop the cancer treatment facilities at the Belfast City Hospital; and when the developments are planned to be completed. [50133]

  Mr. Worthington
  The preliminary estimate of the capital cost of the proposed Cancer Centre is £28 million, including equipment. The current aim is to have the Centre constructed within 5 years.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has for the closure of cancer treatment services at Belvoir Park Hospital; and when the final transfer of such services to the Belfast City Hospital is expected to take place. [50135]

  Mr. Worthington
  The cancer treatment services at Belvoir Park Hospital will continue until a new Cancer Centre at the Belfast City Hospital site has been completed. The transfer is expected to take place within five years. In the meantime management responsibility for cancer services at Belvoir Park Hospital will transfer to Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust later this year.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the(a) number, (b) type and (c) age of ambulances in service with the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service in each of the last five years. [50326]
  328
  Mr. Worthington
  The information is given in the tables.

  Accident and emergency vehicles

  Age (years)

  1998

  1997

  1996

  1995

  1994

  0–1

  18

  0

  13

  4

  36

  1–2

  0

  13

  4

  36

  7

  2–3

  13

  4

  36

  7

  4

  3–4

  4

  36

  7

  4

  22

  4–5

  36

  7

  4

  22

  14

  5–6

  7

  4

  22

  14

  25

  6–7

  4

  22

  14

  25

  14

  7–8

  22

  14

  25

  14

  9

  8–9

  14

  25

  1

  5

  1

  9–10

  15

  1

  5

  1

  0

  10–11

  0

  5

  1

  0

  1

  11–12

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  12–13

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  13–14

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Patient car service vehicles

  Age (years)

  1998

  1997

  1996

  1995

  1994

  0–1

  9

  5

  0

  0

  5

  1–2

  5

  0

  0

  5

  8

  2–3

  0

  0

  5

  8

  1

  3–4

  0

  5

  8

  1

  12

  4–5

  5

  8

  1

  12

  17

  5–6

  8

  1

  12

  17

  16

  6–7

  1

  12

  17

  16

  10

  7–8

  12

  17

  16

  10

  5

  8–9

  17

  16

  10

  5

  7

  9–10

  16

  10

  5

  7

  0

  10–11

  8

  5

  7

  0

  0

  11–12

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessments she has made of the effect of the introduction of the national minimum wage in terms of(a) the total number of people employed and (b) the numbers employed in each sector of the economy. [50151]

  Mr. Ingram
  Current estimates indicate that a total of approximately 66,000 employees in employment in Northern Ireland will be directly affected when the national minimum wage is introduced in April 1999. The majority of these work in service sector industries. Current data sources are not robust enough to provide reliable detailed sectoral estimates.

  Railways (Antrim-Bleach Green Line)
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) new stations will be constructed and (b) old stations re-opened and at what estimated cost, on the railway line between Antrim and Bleach Green. [50137]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The upgrading of 2 former railway halts, at Templepatrick and Mossely West, is planned as part of the reinstatement of the Antrim to Bleach Green line at an estimated cost of £1.4 million.

  Downe Hospital
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which services will be provided in the proposed new Downe Hospital. [50325]
  329
  Mr. Worthington
  I announced my decision on 28 May to support the development of a new modern hospital for Downpatrick. To that end I have asked the Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust, in conjunction with the Eastern Health and Social Services Board and local GPs, to develop a proposal for a new hospital which will build on developments in treatments and technology and treat patients in the most appropriate setting locally while continuing to have access to a considerable range of acute services supported by the necessary specialist services and back-up facilities available from larger acute centres in Belfast.

  Road Accident Injury Claims
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland made road accident injury claims, and how much was paid by the Government for such claims, in each of the last five years. [50146]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The following personal injury claims were made against the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland Roads Services and the total expenditure on all personal injury claims concluded in the last 5 years has been:

  £

  Year

  New claims

  Total expenditure

  1997–98

  1,985

  3,805,957.45

  1996–97

  1,712

  2,823,289.50

  1995–96

  1,789

  2,967,018.60

  1994–95

  1,701

  4,302,311.40

  1993–94

  1,622

  3,908,445.69

  The figures include claims arising from footpath incidents. It is not possible, without disproportionate cost, to distinguish those claims related specifically to road accidents.

  Lord-Lieutenants
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the cost to public funds of expenses for Lord-Lieutenants in Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years. [50265]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Expenditure incurred by the Northern Ireland Office on Lord-Lieutenants' expenses in each of the last 10 years is as follows:

  Year

  Amount (£)1

  1988–89

  4,000

  1989–90

  6,000

  1990–91

  4,000

  1991–92

  8,000

  1992–93

  5,000

  1993–94

  6,000

  1994–95

  10,000

  1995–96

  6,000

  1996–97

  14,000

  1997–98

  9,000

  1Figures rounded to the nearest £1,000

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Lord-Lieutenants currently serve Northern Ireland. [50266]
  330
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The number of Lord-Lieutenants currently serving in Northern Ireland is 8.

DEFENCE

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what cash savings his Department will achieve through restructuring the TA; what proportion of those savings will(a) be re-allocated to the regular army and (b) form part of his Department's efficiency savings. [51036]

  Dr. Reid
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Surplus Property and Land
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those properties and lands identified for disposal by his Department. [51037]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department has a large number of properties which have been identified as surplus and are now in the process of disposal. These range from major establishments and airfields, to smaller plots and single houses. A list of sites currently in disposal was placed in the Library earlier this year, on 23 February 1998,Official Report, column 41. That list is now being updated. As part of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) we have identified further sites for disposal some of which are listed in Supporting Essay 11 to the SDR White Paper, and on some of which final discussions have not yet been reached.

  To provide our assessment of the open market value of individual sites might prejudice the eventual sale and I am therefore withholding the information under Exemptions 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Strategic Defence Review, if he will make a statement on the basis of his Department's assumptions that receipts from sales of properties and land from the Defence Estate will double over the next four years.[50963]

  Mr. Spellar
  The figure for estimated disposal receipts included in the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) White Paper is based upon our assessment of the open market value of the properties currently identified for disposal. In some cases this is based on in-house valuations carried out by professional surveyors, and in others on valuations carried out by consultants. The figure also allows for receipts from sites which are likely to come forward as a result of studies and further rationalisation of the estate following SDR.

  Manpower Reductions
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what long-term financial savings his Department will achieve through the reduction of(a) military and (b) civilian manpower. [50957]

  Dr. Reid
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Strategic Defence Review, on what basis his Department estimated that the defence share of GDP will fall from 2.7 to 2.4 per cent. in 2002. [50962]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The assumptions which have been used to calculate that the defence share of GDP will fall from 2.7 per cent. to 2.4 per cent. are taken from the Economic Assumptions for Public Finance Projections contained within Table B1 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report", March 1998, HC Paper No. 620.

  Service Leavers
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision his Department makes to assist service leavers in their transition to civilian life; and if he will make a statement. [51645]

  Dr. Reid
  My Department is laying the foundations of a modern resettlement service, by introducing improvements to match the changing employment market and aspirations of Service leavers. A contract has been awarded today to Coutts Consulting Group plc to work with my Department in establishing a Career Transition Partnership. The new arrangements will provide a focused individual service, including counselling, workshops and nationwide job finding support. The contract will run, initially, for a period of five years.

  Lord-Lieutenants
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost to public funds of expenses for Lord-Lieutenants in England in each of the last 10 years. [50261]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  Expenditure incurred by the Home Office and the Department of Trade and Industry1 on Lord-Lieutenants' expenses in each of the last ten years is as follows:

  £

  Year

  Amount2

  1988–89

  190,000

  1989–90

  225,000

  1990–91

  253,000

  1991–92

  305,000

  1992–93

  372,000

  1993–94

  479,000

  1994–95

  572,000

  1995–96

  736,000

  1996–97

  672,000

  1997–98

  784,000

  1The Department of Trade and Industry pays expenses incurred by Lord-Lieutenants in the presentation of the Queen's Awards for Industry

  2Figures rounded to the nearest £1000

  332
  Some local authorities in England also support lieutenancy activities. Information on any costs incurred is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

WALES

  Pharmaceutical Pricing Scheme
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what criteria he will take into account in the renegotiations of the Pharmaceutical Pricing Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [49565]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Occupational Health
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many medical and nursing staff have worked in occupational health in the NHS in Wales in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and what were the grades of those employees; [51235]

  (2) how many unfilled consultant or approved training posts there are in occupational health in Wales; [51234]

  (3) how many whole-time-equivalent NHS consultants there are in post in Wales in occupational health; and how many are (a) full and (b) part-time. [51233]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Information on medical staff employed by the NHS in Wales is collected by means of an annual census of staff in post at 30 September. Information on those staff with a specialty of occupational medicine in given in the table.

  Medical staff in post at 30 September with a main specialty of occupational health (whole-time equivalent number)

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Consultant

  4.1

  4.5

  4.5

  3.7

  3.2

  Senior registrar

  1.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hospital practitioner

  0.2

  0.2

  —

  —

  —

  Clinical assistant

  1.6

  1.1

  1.3

  1.6

  1.5

  As part of the census information is sought on vacant posts. Data collected from NHS Trusts and Health Authorities for the 1997 census indicated that there were no vacant posts in occupational health at that time.

  The 3.2 whole-time equivalent consultant staff in 1997 related to 5 consultants in number, 2 full-time and 3 part-time.

  Information on nursing staff is not collected on the basis of individual specialties and, therefore, the number of nurses working in occupational health is not available centrally.

  NHS Premises (Accidents)
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps his Department takes to ensure that NHS trusts have adequate arrangements for recording accidents on NHS premises; what encouragement is given
  333
  to staff to report accidents; and what steps the NHS Executive takes to monitor the safety performance of NHS trusts. [51238]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  All employers, including NHS Trusts, have a legal obligation to report accidents to the Health and Safety Executive under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995. It is for individual employers to encourage their employees to report incidents. Monitoring the safety performance of employers is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive.

  Land Development
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details and dates of occasions when(a) the Welsh Development Agency, (b) the Development Board for Rural Wales and (c) the Land Authority for Wales have sought consent either before the event or retrospectively for land development acquisitions and deals without planning permission; and if he will make a statement. [51222]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Lord-Lieutenants
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the cost to public funds of expenses for Lord-Lieutenants in Wales in each of the last 10 years. [50263]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Expenditure incurred by the Welsh Office on Lord-Lieutenants' expenses in each of the last 10 years is as follows:

  Year

  Amount (£)

  1998–89

  19,000

  1989–90

  113,000

  1990–91

  114,000

  1991–92

  114,000

  1992–93

  17,000

  1993–94

  18,000

  1994–95

  15,000

  1995–96

  19,000

  1996–97

  20,000

  1997–98

  21,000

  1Stationery figures are not included, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Note:

  All figures rounded to nearest £1,000

  Some local authorities in Wales also support lieutenancy activities. Information on these costs is not available centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Lord-Lieutenants currently serve Wales. [50264]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The number of Lord-Lieutenants currently serving Wales is 8.

TREASURY

  Local Authority Capital Receipts
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of asset sales have been realised(a) by each local authority and (b) in total by local authorities in each of the last five years. [48759]

  Mr. Darling
  Estimates for total local authority capital receipts in each of the last five years were published in Table 6.10 of Public Expenditure: Statistical Analyses 1998–99(Cm 3901). The same document also includes, in Table 1.6, figures over the period in question for the proceeds from the sale of fixed assets. I will write shortly to my hon. Friend with a breakdown of total capital receipts by individual local authority.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his Department's average response time to correspondence from members of the public; and how such response times are monitored. [48671]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service on 14 July 1998,Official Report, column 159.

  Tesco Plc
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the occasions upon which Ministers and officials have met Tesco plc or their representatives or advisers since 1 May 1997. [50156]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 13 July 1998]: Treasury Ministers, special advisers and other officials have extensive dealings with organisations in both the public and private sectors as part of their official duties. It would be impracticable to maintain a central record of meetings with representatives of external bodies.

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cash value of the illegal drugs trade within the United Kingdom; and what assessment he has made of its impact on the United Kingdom economy. [50658]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 16 July 1998]: The Office for National Statistics published an article in the July 1998 edition of Economic Trends which provides some illustrative estimates of the value of illegal economic activities, including trade in drugs. A copy of this publication is available in the House of Commons Library. The estimates are not yet sufficiently developed to give a reliable account of the impact on the UK economy.

  Financial Securities
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about competition in the financial securities sector. [49370]
  335
  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 16 July 1998]: To date, the Treasury has received 143 responses to its consultation document about proposals to benchmark Individual Savings Accounts, "Making Saving Easy". Some of these responses have raised competition issues.

  Euro
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what expenditure on promoting the euro is planned for(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000; [50422]

  (2) what EU funding he has applied for to promote the euro in (a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000. [50354]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 13 July 1998]: The Government's communication campaign on the euro is aimed not at promoting the euro but at ensuring that UK businesses are aware of the implications of the introduction of the single currency from 1 January 1999, and to provide them with the information they need.

  To this end the Treasury Euro Preparations Unit has received Summer Supplementary Estimate provision of £7.5 million to help raise business awareness of the implications of the launch of the euro, and to provide business with practical help during 1998–99. No expenditure has been authorised beyond this.

  To date the Commission has agreed to provide £21,000 from the Community funds towards the costs of the publication and distribution of the Treasury booklet "EMU: Practical Information for Business", published last July. We will continue to talk to the Commission about the scope for further help with our campaign for raising business awareness for 1 January 1999.

  National Asset Register
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the assets identified in the National Asset Register which are located in the city of Norwich. [50823]

  Mr. Darling
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 4 December 1997,Official Report, column 279.

  The Government propose to consider, in the light of the reaction to the version published in November 1997, whether to produce further editions of the National Asset Register. As part of this exercise we will also consider what the appropriate level of detail of any future editions should be in the light of user's information needs and the cost implications of these.

SCOTLAND

  Compulsory Purchase
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider the case for reform of the law and practice of compulsory purchase and blight in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [51646]
  336
  Mr. Macdonald
  The Scottish Office is looking closely at the case for reform of Scots law and practice in this area. In addition to Scottish based work, there will be Scottish participation in the review of the general principles being undertaken by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. This will ensure that any proposals for legislative change will take the separate Scottish context fully into account. Such change for Scotland will, of course, be a matter for the Scottish Parliament to consider.

  Lord-Lieutenants
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the cost to public funds of expenses for Lord-Lieutenants in Scotland in each of the last 10 years. [50259]

  Mr. McLeish
  Expenditure incurred by The Scottish Office on Lord-Lieutenants' expenses in each of the last 10 years is set out. Some local authorities also support lieutenancy activities. Information on any costs incurred is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  £000

  Year

  Amount1

  1988–89

  9

  1998–90

  10

  1990–91

  10

  1991–92

  12

  1992–93

  13

  1993–94

  14

  1994–95

  25

  1995–96

  243

  1996–97

  27

  1997–98

  24

  1Figures rounded to the nearest £1,000

  2Includes the cost of changes to lieutenancy boundaries resulting from local government reorganisation

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Lord-Lieutenants currently serve Scotland. [50260]

  Mr. McLeish
  The number of Lord-Lieutenants currently serving Scotland is 35.

  Scottish Office Expenditure
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will update tables 1.3 and 1.4 in Serving Scotland's Needs, published in April, to take account of changes in and projections of expenditure consequent on the Comprehensive Spending Review. [51050]

  Mr. Dewar
  Tables 1.3 and 1.4 were prepared in accordance with the previous public expenditure arrangements. The change in these arrangements announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 11 June 1998,Official Report, columns 1195–1201, has required some amendment to this form of presentation. The tables, therefore, present information updated to take account of the financial settlement for the financial years 1999–2000 to 2001–02, in the revised format. In accordance with normal practice, the tables have been rolled forward by one year.
  337

  Table 1—Scottish Office Budget Summary

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Departmental Expenditure Limit1 2

  12,087

  12,627

  12,740

  12,868

  12,809

  13,071

  13,768

  14,431

  15,045

  of which: capital expenditure

  2,019

  1,905

  1,751

  1,570

  1,429

  1,571

  1,624

  1,707

  1,831

  Annually Managed Expenditure

  CAP

  243

  285

  347

  419

  324

  345

  300

  282

  309

  Housing Support Grant

  36

  24

  22

  19

  16

  13

  13

  13

  13

  Total Assigned Budget3

  12,366

  12,936

  13,110

  13,306

  13,148

  13,429

  14,080

  14,726

  15,367

  New Deal for schools4 5

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  29

  27

  27

  27

  Non-Domestic Rates6

  1,186

  1,109

  1,193

  1,313

  1,326

  1,395

  1,441

  1,473

  1,510

  Total Budget7

  13,552

  14,045

  14,303

  14,619

  14,484

  14,853

  15,548

  16,225

  16,904

  Table 2—Scottish Office Budget Summary in real terms (1997–98 prices)

  £million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Departmental Expenditure Limited1 2

  13,330

  13,718

  13,468

  13,215

  12,809

  12,703

  13,041

  13,336

  13,564

  of which: capital expenditure

  2,227

  2,069

  1,851

  1,612

  1,429

  1,526

  1,538

  1,578

  1,651

  Annually Managed Expenditure

  CAP

  267

  310

  367

  431

  324

  335

  284

  260

  278

  Housing Support Grant

  40

  26

  23

  20

  16

  12

  12

  12

  11

  Total Assigned Budget3

  13,637

  14,054

  13,858

  13,666

  13,148

  13,050

  13,337

  13,608

  13,854

  New Deal for schools4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  29

  25

  25

  24

  Non-Domestic Rates6

  1,308

  1,205

  1,261

  1,348

  1,326

  1,356

  1,365

  1,361

  1,362

  Total Budget7

  14,945

  15,259

  15,119

  15,014

  14,484

  14,435

  14,727

  14,994

  15,240

  1Under the new public expenditure control arrangements and devolution, the Barnett formula used to determine Scottish expenditure applies to the Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) in place of the former Scottish Block. Full details of the definitional changes between the DEL and the Control Total were given in the "Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 1998", published in June.

  2Includes provision for the Crown Office, which will be within the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.

  3Total budget assigned to the Scottish Parliament. There are some differences between the coverage of the Assigned Budget and the former Scottish Bloc, the main one being the exclusion of non-domestic rates. Figures here include expenditure on Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance of around £37 million per year which is included in the DEL but excluded from the Assigned Budget for control purposes until 1999–2000.

  4Includes around £1 million for the New Deal for Young People in 1997–98 and £3 million for Childcare in 1998–99.

  5Total expenditure financed by the Windfall Tax and administered by the Scottish Office. The majority of expenditure on the New Deal is administered for all of Great Britain by DfEE and DSS. Total expenditure in Scotland on the New Deal is projected to be over £450 million in the period 1997–2002.

  6Figures for future years uprated in line with the RPI.

  7Total Scottish public spending within the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament or administered by the Scottish Executive.

  Table 3—Total Budget in cash terms

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Central Government support for:

  Local Authority current expenditure1

  5,243

  5,377

  5,461

  5,523

  5,431

  5,448

  5,688

  5,864

  6,014

  Local Authority non-housing capital expenditure2

  696

  708

  695

  454

  336

  359

  345

  356

  392

  Other programme expenditure

  Agriculture, fisheries and food3

  416

  456

  521

  600

  514

  517

  478

  464

  496

  Arts, libraries and sport

  59

  76

  75

  79

  86

  77

  80

  82

  84

  Further, higher and other central government education (excluding student support)

  695

  825

  876

  906

  941

  914

  1,013

  1,070

  1,136

  Student support4

  396

  363

  342

  352

  346

  357

  320

  308

  299

  Health

  3,776

  3,948

  4,092

  4,237

  4,354

  4,624

  4,924

  5,214

  5,534

  Housing5

  542

  543

  467

  316

  422

  498

  524

  634

  655

  Industry, enterprise and training6

  542

  608

  610

  606

  589

  599

  555

  558

  608

  Law, order and protective services7

  424

  428

  428

  449

  452

  460

  487

  488

  508

  Crown Office

  45

  43

  46

  47

  47

  49

  51

  51

  51

  Other environmental services

  76

  83

  99

  408

  336

  328

  323

  325

  327

  Scottish Parliament and staff

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  55

  80

  47

  Other Public Services

  162

  167

  172

  176

  155

  160

  183

  194

  191

  Roads and Transport8

  308

  264

  249

  265

  242

  245

  267

  270

  282

  Social Work

  40

  44

  48

  63

  63

  66

  74

  77

  81

  European Social Funds and European Regional Development Fund

  132

  114

  121

  136

  161

  123

  153

  163

  173

  New Deal for schools9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  29

  27

  27

  27

  Total Budget

  13,552

  14,045

  14,303

  14,619

  14,484

  14,853

  15,548

  16,226

  16,904

  338 339

  Table 4—Total Budget in real terms, 1997–98 prices

  £ million

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Central Government support for:

  Local Authority current expenditure1

  5,781

  5,841

  5,773

  5,673

  5,431

  5,294

  5,388

  5,419

  5,422

  Local Authority non-housing capital expenditure2

  768

  769

  735

  466

  336

  349

  327

  329

  354

  Other programme expenditure

  Agriculture, fisheries and food3

  459

  495

  551

  616

  514

  503

  453

  429

  448

  Arts, libraries and sport

  65

  82

  79

  81

  86

  75

  76

  76

  76

  Further, higher and other central government education (excluding student support)

  766

  896

  926

  931

  941

  888

  959

  989

  1,024

  Student support4

  436

  395

  362

  361

  346

  347

  304

  285

  270

  Health

  4,165

  4,289

  4,326

  4,352

  4,354

  4,494

  4,664

  4,818

  4,989

  Housing5

  598

  590

  494

  324

  422

  484

  496

  585

  591

  Industry, enterprise and training6

  597

  660

  644

  623

  589

  582

  526

  515

  548

  Law, order and protective services7

  468

  465

  452

  462

  452

  447

  461

  451

  458

  Crown Office

  50

  47

  49

  49

  47

  48

  48

  47

  46

  Other environmental services

  84

  90

  105

  419

  336

  318

  306

  300

  294

  Scottish Parliament and staff

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  52

  74

  42

  Other Public Services

  179

  182

  182

  181

  155

  155

  174

  180

  172

  Roads and Transport8

  339

  287

  263

  272

  242

  238

  253

  250

  254

  Social Work

  44

  48

  51

  65

  63

  64

  70

  72

  73

  European Social Funds and European Regional Development Fund

  146

  124

  128

  140

  161

  119

  145

  151

  156

  New Deal for schools9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  29

  25

  25

  24

  Total Budget

  14,945

  15,259

  15,119

  15,014

  14,484

  14,435

  14,727

  14,994

  15,240

  1Includes non-domestic rate payments, which are outside the DEL

  2The requirement that local authorities must use 50 per cent. of non-housing capital receipts to redeem debt will be abolished from 1 August 1998. This will allow local authorities to raise an estimated £75 million per annum extra from asset sales

  3Includes market support under the CAP, which is outside the DEL

  4Reflects the new Resource Accounting treatment of student loans announced in the "Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 1998", hence it includes total expenditure on student grants, but only the subsidy element of student loans

  5Expenditure funded through the Capital Receipts Initiative is now included in the DEL. Housing figures also include Housing Support Grant, which is outside the DEL

  6This line covers Industry, enterprise and training expenditure administered by the Scottish Office only. Further expenditure administered by other departments on the New Deal is projected to be around £75 million in 1998–99, and almost £90 million per year in each of 1999–2000 to 2001–02

  7A large proportion of spending on law, order and protective services is included under central government support to local authorities

  8Includes support to nationalised industries

  9Includes around £1 million for the New Deal for Young People in 1997–98 and £3 million for Childcare in 1998–99. Additional support for schools' capital expenditure is included in support for non-housing local authority capital expenditure above

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Probationary Prison Officers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the percentage of probationary prison officers in each young offender institution in England. [49874]

  Ms Quin
  A probationary prison officer is a newly appointed prison officer who is in the process of completing an initial 12 month probationary period, during which time he or she is required to achieve a satisfactory level of performance, conduct and attendance, prior to the appointment being confirmed. The information requested about probationary prison officers is given in the table for those Young Offender Institutions (YOIs) which are separate establishments. Where a YOI is co-located with an adult establishment, it is not possible to extrapolate this information.
  340

  Staff in first year probationary period at YOIs as at 8 July 1998

  Young offender institution

  Number on probation

  Aylesbury

  26

  Brinsford

  8

  Castington

  —

  Deerbolt

  —

  Dover

  —

  Feltham

  44

  Glen Parva

  23

  Hatfield

  —

  Hindley

  —

  Lancaster Farms

  4

  Low Newton

  —

  Northallerton

  —

  Onley

  5

  Portland

  —

  Reading

  4

  Stoke Heath

  27

  Swinfen Hall

  19

  Thorn Cross

  2

  Werrington

  4

  Wetherby

  —

  Total

  166

  New Prisons
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors led him to reject the proposals for building a prison in Winwick, near Warrington. [50245]

  Ms Quin
  The decision not to acquire the site of Winwick Hospital for the construction of a new prison was reached on financial grounds. This decision does not remove the urgent need for additional prison places to serve the North West.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors led him to approve proposals to build a prison on a site at Ashworth Hospital, Maghull, Merseyside. [50317]

  Ms Quin
  There is an urgent need for additional prison places to serve Merseyside. The Ashworth Hospital south site is ideally located to meet this need. The site meets the Prison Service's criteria in respect of affordability, size, topography, communication links and availability of mains services, and on planning grounds is considered an appropriate site for development.

  Prisons (Private Management)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the percentage of the Prison Service estate which will be privately managed by the year 2002; and if he will make a statement. [50592]

  Ms Quin
  By March 2002, the certified normal accommodation of the prison estate is forecast to be 67,700. Of these places, it is expected that 6,600 will be privately managed. Therefore the percentage of the Prison Service estate forecast to be privately managed by 2002 is 9.7 per cent.

  Alternatively, another way of measuring the percentage of the estate expected to be privately managed is to look at numbers of prisons rather than sum of places. Current plans are for 143 prisons to be operating in March 2002. Of these, it is expected that 11 will be privately managed. The percentage of the Prison Service estate expected to be privately managed in 2002 using this forecast is 7.7 per cent.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the basis on which financial penalties imposed on contractors of privately managed prisons are calculated; and if he will make a statement. [50587]

  Ms Quin
  There are three financial remedies available to the Prison Service as a result of a contractor's non-performance under a contract for a Design, Construct, Manage and Finance (DCMF) prison. Fees may be withheld under the following circumstances:

  i) if certain criteria for "available places" are not met. The criteria include levels of security, control of prisoners and physical requirements such as lighting and heating;

  ii) a "penalty points" system, where non-compliance with performance measures specified in the contract leads to an award of pre-determined penalty points; and

  iii) if the contractor holds more than a specified number of prisoners two to a cell.

  For management only prisons (Blakenhurst, Buckley Hall, Doncaster and Wolds), reductions in payment may result from a performance measure procedure similar to
  342
  the DCMF penalty points system, and as a result of deficiencies that fall outside the performance measures procedures.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the capital cost of each of the privately built prisons. [50586]

  Ms Quin
  The project costs for each of the privately built prisons are: Parc, £75m; Altcourse, £88m; Lowdham Grange, £32m; Pucklechurch, £36m; and Agecroft, £55m. The project costs include capital expenditure before the prison's opening and consist mainly of construction costs.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the calculations of the relative costs of privately and publicly managed prisons take into account the cost of(a) capital repayments and (b) interest charges on such payments to the relevant private sector company. [50585]

  Ms Quin
  Yes. The capital repayments by the contractor for Design, Construct, Manage and Finance prisons and the interest accruing were included in the costs of these prisons when compared with their closest public sector comparators. There are no comparable costs in non Private Finance Initiative procurement since payment is not amortised over a contract period.

  Altcourse Prison
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the quality and level of service being delivered at HMP Altcourse following the recent Prison Service audit; when audits are planned to be undertaken into HMP Parc and HMP Lowdham Grange; and if he will make a statement. [50595]

  Ms Quin
  The audit of Altcourse prison, which took place in April 1998, detected some deficiencies in contract compliance but the performance of the prison overall has been satisfactory. A contract compliance audit of Parc prison took place during the week beginning 29 June and an operational audit in the week beginning 6 July. An audit of Lowdham Grange prison is planned for August 1998.

  Prisoners (Medical Records)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements exist between the National Health Service and the Prison Service for mutual access to relevant medical records of prisoners during and after custody; and if he will make a statement. [50589]

  Ms Quin
  Prison healthcare staff are not required, as a matter of routine, to obtain the previous non-Prison Service medical records of all prisoners received into custody. Where it is considered necessary, and the patient prisoner agrees, staff will request medical reports or the individual health records from the National Health Service (NHS). In cases where there is a need for treatment to continue following release, medical information is transferred from the prison doctor to the prisoner's General Practitioner or other NHS doctor as required.

  A new health care standard on "continuity of health care" is being developed by the Prison Service in collaboration with a number of agencies including the

  343
  NHS. This is aimed at facilitating the exchange of information and will provide additional advice and guidance to staff.

  Prisoners (Protection)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were being kept in separate regimes for their protection, at their own request on the last date for which figures are available; and what were the equivalent figures in each of the last three years. [50594]

  Ms Quin
  Prisoners may be held on Prison Rule 43 and Young Offender Institution Rule 46 for their own protection, or may be held in vulnerable prisoner units separate from other prisoners without being placed on either Rule. Figures for the end of May 1998, the most recent available information, and for the same date in the three previous years are shown in the table.

  Prisoners kept in separate regimes at their own request

  Year

  Prisoners on rule 43 and YOI rule 46 for their own protection

  Prisoners in vulnerable prisoner units

  1995

  1,130

  1—

  1996

  1,190

  3,750

  1997

  850

  4,010

  1998

  1,210

  3,740

  1Not available

  Note:

  Figures are provisional

  Prisoners (Continous Assessment)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are currently under continuous assessment by the Prison Service; what arrangements are in place to ensure that prisoners are not released directly from long periods of continuous assessment into the community; and if he will make a statement. [50430]

  Ms Quin
  There are 20 prisoners on the continuous assessment scheme (CAS). There is a possibility that prisoners may be released directly into the community: however, wherever possible, prisoners are returned to normal prison conditions prior to release.

  Prison Staff
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the full complement of each category of staff at(a) HMP Altcourse, (b) HMP Parc and (c) HMP Lowdham Grange; and how many staff are currently employed in each category. [50591]

  Ms Quin
  Each contractor categorises staff differently. Information for each prison is set out in the tables.

  HMP Altcourse: staff complement

  Job category

  Complement on 13 July 1998

  Numbers in post on 13 July 1998

  Managers

  43

  49

  Prisoner Custody Officers

  174

  171

  Dog Handlers

  27

  27

  Assistant Custody Officers

  33

  30

  344

  HMP Altcourse: staff complement

  Job category

  Complement on 13 July 1998

  Numbers in post on 13 July 1998

  PT Assistant Custody Officers

  —

  23

  Activity Officers

  11

  9

  Administration

  40

  40

  Chaplains

  3

  3

  Maintenance

  19

  25

  HMP Lowdham Grange: staff complement

  Job category

  Complement1

  Number in post on 13 July 19981

  Director

  1

  1

  Managers

  11

  10

  Operations Managers

  14.8

  14

  Prisoner Custody Officers

  125.3

  130

  Operational Support

  23.9

  23

  Other Support and Programmes Staff

  23.9

  23

  1The decimal points are accounted for by relief calculations

  HMP Parc: staff complement

  Job title (category)

  Complement on 10 July 1998

  Number in post on 10 July 1998

  Prisoner Custody Officer

  192

  160

  Prisoner Custody Officer

  33

  38

  Prisoner Custody Officer

  14

  11

  Prisoner Custody Officer (non-permanent)

  —

  31

  Prisoner Custody Officer (under training)

  —

  61

  Non-operational staff, Senior managers, Administration and Support Staff

  74

  69

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the staff at(a) HMP Altcourse and (b) HMP Parc, (i) resigned and (ii) have been dismissed in each of the last six months; what is the average annual staff turnover rate in publicly managed prisons; and if he will make a statement. [50596]

  Ms Quin
  The information required is set out in the table. The wastage rate in 1997–98 for all staff in public sector prisons was 6.76 per cent.

  Staff resignations and dismissals at HMP Altcourse and HMP Parc

  Percentage

  HMP Altcourse

  HMP Parc

  1998

  Resignations

  Dismissals

  Resignations

  Dismissals

  January

  0.27

  0.27

  1.45

  1.45

  February

  0

  0.27

  1.1

  0.37

  March

  0.54

  0

  2.6

  0

  April

  0.27

  0.27

  5

  1

  May

  0.54

  0.81

  3.47

  1.04

  June

  0.81

  0.27

  3.12

  0

  Prisons (Health Services)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had in relation to the
  345
  transfer of responsibility for health services in prisons to the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement. [50588]

  Ms Quin
  I receive regular reports about the progress of the Prison Service and National Health Service (NHS) joint working group on the future organisation of prison health care. This group is considering, among other options for improving prison health care, the transfer of responsibility to the NHS. The Government will announce their decision about whether or not this would be an appropriate way to proceed, once the working group has produced its report and we have had an opportunity to consider it.

  Crimes (Motivation)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans there are for the Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate to investigate the number of crimes committed based on(a) homophobia and (b) religious hatred; and if he will make a statement. [50602]

  Mr. Michael
  The Directorate is in the process of commissioning a study of religious discrimination which is intended to clarify the extent of overlap between religious and racial discriminations. Furthermore, the Directorate plans to publish a report later this year on the police racial incident figures. This will cover the kind of incidents (including those between different religious groups) which the police may record as being racially motivated).

  From the information collected centrally, it is not possible to determine the number of offences or incidents of homophobic crime. The Home Office collects statistics on the number of recorded offences by categories which include violence against the person, indecent assault on a male, indecency between males and rape of a male. However, there is no way of identifying which offences had a homophobic element.

  In 1996, the Association of Chief Police Officers published a set of Good Practice Guidelines for Dealing with Homophobic Incidents. This included a definition of what should be regarded as a homophobic incident:
  "Any incident which appears to either the victim, investigating officer or any other person to be motivated by homophobia, that is animosity towards lesbians and gay men".

  The guidelines also recommended that police forces should record and monitor such incidents.

  Such information that is available on homophobic crime is contained in surveys. For example, in a survey of gay men carried out in Lewisham as part of the Lewisham Safer Cities project in 1992, the vast majority reported experience of verbal abuse (81 per cent.) and approaching half reported being attacked physically. Property offences were less commonly reported.

  Stonewall, as an organisation which campaigns for the civil rights of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals, has carried out a nationwide survey and key findings included:

  three quarters reported experiencing verbal abuse on at least one occasion;

  over a third of men and a quarter of women reported experiencing violence in the last five years because of their sexuality;

  346

  some groups, such as black, Asian, disabled and young respondents, had greater risk of victimisation.

  Both studies found repeat victimisation was common. They provide useful information, although it must be acknowledged that they may not provide a representative sample.

  With regard to crimes connected to religious hatred, most such crimes are likely also to have an element of racial hatred. As such, they will fall within the very wide definition of a racial incident first adopted by the police in 1985:
  "Any incident in which it appears to the reporting or investigating officer that the complaint involves an element of racial motivation; or any incident which includes an allegation of racial motivation made by any person".

  In prosecutions of crimes with a racial element under existing legislation, an element of racial motivation may be treated as an aggravating factor by the courts at the point of sentencing. The Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords] also makes provision for a set of new, specific racially aggravated offences, where the maximum sentence exceeds that for their non-racially motivated equivalent. In addition, my right hon. Friend, during the Report stage of the Bill, undertook to monitor charges and sentences in areas where there is intercommunal violence between religious and racial groups, to ensure that the provisions do not unduly favour one group.

  Prisoners (Consultation Costs)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the cost of each public relations exercise and consultation process in relation to the opening of new prisons in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [50590]

  Ms Quin
  The information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the Prison Service's consultation costs in respect of its recent decision to build a new prison on the site of the former remand centre at Ashford, Middlesex, are estimated at £23,000. It would not be unreasonable to assume that other new prison projects involving the same amount of consultation would incur similar costs.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to speed up the process of payment by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. [50654]

  Mr. Michael
  The criminal injuries compensation system was speeded up by the introduction, with effect from 1 April 1996, of a tariff-based scheme operated by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in place of the scheme based on common law damages administered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB). Current indications are that the tariff approach enables some 85 per cent. of claims to be decided within 12 months of receipt, in comparison with 60 per cent. under the former scheme; and 80 per cent. of appeals are dealt with within six months instead of the indicative waiting time of two years applicable to most CICB hearings.

  Metropolitan Police
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much specialised training in man days was provided to Metropolitan Police officers of each rank in respect of(a) murder inquiries and (b) racial incidents in the last year for which figures are available. [50664]

  Mr. Michael
  Training in the Metropolitan Police Service is an operational matter for the Commissioner. The Commissioner tells me that the Metropolitan Police Service does provide training to officers in respect of murder inquiries. This training is provided at a number of levels and through different courses. The most significant of these is the Management of Serious Crimes Course and the Detective Constables Course (the latter was introduced on 31 March 1998).

  The total number of officers on these courses between 1 July 1997 and 30 June 1998 were:

  Constables: 108

  Sergeants: 15

  Inspectors: 81

  Chief Inspectors: 11.

  Elements of Community and Race Relations and Equal Opportunities Training are included in the majority of all training delivered to officers at all levels.

  The Commissioner has recently appointed Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Grieve to head the next phase of reform of police racial awareness training and police investigation of racial and violent crime.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the projected change in funding per Metropolitan Police officer consequent on the proposed boundary changes if current arrangements for central Government funding and precepting remain unchanged; [50662]

  (2) what will be (a) the percentage change in the number of Metropolitan Police officers and (b) the percentage change in the financial contribution of precepting authorities under the proposed redrawing of Metropolitan Police boundaries. [50663]

  Mr. Michael
  The proposed changes to the boundaries of the Metropolitan Police will lead to some re-distribution of existing resources, including police officers, but it is too early to give precise estimates.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the projected change in the number of Metropolitan Police officers in (i) 2000 and (ii) 2005 on present trends of recruitment and wastage. [50660]

  Mr. Michael
  It is for the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to determine what number of officers will be required to police the capital.

  In making this assessment, the Commissioner will consider all the demands on the finances available to him in order to provide an efficient and effective service, while ensuring best value is achieved.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government propose to assist the Metropolitan Police in its recruitment. [50659]
  348
  Mr. Michael
  It is a matter for the Commissioner to determine what proportion of the funding of the Metropolitan Police Service is used in the recruitment of its officers.

  The Commissioner informs me that, in common with other employers in the South East, the police are having to work hard to attract suitable staff, but that two national recruitment campaigns are being run this year.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the quarterly totals for the last three years of the number of(a) officers leaving the Metropolitan Police service or retiring, (b) people applying to join the Metropolitan Police and (c) people accepted as recruits into the Metropolitan Police. [50661]

  Mr. Michael
  The Commissioner has provided the following information:

  (a) Officers leaving the Metropolitan Police service or retiring

  Year

  First quarter

  Second quarter

  Third quarter

  Fourth quarter

  Total

  1995–96

  286

  344

  334

  331

  1,295

  1996–97

  333

  338

  392

  365

  1,428

  1997–98

  388

  368

  395

  436

  1,587

  (b) Those applying to join the Metropolitan Police:

  Year

  Number

  1995–96

  7,208

  1996–97

  3,941

  1997–98

  4,633

  (c) Those accepted as recruits into the Metropolitan Police:

  Year

  Number

  1995–96

  1,208

  I996–97

  692

  1997–98

  1,185

  The Commissioner tells me that, as applications and subsequent acceptances may take place in different quarters, a breakdown by quarters is not possible.

  Child Protection
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further plans he has to tackle the issue of preventing unsuitable people from working with children and to protect young people from abuse by those in positions of trust following the debate on lowering the age of consent from 18 to 16 years on 22 June; and if he will make a statement. [51727]

  Mr. Michael
  During the debate on 22 June 1998 Official Report, columns 709–811, I referred to the interdepartmental working group set up to look as a matter of priority at further safeguards needed to prevent those unsuitable from working with children and to protect young people from abuse by those in positions of trust. The group is due to meet on 30 July.

  The need to protect vulnerable 16 and 17 year olds from abuse of trust was discussed at length in the debate on 22 June. The working group will look carefully at the concerns expressed. Issues to be considered will include:

  349
  the definition of a position of trust; the scope of occupations to be covered; the definition of those to be protected; the kind of behaviour to be prohibited; existing safeguards and possible new mechanisms for prohibiting such behaviour, including a possible new criminal offence. Any proposals will relate to the need to protect both boys and girls and will take account of issues such as avoiding the criminalisation of the younger partner in a relationship based on abuse of trust.

  On the issue of preventing those unsuitable from working with children, the working group's programme of work will include: how working with children can be defined; how to define those unsuitable to work with children; existing and potential safeguards to prevent unsuitable people working with children; a possible new offence to support the safeguards; and the possible establishment of a central register of those unsuitable to work with children, including questions of quality assurance, access, scope and cost.

  The working group will also take into account the report of Sir William Utting's review of safeguards for children living away from home and the Government's response to this review which is expected to be published by the Ministerial Task Force later this year. In particular, consideration will be given to those recommendations dealing with choosing the right staff.

  The working group, which will be led by the Home Office, will hold regular meetings during the autumn and is tasked to make recommendations by the end of December. Other Departments involved include: the Department for Education and Employment; the Department of Health; the Welsh Office; the Charity Commission; the Crown Prosecution Service; and the Lord Chancellor's Department. This group will also look at how best to involve outside organisations in the work. The group's recommendations will relate to England and Wales, but representatives from the Scottish and Northern Ireland Offices will also be involved.

  Telephone Interceptions
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) of 9 July 1998,Official Report, column 588, what factors underlie the trends in the numbers of warrants approved; and if he will make a statement. [50932]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the Annual Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner for 1996 (Cm 3678) in which, at paragraph 10, he gives an explanation for the increase in the number of interception warrants issued. The Commissioner's report for 1997 will be published shortly.

  Police Recruits
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to increase the number of police officer recruits. [51042]

  Mr. Michael
  Ministers have no direct control over police numbers. Under legislation passed by the previous Government in 1994, it is for individual chief constables to determine the number of police officers in their force within the total resources available to them.
  350
  Under the Government's spending plans, which were announced on 14 July 1998, Official Report, columns 187–211, up to £1.24 billion in additional funds over 1998–99 levels will be available to police forces in England and Wales over the next three years. This settlement, along with savings from the 2 per cent. year-on-year efficiency improvements which police forces will be asked to achieve, will ensure that more resources are focused on the front-line against crime.

  Prisons (North-west)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons in the North West which are to be re-categorised in the next few years; and if he will make a statement. [50969]

  Ms Quin
  The only planned re-categorisation of prisons in the North West is for the removal of females from Risley prison, to allow it to become a dedicated male establishment.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons in the North West contain detoxification units. [50967]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There are no specialist drug detoxification units in prisons in the north west as yet. However, the Prison Service has now provided funding for the establishment of a drug detoxification and rehabilitation centre at Risley prison, to be set up in October.

  Where a drug detoxification unit is not available, all establishments should be able to provide prisoners with detoxification where needed. Many can be treated on normal location or in the prison health care centre. Where necessary prisoners can be transferred to establishments with specialist detoxification units.

  Wymott Prison
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on relations between the Governor and prison staff at HMP Wymott. [50968]

  Ms Quin
  The governor at Wymott prison considers that relations between him and his staff are satisfactory, after some difficulties over the introduction of new working practices on 21 June. He is working closely with the local branch of the Prison Officers' Association to resolve outstanding areas of concern.

  Firearms
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many claims for compensation under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 remain outstanding in respect of the Thames Valley Police Force area. [50936]

  Mr. Michael
  There are currently 1,066 claims from the Thames Valley Police Force area where payment has not yet been made under Option C of the compensation scheme, the great majority of which have already received a payment under Options A or B. In 28 of these cases, a payment offer has been made and is awaiting acceptance
  351
  by the claimant. There are also a few claims with an Option A or B element outstanding, pending the completion of inquiries from the claimant or the police.

  Lord-Lieutenants
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Lord-Lieutenants currently serve England. [50262]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of Lord-Lieutenants currently serving England is 45. (The position of Lord-Lieutenant of the County of Devon is at present vacant).

  Prisons (Suicides)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the ratio of the number of suicides to inmates in prisons in England and Wales, in each of the last three years,(a) by gender and (b) in total; what discussions he has had with the Scottish Office concerning the prevention of suicides in prisons; and if he will make a statement. [50599]

  Ms Quin
  The information requested is given in the tables. Officials in the Prison Service for Scotland have with their counterparts in England and Wales discussed strategies on caring for the suicidal in custody. My hon. Friend the Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office, recently announced a package of strategic measures, which add to and complement the recently introduced Scottish Prison Service Suicide Risk Management Strategy. The measures include the setting up of a task force to examine in detail all the circumstances surrounding the deaths in prison custody in Scotland this year to identify any common factors and lessons to be learned. A member of the Prison Service for England and Wales Suicide Awareness Support Group will form part of the task force, which I understand will report to Ministers later this year.

  Self-inflicted deaths among male and female prisoners held in prison establishments in England and Wales 1995–1997 and the rate of self-inflicted deaths per 100,000 annual average population

  Year

  Number of self-inflicted deaths

  Rate per 100,000 annual average population

  Male prisoners

  1995

  57

  116

  1996

  62

  117

  1997

  67

  115

  Female prisoners

  1995

  2

  101

  1996

  2

  88

  1997

  3

  112

  Year

  Total self-inflicted deaths

  Rate per 100,000 annual average population

  All prisoners

  1995

  59

  116

  1996

  64

  116

  1997

  70

  115

HEALTH

  NHS Trusts (Administration Charges)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the(a) highest, average and lowest lump sum administration charges and (b) highest, average and lowest photocopying charges per sheet charged by NHS trusts administering general hospitals for access to medical records; and if he will make a statement. [43288]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be collected only at a disproportionate cost. However, the Access to Health Records Act 1990 requires that charges should not exceed the cost of making a copy and posting it, and guidance to National Health Service organisations has made it quite clear that the actual cost is the maximum that should be charged. The actual cost will differ from case to case and can only be determined by the specific organisation involved. Recommending a charge greater than the actual cost in any particular case would contravene the requirements of the Act, and recommending charges consistently lower than actual costs would increase NHS costs. Therefore, the responsibility for determining reasonable charges must remain with individual organisations.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has approved the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's Fourth Code of Practice. [51617]

  Ms Jowell
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's revised Code of Practice has been approved and was laid before the House today. Copies of the Code have been placed in the Library.

  Haemophiliacs
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to respond to the request for financial assistance for people with haemophilia who are infected with hepatitis C as a result of their NHS treatment. [50477]

  Ms Jowell
  We will be responding as soon as we are in a position to do so.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Millennium Volunteers
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will launch the Millennium Volunteers Scheme.[51051]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Millennium Volunteers demonstration projects are being set up currently with local delivery bodies in eight locations in England, and we will be publishing a guide which invites organisations to apply for funding after the summer.

  Tuition Fees
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the NUS Scotland will be represented on the independent review body to be set up to examine how the Government's proposals for the Scottish fourth year exemption are working. [51045]
  353
  Dr. Howells
  We shall announce as soon as possible details of the independent body that is to review the arrangements for fee support for students in the final honours year of first-degree courses at higher education institutions in Scotland. The bodies invited to make representations will include the full range of interests, including students. It will also be open to other bodies and individuals to make representations.

  Mathematics Teachers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he will take to increase the number of available mathematics teachers. [51041]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We are determined to raise standards in schools, and good quality teachers—in both phases and all subjects—have an essential role to play in helping us achieve our plans. Maintaining teacher supply is a key challenge facing the Government and the education system. We are working with our partners—the Teacher Training Agency, higher education institutions, schools and others—to meet that challenge. Our response of 29 January to the Education and Employment Select Committee set out the measures we have taken to date.

  We have already announced that all students studying to achieve a Post-Graduate Certificate of Education will not have to contribute to tuition fees; and 83 per cent. of mathematics training places are on PGCE courses. In addition, the Teacher Training Agency will provide, through the Secondary Shortage Subject Scheme some £12 million in the coming year to support those in need who wish to train to teach in such subjects, including mathematics. The new employment-based routes to qualified teacher status, aimed at enabling more mature candidates to enter teaching, also will help to boost recruitment.

  Beacon Schools
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultation took place on the establishment of beacon schools; and what responses were received. [50951]

  Mr. Byers
  The beacon school initiative was developed in discussion with the Standards Task Force and through consultation with those schools identified by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector as the best performing during 1996–97.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Export Licences
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the number of export licences(a) applied for and (b) granted for the supply of aircraft parts for each of the last five years together with the average time taken by her Department to resolve the application; and what is the target time which her Department now endeavours to achieve. [49180]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: Entry ML10 in the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 controls the export of specified aircraft, unmanned airborne vehicles, aero-engines and aircraft equipment, and related goods and
  354
  components, specially designed or modified for military use. A large number of other entries in the export control legislation may also control the export of aircraft-related equipment. 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 1994 and 12 June 1998, 7,905 applications for Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and 474 applications for Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) covering the export of goods with the rating ML10 were received. In the same period, 7,194 SIELs and 370 OIELs were issued covering such exports.

  Number of applications for individual licences received, and individual licences issued, in each calendar year covering the export of goods with the rating ML10

  Year

  Applications received

  SIELs Licences issued

  Applications received

  OIELs Licences issued

  1994

  2,177

  2,142

  41

  36

  1995

  1,644

  1,415

  27

  25

  1996

  1,622

  1,471

  201

  175

  1997

  1,689

  1,420

  104

  79

  1998 (to 12 June)

  773

  746

  101

  55

  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 870–71.

  Aircraft parts may also have been exported during this period under certain Open General Export Licences; copies of Open General Export Licences valid at any time during the period are in the Library of the House.

  As regards performance targets and the average time taken to process the applications referred to above, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the President of the Board of Trade on 24 November 1997 to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 24 November 1997, Official Report, column 416.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many applications for licences for the export of(a) paramilitary, (b) security and (c) police equipment to Guinea Bissau have been (i) granted, (ii) refused and (iii) revoked, (1) between February 1995 and May 1997 inclusive and (2) since May 1997; and what was the export licence category in each case. [49346]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the following results were obtained:

  Between 1 February 1995 and 1 May 1997 one Standard Individual Export Licence was issued covering the export to Guinea-Bissau of goods subject to export control by being listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, the so-called Military List. This licence covered goods whose export is controlled under entry PL5018 of the Military List.
  355
  No other Standard or Open Individual Export Licences covering such exports were issued or revoked, and no applications refused for such licences, in that period or in the period between 2 May 1997 and 12 June 1998.

  This information does not cover any Media OIELS that may have been issued during this period. Media OIELS are Open Individual Export Licences that authorise the export to all destinations of protective clothing, mainly for the protection of aid agency workers and journalists, when working in areas of conflict.

  This information should be considered in light of my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–871.

  It is not possible to break down these data in the manner requested, as the equipment covered by many entries in the Military List could be used by military, paramilitary, or police end-users.

  Goods on the Military List may have been exported to Guinea-Bissau under certain Open General Export Licences; copies of all Open General Export Licences valid at any time during the period are in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the export licences issued by her Department for military equipment to Sri Lanka during the last 12 months. [49691]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated, and the following results were obtained:

  Between 13 June 1997 and 12 June 1998, 68 individual licences were issued covering the export to consignees or end-users in Sri Lanka of goods subject to export control by being listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, the so-called Military List. Sixty-five Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs), and 3 Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs). The entry in the relevant legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating. Individual licences may cover a range of goods with various ratings. Where this is so, the licence is included in the table in the total for all the relevant ratings.

  Individual licences issues between 13 June 1997 and 12 June 1998 covering the export to Sri Lanka of goods on the military list

  Rating

  Number of SIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  Number of OIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  ML1

  16

  0

  ML2

  4

  0

  ML3

  7

  0

  ML4

  8

  0

  ML5

  1

  0

  ML6

  1

  0

  ML7

  1

  0

  ML10

  2

  2

  ML11

  21

  1

  ML14

  1

  0

  ML15

  2

  0

  ML21

  1

  0

  ML22

  1

  0

  PL5001

  1

  0

  PL5017

  1

  0

  356
  This information does not cover any Media OIELs that may have been issued during this period. Media OIELs authorise the export to all destinations of protective clothing, mainly for the protection of aid agency workers and journalists, when working in areas of conflict.

  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 870–71.

  In addition, goods on the Military List may have been exported to Sri Lanka under certain Open General Export Licences; copies of all Open General Export Licences valid at that time during the period are in the Library of the House.

  Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Small Firms Loan Guarantees have been provided by Government in each of the last 10 years and for what amounts. [49311]

  Mrs. Roche
  The number and value of loans guaranteed under the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme in each of the last ten years were:

  Year

  Loans guaranteed

  Value (£ million)

  1988–89

  2,266

  63.6

  1989–90

  3,204

  99.4

  1990–91

  3,387

  84.6

  1991–92

  2,933

  69.5

  1992–93

  2,342

  52.0

  1993–94

  3,886

  155.0

  1994–95

  6,207

  246.0

  1995–96

  7,484

  275.4

  1996–97

  6,942

  255.8

  1997–98

  5,081

  201.3

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if she will list the write-offs under the small firms loan guarantee scheme by number and amount in each of the last 10 years; [50375]

  (2) how many small firms loan guarantees have been provided by the Government in each of the last 10 years; and how much money has been allocated in total. [50374]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 9 July 1998,Official Report, column 631.

  Post Office
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement about the External Financing Limit of the Post Office. [51643]

  Mrs. Beckett
  External Financing Limits of -£335 million for each of the years 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02 have been set. This is an interim measure pending the outcome of the current Post Office review. The Government hope to announce their proposals in the Autumn.

  British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement about the External Financing Limit of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. [51644]
  357
  Mrs. Beckett
  External Financing Limits of £25 million for 1999–2000, -£75 million for 2000–01 and -£150 million for 2001–02 have been set. These reflect expected improvements in efficiency and expected savings from the integration of BNFL and Magnox.

  Oil and Gas Royalties
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the current oil and gas royalties system. [49967]

  Mr. Battle
  The Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 empowers the Crown to receive royalties arising from oil and gas under the soil. These onshore rights were extended offshore in 1964. Royalty, at a rate of 12½ per cent. of the value of petroleum won and saved (less an allowance for eligible conveying and treating costs), is currently payable only in respect of production from fields for which development consent was given before April 1982.

  In his 1998 Budget, on 17 March 1998, Official Report, columns 1097–112, the Chancellor announced that the Government would formally consult the oil industry on specific proposals to change the fiscal regime for companies involved in the extraction of UK oil and gas. The Government intend shortly to issue a consultative document on the North Sea fiscal regime. An outline of the options for change has already been published in an Inland Revenue press release issued on Budget Day. As explained in that press release, one of the options is the abolition of oil and gas royalty. This option is intended to encourage companies to exploit more fully the reserves of older oil and gas fields, and responds to representations made by some companies.

  Companies House
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the current staff who exceed the proposed requirements of Companies House, following its relocation, will be re-employed within her Department. [49972]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Staff in Companies House can and will continue to be able to apply for posts in the Department of Trade and Industry, and will be considered for appointment if they are suitably qualified.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she has taken to ensure that the relocation and rationalisation of Companies House in 1999 will not result in a reduced level of service. [49966]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The move of the Companies House London office to new premises at the end of 1998 will coincide with the introduction of new facilities for the on-line electronic delivery of information. The existing premium and standard microfiche service will continue to be provided until the current office closes in Autumn 1999. Alternative arrangements for those customers who continue to want to use microfiche will then be available from the Cardiff office, although it will not be possible to provide the current speed of service. I am confident, however, that the new facilities, offering a combination of traditional microfiche and newer electronic services, will lead to an improved service overall for customers.
  358
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the current staff are expected still to be employed within Companies House(a) immediately, (b) six months and (c) a year after the relocation. [49970]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  There will be no change now, or in six months' time, in the numbers of staff employed in Companies House, London as a result of the initial relocation of the office. The numbers are expected to have fallen by about 75 per cent. one year after relocation.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff will be made redundant or encouraged to take early retirement when the City Road premises of Companies House are closed. [49971]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Companies House will endeavour to help those staff not required at its new office to secure employment elsewhere, whether within the Civil Service or outside. It is not possible now to say how many staff will be found new jobs or how many will prefer to take early retirement or how many might be made redundant. One third of current staff in London are employed on a fixed terms or casual basis in anticipation of the change in the numbers required.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Angola
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government have taken over the UNITA office in the United Kingdom to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1127 (1997). [50448]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  UNITA's representative in the United Kingdom conducted UNITA business from his commercial premises in London. Following the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1127 (1997), Mr. Kandeya was immediately ordered to leave the United Kingdom. He has submitted an application to remain in the United Kingdom which is being considered by the Home Office. Officials have visited Mr. Kandeya's commercial premises and satisfied themselves that there was no sign of any continuing association with UNITA. As far as we are aware, there are no offices or premises being maintained in the United Kingdom under the name of UNITA.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken over the funds and financial resources of UNITA and senior UNITA personnel in the United Kingdom to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1173 (1998). [50449]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Government have prepared Orders in Council to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1173, which it expects to be laid before Parliament on 22 July and enter into force on 23 July. When it is passed, the Bank of England will simultaneously write to the relevant UK financial institutions asking them to implement the United Nations' financial sanctions against UNITA.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to prohibit the direct or indirect
  359
  import from Angola to the United Kingdom of diamonds that are not controlled through the Certificate of Origin regime of the GURN. [50450]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade proposes to amend the Open General Import Licence once the proposed Certificate of Origin Scheme has been finalised by the Angolan Government.

  The Government have prepared orders in Council to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1173 which it expects to be laid before Parliament on 22 July and to enter into force on 23 July.

  Torture Equipment
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) of 4 December 1997,Official Report, column 300, on torture equipment, what progress was made during the UK presidency of the European Union in encouraging member countries to introduce similar restrictions on the export of torture equipment to those introduced in the United Kingdom by the Government on 28 July 1997, Official Report, columns 26–29. [50724]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have pressed our EU partners vigorously on this issue, culminating in a formal invitation to join the United Kingdom in announcing bans on the export of the same equipment as in the announcement of 28 July 1997.

  Our partners are sympathetic to our concerns. Indeed, in defining internal repression, the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports agreed on 8 June 1998 specifically includes torture or other cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment among the actions which constitute internal repression.
  360
  But some of our partners have doubts about the practicality and desirability of an outright ban. Many do not have national controls on some or all of the items involved. We believe from our contacts that there is support for the principle of controlling the export of such equipment.

  As this equipment is not military equipment, matters relating to export controls fall within the Community's exclusive competence and it is for the Commission to make any proposal for a regulation establishing common rules. We are encouraging the European Commission to come forward with a proposal.

  In the meantime, in the absence of an agreed EU position, it would be premature to press for global action. In due course, we would aim to press for such action to mirror the action that the EC decides to take.

  The UK's national policy will be unaffected. Notifications of any licences denied under this ban will be issued to our partners under the denial notification arrangements agreed under the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.

  Sudan
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the objectives of the Minister of State's four day mission to discuss issues affecting Sudan. [50944]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The reports of the suffering in southern Sudan shocked us all. I have just returned from Nairobi and Khartoum, where my objective was to bring about a break in the fighting in southern Sudan. A temporary truce in the most hunger-affected areas will be essential if the Sudanese people are to be able to start rebuilding their lives.

  I am pleased to be able to say that the Government of Sudan and the Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A), have agreed to a 3 month ceasefire in Bahr al Ghazal. This is encouraging news for the people of southern Sudan. I hope that we can now build on this important step and work together with IGAD for a wider peace.

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

Waste Minimisation Bill
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I think the feeling of the House is that this particular debate should be quite short, as I know a number of noble Lords are eager to start proceedings on the Landmines Bill. I also have to bear in mind the suggestion made by one of my noble friends who is a most righteous and generous man, although that was overlaid by the cynicism derived from many years' occupancy of the Whips Office which led him to suggest that, if I were seriously concerned about the minimising of waste, my speech should be exceedingly short in order to save paper.
However, this Bill is a virtuous piece of legislation. It has been bouncing around the House of Commons for a couple of years. I believe that it was originally suggested by a Conservative Member and was fortunate to survive the slaughter of the innocents which takes place in early July in the other place. Indeed, this year, only two Bills out of a very large number were approved.
I believe that most people accept that we really must challenge the problem of waste far more vigorously. Despite the need for vigour in the field, the Bill is not of an extensive character; indeed, it is a brief Bill. It merely proposes to insert in the relevant Act of 1990 a provision which will allow waste authorities to take action which will encourage the reduction of waste.
Waste is an enormous problem. On average, every household in Britain produces such a tonnage of it that the total must now exceed 20 million tonnes a year. That is only in the domestic context; businesses produce much more. Some are taking steps to promote recycling and reuse, and these measures will help prevent the remorseless growth of this problem which besets our country. It may also be relevant in dealing with the problem of litter. That is a problem which requires much more urgent attention as our country is probably the most litter strewn in northern Europe today.
I believe that the Bill will serve a useful purpose. I understand that a large number of local authorities strongly support it, and I know that a number of businesses do. I have been advised that the industry council concerned with waste in the environment is very supportive indeed. In view of the qualities of the Bill and the needs of our society, I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Hardy of Wath.)
11.9 a.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, this modest Bill has the support of my noble friends and I believe that it also has the support of noble Lords in all parts of the House. I feel particularly at home speaking for the Liberal Democrats on the Bill because it was during the Second Reading of the Environmental Protection Bill in 1990 that I made my maiden speech. As we have heard, this Bill is simply an extension of the provisions of that legislation. It is no less welcome for its modesty of power and scope, though I feel that it will give effect to many of those discussions that people have had over the years in which they ask, "Why don't they…?", and so on, to which the response is, "Well, the local authorities don't have any standing to do this". I believe that the Bill will give them that standing.
Perhaps I may make one more general point about such discussions; namely, that, when talking about sustainability or "sustainable", I wish that people would qualify the word with one of the following adverbs—"economically", "environmentally" or possibly "biologically". Otherwise, it is most difficult to pick one's way through the clichés that build up around a subject which is much talked about.
The Bill will hearten all the voluntary groups which have been working in this field for a number of years, all the people of my generation who were ridiculed for talking about the environment in the early 1970s, and all the people who are working for organisations like Waste Watch. I believe that education is a very important aspect that this Bill might engender. Indeed, the citizenship education which was discussed under Professor Bernard Crick's advisory committee should include education on how to take care of the environment. If young people are encouraged to put pressure on local authorities, I am sure that the most use will be made of the powers in the Bill.
I was lucky enough to attend a conference on economic instruments and waste management on Wednesday. I noticed the difference in culture between Britain and various other European countries. I very much hope that the effect of the Bill will be to change that culture so that we are more enthusiastic about minimising waste. As I said, I support the Bill.
11.12 a.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, for his explanation of the Bill. I take the opportunity, if the newspapers are to be believed, to wish him a happy birthday. We support the purpose of the Bill. There are some matters that we may wish to pursue in Committee. We have received representations—no doubt other noble Lords have received them—from the industry council for packaging and the environment. There is the matter of consultation with those who will be affected by any actions taken by local authorities, whether they are users of the packaging, users of the products, or the generators of the waste. We shall want to consider that matter.
The council has made the point that we want to ensure that, in promoting waste minimisation, we do not look at things in isolation. Some waste items are not

497
worth recycling as they may generate less waste in manufacture than recyclable waste and may be produced with fewer resources than recyclables. Those are matters that we shall want to examine in Committee and seek to redress any concerns. Apart from that matter, we on these Benches support the Bill and its Second Reading.
11.14 a.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, this Bill will allow local authorities, where they choose, to investigate and promote methods of minimising the amounts of waste generated within their areas. I thank my noble friend Lord Hardy for taking it forward. I join in wishing him many happy returns of the day.
As the noble Lord, Lord McNair, said, this is a good Bill and a timely one. It clarifies the existing legislative position about whether local authorities can undertake waste minimisation activities. Although some local authorities undertake initiatives on waste minimisation, many do not because of a lack of clarity in the existing legislation. The Bill will remove that uncertainty.
We generate 26 million tonnes of municipal waste each year in England and Wales, 90 per cent. of which comes from households. There is evidence that the amount is growing steadily as more households are created and as personal consumption increases. Therefore action must be taken to reduce the amount of waste put out for disposal. This is an important issue. That importance has been re-emphasised by the Government in the recent consultation document Less waste: more value. The simplest and most effective way of dealing with waste is to ensure that it does not arise. The Government want waste minimisation to be an important focus of our strategy and we believe that the efforts being made by many households on recycling can be extended into reducing waste.
In the past waste minimisation has received less attention than recycling. Local authorities have tended to treat the amount of waste produced as something over which they have no control, and which they have to manage. We have not been getting the waste minimisation message across as successfully as we need to, partly because of the uncertainty I have mentioned about what local authorities may actually do. This Bill starts to address that problem. It will allow local authorities, for example, to inform householders about some of the straightforward actions that they can take: for instance, stopping junk mail. It will not empower an authority to impose requirements or restrictions upon individuals or businesses within its area. The Bill is about the acts of local authorities, not those of other parties.
We hope the Bill and the new waste strategy which is now being prepared will help to raise the overall level of awareness about waste and waste minimisation. I am sure it will. We have found that, in areas where waste minimisation initiatives have taken place, people start to think seriously about the waste that they are producing. That is a vital step towards a more sustainable society. As the noble Lord, Lord McNair, said, it is vital that young people's interests in these issues are harnessed to
498
achieve this end. I slightly disagree with the noble Lord, however, when he said that young people need to be encouraged to consider environmental issues. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, that the Government are committed to ensuring consultation, as our document shows. The Government welcome and support this Bill. I commend it to the House.
11.17 a.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am most grateful for the helpful and relevant comments which have been made. I have not had much contact with the noble Lord, Lord McNair, but I served with his father on the Council of Europe for a long time and we enjoyed an extremely cordial relationship. The point he made about sustainability should echo much more volubly throughout the land because we have to manage the world's resources rather more intelligently.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, for his pertinent comments and for his felicitations. I had not expected any Member of your Lordships' House to note the date. I had forgotten it, but I am grateful to the noble Lord and to my noble friend for mentioning it. I hope that we can have a constructive, if relatively brief, debate in the further stages of the Bill. It is extremely encouraging to have the support of the noble Lord and his colleagues.
My noble friend will not be surprised to hear that I am delighted to learn—I am sure the House is also delighted—that a strategy is being prepared. This problem needs to command attention. I hope that the Government's strategy will be assisted by this modest Bill. I was glad to hear my noble friend's comments and also the brief comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Bowness and Lord McNair. I trust that this cross-party support will ensure that the Bill has a happy and successful passage. I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Landmines Bill
11.20 a.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Landmines Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Anti-personnel landmines kill. They maim. They kill and maim indiscriminately. They continue to kill and maim long after those who laid them have stopped fighting. We all know these facts. They have been

499
repeated frequently in recent months and years, as the world's attention has focused on the issue. But repetition does not make them any less chilling.
The scale of the problem is enormous. Indiscriminate, irresponsible laying of millions of anti-personnel mines across the world in unmarked and unmapped minefields has brought physical suffering, hardship and anguish to hundreds of thousands of victims and their families. Every 20 minutes, another innocent person falls victim to a landmine. About 60 million mines lay scattered in 70 countries, keeping refugees from their homes and wreaking havoc for many of those who take the risk of returning.
Last week, when this issue was debated in another place, fitting tributes were paid to Diana, Princess of Wales and others, including the Nobel peace prize-winning International Campaign to Ban Landmines and the Red Cross movement, in recognition of the tremendous effort they put in to ensuring that the world takes action to deal with this problem. I should like to take the opportunity today to endorse those tributes completely.
We can all be proud of the way that Britain has been at the front of the international campaign to turn words into action since this Government took office in May 1997. Among the first things we did was to address the landmines issue.
Within a week, the Foreign Secretary had made a joint statement with his French and German colleagues, confirming that we would give particular priority to banning anti-personnel mines worldwide. Two weeks later, we said there would be a domestic ban on the import, export, manufacture and transfer of landmines, an immediate moratorium on their use, and that we would destroy our stocks. We also said that we would take part actively in the Ottawa Process, with a view to signing an effective international ban on landmines.
We must also thank the Canadian Foreign Secretary, Lloyd Axworthy, for establishing the agenda for an international ban. He stood up at the close of the Ottawa conference on mines in October 1996 and set December 1997 as the target date for a convention. There can be no doubt that in doing so he galvanized the international community into action.
Britain was closely involved in negotiating the convention in Oslo last September. Securing agreement on a final text in less than three weeks honoured the memory of Diana, Princess of Wales, who died so tragically on the conference's eve. We were delighted to be among the first countries to sign the Ottawa convention last December. There are now 128 signatories: a truly remarkable achievement in so short a period.
Having helped write the convention, we now want to help bring it into effect. That is why we are here today. In passing this legislation now, we should ensure that Britain is among the first 40 countries whose ratification will secure the convention's entry into force; 24 states have already ratified. Several more are expected to announce their ratification soon.
500
If we and others can take this step quickly, the convention will be in effect early next year. That would be a wonderful tribute to the hard work and dedication of all involved in the campaign to rid the world of this deadly scourge. It would also send a powerful signal to those who have not signed the convention. It would make clear that the world community will not tolerate the continued use of anti-personnel landmines.
We need this legislation to implement the Ottawa convention. The Bill is entirely consistent with the convention. Clause 2 prohibits any British citizen from using, developing, producing, possessing or exporting landmines. And it also outlaws any assistance, encouragement or inducement for others to do any of these things. Anyone found guilty of breaking the law in this regard would be liable for a prison sentence of up to 14 years. That reflects the gravity of such and offence.
Concern has been expressed about Clause 5 of the legislation. Let me allay those concerns. Clause 5 does not provide British service personnel with any loophole to breach the convention. Any such breach would be punishable under the terms of this legislation. The rules of engagement under which UK service personnel operate will make this perfectly clear. What Clause 5 does do is provide British service personnel with protection against prosecution merely as a result of taking part in operations alongside troops of states not bound by the Ottawa convention who may lay such mines. Providing such legal protection for our forces is absolutely the right thing to do.
Of course, we want every country in the world to agree never to use anti-personnel mines again. We have made our wishes and views on this clear. Both by persuasion and example, we shall continue to encourage as many as possible to sign up to the Ottawa convention. But we cannot force others not to deploy such mines. And we cannot ask our servicemen and women, when risking their lives for our country, also to risk their liberty for doing nothing more than carrying out their duty. Without Clause 5, we would effectively be withdrawing Britain from any military operation alongside states which have not signed the Ottawa convention. What more comforting signal could we send to the tyrants of this world?
In drafting Clause 5, we have taken our cue from the Canadian declaration that accompanied their ratification of the Ottawa convention. That makes clear their understanding that Article 1 of the convention is not intended to rule out military co-operation with countries that are not bound by the convention. We know that the Austrians, who drafted the convention, take the same view. We intend to make a similar statement on ratification, reflecting the provisions of Clause 5.
Clause 5 also highlights the problem of trying to ensure that every country in the world bans landmines. When they have done so, our service personnel will not require the protection that Clause 5 affords. But we are a long way from that and our work to get as many countries as possible on board must continue. We are encouraging work in all appropriate fora, including the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, in pursuit of this goal.

501
But the Ottawa convention is not just about banning the use of anti-personnel landmines. It also provides for the destruction of stockpiles, the removal of laid mines, and care and assistance for mine victims.
On destruction, Britain has a very good story to tell. In accordance with the destruction programme announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence, the MoD has destroyed almost half its stocks of these mines since 1st May last year, and good progress is being made towards the target of destruction of all operational mines by 1st January 2000. As far as we are aware, no other government have done as much to destroy their stocks.
Britain is among the world's leaders in mine clearance assistance to the worst affected countries. Last October we announced that we would double expenditure on humanitarian de-mining from £5 million to £10 million per year. The purpose of our de-mining strategy is to reduce the social and economic impact of landmines on developing countries. Our first priority is to save life and facilitate resettlement in the most severely affected countries, such as Cambodia and Mozambique.
Our task then is to secure a truly global ban, which will lead to the elimination of these weapons and end this wholly unnecessary suffering. The best way to help to achieve this is to lead by example. This legislation and our subsequent ratification of the convention will do just that.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
11.31 a.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, at the start of this Second Reading debate on the Landmines Bill, intended to implement the Ottawa Convention, I want to begin by saying how much importance we on this side of your Lordships' House place on this legislation and the opportunity for a full and thorough scrutiny of it. I am indeed grateful to the Minister for her opening remarks, which are most welcome. I believe that there will be a consensus in this House that it is vital to give proper consideration to any legislation which contains implications for British service men and women whom we ask to risk their lives.
Before I go any further, I should like to place on record the support of these Benches for the spirit of this legislation. We are united with the Government in our desire to see a global ban on landmines. A truly global ban on such inhumane and vicious weapons would represent the triumph of humanity over barbarity, of civilisation over chaos, and of the forces of peace over the pollution of war. From these Benches we are unwavering in our condemnation of the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel landmines. Landmines continue to wage an amoral war on the innocent and vulnerable long after the conflict that caused them to be put there has ceased.
Once in place, these silent soldiers, encased in their metal or plastic armour, mark out a permanent no man's land in the ground, where in times of peace, just as in
502
times of war, no one can walk safely. Their deadly purpose is undeterred and unaffected by armistices and truces, preserving indefinitely the bitterness and the fear of the strife of the past.
Landmines respect no international humanitarian law or carefully crafted peace treaties, but instead violate them arbitrarily and without warning. They do not distinguish between the soldier and the civilian. They are truly the unacceptable face of war, the face of human suffering beyond belief, and the harbingers of social havoc and economic hardship writ large across dozens of countries in the world.
No one can fail to be moved by the tragic plight of the victims, as was so eloquently put by the Minister today. We are all only too aware of the random and cruel manner in which innocent civilians have been killed or maimed. Indeed, many Members of your Lordships' House have witnessed the appalling tragedy caused by the reckless use of these most destructive devices of war. I have no doubt that we will hear compelling and harrowing testimonies to this effect today. In the past my noble friend Lady Chalker has reminded us that:
"Nobody who has walked through wards of limbless children in Angola, as I have, can be in any doubt that landmines should be done away with as soon as that is possible".—[Official Report, 24/7/96; col. 1380.]
Testament, indeed.
The Minister was right to point out some statistics to set this legislation in context. Additionally, in mine-infested Angola and Cambodia there is more than one mine for each member of the population. In Cambodia there is one undetected mine for every four people. In Angola, one in every 334 persons is an amputee.
It is against this terrible background of destruction and devastation that I pay tribute to the pioneering and tireless work of individuals, campaign groups and non-governmental organisations alike who have done so much to raise the issue of a total ban on landmines in the public consciousness and who have worked so hard to ensure that this legacy of torn limbs and ruined lives is not one we bequeath to our children and our children's children.
A special mention must go to the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Halo Trust, founded by the former Member of Parliament, Colin Mitchell, and the Mines Advisory Group. The contribution of the Nobel Prize-winning International Campaign to Ban Landmines, which has brought together more than 100 different organisations, likewise deserves global praise and recognition.
It would be quite wrong not to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the role of the British forces in providing mine clearance advice and support. In this country, we have always been one of the leading nations working to clear up landmines and we have committed some £22 million to mine clearance projects around the world since 1991. Excellent de-mining work has been done and is being done by so many, both in the voluntary sector and with the help of the services in this country. I am sure that the Minister will agree that

503
initiatives on international mine clearance are of equal importance to the quest for a global ban on landmines. The argument for an aggressive clearance policy is a strong one, particularly given the unlikely prospect of a total global ban on landmines. But it does stand or fall on whether more landmines are being cleared or laid. At the moment, more are being laid.
The Minister again was right to point out that in recent weeks much has been written and said about the unique and invaluable role played by Diana, Princess of Wales, who, in lending her support, her time and her commitment to this cause, brought the issue of landmines to the forefront of public awareness in a way that perhaps no one else could.
We would all like to see this legislation on the statute book as soon as possible. Indeed, the official Opposition has repeatedly stated that we support the spirit of the Ottawa Convention. As long ago as February we made it clear that we would co-operate with the legislation needed to allow the convention to be ratified and would not seek at any stage to obstruct it.
As I said, from these Benches we fully support the moral motive behind the convention and behind this legislation. That is why we will continue to support it today. But the Bill must be placed in context. Its purpose is to ratify an international convention which will impose a partial ban on certain weapons. This imposes two imperatives on us. First, because those weapons will continue to be in widespread use, considerations for the safety and the integrity of British troops must be paramount. Any relevant legislation requires meticulous drafting. Secondly, any Bill drafted to implement an international convention signed by the Government must have no inconsistencies with that convention. If it does, we would be most remiss in our duty of legislative scrutiny if we did not ask why, for the signature of the Government of the UK binds us legally and morally to legislate to implement that convention faithfully. This, then, is the task we embark on today.
I should like to point to the work that has been done prior to today in building up to the consideration of this Bill by previous administrations. Like the previous administration, in the absence of a global ban, the Government in this Bill appear to recognise the legitimate use of anti-personnel mines under certain extreme circumstances and to distinguish between modern deployment of them by responsible military powers, such as the UK in the Gulf War and the irresponsible use, often during civil wars, by warring factions and guerrilla forces. Even today, buried in the financial memorandum of the Bill before us, the Government acknowledge the need to examine and procure alternative technologies to meet the military capability previously provided by anti-personnel mines.
On that note, I wish to ask what steps the Government will take to ensure that the ban does not lead to greater dependence on air-blast bombs and booby-traps which can be equally indiscriminate, last just as long and be harder to defuse than modern mines. Furthermore, can the Government confirm the date on which their right to use anti-personnel mines, if the security of British forces is jeopardised without their use, as stated in the May
504
1997 policy statement, will be given up, in accordance with the Ottawa Convention? When, in December 1997, the Government signed the Ottawa Convention, which the legislation before the House today is designed to implement, the difference between the approach of the Government and of the Opposition was signalled a little more clearly—not because we oppose the spirit of the convention (which is why we shall not oppose the Bill); far from it. It was because we sought a truly global, multilateral ban on landmines. We took the view that the best route to advance the Ottawa process was through the conference on disarmament.
We favoured the conference on disarmament route because of the limitations of the convention that resulted from the Ottawa process. It is not churlish to recognise those limitations; indeed, it is essential if we are to be successful in taking the process further. At least a quarter of the world's states have refused to sign the convention. Many powerful and significant countries are not signatories, critically including the United States of America, China and Russia. None of those countries has accepted Ottawa. The convention cannot therefore introduce a truly global ban; it can only hope to lead by good example. It is a fact of international life that, unless all the major manufacturers and exporters of mines agree to a ban on their sale and use, landmines will continue to be used as an inexpensive means of denying territory to opposing forces.
In 1996 the previous administration managed to go a long way towards persuading China to agree not to export undetectable landmines. I shall be interested to hear from the Government today what steps they are taking to address the problem of how to persuade countries that export, produce or misuse landmines to change their policies in a similarly successful way.
I now turn to the areas of specific legislation before us, which, from these Benches, we intend to scrutinise more fully in Committee. Those areas include Clause 1 which provides definition of the main terms used in the Bill; Clause 5, which the Minister has already flagged, which provides a defence to a Clause 2 offence relating to certain international military operations; and certain other questions on the wider international legal implications of a breach of the convention; the destruction of mines in the Falkland Islands; the storage of non-state party landmines in the United Kingdom; and the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill.
Let me make myself clear at this point. It is not the scope or the content of the legislation which we wish to examine carefully. Nor is it a question of separating the Bill from the convention it is designed to implement and seeking to weigh up the merits of what it does or does not achieve. It is the inconsistency between the legislation and the convention which it purports to reflect faithfully which we shall want to examine in detail when we return to the Committee stage next Friday.
I hope that by next Friday we shall have a little clarification from the Government regarding definitions. Broadly speaking, for the purposes of the Bill, an anti-personnel mine is a victim-operated device.

505
However, in this critical legislation I suggest that the broad definition is not sufficient. It is vital that what is and what is not included within this legislation is established beyond doubt, for the definitions have major implications for many of the clauses throughout the Bill. Any technical problems therefore with those definitions are clearly of key importance.
The Foreign Secretary confirmed that JP233 anti-personnel landmines, used in association with anti-airfield weapons, are prohibited by the Bill. Likewise, the US Gator type is prohibited. However, I understand that the Shielder vehicle scatter-launch mine system, which is produced by the same company as the Gator system, is not covered by the Ottawa Convention since it is for anti-tank use. US Claymore-type directional fragmentation mines are also permitted because they are not victim activated but are remote-command detonated by soldiers.
During Committee stage it will be helpful if we consider the opinions of experts—such as Colin King, editor of Jane's Mines and Mine Clearance—who do not believe that such a black and white line can be drawn to distinguish anti-personnel mines from anti-tank mines, given that Claymore mines can easily be adapted to anti-personnel use simply by screwing in a fuse and given that the mine used by Shielder has a highly sensitive magnetic-influence fuse which would cause a person stepping on it to set it off immediately.
Furthermore, in Committee I shall be pressing the Minister to tell the House what status is accorded to booby-traps under the Bill, given that the distinction between mines and booby-traps is often unclear. Many booby-traps operate on similar principles to mine fuses. Some mine fuses can be used as booby-traps and, as I understand it, the two are frequently interchangeable.
We must also compare the Bill with the treaty that it is intended to put into effect. We shall need to examine in detail the relationship between the Ottawa Convention and the Bill. For the most part, the clauses within the Bill reflect and mirror those in the convention, with—as already signalled by the Minister—one glaring exception; namely, Clause 5. I am grateful to the Minister for comments which certainly added to the Government's position as explained in the House of Commons last Friday.
From my perspective, Clause 5 sets out certain exemptions to prohibited conduct during international military operations and is intended to provide a defence for anyone who would otherwise be guilty of conduct that is prohibited by Clause 2 of this legislation. I should like to say straightaway that this is not a question on the merits or necessity of Clause 5; it is solely a question about the consistency of the Bill with the convention. Article 1.1 of the Ottawa Convention was clear and unambiguous. It reads,
"Each State Party undertakes never under any circumstances: (a) To use anti-personnel mines; (b) To develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, anti-personnel mines; (c) To assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention."
506
I do not believe that anyone can construe any doubt or confusion as to the meaning of Article 1.1 of the convention. It expressly prohibits assisting,
"anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party".
I hope that, in summing up, the Minister will confirm that that is the Government's understanding.
The Foreign Secretary in another place said that there is no inconsistency between the Bill and the convention—I am grateful to the Minister for repeating that assertion this morning. The Foreign Minister said that the Bill gives full effect to the terms of the Ottawa Convention and Clause 2,
"faithfully and fully puts the Ottawa convention into British legislation".
Clause 2 certainly does serve that purpose. It not only prohibits British service men or any other British citizen from using, developing, producing, possessing or exporting a landmine, but it also prevents them from assisting, encouraging or inducing anyone else to do so. However, in Clause 5 we have exemptions. It sets out the exemptions for international military exercises and states that a soldier would not be guilty of a crime as long as he is not actually laying the mines. That defence applies to joint operations conducted overseas with the armed forces of another government in the course of which there is or may be some deployment of anti-personnel mines by members of the armed forces of one or more states that are not party to the Ottawa Convention.
If Clause 5 is consistent with the Ottawa Convention, where is the corresponding clause in the convention? Perhaps the Minister can help me, for I have been unable to find it. There is no getting round it: the Foreign Secretary said that Clause 5 has a limited purpose to provide British service men with a shield against unreasonable prosecution if, for example, they took part in a NATO exercise in which US troops deployed landmines and that it does not provide British service men with any loophole to take part in the deployment of landmines. Whether or not it is intended to have a limited purpose, the fact remains that the wide drafting of Clause 5 expressly permits conduct which the convention expressly forbids.
Can the Minister confirm that, according to Clause 5 as it stands, British forces are permitted to do anything other than actually lay anti-personnel mines? Is it not the case that they can procure, transfer, modify, adapt or even prime landmines as long as they do not actually lay them? How is it possible to argue that Clause 5 as it is currently drafted is purely prudential and serves only to protect British troops from being criminalised by the actions of troops from non-signatory countries who may be taking part in the same operation?
We shall return to this in very significant detail next Friday. But let me make it clear that I have no doubt that the Ministry of Defence had good reason for the inclusion of Clause 5 and the need for British troops to be able to operate in this way. No one is suggesting that British service men who place their lives in jeopardy should in any way find that their liberty is placed at risk as a result of this legislation. This is not an issue of whether Clause 5 is needed, although I would like

507
confirmation from the Minister that the Foreign Secretary was correct to say that without Clause 5 the mere presence of British officers at a NATO planning meeting could be a contravention of the Bill's criminal law provisions. What is at issue is that Clause 5 as it stands is absolutely and explicitly contrary to the provisions of the Ottawa Convention. It is not what the Government negotiated in treaty form in Oslo and signed up to in Ottawa; and if such a clause is necessary, that should have been reflected in the convention itself.
One of the great advantages signalled in another place last Friday was the ability of great legal minds to bring their powers of analysis to bear in your Lordships' House. I have no doubt that both today and next Friday we will hear from those Members of your Lordships' House. But there are wider implications of international law which they will be more able to address than certainly I can. The inconsistency between the convention and the Bill drafted to implement it throws up a number of wider legal issues and implications which I am sure the House will examine.
Can the Minister confirm that, if other state parties determine that Clause 5 amounts to an exemption or reservation from the Ottawa Convention, which under Article 19 allows for no reservations and is therefore inconsistent with the UK's obligations under the convention or, more generally, inconsistent with the spirit of the convention, those state parties will be able to take up the procedures for verification of compliance and settlement of disputes as set out in Articles 8, 10 and 11 of the convention?
These articles provide that if there are concerns about a state's compliance with the treaty, clarification may be sought through the UN Secretary-General and, if necessary, a meeting of state parties may be held. This meeting can decide to send an obligatory fact-finding mission to the relevant territory of the state concerned for up to 14 days. On the basis of the mission's report the meeting of state parties may propose corrective actions or legal measures in accordance with the UN Charter. A definitive opinion might then be sought from the International Court of Justice. Although the Ottawa Convention does not contain a jurisdictional clause explicitly conferring jurisdiction on the International Court of Justice, Article 8.19 does provide for the initiation of appropriate procedures in conformity with international law. Given that the United Kingdom has issued a declaration accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the court, can the Minister confirm that it could be open to another signatory to initiate proceedings against the United Kingdom in the ICJ if it felt that the UK was in breach of the convention?
Furthermore, is it not the case that if this were to go against the United Kingdom, the Government would have the choice of amending domestic legislation or withdrawing from or seeking to amend the convention? In the light of that, what consultations and discussions did the Government have with other state parties on the inclusion of Clause 5 in the United Kingdom legislation to implement the convention? I will be returning to that point in greater detail at the Committee stage next week.
508
I should be grateful if in the meantime the Minister could consider some of the questions that I have put to the House on that specific point.
Again, with courtesy to the Minister and her officials, I should like to flag up two points that we wish to raise through the procedure of amendments next week. Given that the convention obliges the Government to clear mines laid in the Falkland Islands, and given the strong arguments that resources for global mine clearance should be prioritised in accordance with risk, what are the Government's intentions on the many thousands of landmines that remain in position in the Falklands? Given that the United States has stockpiles of anti-personnel landmines in Britain, what are the legal implications of the Ottawa Convention for the storage and stockpiling of anti-personnel landmines by non-state parties in the United Kingdom or in the UK's dependencies, such as in Diego Garcia?
In Committee I shall also be raising questions concerning the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill. For example, can the Government offer any estimate of the costs that they expect to arise from the need to examine and procure alternative technologies to meet the military capability previously provided by anti-personnel landmines? Is there any estimate of the costs of cancelling any supply contracts, which are referred to in the memorandum? There is the possibility that industry will face compliance costs. But, according to the Government, those have yet to be quantified. When do the Government expect to quantify such costs?
These are all important matters and must be addressed. But from these Benches we give an undertaking to support the Government in their intention and to have a speedy progress of the Bill through the relevant stages into law. We shall honour that undertaking even though the Bill as it stands, without explanation, appears to suffer from some major and serious defects of drafting. In its current form the Bill contravenes the Ottawa Convention and would then put the country in breach of its obligations under that convention and make us depart from our long-standing tradition of honouring, ratifying and implementing in every detail the treaties and conventions that we have signed. For that reason we would be derelict in our legislative duty if we settled for cursory scrutiny and chose to ignore the serious defects.
I assure your Lordships that at the Committee stage of the Bill we shall not be pushing these specific points to votes, but I hope that we shall have the opportunity for a comprehensive and serious debate to seek answers to the many important points that have been raised in another place and to some of the issues that I have raised today.
11.56 a.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am most grateful for the comprehensive speeches made by the Minister and by the speaker for the Opposition with regard to this important Bill. I wish to add my words to what they have said about the effect of landmines. In many ways landmines are the scourge of the poorest countries in the world and the poorest people in those

509
countries and have the terrible effect of not only worsening war itself and the violence of war but also depriving people of the benefits of peace. Indeed, many Members of the House, not least the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, have seen the terrible effects of landmines in countries such as Afghanistan, Bosnia, Cambodia, Angola and Mozambique. One of the most awful legacies is that it becomes almost impossible for civilian populations to begin to rehabilitate their countries after the effects of war have otherwise ended because landmines put so many people at risk.
In another place the Foreign Secretary made the dramatic point that in the course of the period in which he was speaking no fewer than 20 people would have been blown up by landmines and that many of those people would have lost their lives or lost their capacity ever again to lead an active and full life. So it is right and appropriate that we are addressing the Landmines Bill. I echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. No one in the House wishes in any way to impede, obstruct or delay the passage of the Bill. Certainly, speaking for my party, I give a pledge that we will do everything we can to assist the Government in getting it on the statute book.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I wish to say a word of thanks to all the individuals, many of them unknown and unsung, who have made a tremendous contribution to this convention and the instruments that now follow to ratify it. Apart from the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Mines Agency, the Halo Trust and the Mines Advisory Group, it is appropriate to mention two individuals. One is the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, who has made a great contribution to bringing this matter to the attention of the public; and no one at this solemn moment can forget the astonishing capacity of Diana, Princess of Wales, in being able to illuminate causes and turn them into matters that attracted and brought behind them the full commitment of many thousands of human beings.
I want to pay tribute to Canada. As the Minister said, that country has played a crucial part in the creation of the momentum that made this convention possible. One should also add that Canada has played a most distinguished role time and again in world diplomacy on issues of human rights, humanitarian behaviour and in trying to end suffering. We are proud to see Canada as a member of our Commonwealth and recognise all that she has achieved, and continues to achieve, in this field.
I wish to say a word about the consistent commitment of my own party to landmines legislation. It is fair to say that before any other party, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who has himself frequently visited Bosnia and other parts of the world, has investigated and studied the laying of mines and whether they can be lifted and disposed of. He deserves tribute on this occasion because his engagement has not been simply that of a legislator but as an active seeker after an attempt to end this particular form of warfare.
We are delighted that the Government have now taken this opportunity. I hope that it means they will enable the United Kingdom to be one of the crucial signatories as one of the first 40. The speed at which
510
countries are ratifying the convention is so great that we should do our very best to ensure that the United Kingdom is among the first 40 signatories because it is a country whose citizens included Diana, Princess of Wales. Therefore, it seems singularly appropriate that we should be among those who ensure that this convention is brought into force. As your Lordships know, it requires 40 ratifications to achieve that. It is very important, in memory of Princess Diana, that we should be among the first 40.
Having said all that and having added the great tribute that we wish to pay to Her Majesty's Government for having already destroyed, as I understand it, over half of the existing stockpile of landmines in this country and for the work that they have done in training some 2,000 workers in the training offices of the Ministry of Defence in an attempt to try to correct this scourge, it is right and proper that we thank the Minister, the Foreign Secretary and indeed the Chief Whips in both Houses for getting this legislation through at a rapid pace.
I now turn to three difficulties which arise under the Bill. Because the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has gone into great detail on this, I do not need to repeat everything he said. However, from the point of view of a party which is passionately in favour of this legislation, I wish to say something about why we in another place took the view that the present outcome in Clause 5, which qualifies the Bill, raises questions about compatibility with the convention, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said. In that connection I wish to pursue one or two aspects of that clause for a moment or two.
I believe that it is very important, as far as possible, to have legal views on this matter from this House, which is particularly well qualified to give them. Two questions arise and one was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. We share his concerns. Clause 5, in a sense, appears to pick out the one action of laying mines as the one objection that could be raised to British troops being engaged in joint actions, joint peacekeeping operations and possibly even joint military operations like those in the Gulf. Does it suffice to meet the convention simply to specify this one action of specifically laying mines and make that the centre of the issue of the legal objection to British troops being involved in that single aspect of such exercises? As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, pointed out, and as the convention says quite explicitly in Article 1.1, there is a whole range of activities that the convention clearly rules out. It makes it clear that that is without reservation, qualification or any capacity to amend the statements in the convention. They do not include only the laying of mines.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, quoted Article 1.1, but I again remind the House of it. The activities include the use of mines, their procurement and a whole range of associated operations. In Clause 5 we are taking out just one of those activities. We are, to use a common phrase, "cherry picking" one activity only and saying, "This is the one on which we shall concentrate and it is this one that will be in breach of the convention should a joint exercise involve British troops in so doing".

511
I was very disturbed by the statement made by the Minister for the Armed Forces in another place. He specifically said—I believe I have his words before me—that Clause 5 would not prevent British forces engaging in co-operation in military exercises; in planning and arranging exercises which might involve the laying of mines by non-signatories to the convention—by those countries which have not ratified it even if they were conscious and aware that landmines were being laid in that joint operation. He made it plain that in his view that would not be caught by this Bill. I find that quite hard to understand.
I move on to the second point. I do not want to labour the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. The second point as regards Clause 5 is a very different one. We know—and we may as well be honest about it in this House—that the main reason for Clause 5 is that the United Kingdom is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and that the central and most significant power in that organisation is the United States. We also know that, partly because the United States perceives the laying of mines as a crucial defensive posture with specific regard to the borders between North and South Korea, and because she does not yet see an alternative form of defence against what is unquestionably a very strange rogue state in the shape of North Korea, at this stage the United States is reluctant to agree to sign the convention.
There is a second reason which the United States gives—and I pay tribute to this—that she has destroyed all the landmines in her arsenal that were not self-destructive. Indeed, we have the word of the American Defense Department on 30th June that the remaining 80 landmines in the American arsenal that were not self-destructive were in fact eradicated. There are now no mines in the American arsenal that are not supposed to be self-destructive. As many noble Lords know, the problem is that the belief in mines being self-destructive has an element of euphoria about it. It is not quite correct that all so-called self-destructing mines in practice do self-destruct. One cannot allow civilians back into agricultural areas, their own towns, villages and cities if, say, 10 per cent. of landmines may not have been cleared. That is the difficulty. While I recognise that the United States is trying to move in the spirit of reducing the consequences of landmines, she herself would admit that she sees no possibility of ratifying the convention, to use the words of President Clinton, before the year 2006. That represents a great many innocent civilian deaths.
I must ask the Minister my next question quite directly. Why does the United Kingdom feel—I understand that it is on the basis of legal advice to the Foreign Office—that we have to go as far as Clause 5, when other loyal members of NATO see no obligation to undertake such a very wide-scale exception from the terms of the convention? We know that France has signed the convention without making any such exemption in legislation. Although not a full member of NATO, France is a planning and strategy member. Germany, which is a full member of NATO, has not, as far as I know, introduced legislation along these lines. We know that Canada, the author and begetter of the
512
legislation, felt it sufficient to put forward a declaration—it is not legislation—when it ratified the convention, making it clear that Canadian troops would not be at risk if they engaged in joint military operations, provided that they did not actively engage in activities which included the laying of mines.
When in another place my honourable friend the spokesman on defence and foreign affairs for the Liberal Democrats raised the issue of whether it is possible to define the provisions of Clause 5 more narrowly by referring to "active engagement in the laying of mines in military operations", he was told (for reasons which to me are not adequate or clear) that that did not have the Government's support. I have to ask why, if the legislation unqualified on the one hand or a declaration attending upon ratification on the other hand are adequate for our allies in NATO, they are not adequate for us and why we have to go this further step which appears—here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan—possibly to put at risk the full-hearted ratification of this crucial convention. I ask in all good faith since I am not, thank God, a lawyer whether the Government can throw more light on why they believe that it is essential to take this further step.
I do not want to detain the House, but perhaps I may raise briefly two or three other issues to which we shall return in Committee. I refer first to whether the provision for training does not appear to go rather far in terms of the provision for landmines which will be accepted within our ratification of the convention. I should like to probe a little the Government's reasons for believing that considerable numbers of landmines must be preserved for the purpose of training. Perhaps they feel that that is essential if we are to provide also for the training of other countries. Here, I pay a warm tribute to the Secretary of State for Defence for his great attention to the fact that Britain can provide expert help to other countries in dealing with this scourge.
I shall not pursue my second question in detail now. It relates to the difficult issue of anti-tank mines. I raise this because I have spoken to the United States authorities and I understand that they believe that their most recent form of anti-tank mine, which includes within it an anti-handling device, is, unfortunately from their point of view, caught by the convention because of that mine's specific configuration. This point was raised in another place. I understand that the method called Shielder, which is the British form of anti-vehicle and anti-tank mine may (or may not) be so caught. There was no clear answer to this question when it was raised by Members of another place. It would be helpful if the Government could throw some light on the distinction between anti-vehicle and anti-tank mines which are or are not caught by the convention. Merely referring to whether the mine in question does or does not have an anti-handling device does not answer the question, given that the American system, which is caught by the convention, contains an anti-handling device.
My final question is more positive. I understand that a number of countries are now researching and working on devices which may be able to find and destroy mines in the many existing minefields around the world. I understand that one such system involves clasping the

513
mine in an extremely hot device which then blows up the mine. The trouble is that one first has to know where the mines are located. To my mind, the more exciting development is the so-called "red eye", which I believe is a Dutch development, which enables a wheelbarrow-like device to be taken over minefields and to detect the mines as it goes.
I cannot think of any area of scientific research that would be more to the credit of this country, with its remarkable capacity in this area, than that. I am delighted that Her Majesty's Government have provided more money in their recent Comprehensive Spending Review for what is sometimes called "blue sky" or pure research. Could the Minister tell us something about research in this critical area? I can think of nothing that would be more to the credit of the country that invents successful devices for dealing with both plastic mines and the more traditional forms. Perhaps the Minister will be able to say a little more about the current research and how promising she believes it to be.
I repeat that this is a crucial Bill. My party and I are honoured to be part of its passage.
12.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I rise briefly to say how much people in the Churches welcome the Ottawa convention and its ratification in this Bill. This is not the time to elaborate on the devastating effects of such weapons. They are well summed up in the description of General Sir Hugh Beach that they,
"Never miss, strike blindly and go on killing long after hostilities have ended. They are the greatest violators of international law, practising blind terrorism".
Many people and organisations have worked for a convention such as this. The General Synod of the Church of England debated the subject last in 1994 and called upon Her Majesty's Government,
"Urgently to seek an international and legally enforceable ban on the production, stockpiling, transfer and use of anti-personnel mines".
That resolution was passed by 287 votes in favour and none against. So, there is very widespread, strong and understandable support for the Bill.
In 1994 there was some ambiguity in the then Government's position on so called "self-destruct" mines. As we have just been reminded by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, with a failure rate of one in 10, those mines can have terrible consequences for civilians. I take it that that ambiguity has now been eliminated. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, reiterated, there are still ambiguities about certain classes of weapon and about whether or not they are included in the provisions. It would be good to hear from the Minister whether there is any such ambiguity and, if so, whether it can be eliminated.
As we have heard, Clause 5 was the focus of some serious exchanges in the other place. We have heard compelling reasons as to why this whole issue needs to be examined thoroughly. I can understand why the Ministry of Defence wishes to protect our troops in this way. I also appreciate the answer that the Foreign
514
Secretary gave in the other place. I should like to hear something further about whether Clause 5 is, indeed, compatible with the convention.
However, whether or not that clause is compatible with the convention, none of us would want its provisions to lessen the sense of urgency about getting the convention fully ratified by the whole international community. As I understand it, major manufacturers of landmines, such as China, Russia and Pakistan, have not yet signed the agreement. As we know, the United States will not be signing it until 2006.
This is one of those issues on which dedicated campaigning organisations have achieved a most notable breakthrough and the Government are giving a clear lead. The unequivocal words spoken in another place are worth repeating. It was said that this Bill,
"will ensure that no British soldier will ever use an anti-personnel landmine again; no British company will be allowed to manufacture anti-personnel mines; no one anywhere will ever be able to acquire our anti-personnel landmines from a British source and our operational stockpiles of anti-personnel landmines will be eliminated".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/7/98; col. 1407.]
It is good to hear those words. Yet two major tasks still lie before us: to persuade the whole international community both to sign and abide by the convention and to clear the existing minefields. We know that about 60 million landmines lie scattered in more than 70 countries ready to kill or maim innocent civilians.
I hope that the Government will feel encouraged, first, to use every effort to persuade other countries to ratify the convention and, secondly, to contribute all possible resources to clearing existing anti-personnel mines as quickly as possible.
12.20 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, many more of your Lordships want to take part in this debate. I shall thus be brief.
I most warmly welcome the Bill and congratulate my right honourable friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence, the Secretary of State for International Development and all their ministerial colleagues on fulfilling a further manifesto commitment.
This measure is widely seen outside Westminster as the "Princess Diana Memorial Bill" and deservedly so. Her humanity was nowhere more eloquently expressed than in her work to limit the appalling human cost of landmines. Estimates vary but one is that more than 100 million landmines still lie scattered in 70 countries across the world, indiscriminately killing and maiming their innocent victims, even as we speak here today, and further impoverishing many of the world's poorest nations by preventing the growing of food and reducing the availability of clean water supplies.
Diana, Princess of Wales, became the patron saint of landmine victims with her high profile visits to Angola and Bosnia. Yet one year later nothing much has changed. The funding of operations to clear mines is still woefully inadequate, and over 300,000 of the people so far injured by them are still left waiting for the help they need. Sadly, more and more of them die unregarded and unhelped with every passing week.

515
Ken Rutherford and Jerry White of the Landmine Survivors Network—themselves both victims of landmines—recall the Princess accepting their suggestion that she should visit Bosnia with them to meet other victims and how, to no avail, some people in Whitehall tried to dissuade her from going.
This reminds me of the raucous and persistent attempts made to dissuade the Co-operative Bank from its ethical stance in campaigning to end British involvement in the making and selling of landmines—an offence that will now be punishable, under the terms of this Bill, by a prison sentence of up to 14 years. The bank's moral leadership, so clearly vindicated by the Bill, is honoured by everyone who recalls today the extent and ferocity of the criticisms to which it was subjected. I do so as former President of the Co-operative Congress, the movement's highest office. At the same time, I pay tribute now, as I did then, to my noble friend Lord Thomas of Macclesfield. He was then, as Terry Thomas, the bank's chief executive and acted in the highest traditions of the Co-operative movement.
Princess Diana told her dissuaders that she was,
"fed up of being a poster princess,"
and wanted to get her hands dirty. In doing so, both in Bosnia and Angola, she gave hope to landmine victims everywhere. One of those she met, 15 year-old Mirzeta Gabelic, lost her right leg when she stepped on a landmine as she took a short cut across a field on her way to the market. "She had real feeling", says Mirzeta. "It wasn't like talking to an important person and Diana said she would help us get the materials we needed for a new bedroom". But since the Princess's death, three weeks after her visit, Mirzeta's lot has not improved much. "For a time", say Ken Rutherford and Jerry White, "those she visited felt someone cared, someone who could make a difference … governments wanted to get on board and there were big promises of money. Then Diana was killed and the phones didn't ring any more. We've lost the momentum".
I hope profoundly that this debate may be of some help in restarting the momentum. Princess Diana wanted and worked tirelessly not only for a total ban on landmines but for meaningful help for their victims. We owe it to her and to them now to address their needs with renewed urgency. Not to do so will be to leave the severely disabled people to whom Diana gave hope both doubly disadvantaged and in double despair. I am sure that in her reply my noble friend will want to endorse the urgency of their compelling claim to our attention.
Today's debate is a most appropriate occasion for reminding ourselves also—I speak as a former Minister of War Pensions—how deeply indebted all of us are to the victims of landmines for whom the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association (BLESMA) speaks with such well-merited authority. The Bill is about saving people from mutilation. BLESMA's work is about giving more dignity to the remaining years of limbless ex-service people, mainly war pensioners over 70, who are already mutilated. They lost their limbs, acting on our behalf, that others across the world might live in peace and security. Your Lordships' House needs no
516
reminding of their sacrifices on our behalf at E1 Alamein, at Anzio, at Arromanches, in the Ardennes and other scenes of great valour by our Armed Forces. Nor does this House need any reminding that those who were mutilated then deserve well of all of us now.
With advancing years the problems of disability intensify and multiply. BLESMA recently put to my noble friend Lady Hollis and her department a proposal for two new age additions to the war pensions of ageing war pensioners. It would be deeply appreciated by the ex-service community as a whole if acceptance of that proposal could be timed to coincide with the enactment of this Bill as further evidence of the Government's commitment not only to ban landmines but also to make life better for their victims.
Total spending on war and war widows' pensions will cost £137 million less this year at constant prices than in 1993–94. This is not because the value of individual pensions and allowances has been reduced, but because the number of pensioners is falling year by year as their average age increases and more and more of the war disabled and bereaved die.
The new help, of minimal cost, now sought by BLESMA for the most needful of its members could thus very easily be met without increasing the totality of spending on war pensions in the year ahead. To help them would be a most fitting way of giving irrefutable proof that this Government really do care.
12.30 p.m.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I speak in this debate with a good deal of emotion, but I first declare three interests. I am the honorary Colonel of 156 North West Transport Regiment of the Royal Logistic Corps, and as such have a great deal of contact with young soldiers, particularly some of those giving their time as TA soldiers in Bosnia. I am a trustee of the board of the British Red Cross, and I am a non-executive director of the BayGen Power Group, the relevance of which will become clear later.
I welcome the Bill. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Moynihan for the thorough speech that he made, which means that I can be all the briefer. I, too, believe that there are some tributes to be paid. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, paid a tribute to my noble friend Lord Deedes, who is not able to be in his place today, but his willingness to go into some of those unpleasant places, which I know all too well, and then to write about them, talk about them and explain them has had a great deal of effect on the work that has been done.
I pay tribute also to Chris Moon—an amputee who has been helping the British Red Cross to get this message across. The message that must emanate from this debate and our debates next week must be on three counts. It is not just the banning of landmines which is critical; it is education about landmines; and the clearance of landmines. There is a threefold message that we must send from this House.
The Bill is a critical means to a vital end. Without dwelling upon it, I share the deep anxiety expressed by my noble friend Lord Moynihan about Clause 5. Having

517
read the Ottawa Treaty and the explanations thereof provided by the ICRC, I know that there is a great deal to be sorted out in the next seven days. I have confidence that the Minister and her civil servants will put their minds to resolving this matter. I implore her to do so, because it is important, not just for this country, but to persuade those countries which are not yet willing to ratify, to explain the detail of why we should proceed in the way that the Government have advised.
There is one more thank you I wish to express. It is to the Secretary of State for Defence. When the right honourable George Robertson attended the landmine conference only a few weeks ago on 24th June, which he will remember well the Bill was not on our parliamentary agenda before the Summer Recess. The questioning in the opening session, which he handled remarkably well, convinced him that something had to be done, and it has been done. Although I was sad that he was unable to announce that morning that the Bill was coming forward, it is now with us, and we must be grateful for that.
There are many aspects to the work that has gone on in order to arrive at this point. As my noble friend Lord Moynihan said, I have seen the ravages caused to innocent people by landmines. It was in 1991 that I first went to Angola and saw the destruction of anything that one could call life for those already exceedingly poor people. There was a lack of prostheses at that time and a huge need.
But I suppose that it was Bosnia in 1992 and, thereafter, Somalia, particularly around Hargeisa in Northern Somalia, Mozambique and many of the other countries to which this country has for many years given good advice and sound development assistance, which impressed on me the need for this landmine ban above all else.
I remember the first time I visited the fields outside Lobito in Angola. I walked along, with guidance obviously, to the area which was then being de-mined. I heard from the Halo Trust, which has done such outstanding work, just how long it takes to clear a hundred square metres of what should be agricultural land. I was shown a small landmine. I nearly brought a casing with me this morning, but I believe that it is against the rules of the House to do so, so I refrained. A small landmine was tucked in under the bank of a pathway. People had walked along that path for some time—children to school, women to collect water. They were people going about their daily business. Nothing had happened. Then one day, perhaps because of rain or because the soil had begun to break up, a foot was placed at a slightly different angle at the edge of the path and the entire area and the people walking along the path were blown apart.
We have a real problem with children, farmers, and water carriers, but also refugees. Refugees, by their very nature are fleeing from their own conflicts. They go to adjacent areas which, frequently, have been mined. We shall only be able to tackle those problems when the banning of landmines has been achieved across the world.
518
We have heard many statistics today. I shall not repeat them, but I will give one or two others. The UN Landmine Action Centre considers that at present only 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. of the land minefields of Bosnia-Herzegovina have been identified. We have soldiers there. Many others have soldiers there. There is a huge job to be done. I mentioned that, because it is important to realise it is not just a question of long-past wars, but recent wars have exacerbated this problem to a huge degree.
We know that metal detectors, prodders, and trained dogs do an excellent job, but it is not enough, when every 20 minutes one victim is killed or maimed. It is worth concentrating our efforts also on finding new ways of detecting landmines. That is where the BayGen Power Group connection comes in. Many noble Lords will remember the wind-up radio invented in this country. That technology is now being produced in radios and torch lanterns in South Africa by disabled people. It is being extended. In the battle to get rid of landmines, a discussion with the American Department of Defense led to a new research opportunity for BayGen with Battelle Industries in the USA. I am glad to say that work is proceeding well, although slowly, on a wind-up landmine detector. That is important because no electricity is required. It is always in the hands of the operators. Noble Lords will be aware that there has to be back-up power because of the delicacy of operation which will be undertaken by such a piece of equipment.
With new equipment, and indeed education on how to observe where landmines might be, and with the Bill, we may be able to achieve real success. I believe above all that it is not just the research that I and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, have mentioned that is important; it is vital to educate even illiterate people about the dangers of landmines and how they can be avoided by diagrams and methods that people can understand. It is through education in the schools of those countries so badly affected by landmines that we can make a real difference and at least reduce the number of people who are being killed or maimed.
I very much welcome the Bill. Your Lordships' House has an excellent record for sorting out those matters in legislation which, perhaps through rushed presentation in another place, have not been finished properly. We look forward to doing that. But do not let us stop just at banning the anti-personnel landmines. Let us do those things that my noble friend Lord Moynihan and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, stated. Let us make sure that we educate, and undertake proper research, in order to get on with the huge job of clearing all those mines we know are hidden across the world which can destroy and hinder life for so many people.
12.40 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, we have had a remarkably constructive debate; and I hope to keep it that way. We have had the inevitable and justified song of praise for the landmine treaty and the actions of our own Government in complying with it in advance, in destroying the mines and ceasing training in mine warfare. That praise is due, and the rejoicing is justified.

519
It has been one tiny, painful step forward in the now, I hope, irreversible march of humanity away from the values of war and torture.
I turn to one practical point about the Bill: Clause 5. Almost every speaker has found fault with Clause 5. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, found extraordinarily vigorous fault with it. He described what was wrong with the clause with a force and precision which are unusual in this House. I know that it was meant constructively. I hope that it will be taken that way and that we shall benefit from what he said. It seemed to me that he had the right solution.
First, I address a mythical character. He is the man I think of in my mind as "that sapper". He was mentioned in the House of Commons debate and has been mentioned here outside the Chamber. He is a sapper who has built a bridge, having been ordered to do so and with no particular idea what it was for. He then finds that the American or Turkish army—let us not forget that there are two NATO powers who are non-signatories—has taken a landmine across it. According to this contentious myth, he would then become liable to 14 years in prison under Clause 5 of the Bill.
There is an easy way out of that: it is to read down to Clause 6. We find that anyone who inadvertently helps America or Turkey towards laying a mine is in the clear. From the language in the Bill, so long as he did not know that what was in the box was a landmine, he is in the clear. That surely would apply to building a bridge. So long as he did not know what was intended to go across it, he would be in the clear. I think that that argument need not hold us up too much.
The position of the Government on this is rather broad. The Bill allows the British Army to assist and encourage the laying of landmines or to take part in the transfer, acquisition or disposal of landmines for the purpose of laying, by a non-signatory country. It allows it in the sense that anyone who does that is not liable to the penalties as described in Clause 5. It is Clause 2 which sets out the offences.
We have to ensure that British people operating alongside the Americans are not open to prosecution. The best way to do that—it may well be the only way—is to ensure that they should not operate alongside the Americans in any operation or exercise where the Americans want to lay mines. There is not likely to be any country in Europe where they wish to do that; and I do not envisage NATO going frequently to Korea. We all have reason to hope that the Americans will soon forget all about landmines: once they have a Korean settlement, which may well now be within their grasp.
There is not, and will not be, a consensus in NATO for laying mines. All but two NATO members are adhering to the convention. Much the simplest solution to the problem is that NATO operations should not include the laying of landmines. There is wide support for that. There has been a questionnaire to NATO member governments, during the drafting of the convention. I have not seen the responses; I have seen the questions. They are extremely thorough. Presumably the responses to that were overwhelmingly positive to
520
the idea that a ban is a ban, and that is that; and that their people (of whichever country is responding) may not take part in planning to use anti-personnel landmines. If that is the consensus, we must remember that NATO operates by consensus. It is the form of democracy which operates in this great alliance of democratic countries. It would be a pity if that consensus were to founder on the refusal by two members to adopt the latest arms control treaty. NATO consensus can work either way, and a consensus does not exist in Europe for using landmines in any circumstances.
But let us remember also how enthusiastic President Clinton used to be for a total ban. "America will lead", he said. Then the Pentagon said no, remember Korea where millions of mines are planted, and millions more could be if the North Koreans came pouring down the peninsula. We owe it to the world to encourage the Americans to return to their early enthusiasm. It is not conversion that is required, but simply a return to the justifiable position they earlier occupied.
I wish to raise a new point which has not been mentioned in the debate. It is about the effect of Article 5, and the policy based on it, on other arms control conventions that the United States has not signed. I refer in particular to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and to the inspection regime of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Senator Helms will not allow either of those, and if they are joined on the shelf by a third—what would be the general effect in the world?
If we allow our soldiers to collaborate with a non-signatory in preparing for the latter to lay mines, how can we object to the Indian and Pakistani nuclear weapons tests? They have not signed the non-proliferation treaty. The United States has not signed the Landmines Convention. But unless we are categorical about the latter convention, how can we be categorical about the others? If our legislation contains loopholes for the sake of collaboration with the United States in one area of arms control, what is to stop others producing loopholes for anything they please?
I want to quote something Dr. John Reid said in the House of Commons debate when asked what would happen if an American commander gave the order to lay landmines to British troops under his command. He answered:
"Our troops would not carry out such an order because, for them, it would be an illegal order".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/7/98; col. 1387.]
That is good. That is the rock basis of the affair. It is what we want to keep our eyes on and adjust the remainder to that.
I heard what the Minister, in introducing the Bill, said about the need for a provision such as Clause 5. But let us take courage from the fact that, as far as I know, no other country has found it necessary to have such a clause in its legislation taking on board the convention. Germany will not be taking any step in this direction. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, has already pointed that out. The French will not be taking any step in this direction and will not be co-operating with the Americans in any exercise or plan which involves the Americans laying landmines.

521
The Canadian Government declaration is attached to the text of the convention, and it stops short of our wording. In my opinion, it is a preferable form. It does not dwell in detail on the many ways in which we shall be able to help a non-signatory. With the leave of the House, I should like to read it into Hansard. The declaration states:
"It is the understanding of the Government of Canada that, in the context of operations, exercises or other military activity sanctioned by the United Nations or otherwise conducted in accordance with international law, the mere participation by the Canadian Forces, or individual Canadians, in operations, exercises or other military activity conducted in combination with the armed forces of States not party to the Convention which engage in activity prohibited under the Convention would not, by itself, be considered to be assistance, encouragement or inducement in accordance with the meaning of those terms in article 1, paragraph 1(c)".
That is Article 1 of the convention. I suggest that that form of words is fully satisfactory and does not carry the disadvantages which appear in Clause 5 of the Bill. I hope that in Committee a solution along those lines will prove possible.
12.52 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, for the way in which she explained the Bill so clearly. Throughout, she made it clear that the Bill applies only to anti-personnel mines. I hope that the Bill will be passed before the Recess and I fully support it. Today, we have an opportunity to ask for more information and to put questions to the Government about the effects of the Bill.
I am a former military person. I was in the Army, in uniform, before World War II. I served throughout, until I was wounded and partially disabled at the end, the day before Hitler committed suicide. I acquired an unenviable familiarity with enemy mines, including anti-personnel mines. My first observation is that the Bill is deliberately restricted to anti-personnel mines and does not apply to all landmines and to other types of mines. That is because it follows the Ottawa convention.
However, during the Second Reading debate in the other place, the right honourable gentleman the Foreign Secretary, in introducing the Bill, referred throughout simply to landmines. The words "anti-personnel" did not pass his lips. He said:
"Clause 2 prohibits … British citizens, from using … possessing or exporting a landmine".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/7/98; col. 1347.]
It does not do that. That statement is incorrect. The Bill refers only to anti-personnel mines.
The Bill attempts to separate and to define anti-personnel mines as distinct from anti-tank and anti-vehicle landmines, which are not prohibited by the Ottawa convention. I congratulate the noble Baroness today on first using the words "anti-personnel" and for continuing. She avoided the possible misunderstanding.
Mr. Cook, in winding up the debate, stated:
"the cost of destroying Britain's stockpile of landmines will be some £5 million".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/7/98; col. 1369.]
522
Did he really mean our stockpile of all landmines, or does that figure apply only to the anti-personnel mines which we possess? That must be made clear. Will the Minister confirm that our stocks of anti-tank and other types of landmine are not affected by the Bill? That is important because the British Army should not be deprived of the other categories of landmine until perhaps another international convention applies to them and until all the major military nations have accepted it. The Ottawa convention has not been signed by the United States or by the main exporters of landmines; that is, Russia, China and Pakistan. We will be setting a very good example to the rest of the world by enacting the Bill.
A fact that has not yet been made sufficiently publicly clear is that the United Kingdom has not sold or provided any of the anti-personnel mines which have caused the most distressing injuries to civilians and children in areas where what I call "tribal wars" have taken place; for example, Cambodia, Angola and the former Yugoslavia. I ask the Minister to confirm that fact. Nor have British troops laid any of these mines. Any mines laid by the British Army in the past 60 years have been fully recorded and are later lifted.
In the reverse direction, the British have taken the initiative in removing these mines. British voluntary organisations started the international movement to lift anti-personnel mines laid indiscriminately during the tribal wars to which I have referred, in particular the organisation Halo, to which my friend and colleague, the late Colonel Colin Mitchell, devoted the later years of his life. That organisation still carries out that life-saving and limb-saving work. Besides our military connection, Colonel Mitchell was my PPS in the other place during some of the time when I was a Secretary of State.
It is my understanding that no British firms have exported anti-personnel mines for the past 25 years or more. I should be grateful for confirmation of that. British troops have had the difficult task of clearing mines in the Falkland Islands since the 1982 war. They are all Argentine mines, not ours; and they are not just anti-personnel mines, they are anti-vehicle mines, too.
I ask government spokesmen and parliamentarians to avoid making general statements about a global ban on landmines without making it clear whether they are referring only to anti-personnel or to all landmines. Otherwise, they will be inadvertently misleading or confusing the public.
My first experience of anti-personnel mines was in the last two years of World War II. The Germans had introduced a small, sensitive mine made of wood. It did not respond to our mine detectors, which registered only metal. It was called the schuhmine. In Holland, in October 1944, after some tough fighting, we found that the enemy had withdrawn during the night. At first light, leading troops of the Scottish Infantry Division, in which I was serving as a Major, advanced, disturbed only by some desultory shelling and mortaring. I was on foot with my walkie-talkie and radio operator. The soldiers in front were sweeping with their mine detectors. I was suddenly aware of an unusual explosion,

523
then another. Two men of the Gordon Highlanders, because that was the regiment, had stepped on schuhmines. They were behind the mine detectors but they were also behind me. I can tell your Lordships that that is an alarming experience.
The schuhmine, as would be expected from its name, blew the foot and boot off the soldier who stepped on it. Of course, we continued our advance. That was the wisest option. I reported the situation by radio to warn others. The medical section and the stretcher bearers had to take the same risks in order to reach the casualties.
We had been briefed about that new German anti-personnel mine, but at that time our detectors were useless against them. Your Lordships will understand why I have a special interest in banning anti-personnel mines concerning which this Bill is the first step. Your Lordships may now be thinking that I stepped on a mine myself, my disabled legs and sticks being a legacy. That did not happen. I was wounded months later by a bullet through my middle.
Anti-tank mines casually laid in recent global wars can be dangerous too. Here I come to a case that I knew well. Only a few years ago, a young cousin of my wife, Mr. Alan Stewart, leading a television team covering the civil war in the Sudan was killed when his Land-Rover hit a randomly laid mine. That was not an anti-personnel mine; it was an anti-vehicle mine. Your Lordships may remember that incident or the notices about the subsequent memorial service at St. Columba's, Pont Street.
That brings me to the vague dividing line between anti-vehicle mines and anti-personnel mines, those to which this Bill applies. The anti-tank mine can be fused to be sufficiently sensitive to be detonated by a single pedestrian. It can also easily have a booby-trap attached to it which virtually converts into an anti-personnel mine. I very nearly went up on two occasions on anti-tank mines. I was credited with very good eyesight. Looking over the front of my operational half-track vehicle, I was able to observe, and stopped the driver just in time, the tops of German tellermines just visible ahead.
I also draw attention to Clause 5 which is intended to protect British troops, especially in situations where they are operating with the troops of our allies and other countries which are not party to the convention. Doubt has been expressed again today as to whether the clause has that effect legally and even whether it is consistent with the Ottawa convention. Opinions by eminent lawyers have taken opposite views and I shall not pursue that. But it is an extremely important point.
In an allied operation of that kind, the rules of engagement would also be a factor for Britain. Agreeing upon those has proved a very difficult and worrying task in hostilities of recent years for governments of this country and for commanders in the field involved.
A vital matter of concern, if this Bill is enacted as I hope it will be, is whether in future British troops would be deprived of a weapon which was still possessed by hostile countries with which we might be in conflict. Anyone who has commanded troops in action in war, especially in World War II, would want to protect his
524
soldiers from being placed in such a situation where they were at a disadvantage from the start without a key defensive weapon. I hope the Government can give an assurance in that regard and I realise that the Act will not come into force until the Government choose the day on which it starts.
I remind the House that landmines were an essential part of the defence of this country at the time of the Battle of Britain in 1940 and later. Our Scottish Division, which noble Lords may now think was ubiquitous, was defending the beaches in Southern England after Dunkirk and into early 1941. I saw those mines being laid on the beaches, combined with concrete and metal obstacles. We hope that we shall never be in that situation again, but it is worth remembering.
Noble Lords may regard me as an old soldier reminiscing about times past. However, I have spent the past two days taking part in a conference at the new Joint Services Command and Staff College at Bracknell. I have been at the previous annual conferences held by the three separate staff colleges at Camberley. I am invited to speak and answer questions on the major battles of World War II in which I fought. The conference is named "The Realities of War". I took the opportunity this week to hear from senior sapper officers who were there about technological developments in mines. Of course, the Royal Engineers have been the arm of the forces mainly responsible for laying and lifting mines. I am very glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, here. I can tell him from what I have seen at Bracknell that the merging of the three staff colleges seems to be proving very successful. He and I were both in the Commons at the same time and I hope it will not embarrass him if I say that I was glad about his appointment to the Ministry of Defence; I wish him luck; and I feel reassured that he is there.
Another reminiscence about mines which I bring in has a happier ending. It also illustrates the adaptability and ingenuity of the British soldier. In the group that I was commanding, I introduced methods of creating dug-outs, trenches and large gun pits by the calculated blowing of holes with high explosives. That replaced laborious digging, especially when the ground was very hard and saved time and lives in getting below ground level quickly. When my soldiers realised how much hard digging was being saved, they soon became experts in explosives and detonating systems. Finding the necessary high explosive was often a problem. However, our sappers, after lifting the enemy's anti-tank mines, tellermines in most cases, would stack them at the roadside and, with their permission, we helped ourselves to them. We then made use of those enemy weapons as explosives for our own benefit.
I hope that noble Lords expected some personal experiences in my speech as I believe that I am the only speaker in this debate old enough to have been in the forces throughout the last world war. We should support the Bill and give it the early passage requested by the Government. It is a first step and may have to be modified later. I shall not be surprised if there is a Landmine (Amendment) Bill in a few years' time. But the Bill is setting an example to the rest of the world.

525
I hope it will influence those countries which have been exporters of anti-personnel mines, although I fear they may simply regard it as a gesture by the British Government.
1.8 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I add my wholehearted support for the Bill, especially after the moving speech of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, with all his personal experiences and expertise on the subject.
This is not a time for mentioning the plethora of statistics, but the chilling fact that there are about 60 million landmines scattered around 70 countries which have killed and maimed an estimated 26,000 civilians, half of whom have been women and young children, has certainly highlighted the need for a worldwide ban on anti-personnel landmines.
Certainly the scourge of landmines has worsened with the proliferation of civil and tribal wars. The link between landmines and guerilla warfare has turned the landmine from a conventional weapon into an instrument of civilian terror. The Foreign Secretary aptly summarised the situation when, in his Second Reading speech in the other place, he said that after the trauma of war, landmines pollute the peace.
My interest in this subject stems from my having lived most of my life in Southern Africa and having spent a lot of that time in Mozambique and Angola—both countries which have suffered from this extremely serious landmine problem.
Most of the mines in Mozambique and Angola have been laid without markings or warnings to the civilian population. A large proportion of them have been laid in such a way that their victims are almost guaranteed to be civilians. The full impact of the devastating effects of landmines on civilians, particularly on young children, was vividly displayed when I visited Luanda earlier this year.
Facilities for the emergency treatment and social rehabilitation of landmine victims in both Angola and Mozambique are totally inadequate and certainly are not improving. Quite apart from the physical suffering caused in these two countries, landmines will certainly continue to present severe obstacles to the much needed economic development and economic recovery of these countries, as well as the implementation of relief programmes and, of course, the return of refugees, a point strongly reinforced by the extremely powerful speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, with all her experience of Africa.
As the Bill stands, there will need to be a number of amendments in order to ensure that the Bill is consistent with the wording of the Ottawa Convention. Several speakers have mentioned—and I do not want to go over powerful points that have already been raised—that the convention makes clear that a state party undertakes never under any circumstances to assist, encourage or induce anyone to engage in any prohibited activity. The United Kingdom Working Group on Landmines sent a brief, which I am sure many of your Lordships will have
526
received, which highlighted a number of such inconsistencies and claimed that the current Bill, as drafted, reduces the effect of the prohibition.
Despite the assurance of the Minister in her opening speech, I also share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, regarding Clause 5 on the protection of British troops. I do not, as I have said, want to go over many of the points that have already been raised, but I should like to touch briefly on three issues.
Concern has been expressed, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that the definition of landmine contained in the Bill differs from that in the Ottawa Convention. The definition in the Bill appears to be based on the design of the mine and not on its effects. The United Kingdom Working Group on Landmines feels that this Bill should certainly contain a far stronger definition of anti-personnel mines that is closer to the reality of mines.
My second concern is that of jurisdiction. I do not think earlier speakers have mentioned this point. Can the Minister tell the House in which territories the Bill will apply? I ask that because it probably applies to a number of British dependent territories, but not to territories such as Diego Garcia, where United States ships are reported to contain stocks of anti-personnel mines, or to the Falklands.
Finally, could the Minister comment briefly on the transit of prohibited objects, which is also not covered in this Bill? The Ottawa Convention specifically prohibits—and I quote—
"assisting in, or allowing in any way, the transit of anti-personnel mines".
Important though it is to clear landmines, it is equally vital that education programmes should be promoted to increase public awareness of landmines and to give instructions on their clearance.
I should like to conclude by joining in congratulating the Government both on introducing the Bill and also on the fact, as the Minister mentioned in her opening speech, that Britain has halved her stockpile of landmines and doubled her contribution to the clearing of landmines throughout the world. I should also like to pay my respects to the sterling work done by the late Diana, Princess of Wales, who succeeded in bringing this problem to the centre stage of public awareness; and also for all the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Deedes, with 40 approvals, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, mentioned—just what he needed to make the Ottawa Convention binding in international law. It is to be hoped that, once Britain has ratified the treaty, this will encourage other countries that signed the convention to follow suit as soon as possible.
1.16 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, first I must declare an interest in that I have been an active member of the British Red Cross for more years than I would like to mention. I wanted to contribute to this debate today as we have been discussing in the Red Cross problems of landmines since the beginning of the 1990s. The ICRC became heavily involved as a result of the experiences of its field staff, especially the surgeons who were

527
treating increasing numbers of victims of mines, of whom an appalling proportion were civilians who had no interest or part in the conflict. This produced horrible, painful and often terribly final grief for them and their families.
As the result of an international symposium on landmines which was held in April 1993, and a subsequent public call for a total ban on anti-personnel landmines, the ICRC not only raised public awareness around the world of the growing problem caused by the widespread and feckless use of anti-personnel landmines, but also set out to persuade governments of the urgent need for a total prohibition of these terrible weapons. This was a brave move, as it was considered by some, even of its own members, to be a political move, out of character for the ICRC, which had always prided itself on being a strictly non-political body.
We have heard today from many speakers, especially my noble friend Lady Chalker in her eloquent and moving speech, about these landmines and the horrors that they inflict on innocent citizens. I know, too, what they are talking about as I nursed for several years, and part of my training was at the Roehampton Artificial Limb Centre. There can be no question that the indiscriminate laying of non-self-destructing or non-self-neutralising anti-personnel mines should be totally banned. They are probably one of the nastiest weapons invented. That said, to quote the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, responding to a question during the Strategic Defence Review Statement:
"it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to work towards a nuclear-free world".—[Official Report, 8/7/98; col. 1277].
He hoped, too, for a world which had no bombs, bayonets or machine guns. He might even have said bows and arrows. In the best of all possible worlds, of course we would agree with him. Weapons are horrible, war is horrible; but, unfortunately, we live in a world which, alas, is not always peaceful and beautiful.
Even the United States, a non-signatory to the treaty, announced at the end of June that it was to detonate about 80 non-self-destructing landmines as part of ceremonies commemorating the final destruction of the US stockpile of more than 3.3 million non-self-destructing landmines. Moreover, along with the People's Republic of China, the Americans reaffirmed their commitment to ending the human suffering caused by the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel mines. Neither of these two countries has signed the Ottawa Treaty.
There has been a series of international treaties regarding the banning of different types of weapons, the use of which had come to affront the conscience of mankind—from poison gas to napalm to dumdum bullets. I shall not recite here today the long, long list. We are discussing the Ottawa Treaty which was signed by the Government in 1977 but which has yet to be ratified by the UK. The treaty is now obviously causing the Government some problems. We have yet to discover whether those problems are moral or legal. However, there is obviously enough in the treaty to trouble them in that we have in the Bill today Clause 5 which does not fall in line with the treaty, especially Article 19.
528
I have just a few simple questions for the Minister. First, will this Bill, attached to the treaty, stand up in international law? Secondly, how will our forces co-operate in manoeuvres with those of our NATO allies whose governments are not party to the convention? Thirdly, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, how have the French and the Germans, who have signed the treaty, dealt with this problem?
Finally, is it not the case that the real reason that we have this treaty is that so many states have, with almost frivolous irresponsibility, failed to observe the requirements of those most important previous treaties concerning landmines; namely, the Geneva Convention and the inhumane weapons convention? Both drew a clear distinction between the indiscriminate laying of non-self destructing anti-personnel mines and the use of "smart" anti-personnel mines directed at military targets which are properly marked or mapped. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for pointing out the difference so clearly today. Some say that banning the latter removes a vital defensive system without which soldiers lives are placed at risk. They add that there is a difference between laying mines in times of war for sound tactical reasons, as opposed to indiscriminate mining which is so abhorrent.
I should be grateful to the Minister if she could provide answers to my questions, but I should like to assure her that, like my noble friend Lord Moynihan, I support the spirit of the Bill and look forward to going into further detail during the Committee stage next week.
1.23 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, and other noble Lords who have spoken, I am very pleased that the Government have managed to squeeze this Bill in before the Recess. As a doctor, it might be expected that I should describe the graphic details of the effects of anti-personnel landmines, but noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I shall desist!
The preamble to the convention itself summarises quite effectively the reasons why it is necessary, as well as describing the previous protocols and United Nations declarations, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, which preceded it and led to its adoption and opening for signature last December.
It has been a very long campaign led, to a large degree, by many non-governmental organisations concerned with international development and human rights. In this country, I personally would single out the Mines Advisory Group from Cockermouth as doing especially good work. The UK Working Group on Landmines lists, at the foot of its notepaper, 55 British NGOs which have been involved in the landmines issue, and there are hundreds more worldwide. Princess Diana was actually quite late on the scene but no less important, because her involvement meant that the whole world became aware of the problem. Her stance was courageous (as it had previously been with AIDS victims) but, at the time, it certainly displeased some Members of the party diagonally opposite to me.

529
If names are to be mentioned, I think that my noble friend Lord Puttnam should not be forgotten. He was a pioneer in raising awareness dramatically and movingly when, in "The Killing Fields" set in Cambodia, the recently orphaned small boy being carried to safety was killed by an anti-personnel landmine while, incidentally, acting as a shield and saving the life of his rescuer Dith Pran, the main character in the film.
Quite apart from the direct impact of anti-personnel landmines on non-combatants, especially children, several noble Lords have pointed out the important indirect effect that they have on food production by making large tracks of potentially useful agricultural land into no-go areas, so increasing the need for food aid and inhibiting the return of refugees, thus putting back development for years after the conflict itself has ended.
Before discussing the Bill itself, perhaps my noble friend the Minister could give the House some idea of the proportion of countries which have signed the Ottawa Convention likely to ratify it? There are 126 countries on the list, as printed in Article 22 of the convention. Can my noble friend say how many more have signed since December 1997, and how many countries have ratified? Further, do we know how many more have actually announced their intention to do so?
We know that three major powers—Russia, China and the United States—will not sign and ratify it at present; though, as we have heard, the USA will do so but only by the year 2006. Unfortunately, most of the countries in which conflict is currently in progress, or where there is considerable international tension, are not among the signatories. In fact, 11 countries in the Middle East, 13 out of 15 countries of the former Soviet Union, 12 countries in Africa, 12 in Asia and just two in the Americas have not signed. Their populations together total more than half the population of the world.
I suggest that those countries would be much more likely to sign or ratify the convention if the potential conflicts both inter and intra-state, which are troubling them, could be settled. It is very gratifying to know that Cambodia, Angola, Mozambique, Uganda, Croatia and Bosnia, which were recently in severe conflict situations and where landmines had a terrible impact, are now at peace and among the signatories. Thus, I suggest that the United Nations has a further incentive to strengthen its role in conflict resolution.
A large part of the debate in another place last week—as well as this afternoon—concerned Clause 5. My noble friend has explained why the Government think that it is necessary. As my noble friend Lord Kennet has mentioned, the Canadian Government have entered a declaration of understanding in the convention for the same purpose. Like my noble friend, I prefer their wording to the wording in the Bill. Their parliamentary Bill—passed by the Canadian House of Commons—permitting ratification, includes the following phrase with regard to participation in joint military exercises with a non-signatory state,
"that participation is not prohibited if [it] does not amount to active assistance in that prohibited activity".
530
The words "active assistance" will cover a wider area than Clause 5(b), which disallows only the actual laying of anti-personnel mines. However, I am quite sure that all this will be discussed at length next week during the Committee and Report stages (if we have a Report stage). At this juncture it is worth reminding my noble friend that, if the Government introduce an agreed amendment, they will still have a week in which to send it back to another place where it can be speedily agreed if there is all-party support.
Finally, I should like to comment on humanitarian de-mining. I realise that the Bill itself is not the place where this should be discussed, although the destruction of stockpiles and rules for fact-finding missions, for example, are covered. The convention contains two important articles, Article 5 on the destruction of anti-personnel mines in mined areas, and Article 6 on international co-operation and assistance. I know that the Government have played a major part in training—both the previous government and this Government even more so—and have devoted some £20 million to the task of de-mining. Can my noble friend outline future plans? I gather that some other countries have spent even more than we have, particularly in relation to their GDP. It is money well spent. If properly done, whole areas of agricultural land are opened up again, helping to achieve food sufficiency in poor countries, and even, potentially, exports of rice for example, so that funds now used for food and other humanitarian relief can be diverted to their proper purpose of supporting development projects which, if properly targeted, will help to lift people out of poverty.
I commend the Bill to the House. It may well be possible to improve it, but I believe it allows us to ratify the convention as it stands. Any doubts about its effectiveness for that purpose can be examined in detail in Committee.
1.33 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships and to the House for speaking in the gap but I had a longstanding appointment this morning which prevented me yesterday from putting my name down to speak. As a result I regret I have heard only about half of your Lordships' debate, but I would like to make three points.
First, as a recent serving soldier I am well aware of the horrific effects of anti-personnel mines and the appalling damage and lifelong suffering which they cause. However, in war in a defensive position where there may not be sufficient military units on the ground and where there are large areas that have to be denied to the enemy, these anti-personnel marked minefields are a defensive protection. Without them the lives of our soldiers are more at risk.
Secondly, I believe the laying of marked and recorded anti-personnel conventional minefields in accordance with the Geneva conventions in times of real warfare such as World War II and the Gulf should have been retained until we have a new weapon system to replace them. Unlike indiscriminate and horrific anti-personnel minefields laid in guerrilla, tribal, civil and terrorist

531
wars, and in the former Yugoslavia, these marked and recorded minefields can be cleared without the difficulties encountered with indiscriminate minefields laid by rebel forces.
Thirdly, some piece of legislation along the lines of Clause 5—I apologise to your Lordships for not hearing the arguments on both sides concerning Clause 5—is essential to this Bill if our servicemen and women are to be protected from facing a possible 14-year penal sentence. It will enable our Armed Forces to take part in exercises and operations involving anti-personnel mine measures with allies such as the United States of America, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, who are not signatories to the treaty. Under these circumstances it would allow them to become involved in the planning, procuring, transporting, using and handling of anti-personnel mines, but not the action of laying them.
Without some clause to protect our Armed Forces the fighting spirit and morale of the Army and our Armed Forces could diminish. One day we may not win a future war because we have denied our Armed Forces the appropriate weapons to defend themselves in battle. Mines are cheap to manufacture and in my opinion it will never be possible to prevent all countries making mines. I expect they will be present on the battlefield for the foreseeable future. Some provision in the Bill is essential to protect our Armed Forces on the field of battle when operating with nations who have not signed the Ottawa convention.
1.36 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord has struck the one note of discord with regard to keeping anti-personnel landmines. I believe there is a great deal of consensus around the rest of the House that these weapons must be got rid of.
Many people who have been involved in this campaign have been mentioned. I wish to pay tribute to those noble Lords who over the years have taken part in many debates on landmines. I was hoping that the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, would be in her place at this point because on at least three occasions I have debated with her the question of landmines. I also wish to mention many of the NGOs, such as the mines advisory group which has worked hard on the convention. There are also groups which are involved not so much with words but with the deeds of removing anti-personnel landmines, such as the Halo Trust, which has already been mentioned.
It should not be forgotten that this treaty is not at odds with the mood in the country. A number of campaigns have been run in national papers such as the Sun and the Express. I believe that public opinion has been a contributory factor in giving the Government the necessary impetus to implement the treaty as quickly as possible. I congratulate the Government on bringing forward this legislation at the present time. It would be extremely unfortunate if we did not have this legislation at a time when so many countries are in the process of ratifying the treaty. I believe that over 30 countries will have ratified the measure. We shall be one of the 40 countries that are needed to bring about the convention's implementation.
532
Over the past year the Government have shown they are prepared to take a lead on the issue of landmines. Their destruction of half the stockpile of British landmines is an extremely valuable example of that. That has a cost implication. It has already cost £5 million to undertake that destruction. The Government have provided an extra £5 million, taking to £10 million the amount spent on landmine clearances. Although that is a drop in the ocean compared to the number of landmines that have been laid, it is an extremely valuable contribution.
My experience of landmines was during the period when I was monitoring elections in Mozambique. I had the unfortunate experience of driving a truck 10 miles down a 20-kilometre road only to discover that the road was not the one that the guide had thought but was a mined road. I am not a brave person by any means, and I experienced a quivering of the stomach. However, I gained a knowledge of the feeling that landmines produce in people. They have horrific consequences. Between two polling stations we counted 35 people walking to the stations who had only one limb.
But the consequences of landmines go further. Being terrified when driving along a road is one experience; but there are places where people will walk only along beaten paths, and will not enter fields used for cultivation; they will not step one millimetre off the path because of the very real risk of stepping on a landmine. The fear of landmines is real to everyone who lives in a mined region.
I wish to concentrate on the detail of the ratification of the convention. I speak as a serving officer in the Territorial Army. I wish particularly to examine Clause 5. There are major problems with the clause, though I also understand the reasons why the Government included it. It contains a necessary defence of service personnel. Nevertheless, the clause has rather worrying aspects.
Clause 5 has to be seen in the light of the reason for its original inclusion in the Bill. It was as a result of the Americans citing their use of landmines as a barrier against North Korea. We should be aware of the debate that is going on between the American military and the American Government over the need to retain landmines as a weapon of war. I base my comment on a statement made by General Clark, the US Army Commander in Chief, United States European Command, before a committee of the House of Representatives in March this year. He said:
"The requirement for such a capability is increasing in light of evolving and future operational concepts that envisage our forces conducting dispersed operations over expanded battlespace. We must work deliberately and discreetly with our Allies to ensure that we can execute our NATO warfighting plans, as well as our unilateral missions, once the Ottawa APL agreement comes into force".
There is a feeling among the American military that they will still be using landmines for some considerable time to come.
My difficulty with Clause 5 is that it is extremely wide in its application. I am not a lawyer. I merely put forward questions for clarification from the Minister. It is stated that under Clause 5 the Secretary of State shall

533
issue a certificate when operations which might include landmines are to be conducted. When would such a certificate be issued? The former position held by the Government was that they would use landmines in exceptional circumstances, and that their use would be covered by an issued certificate. However, if an operation is to take place and if there is to be a defence of personnel in relation to the use of landmines, the certificate would have to be issued prior to the operation. In addition, while a certificate was authorised, Clause 5 would allow troops to do everything but lay the mines. The penalties under Clause 2 would be covered by the provisions of Clause 5. Also, I understand that military personnel could face a court martial. I do not see how that could happen if a certificate had been issued.
As drafted, Clause 5 could be seen as contrary to Article 19 of the convention, which would be seen as a reservation. I must admit after hearing the debate in another place last Friday that there was a degree of unease associated with the remarks of the Armed Forces Minister. He stated:
"The clause enables United Kingdom service men and women to engage closely in the planning and conduct of an operation with those who may, lawfully for them, use anti-personnel mines".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/7/98; col. 1391.]
It is not my intention to cast aspersions and suggest that the Government's intention is anything other than to stick to the strict principles of the Ottawa convention. However, Clause 5, as drafted could allow a soldier to undertake the planning of an operation, the transportation of landmines, the positioning of the landmines, and even have soldiers prime the landmines so long as troops from a non-ratifying state were those who had actually laid the mines. That would be rather strange. We have talked about the loophole: the example given was of a truck being driven over a bridge built by a sapper. That loophole is wide enough in itself for a truck to be driven through it!
I understand that the second half of the check and balance on British service personnel taking any part in such operations would be under the rules of engagement. That presents a problem. I am not sure that it can be said that the Ottawa convention has been ratified until the rules of engagement have been published. I shall accept advice; however, I believe that if the rules of engagement are published—normally they are not—how can the Government say that in Clause 5 they are sticking to the principle of the Ottawa convention? Perhaps in this case the rules of engagement can be published and made available and, unlike other rules of engagement, be set in such a way that they cannot be changed from one operation to another—
Lord Kennet: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. Does he agree that the solution to that problem might be a wider use of the Privy Counsellor system whereby the leadership of the Opposition parties is taken into the confidence of the
534
Government in relation to militarily secret matters, and is then able to give general assurances to its rank and file?
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, that would be one solution. However, when we are ratifying such an important treaty, whose main aim is to guide others into signing it in order to bring about a universal ban on landmines, should we talk about secrecy? Matters should be out in the open. Perhaps the rules of engagement should be published openly. Without such publication, there is a major problem with other states seeing our ratification of the convention as being in the spirit of the convention.
Has representation been made to the British Government by any other countries concerning Clause 5? I understand that Australia and Canada have shown some disapproval of the clause. Will the Minister publish those representations and place them in the Library, or at least make the House aware of them?
It would be wrong to say that we believe that Clause 5 is a reason for preventing this legislation going through. I merely wish to make the Government aware of the problems I have mentioned. I do not believe that they have any intention but to follow the clear principles set out in the Ottawa convention.
However, one unfortunate point was that in the debates in another place there seemed to be a total neglect of one of the principles set out in the preamble, which is universalisation. That is one of those ugly words, but in this context it is extremely important. No ratification of the Ottawa convention will mean much if the major producers of anti-personnel mines do not ratify the convention. It is those countries that we must get on board.
It is my hope that, through ratifying the convention and through the body of support behind it, if the Government will take a lead, one day the anti-personnel mines will be seen with the abhorrence that chemical and biological weapons are now seen.
1.50 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, this is not one of those Bills which will require the Lord Privy Seal to remind your Lordships that in certain circumstances there is something called the Salisbury convention. It is a Bill which has attracted, it seems, almost universal support. I can assure the Minister that we are here to help; that is our sole object.
Noble Lords are united in support of what has been an impressive debate which has avoided, I believe I am right in saying, a certain amount of the incomprehensible nastiness which arose in the debate in another place. But speeches in your Lordships' House today fall into two types: first, those from noble Lords like my noble friends Lord Campbell and Lady Chalker based on personal experience of the horrors of the anti-personnel landmine; and others who have taken a practical approach to the solution of the undoubled difficulties in the Bill.

535
My noble friend Lord Moynihan provided a comprehensive study of all matters concerned with the Bill, and anything that he did not say has been said by other noble Lords. It is therefore possible for me to be relatively brief. I am deeply sorry that we have not had the opportunity of hearing my noble friend Lord Deedes, who has done more than anyone else to help with the problem. I have sat at his feet for 40 years, in the early days literally, and I wish we could have heard him today.
The Bill is not easy; it presents many problems. That was accepted in the other place by the honourable Member, Mr. Menzies Campbell, who said that the Government had better get their tin hats on before they faced the "legion of lawyers" in your Lordships' House. If I were the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, or one of her officials, I would be extremely gloomy about the amount of work I had to put in before next Friday in order to anticipate some of the amendments that will be raised and answer the enormous number of questions which have been raised during the course of the debate today.
The Bill looks a little as though it had been put together at speed without too much thought. Its aims are desirable, of course, but there was not too much thought on the detail. What is an anti-personnel landmine, and how do you protect the interests of the British serviceman who may be working alongside an American on a NATO exercise? Clause 5 is undoubtedly designed to provide British servicemen with a shield against unreasonable prosecution as a result of working with representatives of other countries who have not signed the Ottawa convention. Whether the clause will effectively do so will no doubt be tested during the debate next week. It is probably true to say that in such circumstances our servicemen are expected to keep operations including landmines at arm's length, but how long is your arm? I apologise, but I cannot resist picking up a remark from the noble Baroness during the course of her opening speech. She said that we must not expect servicemen to risk their liberty for carrying out their duty. That is exactly what this Government and the previous government have been doing in certain cases which have come to your Lordships' notice recently.
Clause 5 permits a wide range of activity, in fact everything, it would seem, except actually laying a landmine. That will need to be explained. The terms of the Bill, as several noble Lords pointed out, are not in accordance with the wording of the convention and there are many inconsistencies that will have to be explored. Some aspects of the Bill seem to resemble the old but important question of how many angels can be fitted on the point of a pin. British personnel would seem to be allowed to be involved in planning an operation provided they do not carry it out themselves. Perhaps they will keep coolies for that.
When the United States of America, Russia and China, among other countries, sign the convention the situation will be very much easier. At present there are 24 signatories and, as we know, the convention becomes valid at 40. But which 40? It is important that those countries which might be thought likely to use anti-personnel landmines should be among those who
536
have signed the convention. Until they do, the effectiveness of the Bill and of the convention itself will be very much in doubt.
Numbers and types of landmines also present difficulties. Explanations will be required as to which types fall inside or outside the convention and the terms of the Bill. I cannot resist the remark that such considerations are easier to debate and to consider within your Lordships' House than in the field. The Mines Advisory Group names six varieties of scatterable mines used by the Americans alone. They may or may not contain anti-handling devices which turn them from legitimate anti-tank mines into indiscriminating anti-personnel mines. To what extent does the fitting of an anti-handling device bring the weapon into proscription under the terms of the Bill? Drawing the line between the different devices is extremely difficult, not least because of the problems of definition. Not unnaturally the Ministry of Defence considers details of the fusing mechanism to be classified information and will not release it.
I am sorry that we have not had the opportunity of hearing the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, although I am grateful to him for being in his place throughout the debate. There is undoubtedly the question of how far the defence requirements of this country are damaged by banning anti-personnel landmines. My noble friend Lord Vivian touched on that point. With respect to him, the Bill is an emotional question and not a strategic defence question, but there are problems which I should have liked answered.
The different kinds of weapon will be covered in Committee, such as the Claymore mine. If it is fired by trip wire it is banned by the Ottawa convention, if by command wire it is not. It is not that difficult to change the system between one and the other. Soldiers in the field may well feel, when they get there, that the preservation of their lives by the use of anti-personnel mines, by converting a non-anti-personnel mine into an anti-personnel mine, may outweigh the importance of the chance of prosecution under the Bill.
Anti-tank mines are excluded and considered to be legitimate weapons. The British Shielder weapon comes into that category. Much work remains to be done.
We have two problems in the Bill: the definition of mines and Clause 5. There is a third problem, which is the destruction of landmines. That is a very important point. However, I would like to say to the Minister that obviously we entirely support the Bill. If there is any help, advice or constructive criticism or answers to constructive criticism which arise between now and next week, we will be only too delighted to do everything we can to assist the proper progress and completion of the Bill.
2 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have had an excellent Second Reading debate and I noted the various comments made by noble Lords about the Ottawa convention and this Bill.
It is clear that, in general, the Bill has the support of noble Lords from all sides. Some spoke with direct experience of landmines, as did the noble Lord, Lord

537
Campbell of Croy, and others as witnesses, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. But the spirit in which we have had the debate has seen your Lordships' House at its best.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, is correct in saying that my noble friend and I will have to look carefully at the points raised. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, that, although he was deprived of the wisdom of my noble friend Lord Gilbert today, he will have it in full measure next week. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, for reminding me that I too should declare my membership of the Red Cross, and I do so now.
My noble friend Lord Rea asked about the numbers involved. Let me reiterate that 122 countries signed the convention when it opened for signature in December last year; the figure is now 128. Of those countries, 24 have to date ratified the convention and several more have indicated that they will do so soon. However, I cannot give my noble friend an exact figure.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vivian, raised some points not raised by other noble Lords. The Government accept that the worldwide elimination of anti-personnel mines will have some consequences for British military capability. However, the Government's view is that the limited utility of anti-personnel mines is far outweighed by the suffering they cause.
Perhaps I can clear up another point. I thought, though I may have been wrong, that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, indicated that the United States did not intend to sign the Ottawa convention. Although the United States has not signed, it announced that it is actively exploring ways to deal with anti-personnel landmines with a view to being able to sign the convention in the year 2006. The noble Lord is right that the historical producers and exporters of anti-personnel mines—for example, China, India and Russia—have also not signed the convention. They argue the need for them to defend their borders. But Her Majesty's Government will continue to urge as many countries as possible to sign and ratify the convention while pursuing the wider ban in other fora, including the conference on disarmament.
In relation to the conference on disarmament, a special co-ordinator has been appointed to gather members' views on how best to take forward work on landmines and it is due to report shortly. We hope that early agreement can be reached on the establishment of a committee to work on landmines, perhaps beginning with a ban on transfers.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and one or two other noble Lords, raised the question of de-mining the Falkland Islands. The Ottawa convention requires us to de-mine all areas under our jurisdiction and control within 10 years, unless we can show good reason why we cannot. Those reasons may include humanitarian, environmental, financial or technical considerations. Those are important points to remember. We are looking carefully at that question and intend to carry out a study into the feasibility and cost of de-mining the islands and are currently considering the best way to take that forward.
538
The noble Lord also raised questions in relation to booby-traps. The Bill prohibits the use of any weapons classified as anti-personnel mines under the Ottawa convention. An improvised mine placed in or near the ground and detonated by the presence of an individual, whether by pressure, trip wire or other methods, would therefore be covered. Several noble Lords raised that point and I hope that the definitions are helpful. The wider category of booby-traps which have different characteristics from those of anti-personnel mines and are used for different purposes was deliberately not addressed by the Ottawa convention, which focused solely on anti-personnel mines. Use of booby-traps by British forces is constrained by the restriction set out in amended Protocol 2 of the UN Weaponry Convention.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, also asked about costs. I do not want to detain the House too long, but while I can answer some of these points it may be helpful to do so in preparation for next week. Four main categories of cost arise from the convention. There are the administrative costs which will fall to the SCO. They relate to the UK contribution to the costs of meetings of state parties and UK delegations attending such meetings. Such costs are not expected to exceed £75,000 over the next five years. The immediate implementation costs of the convention are £5 million for the destruction of UK anti-personnel landmines—I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, in this regard which fall to the MoD. As has been noted, we are nearly halfway through that programme of destruction already.
The costs of the MoD filling the capability gap for our Armed Forces in the longer term are still under study and depend on the outcome of operational analysis. Lastly, long-term mine clearance costs could also arise in the Falkland Islands, as I have already indicated. There may also be some costs which arise from the need to review certain support contracts and those will depend on commercial negotiations. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned the JP233 service contract, which would fall into just that sort of category.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, also asked about other states' anti-personnel mines stored in the UK. There are none, nor will there be any in the future. However, a rather different point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, in relation to United Kingdom overseas territories. We made clear out commitment to the Ottawa convention and our allies—I believe the noble Lord was thinking particularly of the United States—are well aware of that. The United States knows that we hope that it will sign and ratify the convention as quickly as possible.
The Bill applies outside the UK only in respect of UK nationals, Scottish partnerships and bodies incorporated under the law of the UK. There is a power in Clause 29(4) to extend that by means of an Order in Council to our overseas territories and we shall be consulting with the territories and proceeding with the extension as soon as possible.
A number of noble Lords asked about definitions. I hope I have dealt with the specific question about booby-traps. Perhaps I may go on to the questions raised

539
by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. Several noble Lords asked about the Shielder weapon. The Shielder mine system is an anti-tank weapon and therefore is not against the spirit of the Ottawa convention. The convention did not and never was intended to address anti-tank mines. It is internationally recognised that, unlike anti-personnel mines, anti-tank mines do not pose a serious humanitarian threat. Of course they are very dangerous weapons, but they do not pose the same humanitarian threat. It is accepted internationally, and the Ottawa convention makes it clear, that anti-tank mines are not covered by the ban.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, asked about other mines. The HB876 and the M 181A Claymore are classified as anti-personnel mines and are therefore banned by the convention, in what I understand is called the victim initiated mode. Those are horrible words, my Lords, but that is the definition. The UK does not have and will not acquire the Gator mine system. It is not part of the Shielder system, which I have just described. The A2 is an anti-tank mine. The PJRAD Claymore-type mine is command detonated and is not therefore covered by the Ottawa Convention. That is also true of the M181A Claymore in command-detonated mode. I hope that that has given your Lordships extra and helpful information on those points. On a rather different point, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that as far as we are aware—as he was speaking I checked with my officials—every minefield with which the United Kingdom has been involved since the war, whether anti-personnel or anti-tank, has been accurately recorded.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked what we are doing to speed up mine clearance. The UK is supporting efforts to improve de-mining techniques. Ways to do things more cheaply, more safely and indeed more quickly need to be developed and we are looking at technology which will be appropriate in that respect. My colleagues in the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence are looking at new initiatives ranging from sophisticated multi-sensors to very simple clearance tools. Research is going on in British universities. We are currently supporting a project at Warwick University's development technology unit to develop equipment that will speed up mine clearance activities. The equipment is now ready to undergo trials overseas. I hope that that answers some of the points quite rightly raised by the noble Baroness about our research effort in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked a number of questions about consistency between the convention and the legislation. He is quite right. Some of the language used in the definitions and in the Bill is different from the definitions used in the convention. We have sought greater clarity where appropriate but without changing the substance of the definitions. We believe that, if anything, the language in the Bill is tighter than that used in the convention. For example, the Bill covers components which the convention does not.
540
It is the Government's view that our legislation is in accordance with the aims and conventions of the Ottawa Convention. The kinds of things that have been described as possible abuses of the convention, because of the protection afforded by Clause 5, are not in the Government's view a correct understanding of the legislation before your Lordships. The legislation faithfully and fully puts the Ottawa convention into British legislation. Let me repeat this to your Lordships. It prohibits from using, developing, producing, possessing or transferring anti-personnel landmines or assisting, encouraging or inducing anyone else to do so. That provision will be clearly expressed in the rules of engagement for British troops, a very important point which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned and one to which I shall come in a moment or two.
The fact is that Clause 5 simply recognises the reality of the situations in which our forces may find themselves. It does not allow UK personnel to use anti-personnel mines; nor does it allow them to assist, encourage or induce anyone else to do so. My noble friend Lord Kennet used the example that was used by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place last week of the sapper, and he seemed to be a little sceptical about that example. I shall give him a second example. Perhaps it is a rather more dramatic example but it is an example of why we need the clause.
In a combined operation British troops may find themselves operating alongside United States forces who are laying mines to protect themselves. If the latter were then to come under enemy fire it is unthinkable for British troops not to defend them, but clearly, that would not be deliberate assistance in laying mines. In those circumstances British troops should not be punished for it. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said that that was all very well, but why not publish the rules of engagement? To do that would put our troops at risk. The rules of engagement are set for individual situations and within the general context. I have assured your Lordships what that will be in this respect. We never have published—nor do I believe that any government ever would publish—the rules of engagement for British forces.
The noble Lord also asked about the use of the certificate. It is a way of proving who participated in an operation. It is not a condition of the defence, which is what the noble Lord seemed to imply. The certificate would only be issued when the question of who participated in the operation arose during the course of criminal proceedings. I hope that that helps the noble Lord on that point.
Several noble Lords have asked: if we are to have Clause 5, why do not other countries have it? One noble Lord suggested that some countries had gone so far as to protest to the United Kingdom. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who said that there had been Canadian or Australian disapproval on that point. I can assure noble Lords that no such disapproval has been expressed to Her Majesty's Government. However, we spent some time discussing the Canadian interpretive statement on ratification. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was good enough to detail that statement to your Lordships. It should also be remembered that Austria,

541
which drafted the convention, has informed us that it interprets the convention in the same way as the Canadians.
The question then arose as to why there could not be a similar declaration in respect of the United Kingdom. The Government take the view that the mere incorporation of a declaration along the lines of the Canadian declaration, simply would not give British troops the unequivocal protection they need when participating in the conduct and planning of operations with countries not bound by the convention.
The spirit of Clause 5 is very close to the declaration, but the clause takes a form appropriate to our domestic law. It takes account of the complications of that law such as the potential liability for a conspiracy or aiding or abetting.
My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place last week made it very clear that the law officers concurred with the points made in Clause 5. My right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General explicitly made his own position clear last week. He agreed entirely with what my right honourable friend said on this point. I and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, may not be lawyers, but very learned lawyers indeed have been able to give us the benefit of their advice on this point.
Perhaps I may cover the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on the use of mines for training. The Bill does not set out how many mines may be retained for training purposes in de-mining. It allows the minimum number necessary to be retained. The convention allows them to be retained for training, detection and clearance purposes and also destruction. The Bill does no more than reproduce that position in the convention.
My noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester asked about mine victims. We have contributed to the international assistance for victims of landmines through our support of the ICRC, the World Health Organisation and non-governmental organisations. Last year we contributed £1.15 million to the ICRC for programmes to assist these victims.
Much of what we have discussed has been about NATO inter-operability. As I have said, the United States has said that it hopes to sign the convention in the year 2006. But it is not just about operating alongside the Americans. Without Clause 5 our troops could not operate alongside forces belonging to states which are not bound by the convention. In NATO that includes Turkey. Elsewhere it might include Saudi Arabia, Russia and Kuwait. I am sure that noble Lords are not really suggesting that any state, which is not a signatory of the Ottawa convention, thereby forfeits any expectation of assistance from allies or friends were such a state to be invaded.
I think that I have covered all the main points, so I turn finally to de-mining. The United Kingdom has an extremely good record in terms of assistance to the global humanitarian de-mining action. We are one of the world's leading bilateral donors. The DfID is doubling expenditure on de-mining activities and the FCO has
542
contributed over £450,000 to the United Nations to assist the co-ordination of global humanitarian de-mining.
Many noble Lords have singled out those whose contributions to bringing us to the point of this legislation have been quite outstanding. I should like to pay one further tribute, to Mr. Christopher Howes, a brave British man who was involved in de-mining work in Cambodia. He was kidnapped and he lost his life by doing that valuable, selfless, difficult and dangerous work. His is not a famous name; it is not really well known, but he was one of the true heroes.
We should all remember the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, with all his experience and expertise, when he said that what we need now is to set a good example. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Private Hire Vehicles (London) Bill
2.21 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
I am very glad to be able to commend this Bill to your Lordships' House. The proper regulation of London minicabs is an issue in which I myself have long taken an interest—to the extent of seeking to promote a Private Member's Bill some years ago. I know that my concern is shared by many noble Lords who believe that the complete absence of regulation in the London minicab trade is a serious anomaly which should be remedied as a matter of public safety.
The Bill seeks to provide such a remedy. It was introduced in another place many months ago by Sir George Young. I believe great credit is due to him for his patient determination that the Bill should progress. The Bill had an unopposed Second Reading in the other place, and hopes were high for its success. It then ran into the particular problems which this Session have beset Private Members' Bills. I would remind your Lordships of the short debate which we had in this House on 13th May, when we feared that the Bill was lost. More recently, I am delighted to say, it has come back to life, with the result that we can debate it today.
It follows that we are in a different procedural position from what we once expected. It had previously been thought that even if the Bill had made progress in the other place, it would have been without any very detailed examination. In fact, the Bill has had a substantive Committee stage in the other place. After Committee stage, I am glad to say, the Member who had blocked progress of the Bill withdrew his opposition. Many amendments were extensively debated in Committee. This means that important issues have been explored and explained, and the Minister has been involved and has helped in this process. A number of amendments were actually made to the Bill—some technical but others more significant—in response to representations and suggestions from interested parties. As a result, I believe that the Bill before your

543
Lordships' House is improved, and I hope very much that your Lordships will feel able to send it on its way to Royal Assent.
I would like to acknowledge the many organisations that have supported this Bill. As your Lordships know, the Bill has a wide range of support; this was clear in our debate on 13th May. I would like to thank those who have given their support, especially the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, which has worked so hard to help its progress. The Consumers Association has done a lot for the Bill, as also have RADAR, Age Concern and the Royal National Institute for the Blind. When the Government went out to consultation last year, very broad support was expressed from organisations such as the National Council of Women of Great Britain, the British Tourist Authority and the Greater London Association for Disabled People.
A special word about the trade associations is appropriate. The London Private Hire Car Association has been constructive throughout. It is rightly keen to have its trade properly regulated to support the majority of operators who do a good and safe job and make life difficult for the minority who do not.
The London Taxi Board on behalf of the black cab trade, has given the Bill support. I think that it deserves praise for such a responsible approach, especially as not very long ago its attitude was much more ambivalent. I crossed swords with that body 10 years ago. When I was first involved over 10 years ago I felt that it did not appreciate the benefits which regulation would bring. I believe that now it sees much more clearly the merits of the case and the advantages to the taxi trade of having these new controls and enforcement measures.
I hope I have shown that the Bill has widespread support. One can see why. In London taxis have long been regulated by the Public Carriage Office. Outside London both taxis and minicabs are almost universally regulated by local authorities. That means that there are proper checks on vehicles to make sure they are safe to do the high mileage that is expected of taxis and minicabs. There are checks on minicab operators to make sure that they are proper people to run such a business and there are checks on drivers. Above all, drivers are subject to a criminal record check to protect the travelling public from people with convictions for violence or sexual offences. Let us never forget that many passengers will be vulnerable. The young, the old and people being driven alone late at night have all been at risk.
In England and Wales there has been regulation since 1976. The large, glaring exception is the London minicab trade. Here by an anomaly of legislative history there is no regulation at all. It is often pointed out in discussion of this issue that in the morning a man may leave prison after serving a sentence for rape and by evening may quite legally be driving young women home in a London minicab. That illustrates so well the scale of the anomaly and the risk that we face in London. Legislation as a simple matter of public safety is long overdue. At last this Bill gives us a chance to put things right.
544
In essence the Bill is simple. It aims to introduce for London a system of regulation on the same principles as those that apply to the minicab trade elsewhere. It therefore provides for the licensing of minicab operators, minicab drivers and the vehicles themselves. It sets out the broad criteria which must be met for the grant of each licence, and it provides for changes to be made in respect of those licences. As to who will carry out the licensing and regulatory function, noble Lords will see that the Bill is drafted in terms of the Secretary of State. But Ministers have made it clear that that function will be delegated, as provided for in Clause 24 of the Bill, to the Metropolitan Police so that the work is done by the Public Carriage Office—that branch of the Metropolitan Police which already regulates London taxis. I believe that that makes a lot of sense. The PCO already has the expertise, geographical coverage and accommodation. The London black cab trade is respected worldwide and that is due in no small measure to the firm but fair way in which the PCO goes about its regulatory task. If sometimes it is criticised, well, it is no part of a regulator's job to be loved. I know that it is working hard at its efficiency and productivity.
To go through the main provisions of the Bill in a little more detail, Clause 1 provides the key definitions. Clauses 2 to 5 provide for the regulation of minicab operators; that is, the people who accept minicab bookings. Unlike taxis, minicabs cannot be booked direct with the driver. Operators must be licensed, and to grant a licence the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person.
The Bill provides also that the operator's licence specifies the premises used as operating centres. The Bill introduces for the first time the legal concept of a minicab-operating centre, with a requirement that the centre be premises: that is to ensure that there is a clearly identified place with proper records, where proper checks can be made. We surely cannot be satisfied with an operation depending on just a mobile phone on the street.
Clauses 6 to 11 deal with the regulation of minicab vehicles. There is a requirement that the vehicle be licensed; and to grant a licence the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the vehicle is suitable, safe, comfortable, insured, as so many are not now, and does not look like a taxi. It may be tested up to three times a year; it is subject to spot checks; and it must display a licence disc or plate.
Clauses 12 to 14 provide for licensing of drivers. To gain a licence, a driver must be 21 and have had a licence for three years. Applicants must satisfy the Secretary of State that they possess appropriate knowledge of London and topographical skills. They are subject to the all-important criminal record checks. Once licensed, they must wear a badge.
Clauses 15 to 29 make a range of general provisions about licences, including medical checks for drivers, powers to suspend or revoke a licence, and provisions about appeals.

545
Clauses 30 and 31 are important provisions about signs and advertising, designed to prevent confusion—deliberate or otherwise—between minicabs and taxis. The two are different and will remain so. Clauses 32 to 40 are miscellaneous and supplementary provisions.
I hope that I have said enough in that brief description to satisfy your Lordships that the Bill makes proper, sensible, comprehensive provision for minicab regulation. As I mentioned, there were some substantive amendments made in another place, to which I draw your Lordships' attention.
Perhaps the most notable is in Clause I3, which now provides that the Secretary of State "shall", not "may"—a debate we have regularly here—require applicants for driver licences to satisfy him about their knowledge of London and their "general topographical skills". This was a point of particular importance to the taxi trade, and I am glad that the carefully balanced form of words put forward in another place found favour with the Standing Committee there.
That committee agreed also an amendment in Clause 11 to ban taximeters from minicabs on the grounds that they can confuse passengers, perhaps newcomers to London, into believing that the vehicle is a taxi and that the fares are controlled by the Secretary of State. That is a clause that I queried, because I always thought that meters would be a good thing. It turns out however that if there are meters in minicabs they would be unauthorised and unmeasured. They could be set at any rate, and people might be misled into thinking that they were safe and that the meter was correct and honest when it could be the reverse.
That change was important to the taxi trade, as was the amendment to Clause 31, which I particularly welcome, to extend the ban on misleading advertisements so that minicab firms are not only unable to use words such as "taxi" or "cab" but also words which could be mistaken for them. I suggest that the public do deserve clear, straightforward advertising about the service that they are buying. There must be no blurring of the distinction between taxis and minicabs.
Finally, the committee in the other place agreed to include what is now Clause 5, which provides for bookings to be sub-contracted to operators outside London. This amendment merely puts the law about London minicabs on the same footing as that for minicabs in the rest of England and Wales, and I suggest that it is a sensible piece of flexibility. I stress that bookings can only be sub-contracted to other operators around London who are themselves licensed.
Nonetheless, I know that there have been suggestions that the new clause will in some sense enable operators to "flag out" and evade proper licensing controls. I frankly doubt it; but I am clear that the Public Carriage Office will be on the look-out for that sort of thing, and if it should emerge as a problem, then the Secretary of State could use his regulation-making powers to stop it. The Minister may wish to say something more about that.
546
That is the Bill in outline, and I suggest that it contains what we would want to see as a framework for effective regulation, to give minicab customers the confidence about safety to which they should be entitled. But I can assure noble Lords that there is one thing that is not in the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill which gives minicabs the right to ply for hire—that is to say, the right to be hailed on the street, to stand at taxi ranks, with the booking being made directly with the driver. The Bill requires that all minicab bookings must be made through an operator. Plying for hire is the exclusive right of the taxi trade. That is the law at present, and it will remain the law in future, under this Bill. It seems right to stress that to the House, and I am sure that every Member present will support that view.
I know your Lordships will want to know about enforcement, a matter generally of concern to Members of this House. No law can count for much unless it is properly enforced.
In some ways the Bill, if it becomes law, will in itself help enforcement. Minicab operators and drivers will have an incentive to observe the law, especially the law on plying for hire, because they will have a licence to lose; at present, sadly, that is not the case. And I do not need to repeat to your Lordships the arguments that I have put before the House on many occasions about cowboy operators who have neither licence, insurance, nor fit vehicle. And members of the minicab trade who keep the law—and that is the great majority of them—will have an incentive to report those who do not, because the law-breakers will be providing unfair competition.
But in addition there will remain the existing Metropolitan Police cab enforcement section, whose job is, among other things, to stop illegal plying for hire by minicabs; and they are of course backed up by all other officers in the Metropolitan Police, who will have their attention drawn to the new law when it comes into effect. Already the police have shown themselves very ready to mount special exercises from time to time, combined with social security and unemployment benefit checks, to check both taxis and illegal plying for hire.
The Metropolitan Police intend to take special steps in response to this Bill. It is envisaged that a special minicab enforcement team will be set up. It will be financed from minicab licence fees, and the job of its members, who will be civilians, will be to check that all the requirements of the Bill are being met. They will be able to make spot checks as well as more routine visits, with all the various powers that the Bill provides. Numbers have yet to be finally determined, but may well be around 20 people. And their full-time job will be enforcement of this new law. I hope that noble Lords will take reassurance from that.
I hope that I have explained this Bill and the thinking behind it. It seeks to end an anomaly—a shocking anomaly some might say—whereby the London minicab trade is totally unregulated. The intention is to achieve that objective of regulation by applying to London essentially the same system as applies elsewhere in England and Wales. In so far as there are differences,

547
they are mainly to take account of representations made by interested parties—notably the taxi trade. Black taxis not only have a special status in London, but are recognised throughout the world as being without equal.
But, above all, the Bill aims to improve the safety of the London travelling public. Minicabs play a valuable role in getting people around our capital, alongside all the other modes of transport. The number of minicabs is estimated at over 40,000—and some say it could be as high as 100,000. I do not think that we can imagine doing without them in London. I think noble Lords would agree that the minicab is here to stay; and that means that members of the public should be able to use a minicab with the same confidence as in all our other cities. "Why should London be different?", people ask. This Bill aims to ensure that London is no longer different.
The Bill has already been thoroughly discussed and amended in another place. It is now right that we should discuss it carefully here. I have no doubt that the Bill well justifies a place on the statute book as an overdue public safety measure. I ask your Lordships to grant this Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)
2.40 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow immediately upon the speech of the proposer of the Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, because I am most supportive of it. I congratulate her most warmly on taking over the baton from Sir George Young, who piloted the Bill through another place. Most of your Lordships are well aware that for many years the noble Baroness has taken a considerable interest in the subject. She must be pleased today, but she will be even more pleased when the Bill passes into law in a short time.
The undoubted need for the Bill arises from the anomaly—the noble Baroness used that word—that London alone among our major cities continues to have a substantial but entirely unregulated private car hire sector. It is particularly anomalous when London's regulated black cab system is the envy of the world in terms of safety, efficiency and value for money. The scandal of the private car hire, or minicab, sector in London arises from the serious risk of the unknown. The risk may come from only a minority, but it is a serious risk because when one gets into a minicab the vehicle may be unsafe, the driver may be incompetent, if not worse, and there may be no valid insurance to cover the risks.
I live in London during the week but do not keep a car in London, so I naturally use all forms of public transport, including black cabs and minicabs. I shall not be tedious and recount to your Lordships tiresome experiences with minicabs. They were recited by many Members in another place and no doubt we all recognise them. However, I have a personal interest in the successful passage of the Bill.
I take part in the debate because I also have a long-standing professional interest in regulation as an aid to consumer protection—in this case, passenger
548
protection—and in the preservation of competition, which can be inhibited by overregulation. Sometimes the two can conflict with each other. I am always wary of regulation which limits entry into a particular market because that may reduce supply unduly and it may also raise prices.
One must generalise and one might be wrong in particular instances, but I understand that prices charged by minicab drivers are relatively low. I often have the peculiar experience at the end of a journey when the driver asks, "What do you think is a fair price?". When one asks how much the drivers are charging they leave it to the customer. In any case, they do not seem to expect a great deal.
I am not one of those who is automatically against part-timers and, if you like, moonlighters, who wish to use their own car to pick up a bit of extra cash as well as picking up passengers to take them from A to B. Just because they are part-timers, they are not necessarily people who should be barred from the trade.
Therefore, I am glad that the Bill, for example, does not place a limit on the total number of vehicles that may be licensed. That would indeed be anti-competitive. I welcome, too, the assurances that were given in another place by the Government that the licence fees will not be excessive. I am glad that there will be so-called grandfather rights exempting established minicab drivers from the new provision to have appropriate topographical knowledge of London as required, as the noble Baroness explained, by Clause 13.
Indeed, we all know those stories of how hopeless drivers are about knowing where, for example, Trafalgar Square is or other key parts of London. But I hope that the reference to appropriate topographical knowledge, which has no doubt been put into Clause 13 very carefully, is not interpreted too stringently. After all, if one is a minicab driver in Shepherds Bush, then I agree that that driver should have adequate topographical knowledge of that area and how to get from Shepherds Bush to a number of key places—the airport, central London and so on. But surely it is not necessary that he should have a detailed knowledge of the side streets of Hampstead or Hackney. It seems to me that we must be careful not to overdo the requirement in Clause 13.
On the same theme of enhancing competition, I echo Sir George Young when he expressed concern at Second Reading in another place at the lengthening time it has been taking for potential black-cab drivers to acquire the Knowledge and the severe shortage of examiners. It is all very well for those who are already in the black cab trade but it is an unjustified barrier to entry for those potential drivers who wish to enter the market and compete. Moreover, it is certainly not in the public interest.
The noble Baroness mentioned, in terms of praise and understandable support, the way in which the black cab trade has changed its mind over a period and has come to support this Bill which licenses the private hire sector. I keep in the back of my mind some suspicion about that. Indeed, I detect certain signs—and there may be worries in the future as the detailed regulations come

549
forward from the Public Carriage Office and so on—of the black cab trade being just a little too influential concerning the details of the Bill.
I cite the example which the noble Baroness gave; that is the way in which Clause 11 was amended in another place. As she pointed out, it was amended to forbid the equipping of private hire vehicles with meters on the grounds that a meter might confuse people into thinking that the vehicle must be a taxi. But meters provide evident consumer protection. There is or could be a degree of reassurance if a meter were allowed to be installed. Although it may not record amounts which have been approved by government or some other body, nevertheless it gives an indication, as the vehicle goes along, of what the fare is likely to be at the end of the journey, whereas at present and into the indefinite future, because meters are to be forbidden into the indefinite future, unless agreement is reached at the beginning of the journey—and that agreement would be oral in any event—a passenger will not know until the end of the journey what the fare will be. That is unless you are lucky, as I have mentioned I have sometimes been, and the driver leaves it to the passenger to suggest the amount.
Because it is so difficult to talk about the private hire trade without referring to black cabs, and because the two sectors will be brought closer together in terms of regulation—and it is the whole purpose of the Bill that they will both be regulated, respectable and will both have certain rules attached to them in relation to the drivers, the vehicles, insurance and so on—a long-term question inevitably arises. I leave it unanswered and in the air, but the question is for how long the black cab monopoly of the right to ply for hire will be justified.
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, I should also like warmly to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and particularly Sir George Young and his cross-Party co-sponsors in another place on this Bill. It is of course an anomaly that London minicabs alone are not required to be licensed. That anomaly is rightly now being corrected, and indeed the correction is overdue. It is a matter of extreme concern on public safety grounds that last year 67 people were assaulted and there were 18 rapes in minicabs. It is a matter of particular concern to women and the elderly. The elderly are often sent home from hospital in minicabs.
The residents of London overwhelmingly support this measure. It is also supported by a large number of organisations, as the noble Baroness said. I shall not reiterate the list she gave, but perhaps I might just mention the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, which has played such an important role in campaigning for safety. I should like to note the helpful and supportive role of the London Private Hire Car Association and broadly, bodies, representing the black cab trade, whose support is particularly welcome.
With such a range of support, one would have expected the Bill to have a relatively smooth passage. Many citizens unfamiliar with the arcane rituals of
550
parliamentary procedure will have been surprised by the near-success of the maverick Mr. Eric Forth, a self-styled campaigner against bureaucracy, in attempting to sabotage the Bill. They may also perhaps be puzzled by the slowness of the Government in acting to overcome these manoeuvres by perhaps taking over the Bill themselves. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I express pride in my colleagues in the other place, led by London Members such as Simon Hughes, Jenny Tonge and Tom Brake, who through their pressure—such as an Opposition Day Motion—succeeded in persuading the Government to take the necessary action to set up a Standing Committee. As the noble Baroness has just mentioned, this meant that the Bill has been examined in detail in the other place.
As the noble Baroness said, the Bill represents the setting up of a regulated two-tier system and not the first step towards a one-tier system, although history may prove me wrong. The principal difference between black cabs and minicabs is, and I think will remain, the ability, or not, to ply for hire. It represents healthy competition between on-street hiring and personal booking. London taxis are special. Their drivers' Knowledge is unrivalled and I believe that we should maintain and enforce that distinction.
I am unstinting in my admiration for London taxis, and my experience of living in Brussels for seven years just increased my admiration. I am concerned that a high proportion of the recorded assaults may have been when the ride began in the illegal hiring of a minicab on the street; and so enforcement must outlaw this. But unstinting as my admiration is for black cabs, they can by no means meet all needs. As someone who has always lived north of the river I have never suffered the "big freeze" from a cab driver reluctant to go south of the river, but anecdotal evidence of that abounds.
Less than one-tenth of black cabs operate exclusively in the suburbs and even in the inner city people who want to go to a station, an airport or a hospital would generally choose a minicab for the convenience of going door-to-door at lower cost. The segmentation of the market will, in my opinion, deepen. On the one hand, licensing of minicabs will allow enforcement to be tightened to stop illegal hiring and touting, thus preserving the exclusive right of black cabs to ply for hire. On the other hand, the reassurance that would come from the licensing of minicabs may tend to reverse the trend for the telephone ordering of black cabs which, it must be said, can be frustrating as an individual. Since so many of them are linked into company contracts, one can get pushed to the back of the queue as an ordinary mortal, a second-class "cash customer".
I am glad that the black cab industry has broadly supported the Bill because I believe that the high quality of the service will ensure a thriving market. But no doubt it will take the opportunity to modernise its own industry. Like the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, I too have learnt that there are apparently only five examiners to test the Knowledge in the Public Carriage Office, which comes under the supervision of Scotland Yard. That is why it takes two to three years to pass the test. I am sure that there is no suggestion of an informal quota being enforced by limiting entrance artificially, but

551
merely—and regrettably—a tale of inefficiency. It needs dealing with, and perhaps the introduction of fees for tests would enable staffing to be increased.
Rules must be a sensible balance between the need for safety and unnecessary over-regulation. I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said in that respect. It must be about a balance between preventing unfair competition and unreasonable protection of a monopoly or barriers to entry. I believe that the Bill is sensibly drawn in leaving flexibility for regulation to evolve.
I shall not go into great detail, partly because this is the Second Reading of the Bill. However, I have a few points to make. I have a query about the situation as regards criminal records. On topographical knowledge, I note that the wording of the clause was changed to incorporate the word "may" instead of the word "shall", but for criminal records the applicable word is "may". We recently had a debate on Scottish tuition fees regarding the difference between a strong "may" and a "shall". None the less, I remain unclear on the matter. In the other place, the Minister for Transport in London said in Committee that it was intended to make criminal record checks on applicants, including renewals. I took it that she meant every applicant, but the word "may" in the clause leaves that rather unclear. I cannot see how that wording guarantees a systematic, mandatory check for criminal records. I also understand from the background documents that the Private Hire Board says that a criminal record check takes from six to eight weeks, which seems a rather unreasonable length of time.
I agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, about the test for topographical knowledge for minicab drivers. It should be relatively "light touch"—for example, a knowledge of major routes, major land marks, together with the ability to read an A-Z for the detail; not, of course, as one drives along, but to obtain the precise detail of, say, the side streets of Hampstead or Hackney. As the noble Lord put it, the crucial word is "appropriate".
On distinguishing marks, I understand the concern that minicabs should not carry signs that attract the public so that people can wave the cabs down in the street. However, enforcement officers need to be able to recognise a minicab. I understand that one suggestion is that a distinguishing plate should be placed on the back of the vehicle. That seems to me to be sensible.
As regards the identification of private hire vehicle minicab offices, I am not sure that I have entirely understood the provisions in the Bill about signage. Perhaps the Minister could clarify whether the offices are meant to be unmarked. Is it not reasonable that customers should be able physically to call at a minicab office? Indeed, if one finds oneself in an area at, say, one or two o'clock in the morning and there are no black cabs on the streets, the only way to get transport is to go into a minicab office. Therefore, I assume that they will be able to be identified.
I have a question about door locks. My attention was drawn to the danger of these locks, which prevent passengers escaping when threatened, by an article in
552
the Evening Standard a year or so ago. I have been unable to trace the article but, from memory, I recall that there was concern that when black cabs were sold off as being too old for commercial use they were not always sufficiently altered in appearance and markings so as to alert customers to the fact that they were no longer licensed cabs. There had been a number of apparent sex attacks in black cabs, but the suspicion was that these were—and I am glad to say this for the sake of the reputation of black cab drivers—more likely to be bogus cabs driven by criminals who had acquired former black cabs and managed to deceive customers.
The relevance of locks is that the driver of a black cab is able to keep the doors locked by his use of the foot pedals. That is usually a sensible precaution but it is potentially a rapist's charter. I am glad to learn from remarks made in the other place by Mr. Clive Efford that there is a London Taxi Board code of conduct on the decommissioning of taxis which has been supported by the Minister for Transport in London. That would appear to take care of decommissioned black cabs. I am not sure what the position is as regards the locking of doors in black cabs in service, although as I say most black cab drivers are perfectly reliable.
My concern with minicabs is child locks. Saloon cars often have child locks to prevent back seat passengers from opening the door. I do not expect all the detail of the Bill to be discussed now, but will the regulations take into account the potential dangers of this situation, especially for women? It could be frightening to be unable to get out of a vehicle when the driver controls the opening of the doors.
As regards the regulatory authority, it seems sensible to envisage the Greater London Authority taking over in due course both black cab and minicab regulation. I understand the Government have concluded that the GLA would be a good candidate for the role of regulatory authority. Perhaps that could be considered as part of the GLA Bill expected in the Autumn. In any case it is entirely fitting that the ending of this longstanding anomaly of unregulated minicabs in our capital city will coincide with London getting back a measure of self-government within the next year or so. Those responsible for this Bill's progress deserve the warmest congratulations.
3.1 p.m.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for keeping us up to speed on this Bill. I commend the Government. I think the Bill is timely and it is what is needed. I cannot claim any great expertise in either the private hire car or London taxicab business, but for many years I have been a director of a British traffic management and traffic systems company. Obviously private hire cars and the use of taxicabs has been studied by that company.
I make no bones about the fact that I support the London taxicab service. I have used it for many years. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said, after seven years in Brussels we all know that we have an élite taxi service that you can trust. You can trust the drivers, who know where they are going. All of your Lordships have

553
been in cities all over the world where you meet an extraordinary chap calling himself a taxicab driver and you end up telling him where to go with a map of the city on your knee. Our black cab drivers know their business and they have to work for it.
My problem with several areas of this Bill is that I am not as confident of the enforcement side as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. I believe that in both Houses we are awfully good at initiating good Bills, and particularly in your Lordships' House at improving them, but we are always rather weak on enforcement. I believe this Bill will need considerable enforcement. The subversives and the pirates will still be out there. On that point I ask the Minister, of this £4 million that is mentioned in the explanatory memorandum, will that be mostly for paperwork to get all this going, or is provision made to give the police the support they need? We ask so much of our Metropolitan Police Force. Here is another major enforcement job that will need to be examined and progressed.
I wonder, too, whether there are other areas of enforcement where even traffic wardens might come into the picture and support the constabulary. Will the Minister tell the House how enforcement is to be done on the streets? As I say, our police have a great deal to do, and particularly at night—that is the time when those who are not properly licensed will ply their trade.
We are slightly diffident as regards enforcement. We have not been very clever at getting the 200, 300 or 1,000 cars that are unlicensed and have no MOT off the roads. In this House yesterday we talked briefly about how we enforce speed limits. I should like some further explanation. I am not knocking the Bill. It is a very good measure.
There is an area of possible disagreement that I may have with the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I refer to Clause 13. I do not think that we need to cross swords over it. I should be much more vigorous in my topographical interrogation of the man or woman who wants to ply a hire car. They must know where they are going. If they are stopping at corners, causing nonsense at traffic lights, looking at an A-to-Z with a torch in the dark or whatever, that is not good for the system of traffic in our cities.
I suggest that there is no point in the would-be private hire car driver being interrogated by a civil servant, great though he may be, who probably travels into London by train every day from the outskirts of Surrey or Sussex. I should say that this is a good job for a retired black-taxi driver. This is an area where someone with real experience of the streets of London, day and night, has a role to play and would be of great help to the Government and the police.
The other day I was absolutely overcome when I accepted an invitation, together with my wife, from some 200 London black-cab drivers to see what they do once a year for disabled veterans. While we were there, we saw a large number of black-cab drivers helping disabled children by giving them a day out. I do not see that same sort of patriotism among minicab drivers. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said that they will be
554
respectable. The private hire car driver has to work very hard to become respectable and part of the true London scene so that he can equate with the good works of the black-cab driver.
This is a good Bill and it should be supported. I wish to raise only one other small point. It was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. It is the question of door locks. It is true that a girl on her own might want to get out of a cab. However, I assure noble Lords, having a daughter who has used minicabs, that she does not want someone else to be able to get into the cab while she is the only passenger. The questions of locking, the insurance of the passenger and everything else need more consideration.
In our family, we have a man on the end of a telephone whom we call "Joe the Taxi". He is a black-cab driver with some 20 or 30 years' experience. My family and I have found that he is unsurpassed, as are all his fellows. I have to tell the House that it will be some time before I use the new private hire cars. I believe the black taxicab is the finest thing we have for that kind of business in London and I shall continue to use it.
3.10 p.m.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, again it gives me great pleasure to take part in the Second Reading of the Bill and, particularly, to congratulate my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, as well as the Government, on their prompt action in taking it on.
My interest in London private hire cars has been long and is not pecuniary. It may be argued, as many noble Lords have said this afternoon, that black taxis provide a superb service, with the advantage that they can ply for hire and thus be hailed in the streets. However, this service comes at a price and it is one that most Londoners cannot afford.
Private hire vehicles which must be booked in advance provide an alternative and affordable service. The growth of this transport sector in recent decades has been truly astonishing and is adequate testimony to its popularity. It is estimated that there are at least 40,000 minicabs; I believe my noble friend said that there could be 100,000 operating in London. The 40,000 could well be an underestimate. If we accept it, the value of the sector can clearly be shown. I am reliably informed that the average minicab does at least 10 jobs each day. If it were working for only five days each week, which may be a conservative estimate, the total number of journeys each week would be 2 million. Surely that is a major contribution to public transport in London.
In bringing this sector into regulation for the first time, we must not undermine this valuable contribution by an excessively bureaucratic approach. In introducing controls which will get rid of the cowboys in the sector—which my noble friend also mentioned—we must not over-legislate. Cowboy operators do pose a risk and it is right that they should be driven out, but there would be a substantial risk to the public if no suitable transport option were available to them at a time of need.

555
The Bill is needed both to bring London into line with the rest of the country and to ensure by appropriate regulation that passengers are carried in safety to their destination when they use minicabs. I support the Bill, but I have two concerns that I should like to share with your Lordships.
I think it was implied, if not stated, in the Committee stage of the Bill in another place that testing of private hire vehicles would become a responsibility of the Public Carriage Office, as is already the case with black taxis. The present PCO test facilities which I have seen recently are too limited to cope with upwards of 40,000 additional vehicle inspections twice or three times a year. We do not need a large bureaucracy to supervise such inspections when there already exists a tried and trusted mechanism in the longstanding arrangements for private car MOT tests.
There is a network of competent garages, adequately supervised, ready and able to take on this enormous task of conducting upwards of 80,000 new tests a year. Since minicabs are the same as private cars, albeit used much more extensively, why not use the existing MOT arrangements two or three times a year to ensure that minicabs are fit for the purpose? Private cars carry whole families; so do minicabs. Why should not the MOT test be adequate in both cases? I would welcome some assurance from the Minister on that point.
My second point has been well debated so far. It relates to the extent of the geographical and topographical knowledge to be required of licensed minicab drivers. Drivers of black taxis which ply for hire throughout London are rightly expected to have a detailed knowledge of London without having to refer to a map.
Following on from what the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, said, I went to the Public Carriage Office and found it interesting to see the Knowledge being conducted. Potential drivers of London black cabs will only be tested if they appear in a suit and tie; otherwise they are sent home. I cannot think of anywhere else in the country where that would happen. I met one gentleman who was an ex-cab driver who was in charge of the testing. The whole system is to be commended.
Drivers of black cabs who qualify for a suburban badge can ply for hire within a specified area; for example, Wimbledon or Southgate. Minicab drivers generally operate within restricted geographical areas on the basis of journeys booked in advance. It would be quite wrong for the Secretary of State, or the Public Carriage Office acting on his behalf, to require that minicab drivers achieve a level of knowledge similar to that required of drivers of black cabs holding a suburban badge. To do so would prevent many aspiring minicab drivers entering a trade where both the pick-up address and the destination are known in advance. I would welcome some assurance from the Minister on that point as well. I wish the Bill God speed.
3.16 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, introduced this Bill admirably. It is interesting that many of us are repeating certain
556
aspects of the Bill, which is no bad thing. It draws attention to areas of concern. I was greatly assisted in my understanding of the Bill by the London Taxi Board and I am most grateful for its help. However, the views expressed are solely mine.
The failure to license London's minicabs, as has been required elsewhere in the country, is clearly an anomaly, and I am delighted that the Bill will finally remove this anomaly and bring London into line with the rest of the country. No longer will London's travelling public have to make do with a second-rate, unregulated system.
I support the main intentions of the Bill—the regulation of minicabs is, after all, important and long overdue. Safety of standards and service will be improved for all passengers and especially for those who need protection, such as disabled people, women, elderly people and tourists. This legislation will, hopefully, go some way towards raising standards and levels of customer service and satisfaction enjoyed by the London licensed black cab trade.
As the Government develop an integrated transport policy, minicabs and taxis will play an ever more significant role in our everyday lives. They can ensure that public transport is available in areas where other transport providers cannot operate efficiently and, at the same time, provide an effective alternative to the use of private cars. They will also allow people to transfer between other transport termini and reach their final destinations having covered all of their journey by public transport.
It is important, and I am heartened to see, that there are proposals for tests on a minicab driver's health, vehicle, criminal record and topographical knowledge—to which the driver of a black cab is already subject. Minicab drivers must be required to have a working knowledge of their local streets. That is already the situation in most of the large metropolitan areas outside London where taxi and minicab drivers have to pass an identical topographical test. The effects of Clause 13 will ensure that minicab drivers can efficiently carry passengers without reference to an A-Z.
I would like to refer, albeit briefly, to the licensing and testing procedures for minicab and taxi drivers. The reliance upon individual tests of topographical knowledge for applicant taxi drivers means that the process is very slow and drivers have to wait a long time for appointments. The result is that growth in the licensed taxi industry has been held back and it is one of the reasons why people cannot find enough taxis on the street and have to resort to using minicabs.
Other noble Lords may wish to join me in making a personal plea for enforcement. Once this Bill is enacted, without the resources to tackle illegally operating minicabs and those who tout and ply for hire, the same old problem will still be with us, and I hope that resources will be channelled into suitable enforcement. The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, may be interested to know that when I was a passenger on patrol in a police vehicle in the middle of one night last summer a vehicle without lights was stopped. It transpired that the vehicle was a minicab with a young lady passenger. The vehicle, among other things, had no lights, faulty brakes,

557
an inoperative handbrake, a faulty exhaust and bald tyres. Of purely academic interest, we could not understand why the passenger insisted on getting another minicab to continue her journey, with the possibility of encountering another defective vehicle, when black cabs were passing regularly. It is the removal of such vehicles from our roads that this Bill will, I hope, achieve.
I feel sure that your Lordships will agree with me that a driver who does so when uninsured is a very dangerous menace on our roads and I hope that, at some stage, regulations will be made whereby minicab drivers are required to have with them, during working hours, their certificate of insurance, thereby facilitating enforcement. Due to some minicab operators currently operating in questionable ways, such a requirement would help to eliminate those drivers operating without insurance.
Many of the amendments made at Committee stage in the other place were important and necessary. The introduction of a clause to prohibit the use of meters was an important customer service requirement and I am pleased to note that it had the overwhelming support of Members of the Committee. Had meters been allowed, drivers would have been able to set the meter at a rate of their own choosing and then justify their exorbitant fares by claiming that the fare rate was set by the regulator. This clause quite rightly outlaws that.
I am also delighted that a clause was added ensuring that minicab companies are not allowed to advertise using the words "taxi" or "cab". This, clearly, would cause confusion as to the service being operated. I hope that Clause 31, which brings this about, will be vigorously enforced. The Secretary of State is also provided with discretion to make regulations prohibiting minicabs from displaying any sign, notices or other feature, and I very much hope that the Secretary of State will continue with the current practice, under the London Cab Act 1973, that prohibits all such material. It is important to prevent the public from attempting to make ad hoc hirings of minicabs, which will remain illegal. By doing so, problems associated with private hire vehicles being confused with taxis will be lessened, thereby reducing the likelihood of touting and illegal hirings. It should be noted, however, that outside the capital, where local authorities have the same discretion, minicabs are often allowed to use extensive signage—but they do not have the equivalent of the London black cab. I hope that my noble friend can confirm that it is the Government's intention to apply the regulations in line with current practice and to prohibit signage on minicabs.
A further area of some significant concern, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, is the implications of the new Clause 1. This could allow minicab drivers, licensed in districts outside London, to operate within the capital but without the necessary localised topographical knowledge. This is surely not the intention of the Bill. It is, with the proposed wording, possible for an operator to sub-contract all his work to drivers licensed in a provincial town. This, on face value, would seem to
558
drive a coach and horses through the main principles of the Bill. I very much hope that my noble friend is able to reassure your Lordships that the Government will ensure, within the regulations which accompany this Bill, that sub-contracting to drivers in this fashion will be prohibited. This is, I think, an important point and I hope that my noble friend agrees that regulations will close this loophole.
I support the overall intentions of the Bill and hope that it will lead to the development of a much improved personal transport service in London, which will assist the Government in meeting the aims of an integrated transport policy and which will ensure a safer and better service for those who choose to use minicabs.
3.25 p.m.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, I would like to add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. I would also like to congratulate the Government on the part they played in rescuing this Bill from probable oblivion. Your Lordships will know that for many years now I have been connected with taxi drivers and their trade, not just in London but all over the United Kingdom. I am proud to be associated with such a fine, ancient and honourable trade. Naturally, I want it to continue in good health, as I believe all other noble Lords do.
Your Lordships may also know that until recently I was implacably opposed to the licensing of so-called minicabs in London because I saw their licensing as signalling an end to our present system of licensed black cabs and an end of the black cabs themselves. I did not, and I do not, want that to happen. I believe that we still have the finest system of licensed taxicabs anywhere in the world—in fact, they are the envy of everywhere else.
So what has changed my mind? Where on the road to Damascus did the conversion take place? Perhaps it would be more accurate to ask what has happened to temper my attitude about the licensing of minicabs in London. There are several reasons for it. First, I believe that the Bill has been well thought out; secondly, I believe that more than adequate consideration has been given to London's licensed taxi drivers and their future. I do not believe that this Bill contains anything that poses a threat to their livelihood.
However—and it is a very big "however"—there are several matters which must be addressed that I consider to be crucially important if their livelihood is to remain unthreatened after this Bill becomes an Act. I know that it is late in the day on a Friday and that your Lordships are anxious about getting away for the weekend. But this is an important matter which will affect not just 20,000 or so licensed taxi drivers in London but will in time have an effect on other people's livelihoods as well, such as the vehicle manufacturers who make the taxis, dealers, maintenance people and the workshops that service them, not to mention the drivers' families.
I am also acutely aware of the time factor for the Bill itself. Nevertheless, I believe it is imperative that some of these points are fully addressed and acted on rather than leaving them to chance. I believe that our system of licensed taxis in London is far too important a matter to be left simply to chance.

559
My greatest concern and that of all the taxi associations and bodies is centred around enforcement. I believe that no legislation is worth the paper that it is printed on if it cannot be, or is not, enforced. Quite clearly, additional people will have to be employed as enforcement officers. I am glad that the Public Carriage Office of the Metropolitan Police, which currently controls and administers everything to do with licensed taxis in London, has announced that it intends to employ a substantial number of additional enforcement officers, their costs to be included in the fees charged for minicab licences.
I ask the Minister for an assurance that this matter will be kept under review until the legislation has bedded down, because only then will we know the extent of the enforcement problem and, therefore, how many additional officers need to be employed.
My second concern, which is very much shared by the Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association, is that of signage. Several noble Lords have already mentioned the problem. I refer to roof signs and signs painted on the sides of the vehicles. Clause 30, which deals with this problem, says in subsection (1),
"The Secretary of State may make regulations prohibiting the display in London on or from vehicles (other than licensed taxis and public service vehicles) of any sign, notice or other feature of a description specified in the regulations".
I feel most strongly that the word "may" should be replaced by the word "shall". We have yet another "may/shall" situation. The current practice in London is not to allow minicabs to display signs. Could not that be continued?
These regulations will affect not only Londoners, but the millions of people who visit London each year. How can we expect them to recognise the difference between a licensed black taxi and a licensed private hire vehicle, especially if that private hire vehicle is allowed to display a roof sign or have signs painted on its bodywork? Confusion will reign. I ask the Minister seriously to consider the prohibition on all signs on minicabs, except perhaps for the plate on the back which signifies that the vehicle is a minicab.
That brings me to Clauses 5 and 12 which make it allowable for a licensed operator of minicabs in London to subcontract to operators outside London who are licensed under Section 55 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 to accept bookings in London. Nearly all such companies outside London operate vehicles which have roof and bodywork signs all over them. Surely there are more than enough minicabs already operating in London without encouraging yet more.
While I am referring to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, I should add that in many areas of the country outside London where it is applicable, Section 55 is not working at all well. Local licensing authorities and trading standards officers are having a terrible time enforcing the regulations. They simply do not have enough manpower, and many licensed private hire operators and drivers are committing mayhem and are getting away with it. In Sheffield, for example, the city council employed two enforcement officers after adding £30 to the cost of a
560
minicab licence to pay for it. Those enforcement officers made a dramatic difference, resulting in numerous prosecutions and numerous licences being revoked.
The main difficulty with private hire is the fact that numbers are unlimited. When Sheffield City Council did a spot check on private hire operators in the city, it found that 50 per cent. of them were benefit fraudsters. Let us hope that this Bill will have the effect of reducing the total number of minicabs operating ill London. At present, it is estimated that there could be up to 60,000 in London. Good enforcement should get rid of the cowboys.
I hope that I have expressed my concern constructively. I close by once again urging the Minister to consider taking the matter under review so that these and other changes can be made if and when they are seen to be necessary.
3.32 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who has been involved in this matter for a very long time; the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, which has brought the issue so dramatically before us over a number of years; Sir George Young, my honourable friend Dr. Jenny Tonge and the other Members who helped to bring the Bill through the first part of its passage into legislation; my colleagues in another place who assisted in ensuring that there was time for that process to take place; and everybody, including the Government, involved in helping to take the Bill, I hope, onto the statute book.
There has been a good deal of discussion during our debate about the differences between black cabs and minicabs. I should like to emphasise a point which was made effectively by my noble friend Lady Ludford, who pointed out that they serve two different markets. Minicabs provide a door-to-door service. It is much more difficult to get such a service from a black cab.
That difference is reflected in the fact that black cabs can ply for hire and their drivers can take the booking. Bookings do not have to be made through an "operator", to use the word in the Bill. That implies a special degree of trust in the driver of a black cab. Everyone respects and honours the role that the black cab has played in London life for as long as one can remember. The black cab has become a feature of tourist propaganda, novels and reminiscences. For Londoners it has become an essential part of city life. But the city is a different place from what it was even when I was growing up. Different people require differrent forms of transport. The minicab trade has grown up to supply a particular market. I believe that this was a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. The fact that this different market requires different support is not a reflection on the black cab trade.
We support this legislation on three main grounds. First, it is good legislation in that it gets rid of an anomaly in the law. That is always a sensible thing to do. Secondly, I do not believe that it damages the role of the black cab. My impression from talking to drivers of black cabs is that they would rather their opposition

561
was regulated and had to meet certain standards than have to compete against a totally unregulated market in which anyone could ply for hire at whatever cost was thought to be reasonable. Well regulated competition is fair competition and therefore in some respects it is better from the point of view of the black cab trade.
Thirdly, this Bill is invaluable because it goes to the heart of the need to protect passengers in what has been up to now an unregulated London minicab trade. That is the purpose of the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has explained. The main way to do that is to introduce a licensing system that is concerned with the character of the driver, the condition of the vehicle that he or she drives and the premises that the operator uses. It is the combination of licensing plus evidence of licensing which is at the heart of the Bill. We on this side of the Chamber support that.
I should like to reinforce some of the queries that have been raised by my noble friend. In particular, perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, who is to respond on behalf of the Government, can tell the House how the Government react to the "may/shall" issue in relation to the proposed criminal record check for drivers. That is an important issue raised by the Bill and much will depend on how the Government carry forward the particular clause that deals with it. My noble friend Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham was concerned by enforcement of the regulations. That is also an important point.
I should like to pose two questions of my own. There has been discussion as to whether the operator should be able to have shop front-type premises and minicabs should be obliged or allowed to have meters and external signs. There are arguments for and against all of those matters. I do not propose to go through them now because I do not believe that they are relevant to the passage of this Bill, which I should like to see on the statute book during the course of this Session of Parliament. Can the Minister tell the House whether, under Clause 32 of the Bill, provision can be made by regulation to deal with these issues if it appears that they need to be dealt with? I have looked at the wording of Clause 32 and I am not certain that it enables such aspects to be dealt with.
Secondly, it is all very well putting together a new statute which protects, in particular, vulnerable users of this important section of public transport, but the passenger will still need to know what he or she should look for to ensure that he or she is stepping into a licensed vehicle, driven by a licensed driver, rather than an unlicensed vehicle driven by an unlicensed driver. Has any thought been given to the need to provide good publicity to explain to people what their rights are and how they can ensure that they are acting sensibly when they hire a minicab?
3.45 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, first, on having introduced the Bill into the House, and, secondly, on the extremely clear
562
explanation of it that she gave. It was one of the best explanations of a Bill that I have heard since I made one myself!
As my noble friend said, we debated this issue on an Unstarred Question in May when we did not think that the Bill would ever see the light of day in your Lordships' House. I made what was effectively my Second Reading speech on that occasion, so I do not intend to weary your Lordships by repeating what I said then. Other noble Lords today have already made many of the points that I should have liked to have made, so again I shall not repeat them.
Almost every noble Lord has talked about enforcement of action against illegal touting. In 1996, there were only 98 convictions in London for illegal touting by minicabs on the street. At least that number of offences must be committed every evening of the week in central London. I am concerned that there will now be a three-tier system of cabs in London. There will be licensed black cabs, licensed minicabs, and unlicensed, illegal vehicles touting for business, which will not of course be covered by all of the Bill's admirable provisions. It is essential that more effort is put in by the police to enforce the provisions. I have been in correspondence with the Minister for London. She reminded me that it is the duty of every police officer in London to ensure that the law is not broken. It may not be a matter for the PCO. It is for the policeman on the beat to ensure that that happens. I hope that we can have some reassurance on that point from the Minister. Having said that, I recognise that there is a large unmet demand, especially when the theatres come out, and so forth. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, referred to that point.
One of the problems seems to be—again the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, referred to it—the length of time that it is now taking for an applicant for a black cab licence to obtain his knowledge test. I am told that 30 years ago, with much the same test, it took about six months. It can now take up to three years. I hesitate to be critical of the PCO because I do not know enough about it, but I am sure that there must be scope there for efficiencies to be made and some way of speeding up the process so that some of that unmet demand can be satisfied by there being more black cabs on the road.
Perhaps there should be some restructuring of the fare system as well to enable black cabs to charge a little more later at night, which might encourage more drivers out.
My other point related to Clause 5 concerning subcontracting vehicles from outside London. However, the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, dealt with the point. I seek assurance that it is not the Government's intention to allow subcontracting to be the normal method by which a significant proportion of any individual London private hire vehicle operator bookings are fulfilled. While it may not be strictly comparable, where private hire vehicles are licensed elsewhere in the country by local authorities not all local authorities adopt exactly the same standards. It is not unknown for private hire vehicles licensed by a more tolerant local authority then to work in the adjacent local authority. We should not

563
want that situation to arise as a result of the operation of Clause 5. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an assurance on how that measure will work.
My noble friend Lord Teviot wondered whether the MOT test would be adequate for the testing of vehicles. I cannot agree with my noble friend. As far as I am aware, the MOT test takes no account of the interior condition of a car. It does not make the vehicle unsafe, but it may make it uncomfortable. The public are entitled to a reasonable degree of comfort in a car and not to have torn upholstery, and so on. I believe that a more stringent test than the MOT test would be required.
As my noble friend Lady Gardner said, in the end the Bill had a pretty thorough going over in Standing Committee in another place. I am glad to say that "may" and "shall" were changed on topographical knowledge, a point I raised on the Unstarred Question. I can assure my noble friend that I shall not wish to put down any amendments in Committee. I hope that we may be able to take the Committee stage formally, although I cannot bind anyone else on that.
I wish my noble friend's Bill a speedy passage onto the statute book.
3.47 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I, too, am glad to speak in the debate and to support the further progress of the Bill. I agree with the compliments of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, on the clarity of her introduction of the Bill on Second Reading.
There was a time, only recently, when we had almost given the Bill up for lost. That was the background to the Unstarred Question tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and debated here on 13th May when I had the opportunity to speak. But now we find it before us for Second Reading, and I was very glad to hear the support voiced for it from all parts of the House.
Noble Lords will know from what I said on 13th May that I believe that it does indeed deserve such support. As and when this measure reaches the statute book—as we all hope it does; and I note with pleasure the hope of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, that its passage will be speedy—I believe that we shall look back and wonder that it might ever have been thought a matter of doubt or even controversy that London minicabs should be regulated. Let us be clear that all this Bill does is to apply to the London minicab trade essentially the same system of regulation as already exists, and has existed for many years, for minicabs in the rest of England and Wales. It is no more than that.
I am particularly grateful to the London Taxi Board for the opportunity it gave me to meet with it yesterday. It added greatly to my knowledge of the issues involved in dealing with the Bill as expeditiously as possible. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, in paying tribute to the reputation of and service given by our black cabs. I know that the point is widely recognised, but perhaps it is worth repeating to show that there is nothing very startling
564
about this measure. It brings into effect in London a situation which applies elsewhere in England and Wales. The question is, perhaps, why the Bill has not been brought forward previously. There have been too many horror stories for far too long about attacks on minicab passengers in London. I am glad that your Lordships' House has shown such readiness to provide a remedy for this gap in the statute book.
Before going further I, too, must acknowledge the role played both today and over previous years by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, in promoting the cause of London minicab regulation. Through her association with the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, she has for long been associated with this issue and I am delighted that she has had this opportunity of commending the Bill to your Lordships.
I am also glad to praise Sir George Young for choosing this Bill when he came high in the ballot, and for his enormously hard work in sponsoring it. Thank goodness, it is not a party matter, and I am happy to offer thanks to Sir George for all he has done. I am very glad that the Government were able to give him assistance.
I should make a few points on behalf of the Government. The first is just to repeat, as I said in May, that if this Bill should fall the Government will introduce its own measure as soon as parliamentary time permits. Noble Lords will understand that I cannot be any more precise than that, but the commitment remains. However, I stress that we all hope that that will not be necessary and that the Bill before us today will gain Royal Assent.
I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, that the very thorough examination which the Bill had in Committee in the other place has left it a better Bill. I hope that your Lordships will conclude that it should be allowed to remain as it stands before us today.
It was subject to a number of amendments in the other place. Several of them were technical, though certainly worthwhile for all that, in a Bill which has to stand the test of time. But some others were more substantive, and I believe they show that Sir George Young and Ministers listened with an open mind to representations that were made to them. I know that there were concerns about some aspects of the Bill in its original form. I hope that noble Lords will agree that a proper and constructive response has now been made to those concerns and that the Bill strikes an appropriate balance between various considerations.
On key matters, however, the Bill remains unchanged. It still provides for the regulation of drivers, vehicles and operators, just as in the rest of England and Wales. The House would expect no less. The regulatory function is for the Secretary of State, but I can confirm that it would be his intention to use his powers under the Bill to delegate those functions to the Metropolitan Police, and thus to the Public Carriage Office, which already regulates the London taxi trade, rightly regarded as one of the finest in the world.

565
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, and the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, raised the issue of sub-contracting. One amendment made in another place was to insert what is now Clause 5, which provides, among other things, that London minicab operators are able to sub-contract bookings to operators outside London. I know that some concern has been expressed about this.
The first thing to say is that the new provision only puts London operators on exactly the same footing as operators anywhere else in England and Wales, where sub-contracting across a local authority boundary is legally possible. I am not aware that it is a problem elsewhere, and I do not expect it to be in London. It represents only a degree of operational flexibility, to help ensure that customers get a good service. It would be hard to justify a provision for London which was more restrictive than in other parts of the country.
Secondly, I would stress that sub-contracting is only permitted to other licensed operators in England and Wales. The clause is very clear on that. By law, licensed operators must use only drivers who and vehicles which are also licensed, and by the same licensing authority. I am sure that noble Lords would expect no less.
Concern has been expressed as to whether there may be a loophole in connection with Clause 5. But in that crucial sense there is no loophole at all. It wholly maintains the basic principle of the Bill, which is to give minicab customers confidence that they are using operators, drivers and vehicles that are all properly licensed in London or elsewhere. In that way, customers can be sure that the vehicles are safe and that people with convictions for violence or sexual offences have been excluded. That is exactly what Clause 5 achieves.
The present position in London is that the minicab trade is not regulated at all. That must be perceived to be the biggest loophole of all. In Brighton, Birmingham or Preston people who use minicabs have the confidence that a proper licensing system is in force. But that is not so in London. This Bill would close that loophole. The provision of subcontracting merely acknowledges that minicabs outside London are regulated properly and can be used as such.
Nevertheless, subcontracting will be monitored in London. It is intended that operators will be required to keep information about subcontracting as part of the records of each booking which will have to be maintained under Clause 4(3)(b). The Public Carriage Office will check on the extent and nature of subcontracting in monitoring those booking records.
If, having regard to what the records show and other relevant circumstances, it appeared to the PCO that subcontracting, either in general or by particular operators, was going far beyond reasonable business practice to such an extent that it was a cause of concern, then it would consider what action to take. In particular, it would consider also whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that he should consider using his powers under Clause 3(4) to make regulations in respect of licence conditions. The PCO could itself consider whether to use Clause 3(4) powers to impose conditions on individual licences. Both the PCO and the Secretary
566
of State would wish to consider, in the light of all the circumstances, whether the public interest was being harmed.
The question has been raised as to when the PCO or the Secretary of State would use their powers. It is not possible, sensible or even helpful for me to speculate. Everything must depend on the circumstances and at present it would be hypothetical circumstances at that. A problem may not arise. I understand that there have not been difficulties in relation to subcontracting outside London, and I do not think it right to set the rules for something which has not yet happened, which may not happen and where all concerned will need to look at the circumstances if and when they arise.
Nevertheless, it may be helpful if I place on record a quotation from a letter which the Minister for Transport in London sent to the London Taxi Board recently. She said:
"If the abuse which you fear were to transpire (and I am doubtful that it will) Ministers could if need be take action by way of regulations".
I know that that was a concern of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. Therefore, the situation will be monitored. It is far from clear that there will be a problem requiring action on public interest grounds. But there are adequate powers under the Bill for action to be taken if it were deemed necessary. I hope the House will take reassurance from that.
The issue of enforcement has been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and the noble Viscount, Lord Slim. That is an extremely important issue. Plying for hire by minicabs is already illegal, as several noble Lords have noted. This Bill makes no difference to the law on that. The right to ply for hire will remain the exclusive province of the taxi trade. Plying for hire by minicabs will remain illegal and I must stress that to the House.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, that the Bill, when it becomes law, will make a practical difference because there will be an extra sanction against people who ply for hire illegally. In future, if the minicab trade is licensed, then licensed drivers who are caught plying for hire will risk losing their licence as well as being punished for breaking the law on plying for hire. The operators to whom most drivers are attached will also have to explain themselves and if a driver is caught plying for hire without a minicab driver's licence that will be an extra offence with which he or she can be charged.
It has been suggested that the introduction of licensing means that the respectable licensed minicab trade will have its own reputation and livelihood to protect. It, quite as much as the police, wants to see any third tier of unlicensed minicabs firmly put out of business. We can therefore expect that the licensed minicab trade will be keen to inform the police of any illegal unlicensed activity in its area.
The role of the Metropolitan Police was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes and by the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Slim. The Metropolitan Police, for its part, already has the cab enforcement section aimed particularly at illegal plying

567
for hire by minicabs and touting by taxis and minicabs. The rest of the Metropolitan Police of course will have its continuing duty to enforce the law. That can include the mounting of special exercises on illegal plying for hire, as already happens from time to time, involving police officers in plain clothes if need be, to take drivers who are acting illegally by surprise. That, I think, is the sort of action the House will expect.
The new law on minicab licensing will deserve its own enforcement resources. I can confirm that the Public Carriage Office intends to set up a special minicab enforcement team if the Bill becomes law. It may number perhaps 20 civilians, though that has yet to be decided. The PCO will be approaching its planning work with renewed vigour now that the Bill has made fresh progress. Its job will be to check that the provisions of the Bill are properly observed. That will entail not only routine visits but also unannounced spot checks on operators' premises and on drivers and their vehicles. Among other things, this will include regular checks that the operators are keeping proper records of bookings, so that there will be a proper incentive on all those who are licensed to make sure that they keep to the high standards required by the licences. I might add, incidentally, that the PCO intends to set up liaison arrangements with their opposite-number licensing authorities in local authorities around London. Among other things, that may be relevant to issues surrounding sub-contracting.
Finally, I turn to enforcement—the point which was particularly stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara—the issue of the third tier of unlicensed shady minicabs as well as the upper tiers of licensed taxis and licensed minicabs. Let us remember that at present in London, and only London of all our cities, there is no way of telling which is a shady unreliable minicab and which is not. In future, licensed vehicles will be required to display licence plates and licensed drivers will be required to wear badges. Operators' licences will have to be displayed in operating centres. So even if there is a so-called third tier, the customer will be able to see who is respectable and safe and who is not, and so will the police. That is surely a crucial step forward.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, also raised the question of publicity being given when these changes occur so that the public are aware of them. That is a very important point and one to which we shall wish to give great consideration. Other issues regarding safety have been raised. Perhaps I could say that the issue which was raised by the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Slim, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, regarding door locks on minicabs will be a matter for regulations and there will be an opportunity for consultation. I think the two contributions demonstrated that there is not a clear and unambiguous answer to the point that was raised.
It is important that we also look at the issue which was raised by several noble Lords, the noble Viscount, my noble friend Lord Simon, the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—the issue of signing. The worry is that minicabs would be allowed to carry such large signs and advertisements that there could be confusion with taxis
568
and the problems as regards the illegal plying for hire. That is just one of the issues that has been raised. We understand that concern, especially as the present law is very restricted on signage.
In Clause 30, the Bill makes provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations on signs and notices. Of course, there will be consultation before any regulations are made. I can say now that it is envisaged that the approach will still be generally restrictive. It is also worth adding that the power in Clause 30 can apply to all vehicles and not just to London minicabs. Therefore, any restriction could be quite comprehensive in that it could cover vehicles which were operating in London. I hope that that reassures noble Lords. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea, that we certainly envisage making regulations under Clause 30.
The issue of minicab offices and advertising was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. Such offices can be identified under the Bill, but what they must not do is to advertise taxi or car services when they only have minicabs. The noble Baroness also raised the question of the Greater London Authority. I can tell her that it is envisaged that the Public Carriage Office will transfer to the GLA and, in particular, to transport for London as she suggested. Moreover, as the noble Baroness also suggested, the necessary provision will be needed in the legislation.
The noble Baroness also raised a point on the issue of criminal record checks and asked whether such checks would really be made. I can assure the noble Baroness that the "may" that relates to criminal record checks is indeed a strong "may"; indeed, it will be standard procedure to make a criminal record check. However, it is just possible that some flexibility will be needed in that respect—for example, for someone who is moving from elsewhere with a minicab driver's licence where he or she has just had a criminal record check. None of us would wish unnecessary checks to be made, but I can assure the House that we see such checks as being crucial.
The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, suggested that perhaps there were too many minicabs for all of them to be tested at the existing PCO premises in Islington. It is envisaged that the tests will be contracted out to selected garages which already carry out MoT tests for the department. It is hoped that this, too, might be done within 12 months, although it is too early to give cast iron dates for such a full test. Once the licence system is up and running, it is envisaged that vehicles may well have to be tested more than once a year. The Bill provides for that to take place up to three times a year, recognising that these tend to be high mileage vehicles. It is also envisaged that the test will go beyond the basic MoT test to cover, for example, the internal condition of the vehicle—a point raised by noble Lords—so that passenger comfort and safety could be taken into account.
I also recognise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, that the MoT standard test has served us well for many years. We must beware of over-regulation. I am sure that the noble Lord's point

569
will be taken well into account during the consultation on our proposals regarding the vehicle testing regime. I hope that the noble Lord is reassured on that point.
My noble friend Lord Borrie and the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea, also asked about the level of licence fees under the new regulatory regime. Frankly, it is too early to give any firm figures, but I can assure the House that the Public Carriage Office will very much bear in mind the fees charged for various licences elsewhere in the country. I would only qualify that in two ways. First, there is quite a range of fees as charged between one authority and another; and, secondly, when quoting a fee, one has to be careful to look at the time for which the licence applies to attain an annual rate.
I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, that the need for enforcement and to use resources well will be taken fully into account and kept under review. Topographical knowledge tests have been mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Teviot, among others. This issue needs to be carefully considered by the Public Carnage Office. I believe it is not helpful for me to engage in speculation here. However, there will be consultation on what is proposed. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said that we should strike a careful balance here and have regard to grandfather rights of existing drivers. We shall certainly bear that in mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has suggested that any knowledge test should not be so unreasonable as to create bureaucratic barriers to entry to the minicab trade, bearing in mind that minicab drivers do not ply for hire on the streets as taxi drivers do. We understand the noble Lord's point. I shall certainly ensure that it is drawn to the attention of the Public Carriage Office so that it can be considered alongside the many other representations that I feel sure it will receive on this point.
Reference has been made to the time taken to pass the taxi knowledge test at present. We understand the concerns that have been raised in this regard, as does the Public Carriage Office, which is already working on improvements and streamlining the procedures while maintaining the quality standards which are so important. We take the point about recruiting examiners. That is an extremely important point which we shall bear in mind.
I end as I began by stressing the value of this Bill. In all its detail it is easy to lose sight of the essential point that it achieves for London that which has already been achieved elsewhere in England and Wales; namely, a proper system of regulation. It is not a novel Bill; it merely brings London into line with the rest of the country on this crucial issue of public safety. The intention of the Bill is to reassure people that their daughters, sons and other vulnerable people are not being driven home late at night by convicted rapists, and that the car they are driven in does not have weak brakes or cannot be properly steered. These are rather stark terms in which to express the issues in the Bill. Elsewhere in the country these safeguards are in place but that is not the case in London at the moment.
570
I apologise to noble Lords for the length of time I have taken to try to reply to every single point. The only excuse I can offer is that, like the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, I wish to see this Bill, and the protection it offers, on the statute book at the earliest possible moment. I hope that every comment I have made has contributed to the Bill's speedy passage.
4.13 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, we have had a full and constructive debate this afternoon. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in it. I was pleasantly surprised at the number of noble Lords who have taken the trouble to remain here late on a Friday afternoon. I am also grateful to the Minister for her reply.
It was not, of course, our fault that this debate followed the Second Reading of the Landmines Bill which meant that we had a late start. A couple of points have been raised which I feel have not been covered in the Minister's reply. I wish to comment on those points as briefly as possible, bearing in mind that everyone wants to go home.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, said he was anxious that people should not be prevented from entering the market. I, too, was concerned about that point. I wondered about the man who just wants to operate a minicab as a one-man affair. It turned out that that could be possible under the Bill. His wife could be the operator receiving the calls at home; they must be taken by some other person. But there is nothing to prevent a single person starting a company that could develop into a large enterprise. That reassured me. I did not want to introduce a Bill that could create massive empires for people who had large groups of cars and eliminate the small enterprise. So I was pleased to know that that was the case.
A point that has not been made in relation to meters is that black cabs must use the most direct route. Therefore a passenger knows that the price on the meter is the minimum charge for the journey. But if a driver does not have the same degree of topographical knowledge, he may use a different route or get lost, and the meter would then be rather out of touch.
I thought that my noble friends Lord Teviot and Lord Brabazon were not in conflict as regards the use of garages that do MOT tests. The principle of using such garages and subcontracting the work is excellent. Matters such as the interior of a minicab would be taken into account. There are certain standards set for black cabs by the Public Carriage Office and the regulations could cover such points.
I found the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, very interesting. However, he said that the topographical knowledge is the same for black-cab drivers and others outside London. That may be true, but it is only in London that an unbelievably high standard in "the knowledge" applies. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, said that 30 years ago it took six months to learn. But 30 years ago the road systems in London were rather different. The complexity of routes and one-way systems was not the same. So, while I

571
appreciate that the shortage of examiners may be a feature, there is a far greater degree of knowledge to be learnt; almost week by week in London everything changes.
I wish to reassure the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, who was concerned about enforcement. We are all concerned. However, the noble Earl should bear in mind that there is no enforcement at present. We are looking at a million per cent. improvement on the present situation. The only enforcement that presently exists is a small amount of provision on plying for hire. There is no other protection. I believe that that is why those in the black-taxi trade are no longer opposed to the measure; they see how hopeless the present situation is.
Signage is an issue. It is important that signs should be clearly recognisable on a minicab, and that the person who receives the cab in response to a telephone call knows that the car that has arrived is a minicab. So a degree of signage is necessary. The noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, said that visitors to London might find it confusing. That is true. Japanese tourists found it very confusing, having been advised to take a black cab from the airport, when they arrived to find cabs painted pink, green and yellow. They said, "I'm not getting into that. It must be a black cab", and they did not; they waited until they could find a black one. So visitors are easily confused. There has, therefore, to
572
be sufficient signing, and yet not enough to constitute an advertisement or to contravene the position of black taxis.
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, for his contribution. The point about door locks has already been covered by the Minister. The Minister was perhaps mistaken in saying that the offices will not be able to advertise "taxi" or "car" on their premises. I think they will not be able to advertise using the words "taxi" or "cab"; however, I believe that the word "car" will be allowed. Perhaps the Minister will check that point in Hansard. Although the technical phrase may be, "licensed hackney carriage", what member of the public will know that phrase? To the public it is a "taxi". What member of the public will say, "I'm ordering a private hire vehicle"? Everyone will order a "minicab" by telephone. Those are the words that people know. They create no confusion, and will be of benefit to everyone.
I believe that the Bill has merit, and that the proper regulation of minicabs is long overdue. I am glad that so many noble Lords have supported the Bill. I ask the House to give it a Second Reading so that London will be a safer place for those who travel and live here, and for those visitors who come from overseas. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past four o'clock.

  Questions for Written Answer
  Questions for Written Answer
  NHS Radiotherapy Resources
  NHS Radiotherapy Resources
  Powered Indoor/Outdoor Wheelchairs
  Powered Indoor/Outdoor Wheelchairs
  Health Service Guideline 30: Voucher Scheme
  Health Service Guideline 30: Voucher Scheme
  Male Life Expectancy
  Male Life Expectancy
  Cancers: Regional Incidence
  Cancers: Regional Incidence
  The Windfall Tax
  The Windfall Tax
  Peers' Office Accommodation and Attendance
  Peers' Office Accommodation and Attendance
  Lords' Divisions: Notification in House of Commons
  Lords' Divisions: Notification in House of Commons
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Weapons in Space
  Weapons in Space
  Anti-ballistic Missile Accords
  Anti-ballistic Missile Accords
  Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee
  Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee