Sitting of 18 May 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  DEFENCE

    Satellite Television (Ships)
    Mr. Jim Murphy: If he will make a statement on the availability of satellite television facilities on board Royal Navy ships. [41295]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): While most Royal Navy ships enjoy a publicly funded capability to receive satellite television when alongside, only the carriers are also capable of receiving it at sea. In view of the beneficial effects on morale, I have directed that we should explore the possibility of making such facilities available on all royal naval ships at sea.
    Mr. Murphy: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He will be aware that, recently, I graduated from the armed forces parliamentary scheme; part of that process involved serving with HMS Newcastle. I was struck by the impact of satellite television on the morale of the men on HMS Newcastle, so I was very pleased to hear my hon. Friend's comment today. Will he keep me, and the other people who are involved in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, informed of the detail of the negotiations, so that we can improve the morale of men and women serving on our ships? Many of them go to sea for six months or more and return to a very changed world. The lack of connection, day by day, to satellite television has a detrimental effect.
    Dr. Reid: I congratulate my hon. Friend on achieving his fellowship of the armed forces parliamentary scheme—a scheme that I thoroughly recommend to all hon. Members. Places are now open for next year.
    I believe that access to satellite television on Royal Naval ships would have a tremendous effect on morale. The subject has been raised with me, not only by my hon. Friend, but by several ratings during a recent visit to Fearless. It is too early to assess whether it is feasible to provide such facilities, but I hope that, if it is, it will be seen as a welcome boost for morale from a Government who truly care about the welfare of our service personnel.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: I do not dispute in any sense the potential benefit to morale of satellite television, but would not morale on Her Majesty's ships be best encouraged by ensuring that those vessels have a full capability to fight and win? In that context, can the Minister tell us whether real progress has been made in getting the anti-air weapon system for the horizon 2000 common new generation frigates into service at the time expected and to specification?
    Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I believe that it would be of tremendous value to morale on Her Majesty's ships and throughout the armed forces if we managed to remedy the dreadful shortfall in all three services that we were left by the previous Government. He can be assured that that is a top priority for me, and if we can get full manning on ships as well as satellite television, that would be a bonus. Discussions on the equipment for the horizon 2000 common new generation frigate project are continuing, and the hon. Gentleman can be sure that we shall proceed with them as speedily as is in our power.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Does my hon. Friend agree that morale was truly lifted with the change of Government? I believe that that has been the main boost to the armed forces.
    Dr. Reid: I can give my shortest answer today: yes on both counts.
    Sir George Young: Are satellite television facilities available on board HMS Cornwall, and might an analysis of their use shed light on its role? Why has the Secretary of State not answered my question, tabled a week ago, about the role of HMS Cornwall? Was not the Prime Minister wrong to imply that, somehow, HMS Cornwall was responsible for the favourable outcome in Sierra Leone?
    Dr. Reid: It is perhaps just as well that satellite television is not available, because if it were, I am sure that the crew would be more than upset by the aspersions that are sometimes cast on their activities—although not by my party. HMS Cornwall was deployed to Sierra Leone after the junta had been ousted to provide humanitarian assistance for the people, to support diplomatic efforts there, and to assist the return of the British high commissioner.
    HMS Cornwall did a fantastic job in Sierra Leone; she helped to save countless lives, and the country should be proud of what she achieved. Her helicopter transport lifted 10 tonnes of food, 3.5 tonnes of medical stores and 1 tonne of general stores. The crew helped to repair and reopen the children's hospital and school, and the port in Freetown. We should all be grateful for and proud of what HMS Cornwall did.

    Defence Diversification
    Mr. Syd Rapson: When the consultation period on the Government's Green Paper on defence diversification ends. [41296]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): The consultation period on our Green Paper on defence diversification ended on 8 May, and we are now considering the comments received.
    Mr. Rapson: I thank my hon. Friend for that comprehensive reply. Is he aware that the Green Paper has been widely welcomed by the business community in Hampshire, and especially by my constituents in Portsmouth? Lockheed Martin, which has substantial interests in the Astor and Merlin military programmes, is particularly interested in developments. What will the next stage of the process be? What can I tell my constituents about how the ideas in the Green Paper will evolve?
    Mr. Spellar: I congratulate my hon. Friend on being an excellent spokesman for the defence industry and the armed forces in his area; and on the considerable period that he worked for the Ministry of Defence there. Like him, we have been pleased by the responses to the Green Paper; we are considering them at the moment, and consulting other Government Departments. We need to take into account the outcome of the strategic defence review, and I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement on diversification before the summer recess.

    Staffordshire Regiment
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement concerning the continuing role of the 3 battalion of the Staffordshire Regiment. [41297]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): The third battalion of the Staffordshire Regiment is currently allocated to a national defence role. The future role of all arms and services within the Territorial Army will be decided as part of the strategic defence review. It is too early to say how individual units may be affected by the outcome of the review.
    Mr. Fabricant: Although a number of people will realise that the strategic defence review is not yet completed, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the third battalion of the Staffordshire regiment, a Territorial Army battalion and regiment, is suffering from morale that is not as high as it ought to be? He will know that it is one of the few county regiments left in the country. Can he offer the battalion any encouragement by saying that it will not be disbanded or greatly reduced in size?
    Dr. Reid: The Government want to make the future of the TA as valuable to this country as its past has been. We firmly believe that the way in which to do that is to make the TA relevant and usable, ready and available, and integrated with the other defence forces. Those principles will guide our approach to the Territorial Army, and to all the other services, regular and reserve.
    Ms Rachel Squire: As the possibility of a massive Russian land invasion of western Europe and the United Kingdom now seems remote, is it not only right that the strategic defence review should reconsider the role of the battalion mentioned by the hon.
    584
    Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), and of the other regular and reserve forces? Does the Minister further agree, given the outstanding commitment and ability of many of our reserve forces in the TA, the maritime volunteer service and elsewhere, that they should be given an enhanced role under the SDR? Might that not be achieved by the formation of smaller, specialist units which could offer the logistical, technical and medical support that is much needed by our regular forces?
    Dr. Reid: I agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend and with her specific points. Those who seek to cast the Territorial Army in stone in the form in which it was created to face the threat during the cold war do it no service. That is the way in which to create a Territorial Army that is irrelevant to future threats. The Government seek to make the Territorial Army more usable, relevant and integrated, and to make sure that its future is as glorious as its past service to the country.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister acknowledge that in the Territorial Army, there is a considerable crisis of morale, not least because of reports suggesting that its numbers may be reduced to as few as 40,000? In the light of the problems of recruitment and hence of undermanning, will the proposals in the strategic defence review take account of the contribution made by Territorial Army soldiers to operations such as Bosnia? Is the Minister aware, for example, that 11 soldiers of the Scottish Yeomanry are deploying on 27 May to the Light Dragoons in Bosnia in order to make up the numbers? Does not that emphasise the importance of the Territorials as a ready reserve to ensure that units conducting such operations are fully manned?
    Dr. Reid: The hon. and learned Gentleman points out that the Territorial Army has been used to plug gaps in the Regular Army because of the deficiency in numbers there that we inherited. I am pleased to pay tribute to that. However, it would do no service to the Territorial Army to make its future success depend on the previous Government's failure to recruit to the Regular Army. We want to make sure that the Territorial Army is free standing, yet integrated. We believe that we can create a modern, relevant and usable Territorial Army. That will be a much better safeguard of its future than merely regarding it as being on the substitutes' bench for those who are not present in the Regular Army.

    London District Rifle Association
    Mr. Julian Brazier: If he will list the Regular and Territorial units in the London District Rifle Association meeting in April by order of their team totals, starting with the winner. [41298]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): I have placed in the Library of the House a list of the Regular and Territorial Army units in the London District Rifle Association meeting in April, by order of their team totals. I offer my congratulations to the London Regiment 5th, which carried the day with a team total of 3,637 points.
    Mr. Brazier: Can the Minister confirm that the three Territorial Army infantry battalions easily outshot their

    585
    six regular counterparts? In the same week, an American National Guard armoured battalion easily defeated its regular counterparts in a tough trial in the Nevada desert. Is it not time that we recognised that the best and most cost-effective role for reservists is in combat?
    Dr. Reid: I confirm what the hon. Gentleman says. From memory, I think that four out of the first five teams were Territorial Army units, which proves what all of us know: that we have some extremely high-quality people in the Territorial Army. That is all the more reason to make sure that the role that we shape for those high-quality people is not one that died with the cold war, but one that is relevant and usable in future exercises and operations, and can meet any future threat that we may face.

    Army Barracks
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What spare capacity there is within Army barracks. [41299]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): An overall estimate of the spare capacity in Army barracks could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Where spare capacity exists, we seek to reduce it wherever possible.
    Mr. Swayne: In my experience, there is little spare capacity. Does the Minister therefore agree that the British Army of the Rhine is better left where it is?
    Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman knows that the location of forces is considered in the strategic defence review. That is under consideration by the Cabinet, and the outcome will be announced in a White Paper in due course.
    Sir George Young: Does not the exchange on this question and earlier ones underline the need to complete the strategic defence review as soon as possible? The Secretary of State sent it off to his colleagues at the end of March. If it is not Treasury-driven, as we are repeatedly assured, what is holding up publication, and when shall we see it?
    Mr. Spellar: As the right hon. Gentleman knows from his own experience, those matters are being considered fully in the round. The strategic defence review is foreign-policy-driven: it is not driven by incremental salami slicing, like the previous Government's so-called reviews. The matters are being considered properly. It is not the back-of-an-envelope stuff designed to justify cuts that we saw from the previous Government.

    Defence Medical Services
    Laura Moffatt: If he will make a statement on the current state of the defence medical services. [41300]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): We are concerned about shortfalls in manpower and operational medical equipment, which were inherited from the previous Government. We are
    586
    addressing that as a matter of urgency and will announce our proposals to remedy the situation as part of the strategic defence review.
    Laura Moffatt: Does the Secretary of State remember the Defence Committee report on defence medical services that outlined clearly how the services felt downgraded? The Committee found that services were deteriorating, that morale was very low—which we saw clearly for ourselves on an earlier visit to Bosnia—and that people were looking to the new Labour Government to do something about that. Will the Secretary of State give proper recognition to that report through the strategic defence review?
    Mr. Robertson: Yes, we will. My hon. Friend, who is not only a member of the current Defence Committee but a nurse, knows precisely the damage that can be done to morale in areas such as defence medical services. The report to which she referred, which was produced unanimously by a Tory-dominated Select Committee in the previous Parliament, states:
    "We conclude that the staff shortages in the Defence Medical Services are so serious that it is not clear whether it will recover. It is possible that the military ethos of medicine in the regular armed forces has been destroyed. It seems incredible that the scaling down of the Defence Medical Services has been effected by MOD in such a manner as to allow a major and potentially critical staff shortage to develop."
    The new Government have made it a principle priority of the Ministry of Defence to get to grips with the dilemma that was left to us. I am absolutely committed to ensuring that, if we send troops into battle, they will have proper medical back-up.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: I wish the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues every success in tackling the extremely difficult problem of maintaining properly trained staff in the defence medical services who are capable of dealing with battle casualties, as well as fulfilling their primary role of looking after the troops in peace time. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is extremely important that health service trusts are prepared to release for military operations their highly trained and skilled nursing staff who are also members of the Territorial Army? Has he made representations to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to assess whether the system is working well?
    Mr. Robertson: I assure the hon. Gentleman, who had responsibility in this area under the previous Government, that that is precisely what we are doing. The defence medical services cannot survive or thrive without active co-operation from the national health service. We are not seeking to duplicate the national health service, but there are specific needs in the defence field that cannot be met by the NHS. Therefore, the exercise that we are conducting as a key priority of the strategic defence review will ascertain how best current health service resources can be mobilised in times of conflict to ensure that our fundamental obligation as a Ministry, a Government and a Parliament is to those whom we might send into the field. The risk to their health and life should be of paramount importance.
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware of another reference to defence medical

    587
    services in the Defence Committee report that he mentioned? The report said that defence medical services were in such a state that
    "A choice would have to be made between sending troops without proper medical support or only sending the limited number of troops who could be supported."
    Will he join me in condemning the Conservative party for failing to deal with the situation in our defence medical services, and will he promise urgent action to tackle that problem?
    Mr. Robertson: I can do both. I am not content with simply condemning the previous Government—frankly, most of their members have been forgotten, although their legacy lingers on. They paid a heavy price for some of the calamitous decisions that they took, especially in areas such as defence medical services. We must get to grips with that problem because we shall be judged on it. I am determined that the Government will be judged as putting the priority of looking after battle casualties above practically every other priority in the defence field. I am confident that we shall be able to do that.

    War Crimes (Former Yugoslavia)
    Mr. John Heppell: What progress has been made by British forces in detaining persons indicted for war crimes in the former Yugoslavia since 1 May 1997. [41302]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Since 1 May 1997, seven people indicted for war crimes have been detained in Bosnia by the stabilisation force. Six of these detentions took place in the British-commanded sector and involved British forces, either directly or in support. A further 15 indictees have surrendered voluntarily to the international criminal tribunal in The Hague.
    Mr. Heppell: Will my right hon. Friend join me in applauding the efforts of our forces in Bosnia? I am sure that that sentiment is shared by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is necessary to continue to bring the guilty men to justice? Without justice, there is no chance of reconciliation and peace in Bosnia.
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is right. I congratulate those whose courage and dedication have led to the capture of those whom I have spoken about. The reality of the tragic country of Bosnia is that bringing those who have been indicted for war crimes to justice is not easy. The process is not simple and it involves huge risks, as the exercise at Prijedor last July amply proved. However, as my hon. Friend rightly says, there will not be a proper or lasting peace in the former Yugoslavia unless those who were responsible for the most heinous crimes in that part of the world in the past decade are eventually brought to The Hague to face justice.
    Mr. Martin Bell: Will the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that all relevant information gathered in this country over the past six years, including information from radio intercepts, will be made available as required to the war crimes tribunal in The Hague, and that nothing will be held back?
    Mr. Robertson: We co-operate fully with the international criminal tribunal on the former Yugoslavia
    588
    at The Hague. We shall give it all the assistance that we can in future. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General visited The Hague earlier this month to open a new court room, which has been funded by the British Government.
    During one of the first Question Times in which I participated, having taken up the office of Secretary of State for Defence, I made it clear that one of the Government's commitments was to bring to justice those who had been indicted of these horrifying and almost unbelievable crimes. The fact that six detentions have taken place in the British-led sector is an indication that, when I announced our resolve, we had every intention of carrying it out. We have been shown to have done so.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the Secretary of State agree that the ultimate aim in Bosnia must be to establish stable institutions that are based on democracy and the rule of law? Does the right hon. Gentleman also agree that to achieve that, it is essential that the people who have committed such dreadful crimes against humanity are rounded up and brought properly to trial, and if found guilty, are sentenced? It should be a fundamental aim of the stabilisation force and its successor force to achieve that.
    Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is right, and that is precisely what we are doing. However, I underline the risks, problems and dangers that are involved. From a long way away—in circumstances that are a million miles from the sort of environment in which our troops operate—it is simple to say that we should bring the war criminals to justice. Within the mandate that has been laid down, British troops operating with the stabilisation force have done the dangerous job that the world community expects of them. I think that everyone recognises now that we are trying to fulfil that obligation.
    I have read some of the indictments relating to some of those who have been apprehended by British troops. They are horrifying; they are stomach-turning. Indeed, some of them would be classified as pornography in their present form. That is a sign of how necessary it is for that part of the world and others to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice as quickly as possible.

    Aldershot Garrison
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: If he will make a statement on the future of the Aldershot garrison. [41303]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): The strategic defence review has examined all aspects of defence. No final decisions have been taken, and although I cannot speculate about the outcome, I can assure the hon. Member that there will continue to be a significant Army presence in Aldershot.
    Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the Minister for part of that reply. As he is aware, the delay in bringing forth the strategic defence review is causing great concern in Aldershot, not just among military personnel, who do not know whether they will have to move—I hope that the Parachute Regiment will stay—but in the town, where there are deprivation problems. I hope that the Minister will complete the review as quickly as possible so that all

    589
    the uncertainty can be limited. Can he assure me that, once the review is finished, Aldershot will still be able to claim to be the home of the British Army?
    Dr. Reid: As regards the timing, it is better to get these matters right than to rush. At least some of the problems that we face are caused by the mess made in a number of areas by the Treasury-led reviews which were driven through under the previous Government.
    I am pleased to assure the hon. Gentleman that there will continue to be a significant presence at Aldershot. We intend to ensure that all elements of the armed forces are usable, relevant and tied in to operations in the future, which is what we seek for the Parachute Regiment. The hon. Gentleman will know that HQ 4 Division and HQ 5 Airborne Brigade, as well as many other units, are based in Aldershot, and he can be assured that there will be a continuing Army presence for him and his constituents.
    Mr. Robert Key: We understand the Minister's embarrassment at being unable to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). The House is getting pretty fed up with non-answers to questions. The Minister has been unable to answer more than half the questions on the Order Paper this afternoon and has referred instead to the outcome of the defence review. It simply is not good enough. It is affecting this country's entire military credibility, the defence export industries, and the health, economy, housing and local plans of Aldershot and many other garrison towns.
    We expect shortly to hear that the review is complete, but will the Minister please answer some of the questions? In particular, will he answer my hon. Friend's question on Aldershot, not by blaming the previous Government and saying that we must wait a few more months, but by telling us exactly where the defence review is now?
    Dr. Reid: I am not in the least embarrassed. If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about what the House is fed up with, he should know that it is fed up with the continual vacuous and banal statements by the Opposition. After 10 months' debate, which has involved all three services and ranged from the screws that we put on small battleships to the deployment of aircraft carriers and vast jets, and force planning assumptions, all that we have had from the Opposition is three debates on the Territorial Army because they think that there is cheap popularity in them. We would welcome a contribution from the Opposition.
    I have already made it clear that there will be a continuing substantial Army presence in Aldershot. As regards the paras, we will continue to do what we have been doing with all other elements of our forces—ensure that they are relevant and usable in the future, in the course of our foreign-policy-led review.

    New Deal
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: What contribution his Department is making to the Government's new deal initiative. [41305]
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: What contribution his Department is making to the Government's new deal initiative. [41309]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): My Department is committed to and is continuing to play a full part in contributing to the new deal. The armed forces are working closely with the new deal personal advisers and the further education colleges to identify, at the gateway stage, what self-development is required to make young people more confident and self-reliant. We are also committed to offering new deal opportunities whenever civilian recruitment campaigns are run.
    Mr. Jenkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for that full answer. Will he point out the many opportunities available to our young people in the services and also give me, the House, young people and, more important, our armed forces, an assurance that every young person allocated a place in the scheme will be a volunteer and that no force whatever will be used? Will he oppose the suggestion in one of the Sunday papers that the scheme is a back-door way to national service?
    Mr. Robertson: I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that the armed forces are and will remain volunteer organisations. There is no question of utilising the new deal as a method of press-ganging people into the armed forces.
    The three armed forces offer worthwhile, satisfying and profoundly rewarding careers for young people. If I had been answering Question No.1, I should have pointed out that we have turned a corner in the recruiting position in the British Army and are at last making inroads into the shortfall. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, who is in the lead on the matter, has done a superb job in the past 12 months. Young people are coming to our armed forces and we hope that, through the brief taster experiences under the new deal, which is opening new vistas for thousands of young people who for 18 years were denied hope or vision for the future, their eyes will be opened to the possibilities of a good career serving their country.
    Mr. Quinn: Will my right hon. Friend please say whether suppliers and contractors who support our armed forces and his Department have proposals to help with the new deal and to encourage young people to get into the broader side of the defence industry?
    Mr. Robertson: We always hope that Ministry of Defence suppliers will be among those involved in best practice in every field. We shall encourage those in the defence industry to participate in what is an enriching experience, not only for young people, but for companies and for the country. Many people forget that the defence industry employs 440,000 people at the cutting edge of technology and of success for the nation. Companies that are so successful should clearly recognise the benefits of getting young people through their doors by way of the new deal.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: May I press on the Secretary of State the fact that the armed forces would be able to take part in the new deal initiative with a great deal more certainty if they had the results of the strategic defence review to hand? The Ministry of Defence's proposals on, for example, elements such as the Royal Armoured Corps are an open secret among its members,

    591
    as is virtually the rest of the package that has gone forward to the Government. As the Treasury was involved in the teams that were assessing the MOD's strategic defence review inside the MOD when it was going on, what is the delay? Members of the armed forces have every reason to suspect that the package will be unpicked by the Treasury. He will understand that, if it is unpicked in one degree, the whole package will begin to fall apart.
    Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman was inside the MOD acting as an adviser to Ministers and, by gosh, saw precisely what was happening in there. There were not Treasury people inside the MOD; there were MOD people inside the Treasury and they were being told how much to cut. We are carrying out a policy-led review based on the strategic interests of this country. Whatever the hon. Gentleman thinks he has seen in the leaks, I can assure him that he has not seen the definitive outcome of the report. When he does, he will see something that is radical and sensible and designed to do what the Conservative Government never had the courage or guts to do: look at the future, not the past, and reconfigure our forces radically. When the Government are ready to announce the report, it and the White Paper will be issued.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: Does the Secretary of State agree that the purpose of the armed forces is the defence of the realm, and that they have been doing a good job of that in the recent past? While we all wish the recruiting initiative through new deal well, will he ensure that standards are maintained so that the armed forces do not suffer as a result of having to take poor quality recruits to make the new deal successful? Did he see the report in yesterday's newspapers that the paras, for one, are dropping their standards so that they can up their recruiting figures, the result of which is a reduction in effectiveness?
    Mr. Robertson: I saw the report and I thought that it was utter nonsense. It was an insult to the fine people in that regiment, who do not deserve such glib anecdotes being thrown at them. Even if it were true, it could hardly reflect the experience of simply one 12-month period. The attack, if that is what it was, is not just on the Government but on the previous Minister for the Armed Forces. I do not think that such an accusation would stick on the Government or on the Opposition. The professionalism of the armed forces will be maintained, although we may find other ways to get there.
    Speaking of standards, today's Evening Standard contains an article by Mr. Christopher Hudson. It states:
    "the reality is quite different. The British Army remains the single most universally admired of all British institutions. It possesses a worldwide reputation for discipline and professionalism. From the Falklands War to their peacekeeping role in Bosnia, our armed services have acquitted themselves with distinction."
    That is absolutely right, although Mr. Hudson may have other prescriptions with which I do not agree. We will maintain it as it is.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: New deal or not, does it help young men to join the armed forces when they reflect on how Guardsman Fisher and Guardsman Wright have been treated?
    Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces met representatives of the campaign for
    592
    the two guardsmen whom my hon. Friend mentions and has mentioned in the past. The matter is not for the Ministry of Defence; the decision is in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I know that she is well aware of the sentiments in the country, and my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will apprise her of his meeting last week. It is for her to make the decision within the long-established framework.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Before the Secretary of State gets too carried away with the overblown hoo-hah of his own rhetoric, will he reflect on the fact that the person who criticised the falling standards for recruitment to the Parachute Regiment was the head of the regiment's recruiting team? As newspaper articles have been quoted, let us see how the Secretary of State responds to what that man said. He said:
    "nearly half the soldiers now accepted into the Parachute Regiment, which prides itself on fitness, would have been failed five years ago.
    "The Army, facing a shortage of 5,000 recruits, was letting people slip through the net 'just to make up the numbers'".
    Is the Secretary of State proud of a development that drives the head of a recruiting team to resign from the Army to spread that message?
    Mr. Robertson: No, and I do not accept what he says. It is not borne out by the facts and it is an insult to those who serve in the regiment. I repeat that, even if it were true, the change could not simply have taken place over the past 12 months. Neither the previous Government, and certainly not this one, would lower the standards for those who are expected to serve and fight in Her Majesty's armed forces. Professionalism will be maintained, and that is recognised wherever our soldiers, sailors and air men and women are in the field of conflict. I have seen them in Bosnia, on HMS Invincible and on RAF stations in this country and abroad. Those people are among the finest and fittest in armed forces in any part of the world, and that standard will be maintained.

    Territorial Army
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: What plans he has for the modernisation of the Territorial Army. [41308]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): The strategic defence review has examined all aspects of our armed forces, including the Territorial Army. Although no final decisions have been taken, I assure the House that we will continue to need a Territorial Army that is structured for all the roles that we can plausibly foresee. Our aim is a Territorial Army that is relevant and capable, ready to serve Britain and able to meet the tasks that we set it.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is widespread support for the strategic review, because what was wanted was a careful, not rushed, appraisal of this country's real needs into the next century and that is what the Government are doing? Does he further agree that the way in which the Territorial Army will survive is by being modernised for that new role? It is not a pre-cold war or cold war situation, but a new situation, with the British Army and British armed forces taking on a different

    593
    strategic role. Does he also agree that part of that role involves the training of competent young men and women?
    Dr. Reid: Yes. We said that the strategic defence review would be foreign-policy-led, and it has been. We said that the service chiefs would be involved from day one and they have been. We said that every element of our forces would be subjected to scrutiny in the light of the new security context and they have been—every element, every force, regular and reserve, has been subjected to scrutiny. When the subject of the Territorial Army comes up, we should remember that it is the only section of the Army that has the freedom to express its views publicly and to lobby publicly. Although that does not in any way diminish our respect for it, we should remember that exactly the same level of scrutiny has been applied to the regular Army, to the Navy and to the Air Force. The purpose behind that scrutiny is to ensure that all services, regular and reserve, are usable, relevant and modern in the context of our security analysis.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: Following the logic of the answer to the question on the modernisation of the Territorial Army, and the logic of the answers to other questions, I find that Ministers have placed great emphasis on the fact that this is a foreign-policy-led defence review. Will the Minister now finally publish what that foreign policy baseline is, or perhaps it has been lost, like so many other things to do with the Foreign Office?
    Dr. Reid: The only thing that has been lost is the establishment figure for the armed forces, which occurred under the previous Government: between 5,500 and 7,500 soldiers in the Army were lost. That has been the inheritance of this Government. Our task is to turn that around, to stop the increase in the shortfall and to begin to get the Army, in particular, back to the level that it should have been for many years. On the foreign-policy baseline, the hon. Gentleman knows that that has been outlined time and again, not least by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in speeches, interviews and articles.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Russell Brown: How many British troops are currently stationed in Bosnia as part of NATO's multinational stabilisation force. [41310]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Some 5,200 UK troops are currently serving in former Yugoslavia as part of the NATO-led stabilisation force. Around 3,700 are based in Bosnia, with a further 1,500 serving in Croatia. Those figures exclude routine short-term fluctuations in numbers as units arrive and depart from theatre.
    Mr. Brown: I thank the Secretary of State for that information. Does he agree that it is vital that we retain our troops in Bosnia for a period beyond the middle of this year, so that we do not return to the sort of bloodshed that pre-dated the Dayton peace agreement?
    Mr. Robertson: Yes. The UK intends to continue to play its part in any NATO-led force after the expiry of
    594
    the existing SFOR mandate in 1998. However, we must expect and hope that Bosnia and the Bosnians will take a greater role in determining their future. We do not want a dependency culture to be created on the back of international troops in that area. There have been some failures throughout this period, but NATO has had some enormous successes as well, both in stopping the fighting and creating the conditions for peace and in ensuring that civic institutions with a sustainable future are, out of the ashes, beginning to be created.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: Could the Secretary of State give some indication of the number of Territorials serving in Bosnia? If the Territorials, such as the five Leicestershire units that may be under threat, are cut, will he not have fewer reserves to draw on, when there is increasing crisis in the Army? Is that not a germane reason for thinking carefully about this proposed cut in Territorials?
    Mr. Robertson: Over 2,000 Territorial Army personnel and other reserves have served in Bosnia. At times, about 10 per cent. of troops in that area are from our reserves. I pay strong tribute to what they have done.
    We have no intention of destroying or undermining the Territorial Army or any of the reserve forces. We want to strengthen them; we want to give them a greater and more relevant role; we want to modernise them; and we want to ensure that they are useful. Those who have served in Bosnia have been an outstanding success and a great credit to this country. It is upon their experience and many other experiences that we are basing the conclusions that will appear in the defence review.

    Heavy Lift Capability
    Mr. David Kidney: If he will make a statement on Britain's current military heavy lift capability. [41311]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): Our strategic lift requirement, in terms both of airlift and sealift, has been scrutinised closely in the strategic defence review. Of course, that scrutiny has been informed by my Department's assessment of the adequacy of our currently available assets.
    Mr. Kidney: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that there has been inadequate investment in heavy lift capability in the past and that there is therefore a need for early investment? Although RAF Stafford does not have a runway, would not such an investment lead to an all-round improvement in what is already an excellent logistical support service by the RAF?
    Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend is right to say that past investment has been inadequate. Investment is now more important than ever because we live in an even more volatile and less predictable world, where power projection and our ability to react quickly and reach throughout the world are more important than ever. In short, we can no longer expect—as we could during the cold war in central Germany—the crisis to come to us. More and more often, we have to go to the crisis.

    595
    Therefore, there is an even greater premium on the capacity to lift our forces and the weaponry that they need, whether by sea or by air.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS
  The President of the Council was asked—
  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Threatened Plants
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If she will set up a Select Committee to consider Her Majesty's Government's response to the publication of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources red list on threatened plants compiled by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. [41329]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): I believe that this subject could come within the terms of reference of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, and also, possibly, the Environmental Audit Committee. I see no need for a separate Committee on the issue.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is there not at least a respectable case for a Select Committee, as at least six Departments are involved in the response to the red list? Apart from anything we may say about these botanical treasure houses becoming extinct, will my right hon. Friend comment on the study, which I have drawn to the Department's attention, by Meilleur and Phillips, which cites a figure of £9 billion, even on a commercial basis? Is there not a case for a co-ordinated response by Government, and quickly?
    Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend did draw my attention to that research. It is important that we should safeguard plant species threatened by extinction, and the United Kingdom fully contributes to its financial obligations under a number of international agreements that promote co-operation in safeguarding plants at risk of extinction. Steps have been taken to ensure that there is co-operation between Departments and that we are fully supportive of their efforts.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: I warmly endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). Is the right hon. Lady aware that Kew and Wakehurst place—which have outstanding assets and a quality of expertise of worldwide fame—are in an exceptionally good position to play a fundamental role in the co-ordination of Government policy? The hon. Gentleman made a key point—there are too many Departments involved in trying to pull together a very disparate subject.
    Mrs. Taylor: I agree that there is a great deal of expertise in this country, but I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's criticism and his comment about the need for further co-operation. Steps have already been taken to ensure that there is co-operation between Departments. Ministers and officials want to work with the experts to whom the hon. Gentleman referred.

    Select Committees
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: What plans she has to extend the Select Committee system. [41332]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): It is less than a year since the Select Committee system was last extended. I therefore have no immediate plans to make further changes.
    Mr. Sheerman: I know that my hon. Friend will agree that the Select Committee system is at the very heart of our traditional role of checking the Executive. Will she encourage recently mooted developments in which Select Committees assess and give marks—even out of 10—for departmental performance? Will she also give counsel to some Select Committees—who would perhaps be better off studying some of the newer management techniques to improve their performance, rather than thinking that they had to travel around the world to discover such techniques?
    Mrs. Taylor: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Select Committees' role is a very important one. I am sure that new and experienced hon. Members alike will agree with that statement and think that the work that they do on Select Committees is extremely important. As for suggesting to Select Committees the precise inquiries that they should undertake, or whether and how they should assess departmental performance, I know that Select Committees guard their freedoms and individual rights very jealously. They might not welcome advice from myself or from others on how they should conduct themselves.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am certainly in favour of using the Select Committee system in the most effective way possible. However, does the right hon. Lady not agree that, in her Government's increasingly farcical handling of the arms to Sierra Leone affair, it was hardly a contribution to the effectiveness of Select Committees that, last week, during Business Questions, she should have referred to correspondence directed to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that the House had not seen, but which—I need hardly add with this Government—the BBC had?
    Mrs. Taylor: I made it clear that the letter was addressed to the Chairman of the Select Committee. As I had been asked by Opposition Members for the latest information on the issue, I thought it incumbent upon me to give them the latest information.

    Inter-parliamentary Contacts
    Mr. Denis MacShane: If she will facilitate contacts between hon. Members and Members of the Parliaments of other EU nation states. [41333]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): There are already opportunities for contacts between hon. Members of this House and those in other European countries.

    597
    I would be content to consider any positive proposal that my hon. Friend may have on how we could constructively extend those opportunities.
    Mr. MacShane: I am grateful for that encouraging answer, especially now that we have drained much of the anti-European poison of the past few years. However, it is essential, is it not, that national parliaments play a role in the construction of Europe? Whereas hon. Members may visit any European institution once a year on the vote—paid for by the House—they cannot visit any national parliament in Europe. As only about 10 per cent. of that facility is taken up, there is a fair bit of dosh in my right hon. Friend's coffers that could be used to encourage, not political tourism, but proper contact between all hon. Members and their opposite numbers in other national parliaments, to build a stronger Britain in a coherent Europe.
    Mrs. Taylor: I must disabuse my hon. Friend of one point: there is no dosh in my coffers because of hon. Members not travelling in the way that he suggested. It is possible for hon. Members to travel to European institutions. Visits by Committees and by individual Members on specific duties are also possible. Many hon. Members do not use existing facilities to travel to Brussels or to Strasbourg to familiarise themselves with European Union events, and I think that more hon. Members could benefit from undertaking such journeys and participating in such meetings. Although visiting other national parliaments is an interesting suggestion, we would have to consider the purpose of such visits, to ensure that they were not open to abuse.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Is not that question a reflection of the fact that this Parliament continues to be sidelined by the Government? Is it not the fact that, since the general election, the Prime Minister has turned up for only seven votes? Is not most administration of the United Kingdom now performed in Whitehall and not in Parliament? Is it not the fact that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) would rather spend his time in other parliaments because he knows how worthless this place has become since the general election?
    Mrs. Taylor: No.
    Madam Speaker: Mr. Austin Mitchell. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Mrs. Teresa Gorman.
    598
    [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is she?"] Mr. Ian Bruce. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] This is a disgrace. I hope that it will be noted and that I shall have letters of apology from all of them. We shall return to defence questions.

  DEFENCE
  The Secretary of State was asked
  DEFENCE

    Army Cadet Force
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: What plans he has to increase the strength of the Army Cadet Force. [41312]
    The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): Ever present, Madam Speaker.
    We have no plans to increase the strength of the Army Cadet Force, but the hon. Gentleman will know how much value we place on its good work. As I told him on 8 April, we will consider within the strategic defence review increasing the resources available to it.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware that scattered across Surrey, Sussex and Kent are some 20 Territorial Army centres. Does he agree that any reduction in the strength of the TA could lead to a severe reduction in the number of TA centres? If so, how will he sustain, let alone improve, the quality and numbers of the cadet forces if the TA centres close?
    Dr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman is correct to point out the valuable assistance that the TA gives the armed forces cadets and the Army cadets in particular. It is one of the reasons that we will study the footprint of the TA extremely carefully to take into account geographical and other factors, including the Army cadets themselves. I have made plain our commitment to the Army cadets. I believe that they contribute greatly to our society by giving young men and women character-building opportunities and the chance to develop initiative and leadership. If that were not sufficient, I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the personal interest of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who was in his day a cadet of some distinction and who is fully behind the protection of the cadets in the defence review.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Although I understand that, to your great relief, you are not responsible for ministerial answers, may I nevertheless ask you to intervene with Ministers who consistently fail to supply simple parliamentary written answers on the day on which they are due?
I had a number of questions to the Secretary of State for Defence due for written answer on Thursday. They were simple questions, relating to the dates and times when Ministers first discovered the Sandline operation in Sierra Leone. I received an answer from the Minister to the effect that the office could not answer the question but would reply shortly. Is that not unacceptable? Should not written answers arrive on the day they are due?
Madam Speaker: Does the Minister wish to respond to that point of order?
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): Perhaps I can assist the hon. Gentleman. My information is that all those questions answered by the Ministry of Defence in that fashion last week will, with two exceptions—because of the continuing inquiries—be answered today. We said last week that we would answer shortly; "shortly" is within two working days, and we shall be answering today.
Mr. Nick Gibb: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 27 April, the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), having been criticised for his and his Liberal colleagues' minimal attendance at last summer's Finance Bill Standing Committee, informed the House that he was not a member of the Committee. Having checked the record, I discovered that the hon. Gentleman was indeed a member of that Committee, although his attendance record reveals that he clearly did not realise it. Have you been approached, Madam Speaker, by the hon. Gentleman with a view to his making a statement to correct the inadvertently misleading statement that he made to the House in April?
Madam Speaker: This tedious point-scoring has been noted.
Mr. Keith Simpson rose—
Madam Speaker: Is this another tedious point of order?
Mr. Simpson: I shall try not to be too tedious, but it is tedious for hon. Members when they put in for named day answers but do not get answers on that day. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), I tabled six questions to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for answer last Tuesday. I still have not received any answer, not even one to what I would have thought was a very simple question—which member of the Foreign Secretary's private office was responsible for policy relating to Sierra Leone.
Madam Speaker: The Leader of the House is present and there are Ministers on the Front Bench, so I am sure that the point of order has been noted. Perhaps we might now proceed with the debate on Sierra Leone.

Opposition Day
[11TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Sierra Leone
  [Relevant document: Minutes of evidence taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 5 May and 14 May (HC 369-vii and 745-i).]
  Madam Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.34 pm
  Mr. Michael Howard: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the muddle of government policy towards Sierra Leone over the last year; notes the contradictory statements made on this matter by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; stresses the importance of establishing what knowledge and involvement there was on the part of government ministers, officials and officers of the intelligence services of and in the activities of Sandline International, including possible breaches of both international and United Kingdom law; and calls on the Government to announce without delay that it will establish a public inquiry into this question, presided over by a judge to be nominated by the Lord Chief Justice.
  In the past few days, the Foreign Office has become the setting for a Whitehall farce. We have seen the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), and the permanent secretary contradicting one another and themselves, day by day and hour by hour. We have seen a once great Department of State reduced to a shambles. We have seen muddle and mess on a massive scale.
  During the general election campaign, Conservative Members used to complain that new Labour was prepared to change its line as often as necessary to win votes, but the more innocent among us never expected that to persist after the election. Yet, when this affair began, the Foreign Secretary's defence was that his officials knew more than he did, and that he should have been told. The Prime Minister then came out with a second defence: Britain had helped the good guys to win, and that was all that mattered. In the House last week, the Foreign Secretary seemed to be edging towards a third defence—his officials had done nothing wrong after all. The Prime Minister is preening himself for a policy that Ministers were apparently not told about, and that was never implemented.
  Let no one be in any doubt that the questions at the heart of this debate are serious and grave. It is clear that the Prime Minister takes a different view, but he does not seem to know or care what the Foreign Secretary said in the House on 6 May, when he told us of his deep concern and said that the matter was
  "of proper concern to the House."—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 723.]
  He said that it was very serious, and that no one should underestimate its gravity.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) suggested that officials were doing what they believed Ministers wanted by working for the

  601
  restoration of President Kabbah—what might roughly be called the "Blair defence"—he was told by the Foreign Secretary that he was
  "wildly out of touch with reality".
  The House might think that "wildly out of touch with reality" is a perfect description of the Prime Minister's attitude throughout this unhappy affair.
  There are three key questions before the House this afternoon. First, what did the Foreign Office know about the activities of Sandline International, when did it know, and what did it do about it? Secondly, what does the saga tell us about the way in which the Foreign Office is run, and the grip, or lack of it, that the Foreign Secretary has on his Department? Thirdly, what are the consequences of the various ill-timed and ill-considered interventions by the Prime Minister, and what effect have they had on the prosecution of Sandline?
  Let me make it clear that Conservative Members welcome the ousting of the military regime in Sierra Leone run by Major Koroma, and the restoration of President Kabbah. The Government were right to want his restoration and to work for it, but the essential question they faced from the outset was whether they wanted President Kabbah restored peacefully, or whether they were prepared to sanction military intervention to secure his return.
  To that essential question the Foreign Secretary gave an unequivocal answer on 6 May:
  "There was no Government policy or UN support for military intervention to restore President Kabbah. Resolution 1132 and consistent ministerial statements on Sierra Leone stressed that we supported President Kabbah, but wanted him to be restored through diplomatic negotiation, not military intervention."—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 727.]
  That crucial feature of Government policy is something of which the Prime Minister appears to be blissfully ignorant—perhaps no one ever told him about it—but everything that the Government did flowed from that.
  It was because the Government did not support military intervention that they took a leading role in sponsoring and drafting resolution 1132. It was because they did not support military intervention that they translated resolution 1132 promptly—as the Foreign Secretary was at pains to point out on 6 May—into an Order in Council prepared by the Foreign Office. It was because they did not support military intervention that the Order in Council made it a criminal offence to supply arms or other equipment to any persons connected with Sierra Leone. That is the background against which the facts of this saga fall to be considered.
  The involvement of Sandline International in events in Sierra Leone first came to public attention in February, when Lord Avebury, apparently alerted by what he had seen on the Internet, wrote to a Foreign Office official to report allegations that Sandline had arranged for the supply of arms from Bulgaria to forces loyal to President Kabbah. That letter led to the Foreign Office calling on Customs and Excise to investigate the allegations.
  On 6 May, the Foreign Secretary told the House that that had happened on 10 March. By the time that Sir John Kerr gave evidence to the Select Committee on Thursday, it had been discovered that, in fact, the reference to Customs had been made in February.
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves the subject of military
  602
  intervention, will he tell us his party's view? Does it support the involvement of the military observer group, ECOWAS, in the overthrow of Major Johnny Paul Koroma's regime?
  Mr. Howard: I see no reason to differ from the view expressed by the Minister of State, who has told the House that he was not happy to support the activities of ECOMOG, and that they conflicted with the UN resolution. Whether we on the Conservative Benches would have supported precisely that UN resolution and the Order in Council that flowed from it is a different matter. The Government did, and they must accept the consequences. The matter is as simple as that. The hon. Gentleman must learn that his party is in government now, and that certain consequences flow from that.
  Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the Government of whom he was a prominent member gave training assistance to a military dictatorship in Sierra Leone before the election of President Kabbah, and that the Conservative Government had a record of supporting brutal military regimes throughout the world?
  Mr. Howard: I do not accept that for one moment. I am prepared to debate and defend the previous Government's record at any appropriate time. This debate is not about the previous Government; this debate is about the activities of the present Government. Labour Members must learn that their party is in government. They must decide when they go through the Lobby whether they want to support the Government's activities. They will not be able to change the subject.
  It is significant that Foreign Office officials—or at least those who saw Lord Avebury's letter—were immediately aware of its implications. They knew that the Government's policy was to work for the peaceful restoration of President Kabbah's Government. They knew that the supply of arms was inconsistent with that policy, and illegal. That is why they called in Customs and Excise.
  The matter first came into the public domain in an article in The Observer on 8 March, which apparently led to the intervention of the Minister of State in the House on 12 May. The Minister did not mention the Customs investigation into Sandline. He and the Foreign Secretary say that that is because he was not told about it in his briefing before the debate.
  On Thursday, before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Sir John Kerr first said that he thought that the Minister's briefing contained a reference to the Customs investigation. Then, after "checking his memory", he said that it did not. I mean no disrespect to Sir John when I say that we should have preferred him to check the file and briefing papers rather than his memory before he sent his extraordinary letter on Thursday.
  I ask for the production of that file. There can be no reason whatever why it should not be produced. The Foreign Secretary has repeatedly said that he wants to be full and open about the matter. Why can that file not be produced now, this afternoon, to assist the House in debating the matter? In the absence of the production of that file, the House, and, indeed, the country, will draw their conclusions about what the Foreign Secretary and his Minister of State have to hide.

  603
  Whatever the file may or may not contain, we know that the Minister of State's account of events to the House on 12 March was, to put it as mildly as I can, incomplete. He described the account in The Observer as "ill-informed and scurrilous"; he described the article as nonsense. But he did not specifically deny the only explicit allegation in the article—that Peter Penfold, the high commissioner to Sierra Leone, had been involved in discussions with Sandline. He failed to tell the House about something that we know was in his brief: the deal between President Kabbah and Sandline.
  On Thursday, in the latest of his many ill-starred appearances before the House and the Select Committee, the Minister said that his statement on 12 March was an exact account of his state of knowledge at that time. He went on to say, betraying a little less than full confidence in his previous remark, that, if that turned out to be wrong, he would appear before the House to correct any error.
  An appearance has yet to be made in respect of that error. The Minister of State has still to provide an answer to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) last Tuesday: was Sandline International mentioned at his meetings about Sierra Leone on 19 March and 1 April? It is a perfectly straightforward question, and the Minister could and should answer it now. Will he do so? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I would be happy to give way to him.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office(Mr. Tony Lloyd): No, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. Howard: We note the Minister's answer, and are delighted to have it, but it is a great shame that we have had to wait nearly a week for such a simple and straightforward answer.
  The Foreign Secretary told us last week that he received his first document regarding any breach of the arms embargo, or shipment of arms, on 28 April. He then took us on an entertaining tour of the furniture in his office. He did not tell us when the documents were first sent to his private office.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I am glad to tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the letter was faxed to my office on 24 April. On 25 April, I was in Brussels, and between 25 and 27 April I was in Luxembourg. I returned on 28 April, and was shown the letter within an hour and a half of landing. I do not see what the right hon. and learned Gentleman's problem is.
  Mr. Howard: The Foreign Secretary has once again answered a question that I did not ask. I asked not about the letter of 24 April from Sandline, but about any document that might have referred to Sandline's involvement in Sierra Leone; if the Foreign Secretary cannot see the difference between those two questions, he certainly is not fit to hold the office that he occupies.
  604
  His previous answers, and, indeed, his answer now, were carefully phrased to refer to documents, but did not refer to any oral briefing that he may have received.
  Mr. Cook: I am again glad to inform the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I had no oral briefings at any stage beforehand, so I hope that he can skip to the next page of his speech.
  Mr. Howard: I am absolutely delighted that the Foreign Secretary is in a rather more forthcoming mood today than he has been in the past. I hope that that will continue when he makes his own speech. I will be happy to give way to him again if he will reply to the series of questions put last week by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), which the Foreign Secretary acknowledged were perfectly proper questions. The Foreign Secretary knows that he need not wait before answering those questions; he should answer them in advance of the inquiry, and without delay.
  We are asked to accept that the Foreign Secretary's alibi is that he did not know what was happening in his own Department. Those are not words for which I can claim any originality; the right hon. Gentleman used them himself in 1992.
  The Opposition are prepared to accept the general proposition that the Foreign Secretary cannot be expected to know of every small or trivial matter in the Foreign Office. However, we cannot accept that recent events in Sierra Leone are either small or trivial. After all, we are talking about the reversal of a coup carried out by a military junta in a country with which we have always had close and friendly relations.
  Sierra Leone was important enough to receive a visit from the Minister of State at the end of March, although we have yet to hear what he was told during his visit about the activities of Sandline. It was of such importance that the Foreign Secretary appointed a special representative, Mr. John Flynn,
  "to co-ordinate international support for the restoration of the elected Government."—[Official Report, 12 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 153.]
  We have not been told much about Mr. Flynn: the Foreign Secretary did not mention him when he came to the House on 6 May. What involvement did Mr. Flynn have with Sandline? What did he report to the Foreign Secretary? If he was co-ordinating international support for the restoration of the elected Government, he at least must surely have known what was going on. If he was appointed by the Secretary of State to act as a special representative, he surely must have reported back to the Secretary of State. Those questions and many others do not need to wait for the outcome of the inquiry. They can, and they should, be answered now.
  What was the involvement of the Ministry of Defence? Over the weekend, we had reports for the first time that another naval vessel, HMS Monmouth, was in the area with a significant number of British service personnel on board. What part, if any, did that vessel play in the military action? Will the inquiry cover the involvement of the Ministry of Defence and the knowledge of Ministers and officials in that and the other Government Departments involved?

  605
  Last week, the Foreign Secretary got on his high horse when dealing with allegations that he might not have read all his briefing, saying:
  "I strongly resent the suggestion that there has been any briefing on the matter that has not been read by me or by the Minister of State."—[Official Report, 12 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 156.]
  I am bound to say that the Foreign Secretary has only himself to blame when such suggestions are made, as it was the right hon. Gentleman himself who boasted in the documentary "How to be a Foreign Secretary" that he did not always read his briefing. Perhaps just a trifle prematurely, he said:
  "I have recognised that you can be a successful Foreign Secretary if you focus on the big questions and not necessarily … finish the paperwork."
  If the Foreign Secretary volunteers statements of that sort, he cannot be surprised when people take them at face value. Indeed, he cannot be surprised if officials do so. Was it because he did not finish his paperwork that officials, perhaps understandably, stopped putting it in front of him?
  Turning to the part played in this farrago by the Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman has taken a rather lofty attitude to all this. As far as he is concerned, the only thing that matters is that President Kabbah was restored. The fact that the Foreign Secretary was insisting that he should be restored peacefully is a trivial detail. The fact that an arms embargo was imposed by the United Nations and made a part of the criminal law of this country is irrelevant; and the fact that that arms embargo and the criminal law may have been breached is "overblown hoo-hah". "Who?" is indeed the question; "Ha" alas, is not a sufficient answer.
  The Prime Minister said yesterday that the Foreign Secretary had led the restoration of President Kabbah, yet the Foreign Secretary disclaims all knowledge and responsibility. The full extent to which the Prime Minister has become wildly out of touch with reality—to use the Foreign Secretary's phrase—was apparent in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) last Wednesday.
  My hon. Friend asked the Prime Minister how he could claim credit for the outcome in Sierra Leone when he says that he did nothing to bring it about. His answer was:
  "I am not saying that we did nothing: we did a great deal to bring it about."—[Official Report, 13 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 370.]
  He want on to talk about humanitarian aid and money for schools, hospitals and transport.
  The fact is that President Kabbah was not restored to power by aid or money to schools, hospitals and transport. He was restored to power by military intervention that was contrary to British policy. It was contrary to United Nations policy, and it is something that the Prime Minister, in sharp contrast to his Foreign Secretary, has consistently failed to recognise. For the Prime Minister, it is increasingly clear that the truth is what he says is the truth, and the law is what he says is the law. A good result is something proclaimed by him to be a good result. Indeed, I confidently expect that tomorrow he will declare that Newcastle United won the FA cup on Saturday after all.
  This saga, as never before, proves how much power has gone to the Prime Minister's head. If it were not so serious, it would be laughable, but it is serious. The Prime Minister's interventions may well have had the most
  606
  serious impact on the criminal investigation by the Customs and Excise. Almost the first thing that the Foreign Secretary told the House about the whole affair was:
  "The chairman of Customs and Excise has requested that while that investigation proceeds, nothing should be said that could prejudice it."—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 721.]
  It is a pity that he did not draw those words to the attention of the Prime Minister.
  This saga has brought the Foreign Office into disrepute—it has become the laughing stock of the world. What can be done to restore its reputation? There can be no doubt that there should be a full, urgent and independent inquiry. The inquiry must cover all relevant Departments; it must once and for all establish what Ministers and officials knew, and when; if Ministers and officials did not know, it must explain why; and it must ensure that decision making in the Foreign Office never again plumbs such depths.
  The inquiry must be held in public, and be presided over by a judge. It is no disrespect to any individual to say that an inquiry held behind closed doors by someone who has spent his whole working life as a civil servant in Whitehall does not begin to fit the bill. If this country is to be convinced that there is no cover-up or whitewash, the inquiry must sit in public, so that we can see that every avenue is thoroughly and vigorously pursued.
  A precedent is readily to hand. The Government's inquiry into BSE is sitting in public, and is presided over by a distinguished judge. What is the difference between that inquiry and the one into Sierra Leone? Is it simply that, when the Government hold an inquiry into events that took place under their predecessors, they hold a public inquiry under a distinguished judge, but when they are forced to hold an inquiry into events for which they are responsible, they hold an inquiry in private—behind closed doors—under a Whitehall insider who has spent his whole working life as a civil servant?
  On 23 April, the Foreign Secretary addressed a dinner in the City. He delivered what he termed an "interim report" on his stewardship of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He said that he would not be able to conclude by declaring an interim dividend, but he went on:
  "I can report that the senior executives of the business are satisfied with the performance of the company and are bullish about our future prospects."
  The very next day, the letter from Sandline arrived at the Foreign Office. Ever since, the Foreign Office has been submerged in a mess of muddle and incompetence.
  The Foreign Secretary has only one way in which to begin to retrieve his reputation—by ordering a full, independent and public inquiry under a senior judge. If he fails to do so, he will be confessing that he has something to hide. He will stand accused of conniving at a cover-up, and he will be paving the way to a whitewash. Nothing less than a public inquiry will do. I commend the motion to the House.
  3.57 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  'notes the Government's consistent policy of support for the restoration of President Kabbah and recognition of him as the elected and legitimate President of Sierra Leone and welcomes the

  607
  success of that policy and the overthrow of the brutal and repressive military regime; applauds the open and proper manner in which the Government have responded to allegations of a breach of the UN arms embargo; and congratulates the Government on its commitment to an urgent outside investigation and publication of a full report.'
  The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) has not been prompted to choose this topic for debate by a deep compassion for the people of Sierra Leone. He was happy to say nothing in the House about the people of Sierra Leone for nine months, while their elected president was in exile and their local population was being terrorised by a brutal military regime. [HON. MEMBERS: "What did you say?"] I shall say what the Government did, and I shall expect some backing from the Opposition when they hear what support we gave to President Kabbah.
  Mr. Howard: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what he told the House during those nine months?
  Mr. Cook: Several times in the past year, the Foreign Office made perfectly plain our support for President Kabbah—I did so myself when I met the Foreign Minister of Sierra Leone.
  Both the removal and the restoration of President Kabbah passed over the right hon. and learned Gentleman's head without comment or question. He has been prompted to bring the debate before the House by his desperate wish to believe that the extravagant allegations that have been made over the past week were true. Anyone would have to be pretty desperate to believe all of them: new depths of absurdity were plumbed on Sunday, when it was suggested that the Prime Minister may have been complicit in a breach of the arms embargo this year because his father lectured in law in Sierra Leone 30 years ago.
  It is an extraordinary testimony to the emptiness of the speech that we just heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, who said nothing about Sierra Leone until two weeks ago, that it did not contain a single new point. His credibility on this matter would be greater, were it not for the fact that every Labour Member remembers, far better than Conservative Members appear to, what the Conservatives did in government.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman has the nerve to wax eloquent about my not being in control of my Department. That takes a brass neck, coming from a former Home Secretary who, when told that 537 prisoners had been given early release, replied:
  "I think I should have been consulted."
  The questions that have been posed this afternoon are easily disposed of. The right hon. and learned Member sees something sinister in HMS Monmouth being stationed in the area. HMS Monmouth was sent, prudently, by the Ministry of Defence, in case it should be necessary to evacuate civilians during the fighting. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is surprised that officials, acting perfectly properly, could have referred their suspicions to Customs and Excise for examination. It is absolutely right that officials should feel able to seek an investigation of a possible offence without political approval, and the procedure on that point has not changed one iota between the time of the previous Government and that of the present one.
  608
  In the last two years of the Conservative Government, there were 200 occasions when action was taken by the Customs and Excise following Government information fed through the restrictive enforcement unit, and, on the vast majority of such occasions, there was no reference to Ministers. Indeed, I doubt whether all the former Conservative Ministers present, between them, could name 10 per cent. of those cases. So let us have no more humbug about the procedures in this case being incredible, when they were identical to the procedures followed by the Conservatives in office.
  Mr. Edward Gamier: In the cases that the Foreign Secretary just mentioned, did the then Prime Minister at any stage refer to those investigations as "hoo-hah"?
  Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister never referred to the case against Sandline, or the investigation, as hoo-hah. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, he never did. My right hon. Friend made it plain that, if there was a breach of the embargo, that was wrong; he absolutely said that. What he did say, absolutely rightly, was that all the many wild allegations that have accrued around that investigation were hoo-hah.
  For the past two weeks, I have been constrained in what I can say because of a perfectly proper concern not to prejudice the investigation by the Customs and Excise; but, as of this afternoon, that investigation is over. Last week, I said that the extensive—
  Sir Peter Emery: What the Foreign Secretary said about the number of references that had previously been made to Customs and Excise was important. May we know how many of those references concerned a breach of a United Nations decision and resolution, and how many concerned the export of arms? Those are the two matters which are of major importance.
  Mr. Cook: I made it clear that those 200 cases arose entirely from proceedings in the restrictive enforcement unit.
  Sir Peter Emery: That reply does not answer the question, which was about arms and the UN.
  Mr. Cook: No; that reply is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question. The restrictive enforcement unit exists precisely to police any acts of restriction on trade resulting from UN decisions or Orders in Council by Britain. That is its function.
  Last week, I said that the extensive files on this matter made it clear that there was no conspiracy between officials of the Africa department at the Foreign Office and Sandline to breach the arms embargo. As the Customs and Excise investigation is over, I can today be more blunt.
  Throughout the whole period, there was only one meeting between officials at the Foreign Office and Colonel Spicer of Sandline. I am advised by the senior official at that meeting that Sandline said that it had heard that someone else was planning to run shipments of arms to Sierra Leone, and asked what the legal position would be. The text of the Security Council resolution was fetched and read to the representatives of Sandline. They asked whether the reference to Sierra Leone included

  609
  everyone connected with Sierra Leone, and they were advised that that was the case. It was the very same officials who alerted Customs and Excise to their suspicions and started an investigation. That is not the action of people conniving in the very breach that they were asking Customs and Excise to investigate.
  I believe that the conduct of public policy by Ministers and by officials must be open to scrutiny. That is why, from our first exchanges in the House on the matter, I have made it clear that I wanted what had happened inside the Foreign Office to be investigated from outside the Foreign Office. Now that the Customs and Excise investigation has been concluded, I can announce that I have asked Sir Thomas Legg QC to undertake that investigation, and he has agreed. As an eminent lawyer, he has impeccable qualifications for the job. Even the right hon. and learned Gentleman announced this morning that he had great respect for Sir Thomas Legg—although I did not hear that when he spoke in the House this afternoon.
  As a distinguished servant of the Lord Chancellor's Department, Sir Thomas has weighty and relevant experience of the relationship between the public service and the prosecuting authorities; and, as a retired servant of the Department, he is now free to express his mind openly and independently.
  Mr. Howard: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Sir Thomas Legg, for whom I do have considerable respect, has spent the whole of his working life as a civil servant in and around Whitehall? Does he seriously think that an inquiry held in private by someone who has spent his whole working life as a civil servant meets the seriousness of this case or that it will reassure the public?
  Mr. Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman apparently believes that Sir Thomas's experience and knowledge of the public service will be a handicap in his inquiry—that it compromises his independence to know the procedures that he is investigating. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be pleased with what I am about to say. I can reassure him that Sir Thomas Legg will not be acting alone. He will be supported by an assessor of impeccable independence of mind. I believe it important that the investigation should assess the procedures of the public service in this matter by the best standards of modern management.
  I am therefore pleased to inform the House that Sir Robin Ibbs has agreed to assist Sir Thomas Legg as an assessor. As a former director of ICI and chairman of Lloyds TSB, Sir Robin has great experience and authority—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends must not spoil my punchline. He has great experience and authority of best management practice—so much so that, when the Conservatives were in government, Baroness Thatcher appointed him as her adviser on efficiency. I am therefore confident that Conservative Members will applaud his expertise.
  Mr. Gander rose—
  Mr. Cook: The hon. and learned Gentleman has already had his shot.
  I will be placing in the Library a copy of the full terms of reference of the investigation, which is essentially tasked with answering two key questions: whether any
  610
  Department of the Government gave approval to breaches of the arms embargo on Sierra Leone; and what was known by the Government, either by Ministers or officials, of any alleged breach. The investigation will extend to the Ministry of Defence and any other relevant Department. It will also cover the intelligence agencies and will have regard to any communiqué or report received by officials which referred to Sandline.
  The investigation will commence immediately and be concluded as soon as possible. The report will be made public. I will ensure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has adequate time to read the report before it is published.
  Sir Peter Tapsell rose—
  Mr. Douglas Hogg rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The Foreign Secretary is not giving way.
  Mr. Cook: There will be no repeat of the shabby manipulation by this Conservative party over the Scott report, when we were given three hours to read five volumes.
  Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he tell the House, first, whether the two persons charged with the inquiry will sit in public, and, secondly, if they want to enlarge their terms of reference, will they be allowed to do so?
  Mr. Cook: If the investigators wished to enlarge their terms of reference, I would welcome any request from them. We would look carefully at it and I am sure that we would agree to it. On the question whether they would sit in public, I listened with the greatest interest to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe describing his new discovery of the virtues of the public inquiry. It was not a discovery which he made in government.
  I must apologise, Madam Speaker, because in my statement to the House last week, I misled the House. I recognise the importance that the Opposition attach to putting the record straight. Last week, I informed the House that, as Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe had lost 13 cases in the courts. I regret to inform the House that I overlooked four other cases that need to be taken into account, making a grand total of 17 lost cases. Not once did he order a public inquiry to find out where he went wrong.
  Twice during the right hon. and learned Gentleman's period as Home Secretary, the spectacular escape of prisoners led him to appoint an inquiry into the Prison Service, and on neither occasion did he make it a public inquiry, yet, now that he is in opposition, we are asked to believe that he is a born-again believer in public inquiries.
  Sir Peter Tapsell rose—
  Mr. Cook: I shall give way for the last time.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: When the right hon. Gentleman finally tells the House whether the inquiry is to be held in public, will he at the same time tell us why he has

  611
  gone to such enormous lengths to avoid the obvious and traditional custom of appointing a High Court judge to preside over such an inquiry?
  Mr. Cook: I have already announced the distinguished lawyer who will conduct the inquiry. He is so distinguished that even the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe is obliged to say that he has great respect for him. I am perfectly confident that Sir Thomas Legg is as capable of carrying out the inquiry properly, legally and with adequate qualifications and safeguards as any High Court judge.
  Ms Diane Abbott: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I hope that he accepts that, even if the Opposition are not seriously interested in Sierra Leone, there are people in the House and, more important, outside the House who are extremely interested in Sierra Leone and in how the Government handle such issues in Africa. Will the inquiry take as its point of departure the Orders in Council passed in this country, which were quite clear that arms were not to be sent to anyone in Sierra Leone, or will the inquiry take as its point of reference the United Nations resolution, which people are now saying is ambiguous?
  Mr. Cook: I would contest my hon. Friend's final statement that the resolution was ambiguous, but, to answer her narrow point, the investigation will have both documents available to it. The investigators can draw whatever conclusions they, with their qualifications and their investigations, see fit to draw from both documents in the light of events over the past four months.
  I have honoured the commitment that I gave that the inquiry would be carried out by someone from outside the Foreign Office. The public need to know the truth, and they need to know it urgently. If we went down the road of a public inquiry, we would waiting for it to start, long after the investigation that I have announced will be finished and out in public.
  Moreover, the issues do not justify a public inquiry. It is already clear that we are looking at a limited range of issues over a short period and covered in a relatively modest bundle of official papers. There is not a single ministerial decision on Sandline to be investigated. That is entirely different from the arms to Iraq scandal, in which the inquiry had to pursue back over several years questions of Government policy, and in which Ministers were in it up to their necks, both in the secret changes in policy and in the repeated deceit of Parliament and the courts. It is even more limited in scope than the matters being pursued in the public inquiry into bovine spongiform encephalopathy, which will examine the conduct of Government policy over 15 years and the repeated failure of Ministers in the previous Government to grasp the severity of the problem or to be frank with the public.
  The real reason why the right hon. and learned Gentleman demands a public inquiry is to create the impression that there is a great political scandal waiting to be exposed. He has so far failed miserably to expose it. To be fair to him, he cannot find a great political scandal on this issue because there is not one there.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I have listened
  612
  carefully to his comments, and he seems to reject the allegations made by Sandline regarding its conversations with the Foreign Office. Is not that in itself a good reason why the matter should be referred to a judge for inquiry? There is the question not only of the Foreign Secretary's comments to the House but whether there has been a misunderstanding between Sandline and the Foreign Office, and who is right about those conversations.
  Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman's question has already been asked and answered. I am perfectly confident that Sir Thomas Legg QC has all the legal experience and qualifications necessary to adjudicate in such matters. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman on one point—indeed, his comments are helpful. Until now, we have heard in public only the allegations by Sandline; the investigation can now start to sift the evidence properly and produce a full and considered report.
  As the Conservative party attaches so much importance to Sierra Leone and has put the topic before the House for debate, perhaps we could invite Conservative Members to attach some importance to what is said by the people of Sierra Leone. Nobody in Sierra Leone believes that there is any political scandal in the conduct of the British Government towards their country. They are delighted to be rid of a savage military regime which killed their sons and raped their daughters. They are delighted to have back their elected president and their constitutional Government. There was no failure of British policy in Sierra Leone. Britain supported the elected Government of Sierra Leone.
  Mr. Howard: Does that mean, therefore, that the Foreign Secretary now accepts that his policy has been wrong throughout and that he should have favoured military intervention to restore President Kabbah?
  Mr. Cook: I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to what President Kabbah has said. He has expressed his profound gratitude for the resolute support that Britain gave him. Since then, the high commissioner for Sierra Leone has written to the Minister of State, saying that he has followed
  "with utter disbelief the sustained attacks on the British Government's role in restoring democracy to Sierra Leone."
  As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has asked what Labour and Britain did for Sierra Leone, I shall tell him. Britain supported the elected Government of Sierra Leone, and Britain helped pass the resolution of support for it at the United Nations. Britain welcomed President Kabbah to the meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government. Britain was first on the scene after the restoration of President Kabbah with the humanitarian relief provided by HMS Cornwall. The Minister of State was on the first ministerial team from outside west Africa to visit Sierra Leone and to congratulate President Kabbah after his restoration.
  Last July, when I outlined our policy on human rights at a meeting of non-governmental organisations, I referred to the funding and equipment that Britain had provided for a radio station supporting the cause of democracy against a regime so repressive that I was advised that I could not name it without risking reprisals against British lives. That radio station was to enable President Kabbah to communicate directly to his people throughout the period of military rule. That radio station, funded by

  613
  Britain, was the vital link between President Kabbah and his people. It helped mobilise support for the restoration of democracy in that country. That is part of the practical, financial, moral and political support that we provided to President Kabbah.
  There was no failure of policy; nor has there been any cover-up. We have acted openly throughout. The Foreign Office took the initiative in referring the original decision to Customs and Excise. The Foreign Office has cooperated openly and fully with the Customs and Excise investigation. I moved immediately on the completion of that investigation to appoint an investigation by two men who bring to it immense legal authority and unchallengeable probity. Every briefing paper, every telegram and every minute will be available to them. Yet the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe and others around him have the nerve to claim that there is still some comparison between this episode and the conduct of the previous Government over arms to Iraq.
  There are no comparisons. There are only contrasts between our conduct in Sierra Leone and the previous Government's conduct in Iraq. The greatest contrast of all is that, in Sierra Leone, the Government's policy has contributed to the return of a legitimate and elected Government. In Iraq, the Conservative Government's policy still leaves British machine tools turning out shells for a brutal and repressive dictator.
  How many Conservative Members can say that they are proud of what their Government did in supplying Saddam Hussein? We can be proud of what we did for Sierra Leone. Therefore, we are confident that the independent investigation that I have announced today will show that, unlike the previous Government, we have nothing to fear from bringing the truth out into the open.
  4.21 pm
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Whether there is now to be a prosecution, there are fundamental questions that still require to be answered. Even if there is no prosecution, it does not mean that the United Nations arms embargo was not broken. Even if there is no prosecution, it does not mean that no criminal offence was committed. If no prosecution is to be initiated, it means only that the prosecuting authority does not believe that it can successfully obtain a conviction.
  I am bound to say that there seemed little chance of a conviction by a jury when the words "hoo-hah" and "hype" were used to dismiss what was and remains legitimate public interest in these events. There seemed little chance of a conviction by a jury as soon as the public were told to concentrate on the successful restoration of a legitimate Government and to disregard the means by which that was achieved. The truth is that after these interventions, prosecution was inevitably doomed.
  If the words "hoo-hah" and "hype" are of any significance in the context in which they were used, why was it that the Foreign Office referred the matter to Customs and Excise? It cannot have done so lightly. If "hoo-hah" and "hype" are legitimate to use to dismiss interest in these matters, why has the Foreign Secretary ordered an independent inquiry? An inquiry is an acknowledgement that there are matters of substance to investigate, and the more distinguished the members of the inquiry, the more substantial these matters are.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made an important point, that the Prime Minister's public
  614
  intervention may have made the prospects of a successful prosecution remote. Does he agree that one of the things that the two inquiry adjudicators should look into is exactly what the advice of Customs and Excise was as to the prospects of a successful prosecution, so that we may know whether it was the Prime Minister's intervention that made a prosecution impossible?
  Mr. Campbell: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows better than me, that is a matter for the Attorney-General. I suspect that the conventions by which the prosecuting authority reports to the Attorney-General are such that investigation of those matters would be prevented. It would, however, be open to the Attorney-General to take the view that so important was that matter that he would waive the traditional right to confidentiality. Thus the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposition would depend substantially on the view that the Attorney-General was willing to take.
  The dismal truth is that, after a fortnight of speculation and innuendo, we are no better informed of the answers to the questions posed at the outset of this affair. Those questions remain as follows: was the United Nations arms embargo breached; was criminal domestic law breached; if there were such breaches, were officials of any Government Department, or officers of the security services, implicated; and, given that I accept the truthfulness of Ministers, why were they not informed?
  Mr. Tom King: I am sorry to take the hon. and learned Gentleman back a little, but I wanted to intervene because the Attorney-General is in the Chamber. One issue that emerged from the Scott inquiry was responsibility for Customs and Excise prosecutions. It was felt that Customs and Excise should have greater independence. The previous Attorney-General said:
  "I shall be answerable to the House for actions taken by Customs and Excise in relation to individual prosecutions relating to defence exports and to sanctions infringements".—[Official Report, 17 June 1996; Vol. 279, c. 331.]
  That was an enhancement of the role from the previous position. In a sense, it meant greater independence. The independence of prosecution activity by Customs and Excise was thought to be at the heart of the Scott inquiry. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that, in the light of that answer, the Attorney-General should be able to help the House today?
  Mr. Campbell: It is for the Attorney-General to decide whether he wants to favour the House. After all, part of his role is independent of the Government, and if he feels that he could assist the House by intervening, I have no doubt that a suitable opportunity could be found.
  On the general point to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, I was a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry during the investigation into what became known as the Iraqi supergun. The then Attorney-General, who is now the noble Lord Mayhew, explained to the Committee at great length why by convention up to that point the Attorney-General's role in relation to Customs and Excise investigations and prosecutions was very limited. Indeed, as a result of Lord Justice Scott's strictures on that matter, the convention and practice have both been changed.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Campbell: No; I should like to make progress.

  615
  On 5 February 1998, my noble Friend Lord Avebury wrote to a senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office official reporting allegations that had appeared originally in the Toronto Globe and Mail of 31 July 1997—more than eight months previously—which were repeated on 9 February in another publication. On 26 February, the Foreign Office official replied to that letter of 5 February, saying that the allegation that Sandline was involved in the supply of arms to Sierra Leone, which was contrary to Security Council resolution 1132, implemented in British law by Orders in Council, had been referred to the appropriate authorities—Customs and Excise—which would examine any evidence and assess whether a crime had been committed. Therefore, at some time between 5 and 26 February, an individual in the Foreign Office had referred the matter to Customs and Excise. That makes the delay in bringing those matters directly to Ministers' attention all the more difficult to understand.
  It is a matter of profound regret to me that, after a fortnight of what I can only describe as inept, confused and occasionally contradictory handling by the Government, the reputation of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been substantially dented. To argue that the House should ignore Sandline because the result was satisfactory is to ignore the rights of the House of Commons and of Members of Parliament to hold Ministers of the Crown to account for their actions. To argue, as some have, that we should concentrate on nuclear proliferation in the Asian sub-continent or on unrest in Kosovo and relegate consideration of Sandline is to ignore the fact that our confidence in the Government to deal properly with those issues depends, inevitably, on our assessment of the competence of the Foreign Office to deal properly with Sandline.
  Even supposing that there was no breach of the United Nations resolution, why were Ministers not informed of the proposed arms shipments? The Foreign Secretary has given us statistical information, and it might benefit from closer analysis once it is put in the public domain. Are arms shipments to areas of tension where the United Kingdom Government are pursuing a determined policy for the restoration of a deposed foreign Government so commonplace that they do not rate any mention to Ministers? If that is so, it is a surprising state of affairs.
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office referred the matter to Customs and Excise. Are such references, where the transaction is the shipment of arms, so commonplace that they do not rate any mention to Ministers or to a Foreign Secretary who, on any view, enhanced and distinguished his reputation by the way in which he pursued the previous Government in relation to the arms to Iraq affair? One would have thought in those circumstances that, from the narrowest of political standpoints, it would be inevitable that such a matter, if there were something of that sort, would be referred to the Foreign Secretary—and to this Foreign Secretary in particular.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that the House is missing something—that the arms were not going to Sierra Leone, but to the Nigerian
  616
  military regime? We should be looking at whether the British Government were effectively conniving with a regime that they constantly condemn.
  Mr. Campbell: Nigeria's role in those matters occasioned considerable anxiety. At the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh last September, there was considerable scrutiny of Nigeria's response to the conditions placed on it for continued membership of the Commonwealth. Some, myself included, argued that Nigeria's failure to observe the conditions on which it had been suspended was such that expulsion should follow. The attitude of the Government—of any British Government—to Nigeria in such circumstances was bound to be one of sensitivity.
  I had considerable apprehension about the role taken by the Nigerian Government in the restoration of President Kabbah. Once again, we got the right result, but whenever one makes that point, one must ask, "Supposing we had not got the right result? Supposing the outcomes had been different—would our attitude and the Government's attitude to the means by which they were achieved be rather different?"
  I welcome the proposal to hold an independent inquiry. I am not convinced that it needs to be held in public, so long as a person of sufficient detachment and independence is chosen to conduct it. I agree with the Foreign Secretary about the conversion of some Conservative Members to the value of a public inquiry. I remember well, as he does, that before he and I were given three hours to examine Lord Justice Scott's report in the basement of the Department of Trade and Industry, a lot of senior Conservatives—including Lord Howe of Aberavon, if my memory serves me correctly—were put up to rubbish in advance the outcome of the Scott inquiry, before the report had even been published.
  It did not stop there. The Foreign Secretary will remember that the central conclusion of the report was that Parliament had been deliberately misled about a change of policy. What happened at the Dispatch Box? The then President of the Board of Trade, now Lord Lang, said that the Government did not accept the central conclusion of the report. That justifies the Foreign Secretary exhibiting a degree of scepticism about the conversion that has taken place, but when sinners return to the fold, one should try to be nothing other than generous.
  Mr. Grieve: Leaving aside the question whether sinners have been converted, does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, in the light of what the Foreign Secretary said today, one of the central issues in the inquiry will be whether the Foreign Office's recollections of its dealings with Sandline are right or whether it might be mistaken? In such circumstances, it would be inappropriate for the members of the inquiry and its chairman to be drawn from the civil service.
  Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my point. Like others, I have a great deal of respect for Sir Thomas Legg and Sir Robin Ibbs. However, in this case, not only a legal qualification but independence from Whitehall and from Government are essential for the credibility of the investigative process. I regret that the Foreign Secretary has not found himself able to go outside Whitehall. For example, he referred to Sir Robin Ibbs,

  617
  who, of course, had a distinguished career outside Whitehall but has been part of it in the very capacity to which the Foreign Secretary referred.
  Once a person has been appointed, he or she should be invited to consider whether the investigation should be in public, because issues involving the Security Service are obviously of great delicacy and sensitivity and, in some circumstances, the lives of people called to give evidence might be put at risk. Therefore, a decision about the extent to which the inquiry should be public ought to be left to the person of independence and detachment who will be called upon to conduct it.
  If the inquiry is to be credible, it will, as I think is conceded, inevitably have to consider the actions of Ministers—not only what they knew and when they knew it, in the rehearsal of the phrase that ultimately caused President Nixon to step down, but whether they exercised due diligence to find out. The question is not merely whether they knew, but whether they ought to have known. I echo last week's observation by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) when I say that another question for the inquiry is whether there is any substance in the allegation that the Government are relying on what came to be described as the Thomas a Becket defence.
  Out of this we should surely try to find some pointers for the future. That is why I say that the inquiry's remit should be to consider the need to require arms brokers who operate in the United Kingdom to be registered here and to be subject to licence, and to require all transactions in which they engage, irrespective of whether the arms pass through the United Kingdom, to be subject to the domestic licensing regime that operates here. Extra-territorial powers of that kind are not unprecedented. United Kingdom nationals who assist in the acquisition of chemical weapons capabilities by third parties are liable to prosecution under the Chemical Weapons Act 1996.
  Ms Abbott: I have a question for the hon. and learned Gentleman before we deal with the inquiry's remit. I have here a copy of the terms of reference that have been placed in the Library. Does he agree that it is curious that the term of reference that the inquiry will not have are to look into whether there was a breach of the United Nations embargo?
  Mr. Campbell: The hon. Lady has the advantage of me, because I have not seen the terms in detail. However, if the inquiry's first consideration is not whether United Nations Security Council resolution 1132 was breached, its conclusions will be substantially flawed. The Foreign Secretary demurred to the hon. Lady. If the terms of reference require further elucidation and expansion, it would be appropriate for him to give them so that that issue, which is fundamental to the inquiry, falls within its remit.
  The inquiry should also consider whether any application for licensing approval involving arms should be required to contain full details of the banking, insurance, credit and transport arrangements in the brokering of a particular transaction. Finally, it should consider the establishment of a Select Committee in the House of Commons to oversee arms export policy and to scrutinise individual applications.
  It is sometimes said that those are matters of commercial confidence, but if the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) can be trusted to oversee the
  618
  security services and GCHQ, surely either he or hon. Members of the same experience and integrity could be trusted to provide appropriate scrutiny of sensitive and potentially difficult arms exports.
  As the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs properly said, this is not arms to Iraq. Any efforts to suggest that it is are misplaced and mischievous. As I have said, Lord Justice Scott established that the previous Government had deliberately failed to inform Parliament of a change in Government policy in the supply of arms to Iraq and, in doing so, had failed to discharge their constitutional obligation of ministerial accountability. There is no evidence of any of that here, but the allegations that have emerged over the past weeks are damaging to the Foreign Office.
  The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): In view of the hon. and learned Gentleman's earlier remarks and those of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), I can confirm that Customs and Excise has now reached a view and announced in the past few hours that proceedings should not be instituted against any person. I confirmed that decision, which was based on the particular circumstances leading up to the supply of arms—I emphasise that—and no other circumstances apply. I am grateful.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell rose—
  Mr. Campbell: Might I say that there will be those in the House who will want to consider carefully the terms of what the Attorney-General has just said? Perhaps some of them will want to press the point even now.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman be interested, as I would be, to learn from the Attorney-General whether that decision was taken on evidential or public interest grounds, and whether he might elucidate that matter a little further?
  Mr. Campbell: This is a match that may have to be conducted in circumstances where I am not the court, as it were, but I have some small experience of prosecuting, not within this jurisdiction, but a little further north, and it was certainly my experience—prosecuting some time ago, it has to be said—that decisions not to proceed were never the subject of explanation. The only way in which an explanation of the sort that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) seeks from the Attorney-General, but through me, could be provided, would be if the Attorney-General were willing to provide that information. That is a point that he may have to take up with the Attorney-General directly.
  I deduce from what has been said that the decision was based on the view that there was insufficient likelihood of a conviction to justify taking proceedings. If that be so, and I return to a point that I made at the outset, I am firmly of the view that some of the descriptions—some of the use of language such as "hoo-hah" and "hype"—must have made some contribution to the view that the prospects of success were insufficient to warrant prosecution.
  The fact that there is no prosecution does not mean that the embargo was not broken, because the standard of proof required to bring home a criminal charge is proof

  619
  beyond reasonable doubt. That is a high standard. If we were asked to consider whether a UN embargo had been broken, most hon. Members would be satisfied with proof on a balance of probabilities.
  I go back to the point that I made before: even if there is no prosecution, it does not mean that no criminal offence was committed. Therefore, the Attorney-General's intervention does not take away from the inquiry's two fundamental and primary tasks: to establish whether there was a breach of the UN resolution and of criminal law.
  Mr. Grieve: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, if what was said by the Foreign Secretary is correct—that Sandline sought approval from the Foreign Office for the export, or at least raised it and was told in unequivocal terms that it would be a breach—it becomes all the more remarkable that clear evidence is not there on which it could be prosecuted?
  Mr. Campbell: I think that we are about to have a tutorial on legal matters, which is well outwith the scope of the debate, but some of us, remembering the way in which the Matrix Churchill case came to an end, have formed the view that, no doubt with some success, Sandline's solicitors have legitimately been seeking to establish what one might call a Matrix Churchill defence in a public forum. That may be a partial answer to the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but if he wishes to pursue it at greater length, he will no doubt seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I have said already that I do not believe that these events have any parallel with the issue of the supply of arms to Iraq and the deliberate misleading of the House of Commons, but the allegations that have emerged over the past weeks are deeply damaging to the Foreign Office, to the Government and, ultimately, to the UK's interests. The allegations have not been made any less damaging by the way in which they have been dealt with, particularly in the past fortnight or so. It follows from that that the sooner the truth is known, the better.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Tom King: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have just had the advantage of an intervention by the Attorney-General, which I think the whole House appreciated because there was uncertainty. In his speech, the Foreign Secretary carefully used the phrase that Customs and Excise had completed its inquiry—he never said what it had done and whether there was to be no further prosecution; he said merely that it had completed its inquiry. The Attorney-General, exercising the right of a Law Officer to intervene in a debate, has now clarified the position. I understand that, if the House had wished to do so, it could have treated that as a Government statement, on which hon. Members could then have asked the Attorney-General questions.
  That moment has now passed, but the Attorney-General is helpfully here. I understand that he is not winding up the debate, but that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), will be. Can we take it that, if any hon. Members now wish to raise points in the presence of the Attorney-General, the Minister of State will be able to answer questions that are effectively directed at the
  620
  Attorney-General, and that the Attorney-General will kindly brief him in the light of the responsibilities that he accepts that he now has under the new arrangements, for Customs and Excise prosecutions? Will the Minister of State be able to give answers to hon. Members, which obviously would help the House?
  Mr. Grieve: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood the intervention of the Attorney-General to be in reply to the comments of the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), the Liberal Democrat spokesman. In those circumstances, there was no opportunity, as I understand it, legitimately for the Attorney-General to be questioned—as if he were making a statement. I seek clarification on that point because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) says, the moment has passed when we can ask the Attorney-General questions.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): The whole House will have heard the point that the Attorney-General made. As the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) suggested, in the light of the Attorney-General's remarks, it is for Ministers to respond to questions. They will do so in the way they feel fit.
  4.47 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: I propose to make four points, which I hope will help the House to look rationally at this important matter. First, I give the background. Sierra Leone is a friendly Commonwealth country. Since independence in 1961, it has been racked by a great deal of political turbulence, and it is one of the poorest countries in a very poor continent.
  That political turbulence reached its climax in May last year, when President Kabbah, who was democratically elected and internationally recognised, was overthrown by a military coup. All the relevant international organisations sought to have that position reversed and the President returned to power. They included the Organisation of African Unity and the Commonwealth, and of course we know that our Prime Minister invited President Kabbah as his personal guest to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Edinburgh in October.
  Hence the UN Security Council passed resolution 1132 last year and an Order in Council was subsequently implemented, which came into effect on 1 November. We know that, ultimately, the legitimate president was returned to power, largely with the help of ECOMOG—a unit comprised mainly of Nigerian forces. Perhaps those who are now acclaiming Mr. Penfold, our high commissioner in Sierra Leone, and making him a national hero will be a little puzzled by the nature of the debate in this country.
  The matter first came before the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on 5 May. We were conducting an inquiry into what an ethical dimension to foreign policy means in practice. We were due to meet the Minister of State on the Tuesday following the bank holiday. It is fair to say that when he came before the Committee, he thought he was appearing before us on a different but related matter—the human rights report that the Government had published in April.
  As there had been considerable press interest in Sierra Leone over the weekend, it seemed proper to the Committee to deal with Sierra Leone in our questions to

  621
  the Minister. As he was not prepared, because he came to the Committee on another matter, he prefaced his remarks with a number of disclaimers and said that if he made errors he would correct them as soon as possible. The very next day—Wednesday 6 May—the Foreign Secretary responded to a private notice question and the Minister of State wrote to me, in my capacity as Chairman of the Committee, on the following Friday, saying that I should deem the Foreign Secretary's statement to be the answer to the Committee that had been promised.
  On Tuesday 12 May, the Committee met in private session. We were decidedly unhappy with the Minister's letter, which we did not think sufficient, and we asked him to provide us with a paragraph by paragraph correction of the evidence that he had given us the previous Tuesday. We also decided to ask the Foreign Secretary for the relevant telegrams sent from and to Conakry and Freetown from October last year. That request was refused: I shall return to that matter in a moment. The Minister of State has now written to us setting out a full response.
  That is largely the role that has been performed by the Committee. I have ensured that all the relevant documents—including the evidence given by Sir John Kerr, the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, to the Committee on Thursday 14 May, together with his correcting letter of that same afternoon; the two relevant evidence sessions; and the letters addressed to the Committee—are before the House, albeit in an uncorrected state, to inform this debate.
  Ms Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Select Committee is extremely unlucky? No sooner does a Minister or an official appear before it to give evidence on matters relating to Sierra Leone, than within hours they retract their evidence. Are we not an unlucky group of people?
  Mr. Anderson: That is an interesting observation. In all fairness, the Minister of State was appearing before the Committee on another matter, albeit related. That accounts for the fact that he was not as fully briefed as he would have liked to be. When Sir John Kerr came before the Committee, his memory failed him on a key matter and a correcting letter, addressed to the Committee, was sent that same afternoon. I hope that the House recognises that the Committee has done all that it can to deal with questions of interest to the House, and that the necessary information is now before the House to inform this debate.
  Obviously, one question that needs to be asked relates to the interpretation of the UN Security Council resolution. The aim of the resolution was consistent with the general wish of the international community to replace the illegal regime with the legal regime. However, the resolution does not say that; it puts the legal regime—which at that time was in exile in Conakry—and the illegal regime on a par in terms of arms supply. Naturally, the implementing Order in Council also makes no distinction between the legal and the illegal regimes. That is puzzling. Was it because of sloppy drafting?
  On any construction of the Order in Council, there must have been a technical breach of that order. According to the first schedule to the order, it is clear that arms are included and that any British national who supplies arms
  622
  to Sierra Leone—to either regime—is guilty of an offence. I note the interesting defence by Sandline, that it thought it had a licence. With a legal hat on, I would not like to appear before the chairman of the bench on a charge of not having a licence for a public house and say, "I have a virtual licence," or, "I thought I had a licence." That may or may not be good mitigation, but it is certainly not an answer to a charge.
  The only reason for not proceeding against Sandline is either on the ground of public interest and the overall wish of the international community, or that the surrounding circumstances are such that, given the relations between civil servants and Sandline, no jury would be likely to convict and we would simply have a costly exercise, the only beneficiaries of which would be the lawyers.
  I note that that argument was advanced in a letter to The Times last Friday from Berthan Macaulay, the special legal adviser to the Sierra Leone Government. I last met Mr. Macaulay when he was a defendant in another treason trial in Sierra Leone in 1967. It is good to see that he is still around. The idea that motive is sufficient to construe either the UN Security Council resolution or the Order in Council in such a way is wholly unsustainable. The construction is clear—there has been a technical breach of the UN embargo.
  We need to ask questions about the UN Security Council resolution. It may be that Sandline was initially supplying a very different sort of assistance to the Ecomog forces. It might have provided technical assistance, intelligence and training, in which case it would not have been in breach of the resolution, which is essentially a ban on arms supply. It may have been like the United States forces in Vietnam, who began as military advisers, but gradually slipped into a combat role. It may be that those in the Foreign Office who were well aware of Sandline's activities believed that they comprised assistance that did not breach the UN embargo. It is only at a much later stage that the question of arms supply arose. As we now know, the relatively small number of arms that were supplied arrived after the battle for Freetown was already over.
  The role of the intelligence services may well be another complicating matter, but no more than that.
  The House will therefore have to examine events in the light of the United Nations Security Council resolution, and also the activities of Mr. Flynn, who was the special adviser to the Foreign Secretary. We have heard rather little about Mr. Flynn's activities.
  I should like now to deal with the matters raised by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who speaks with great distinction on behalf of the Liberal Democrat party, and Lord Avebury's letter of February 1998, addressed to the Foreign Office official. We will have to examine why there was a time lapse between receipt of the letter and action on it, after the matter was referred, on 10 March 1998, to the Foreign Office legal adviser.
  More specifically, we will have to discover why the Minister of State was placed in an embarrassing position, through no fault of his own, by not being briefed before replying to the Adjournment debate of 12 March 1998 initiated by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Surely the sensitivity of the matter should have been known by the date of that debate.

  623
  After 12 March, why was there a further time lapse—until some time in the middle of April—until the matter was submitted for noting to the Minister of State? Surely it was known by then that the matter was sensitive and that the Minister had not been briefed adequately on 12 March. We will have to ask questions, not only about that lapse, but about subsequent events that have been detailed in the Sandline letter.
  Many interesting issues will have to be addressed by the distinguished leader of the investigation, and by his assessor—who also knows his way around Whitehall, and is very well tried in management methods and private industry.
  What options remain open to the House and to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee—which I have the honour of chairing? I heard the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) mention a public inquiry, the first option. He knows as well as I do that such an inquiry would take a long time to complete its work. Lawyers may be involved in such an inquiry, whereas I think that the House would like answers to a relatively narrow range of questions. The matter does not involve the time scale involved in bovine spongiform encephalopathy, for example, or the complexity of the arms-to-Iraq affair. I am sure that the House would like the inquiry to report as speedily as possible.
  Although I understand the wish of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe to dress up the matter by equating it with the arms-to-Iraq affair, I do not think that the British public will fall for such a comparison. They realise that such an effort would be—to use a current phrase—well over the top.
  I therefore do not think that a full public inquiry would meet our needs. I accept the assurances of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that the inquiry will be a speedy one, and that it will be conducted by very experienced and tried people, whom he has announced.
  The role of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee is to serve as the arm of the House in monitoring the Government's actions, specifically the actions of the Foreign Office. Basic questions and shortcomings are likely to arise and to be revealed during our investigations. Such questions include what civil servants said to Ministers; who knew what and—perhaps as important—who should have known; and why Ministers were not adequately briefed in a matter of such importance.
  I believe that there is a role for the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. However, I should hope, first, that every hon. Member realises that the Committee has acted properly in the investigations that we have conducted so far—both in questioning the Minister of State and the permanent under-secretary, and in ensuring that all the relevant documents are before the House for this debate.
  The Foreign Affairs Select Committee's role should not stop at our actions to date. The Committee should now press forward, although it will be for the Committee itself to decide on the next steps. Perhaps it would be unwise to attempt to duplicate or parallel the inquiry being conducted under the auspices of the Foreign Office, which will publish its report. If that report is published speedily, there will indeed be another job to be done. That job can be done only by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, on behalf of the House.
  624
  I hope that the Foreign Secretary will understand the Committee's role. I hope that the House will realise that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee is eager to do its parliamentary job, on behalf of the House. I believe that we shall not be found wanting in that task.
  5 pm
  Sir John Stanley: I found quite breathtaking the Foreign Secretary's claim—in responding to the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—that there had been "no failure of the British Government's policy towards Sierra Leone". However, if the Government's clearly stated policy of resolving the issue by peaceful means had been observed, the junta would still be in place in Sierra Leone. It is extraordinary for the Foreign Secretary to claim that there has been "no failure of the British Government's policy", when the transition to democracy in Sierra Leone was achieved by a policy that was precisely the reverse of the one adopted by the British Government.
  Right from the outset, the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers have made it clear that the only policy option that they were ready to contemplate was one of resolving the crisis by peaceful means. I have dug out an answer given to me—as far back as 11 July 1997—by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd). He specifically stated that the Government's policy was to achieve a "peaceful solution". That policy was reflected in the United Nations resolution.
  Perhaps the point that was most illustrative of the Government's policy was made by Baroness Symons, who said in another place:
  "we do not endorse the ECOMOG action."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 March 1998; Vol. 587, c. 100.]
  Given the absolutely clear and consistent repudiation of the use of the military option, it really does not stand examination for the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister to continue claiming that, in some way, the British Government's policy has been responsible for restoring democracy in Sierra Leone.
  I should like to deal with the issue of the possible breach of the arms embargo in Sierra Leone within the context of the Government's overall foreign policy. Ministers have made it clear that the centrepiece of their foreign policy is to put foreign policy on what they describe as an "ethical basis". Time and again, they have made the point that arms control is a central part of such a policy. Moreover, Foreign Office Ministers have repeatedly told us that their proposal to the European Union of operating a new code of conduct on arms exports demonstrates the ethical basis of the Government's foreign policy.
  Arms control is a far wider issue than the Government's trivialisation of it—by describing the embargo, for example, as a "hoo-hah"—would seem to indicate. The Government are engaged in enforcement of not only one arms embargo. A very helpful list provided in Hansard—on 28 January 1998, in answer to a question tabled by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. King)—showed that, at that date, the British Government were operating a total of 17 arms embargoes in addition to the one on Sierra Leone. My right hon. and learned Friend

  625
  the Member for Folkestone and Hythe might like to take an interest in the remaining 17 embargoes, to determine how they are being operated.
  So the Government have made arms embargoes and arms control a major part of their foreign policy, with the ethical dimension, at least in a rhetorical sense, accorded the utmost importance. Against that background, it is ludicrous for the Government to dismiss this issue as mere hoo-hah and trivial. The fact is that, the very first time the Government's arms control policy has come under pressure in this Parliament, it has broken apart, so it is a very serious matter.
  One central question remains unanswered, and from what the Foreign Secretary said today, it appears that the inquiry that he has set up will deal with it. That question is whether the Government machine was wholly behind Ministers in the execution of the embargo against Sierra Leone, or whether some part of the Government machine was in effect acquiescing in a breach of that policy. Of course, the answer will come out in the findings of the inquiry, but what I find extraordinary about the whole business is the position of Sandline. We are dealing not with a secretive company that was operating covertly, but with one which, according to all the evidence available to date, was operating quite overtly.
  There is one material discrepancy between what the Foreign Secretary told us today and what the permanent secretary told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs last week. The Foreign Secretary said that there had been one meeting between the Foreign Office and Sandline, whereas the permanent secretary told the Select Committee that there had been a great many telephone calls from Mr. Spicer to the Foreign Office. Indeed, he made a virtue of the fact that Foreign Office officials had been instructed not to put the telephone down on Mr. Spicer.
  The permanent secretary also said that there had been at least one meeting with Mr. Spicer in the Foreign Office building itself,, and, drawing on his memory—as is clear from the transcript of the evidence—he said that there might also have been meetings between Mr. Spicer and British high commission officials in Conakry. That suggests a much greater degree of contact between Sandline and the Foreign Office. In addition, as we know, the Sandline helicopter operation was carried out in full public view, as has been well recorded in the media.
  In other words, we are dealing with a British company which was acting quite overtly and whose operations appear to have been known to a considerable number of officials. Given that Sandline was operating so overtly, why were not officials all over Whitehall and beyond blowing the whistle on it? So far, or certainly up until the point at which we finished with Sir John Kerr's evidence last week, only two whistleblowers have been identified, and neither comes from within the Government machine.
  The first whistleblower was Lord Avebury. He wrote to the head of the west Africa department in the Foreign Office on 5 February. As we learned from Sir John Kerr, that letter was copied and made available to the restrictive enforcement unit at its meeting on 18 February. It is surprising that Foreign Office officials had not got it to all members of that unit well before the meeting, but we were told that it was apparently circulated to that important unit on the day of the meeting.
  626
  According to Sir John Kerr's evidence, the whistle was also blown by the Canadian newspapers. Apparently, the Canadian newspaper reports were the ones attached to the formal submission by the Foreign Office when it made its request to Customs and Excise to carry out an investigation. It is extraordinary that a Customs and Excise investigation is initiated when a British company has acted in a conspicuously overt way in breaching an embargo, but that, as of today, only two sources have emerged as having questioned Sandline's operations in relation to United Kingdom law and the United Nations Security Council resolution.
  Were officials in Whitehall and beyond vigorously supporting the arms embargo against Sierra Leone—I think that this issue should be of much more interest to the Government than it appears to be—or were some acquiescing in a breach of the arms embargo policy? That fundamental question remains unanswered. The present account of events is wholly inexplicable, certainly to any hon. Member who has served in government.
  It is incumbent on the Government to take the story back to before 18 February, which is the first date on which it appears the Whitehall machine took notice of Sandline and agreed that the matter should be referred to Customs and Excise. The House is entitled to know whether officials were supporting a Government policy, endorsed by Order in Council and approved by the House, or whether some were acquiescing in a breach of that policy. That is the key information that the House is entitled to have made available to it very soon.
  5.16 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: Many of the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) will undoubtedly be dealt with by the inquiry which the Foreign Secretary announced today. It is right and proper that those issues should be examined. They are important, and the House is entitled to know what happened. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) rightly mentioned the role of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in this connection. I have every confidence that the inquiry will investigate thoroughly all the matters that have been raised.
  There was undoubtedly a breach of the arms embargo. That is one important matter that the inquiry will examine. I am not an apologist for Sandline. I do not know that organisation's motives for doing what it did. It will no doubt tell us—it would be surprising if it were otherwise—that its only concern was to restore and support democratic government. That may be so, but I have a healthy and perhaps understandable suspicion of organisations that deal in arms, and I am not likely to lose that suspicion.
  The Security Council resolution to which frequent reference has been made was concerned first and foremost with the junta that had taken power from a democratic Government. It is clear to anyone who reads resolution 1132 that it was concerned with the restoration of democratic government in Sierra Leone. We have to consider it in that light. As I said, I am no apologist for the breaching of any arms embargo or of any Order in Council, but I make a distinction—I see no reason why I should not, even if it is not spelled out clearly in resolution 1132—between a legitimate Government who have been overthrown and a junta. After all, when

  627
  numerous Security Council resolutions were passed to condemn the apartheid state in South Africa and demand an arms embargo from member states, surely a clear distinction was made between the objective of those resolutions—to condemn the apartheid state—and the liberation movement.
  If there was a fault, perhaps it lay in the framing of the Security Council resolution, which emphasises that only peaceful means should be used to get rid of the junta. That gives rise to an obvious question: if only peaceful means had been applied, what Government would Sierra Leone have now? How long would it have been before the junta was overthrown by peaceful means and negotiations? Those are important questions, although I am not saying that, if the arms embargo was broken by British firms, that should be condoned.
  Ms Abbott rose—
  Mr. Winnick: I give way to my hon. Friend, who has a puzzled frown.
  Ms Abbott: With his usual bravura and flair, my hon. Friend has expounded the fashionable theory about the UN resolution: that it was ambiguous and did not mean what it was intended to mean. Does he accept that the Government played a part in drafting that resolution, so, if anyone is to blame for the lack of clarity, it is Her Majesty's Government? Does he accept also that the Orders in Council that we passed are not ambiguous; they are perfectly clear—we are not supposed to have sold arms to or traded arms with anyone involved in the situation in Sierra Leone?
  Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend only emphasises what I said. I am not an apologist for the breaking of the arms embargo, and I am not in favour of operations such as Sandline, but I asked legitimate questions. If only peaceful means had been applied, what sort of Government or authority would there now be in that country in west Africa? It may well be that the resolution could have been better framed. It is not unknown, even within the Labour party, for the drafting of such well-meaning resolutions to need improvement. There is not much difference between my position and that of my hon. Friend.
  At the weekend, I read a comment that there is no real difference between the Government being restored in Sierra Leone and the rebel forces. I do not accept that. First, genuine elections took place on 26 and 27 February 1996. The Commonwealth observer group reported that the elections undoubtedly allowed those registered voters an opportunity to vote freely and without interference. There seems to be no doubt that those were genuine elections, and we welcomed them at the time.
  On 11 March 1996, Baroness Chalker, who has been much involved in elections in various parts of the world, welcomed in the other place "the favourable judgment" of the international observers I have just mentioned. Sierra Leone had an elected Government, after all the coups and dictatorships, which my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) rightly mentioned, since the country ceased to be a colony in 1961.
  628
  The forces against the elected Government have continued to operate. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) may be interested to know that, in a report from Freetown in The Guardian on Saturday, Gary Younge said that the controversy in the countryside relates to a different form of arms—the arms and legs that are being cut off by the rebel forces. In the local hospital there are many casualties of the rebel forces, who have not given up, although they have been cleared out of the capital.
  The report in The Guardian also said:
  "All the fuss in England about arms being sent in support of President Kabbah's restoration … is being raised by people who do not know the pain that Sierra Leone has been through. If they did, they would not pick diplomatic nits over who in British officialdom knew what, when, or about which UN resolution was violated in exporting arms to oust the junta."
  I emphasise again, so that there is no misunderstanding, that I am not in favour of arms embargoes being broken. Orders in Council should be observed, and the inquiry must examine the matter, but the people concerned have suffered under a dictatorship, if only for a short time, the atrocities committed by the rebels who have been ousted from the main part of the country. Perhaps understandably, even though they are Africans—Conservative Members perhaps do not understand the wish of people in Africa, like those in Europe, to live under a democratic Government—they do not take a nit-picking attitude. They are simply pleased that once again they have a democratic Government.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is taking a tremendously long time to tell us what we know already; perhaps he will tell us one or two things that we do not know. Is he saying that it was right and a good thing for that vicious regime to be overthrown by force? I think he is, and, if so, must he not condemn his Government for having drafted and signed up to a UN Security Council resolution that, in his own admission, made it most unlikely that the regime could be overthrown by force?
  The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways: either it was right for the regime to be overthrown by force, in which case the Government were wrong to sign up to the resolution, or it was wrong for the regime to be overthrown by force, in which case the Government were right to sign up to the resolution.
  Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman is simply trying to be clever. Of course it is not possible in every case where a Government have been overthrown to say that military force should have been used. The Opposition did not criticise Security Council resolution 1132 at the time it was passed.
  Surely it is right and proper that, in a debate such as this we should ask, although the resolution referred to peaceful means, whether it is possible to get rid of such a junta without force. That is a legitimate question. It does not mean that the British Government had to say, in relation to Sierra Leone or other countries where democratic Governments have been overthrown, that military force should be used, but, as a Back Bencher, I raise that question. I have already said that there may have been a defect in the resolution.

  629
  I wonder how much the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who is nit picking, is concerned with democracy, in Africa or elsewhere.
  Dr. Lewis rose—
  Mr. Winnick: That was a rhetorical question, but if the hon. Gentleman is so keen to intervene, I will give way.
  Dr. Lewis: My record of supporting democracy against totalitarian regimes is a great deal better than that of the vast majority of Labour Members, including the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), as I will point out if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman did not protest when the Government in Chile were overthrown, and he did not protest against the junta in Argentina, so that is hypocrisy.
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Does my hon. Friend agree that, according to most reports, the actions of ECOMOG forces, not the arming of people in Sierra Leone, led to the overthrow of the military junta?
  Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct.
  Mr. Bayley: It seems that the great democrat, the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), has not read the UN Security Council resolution. Had he done so, he would have realised that it mentions ECOMOG, the military observer group of the Economic Community of West African States, and gives it a role.
  Mr. Winnick: Indeed, although the resolution goes on to say that the overthrow should be achieved by negotiation and peaceful means. These matters are of importance not because of nit-picking or whether a Minister gave this answer or that answer, but because, as we approach the next century, we should be concerned with trying to establish democratic government in all countries on all continents. To do so is essential.
  In considering arms and presumed arms scandals, which the Opposition are so keen to build up today, it is important that those who criticise do so with clean hands. I find it very difficult to take seriously the concerns expressed today by former Ministers and former Government Back Benchers who made no protest over the export of arms to Iraq—to the most murderous dictatorship of Saddam Hussein—and who allowed arms to be exported to Argentina, right up to the very day of the Falklands invasion.
  Yes, there are points in this matter that need to be considered and, yes, it is right for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to set up an inquiry, but to try to compare this matter with some great scandal along the lines of arms to Iraq or arms to the Argentine junta is absolute nonsense. The matter must be considered in its proper light. That is why I believe that my hon. Friends will have no hesitation in supporting the Government's amendment.
  5.30 pm
  Sir Raymond Whitney: The speech of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) was a fascinating insight into not only the confusion that reigns in his mind but the confusion that reigns on the Labour Benches generally. Over the years, the hon. Gentleman has sought assiduously to build a reputation as a high-minded peace campaigner—I do not think that he would resile from that definition—but, in his speech today, we saw another persona. We saw a swashbuckling advocate of a coup de main to whom the end always justifying the means. One might normally find such a characteristic on the Conservative Benches, not among the ranks of the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Winnick: I hope that I am a campaigner for peace. The hon. Gentleman should, however, know that I enthusiastically supported the British forces in the invasion of the Falklands and was the first person in the House of Commons to demand military action against Saddam Hussein. I am afraid that my speech today represents no departure.
  Sir Raymond Whitney: I do not want to damage the hon. Gentleman's reputation, but I must say that his reputation for consistency is seriously in jeopardy. I advise him to read in tomorrow's Hansard what he has just said. I think that he will be a little regretful of the extraordinary dichotomy of views.
  The confusion in the mind of the hon. Member is completely outmatched by the Government's extraordinary confusion and the farrago of nonsense that they have presented over the past fortnight. My charge against the Foreign Secretary is not based on any allegation that he may have misled the House, been economical with the truth or turned 180 deg, having discovered that what he considered a serious event his Prime Minister thought was a little hoo-hah. All those allegations may be true; I suspect that many consider that they are. My charge against the Foreign Secretary—I am sorry that he is not present—is that, over the past year, he has not only presided over, but has been responsible for, the virtual destruction of a considerable asset: the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
  I joined the Foreign Office in 1964 and was privileged to be a junior Foreign Office Minister, so I recognise that I am somewhat parti pris—I may be a little biased. Having been a member of that institution does, however, give me some right to know how it is respected throughout the world. It is a convention in smarty-pants writing in the press and among business men who sometimes cannot manage their own affairs to denigrate the Foreign Office, but those who really know—the business men who understand how to get the best out of the Foreign Office and the political commentators who understand the complexities of international relations—appreciate that it is a great national asset.
  It is an occupational hazard of Foreign Offices in any country to be the messengers from overseas, delivering messages that are not always welcome to domestic Governments. Countries and interests that conflict with our interests and obligations have somehow, sometimes, to be reconciled. It is my strong view that, year after year, in the conduct of foreign policy, in the reconciliation of the real world with British national objectives, the Foreign

  631
  Office has a very fine record. The high regard in which our Foreign Office was—as has been suggested—held in the rest of the world should be recognised.
  With regard to the affair in Sierra Leone, we have been invited day after day over the past fortnight to believe the unbelievable. We have been asked, for example, to believe that a group—not one person, but a group—of senior and middle-ranking officials in the Foreign Office and other Departments have conspired to work against the declared policy of Her Majesty's Government. That is totally unbelievable. Anyone who has had the slightest experience in the Foreign Office—be it at official or ministerial level—knows that the opposite has been so.
  Indeed, I think that the trend has moved in the wrong direction. Over the years, officials have insisted more and more on clearance, one level up, for anything—certainly anything of the nature of the matter that we are debating. It is totally impossible that this matter could have been continued or launched without any suggestion that political ministerial clearance should be obtained. That has been the trend for many years. When I was a junior Minister, I tried to counter it. I said, "Come on, chaps, you are high-powered people, you are paid to do a lot. Okay, there is political responsibility, but the balance is shifting in the wrong direction." However, the trend has continued.
  It is even more inconceivable that, given a new Labour Government, the Foreign Office would have responded in such a way over the past 12 months. On the contrary, officials, to whom, obviously, I am no longer directly connected, would have been even more cautious given a new Government, a very hefty political mandate, something called an ethical foreign policy and a new Foreign Secretary who is—how charitable should I be—not exactly emotionally in tune with the Foreign Office's mores and approach.
  I shall not go too much into the affairs of the Foreign Secretary's diary secretary, and all the rest of it; suffice it to say that he performed appallingly in India and Pakistan. We are told what a clever man he is, but it was not very clever of him to think that he could say one thing to the Pakistanis, quite the opposite to the Indians, and get away with it. Of course, he did not get away with it. He did not get away with many things, and everyone knows that.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: Nonsense.
  Sir Raymond Whitney: Someone shouts, "Nonsense." Let them challenge what I have said. How on earth can Labour Members explain what happened in India and Pakistan except by saying that the Foreign Secretary was trying to be too clever by half? Everyone knows that that is exactly what happened. We are being asked to believe that Foreign Office officials said that they would go ahead, break the arms embargo and get into bed with a private company, and to hell with the Foreign Office.
  Now we are being asked to believe that the Foreign Office lost a telegram. That seems to be accepted in all reports. The Foreign Office does not lose telegrams. To put it at its most basic, they are serially numbered; when Washington telegram 1003 arrives, and the last one received was Washington 1001, someone in the great machine will ask what happened to 1002.
  632
  Let us assume that a telegram comes from the high commissioner in Sierra Leone, saying that he has decided to have a go at breaking the arms embargo. Is it conceivable that the private offices of the Minister of State or the Secretary of State would just shove it to the bottom of a pile, put it in a box, and, when it came back, say, "Well, we know that the Foreign Secretary is too busy thinking great thoughts and does not want to get involved in detail, so perhaps he has not initialled it, but never mind, let us pass it on"? That is unbelievable nonsense.
  Mr. Tony Baldry: Does my hon. Friend—a fellow former Foreign Office Minister—agree that it is truly incredible to believe that any telegram from the high commissioner in Sierra Leone that related to these matters would not have been put in the Minister's box? It is simply unbelievable that a telegram of that importance did not go into a box—whether it was read is, of course, another matter.
  Sir Raymond Whitney: I would go further than my hon. Friend. It would be put in the box, and when a telegram of that importance came back unticked, any private secretary would have gone to the Minister to ask whether he had seen it and understood its import. We are asked to believe that, before the Minister of State appeared before the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs to discuss Sierra Leone, he was not told that the Foreign Office had asked Customs and Excise to examine the breach of regulations. That is just one more unbelievable proposition.
  The final nail in the coffin occurred last week, and concerned the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office. I have known Sir John Kerr for perhaps 35 years, and he is, by anyone's definition, an intelligent man. What happened last week was not the action of an intelligent man. It cannot be explained by Sir John's getting it wrong, being unclear or having an uncertain memory. He knew how important was his examination by the Select Committee. He is a man of meticulous industry, coupled with intelligence. It is unbelievable that he got into the mess he did; but, when he went back to the Foreign Office that lunchtime, something funny happened on the way to King Charles street—I say no more than that.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: The hon. Gentleman has repeated the word "unbelievable" over and over. I appreciate that, as an ex-civil servant, he wishes to defend his ex-chums, but I remind him that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was capable in the early 1980s of losing an entire report on the condition of the Montserrat volcano. That report did not surface for more than 10 years. I fear that the Foreign Office is capable of losing and forgetting things.
  Sir Raymond Whitney: The hon. Lady must refer to a little internecine warfare between what is now called the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office. That is quite another matter. She is on completely the wrong track.
  Dr. Tonge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Raymond Whitney: I am sorry, but I must finish.

  633
  The onus is on the Foreign Secretary himself. We must understand why he refuses, against all evidence and all precedent, to have a proper examination by an independent agency—a High Court judge—at a public hearing. This is the most extraordinary development. It is not some little matter—as some Labour Members and members of the press occasionally argue—but a fundamental undermining of a great asset of the nation, which can be restored only by some serious reconsideration by the Foreign Secretary of his position.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that a large number of Members are trying to catch my eye, and it would be helpful if speeches could be kept a little shorter.
  5.44 pm
  Ms Diane Abbott: It is regrettable that the House may lose sight of the serious issues underlying recent events in the parliamentary tit for tat. It is to those issues that I want to address my remarks.
  Sierra Leone is not some far-off country of which we know nothing. It is a member of the Commonwealth, and we have a long-standing historical connection with it, and moral responsibility for it. One of my themes will be that, because of its position as a member of the Commonwealth, and because of our responsibilities, some people might have expected Ministers to keep a closer eye on events. What matters is not only whether the good guys won—this week or next week—but the process by which they did it and the implications that that will have for the future of Sierra Leone and a whole region torn by instability, which includes Liberia and Nigeria.
  Hon. Members who have spoken have been told that they are not really interested in Sierra Leone. Perhaps I can be excused that slur: I am a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I have a long-standing interest in Africa and the Commonwealth, and my constituency contains large numbers of people from Sierra Leone who have come to me since before last May's election to tell me what their Government are doing, and to tell me their fears and hopes.
  The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said that Sierra Leone is a poor country. The saddest thing is that it is not. Sierra Leone has bauxite and gold; it exports cocoa and coffee. Above all, Sierra Leone exports diamonds. One of the most serious underlying issues is that the country is potentially rich, and it ought to be able to guarantee each of its citizens a decent standard of living, decent health care and decent housing. If it is impoverished today, it is because of recurrent political instability, and because of a type of underhand western intervention and the activities of mercenaries.
  That is why this issue is not just a hoo-hah. That is why it matters. When we trace the threads of the affair, and the relationships between Government officials, mercenaries, diamond dealers, arms dealers and financiers, we see the pattern that underlies much of the tragedy and instability across the region. That is why some of us have taken a consistent interest in the affair.
  634
  Let me remind the House of the history of Sierra Leone since it was made independent in 1961. There was an army coup in 1967, when the governor-general had to leave. In April 1968, there was a counter-coup. In 1967, the presidential election had only one candidate—we might call that the premature-Abacha model. In 1978, a one-party state was introduced. In 1982, the elections were ruined by violence. In 1987, there was an attempted coup, the leaders of which were executed. In 1992, there was a counter-coup, and a military regime was installed under Captain Valentine Strasser.
  In 1996, there was another coup, by Strasser's deputy. There was also the election of which we have heard so much, but the House needs to be reminded that the backdrop to the election was civil war, instability and incursion by Liberian troops—which highlights the complication of the relationship between Sierra Leone and Liberia. There were also the activities of the South African-based mercenaries—Executive Outcomes—who are closely connected with Sandline. Between 1996 and 1997, there were four coup attempts against President Kabbah. In 1997, there was Koroma's coup.
  I set out those dates not to impress the House with my knowledge of recent events, but to highlight the fact that the tragic history of Sierra Leone has been one of coup and counter-coup, mercenary intervention and counter-intervention, civil war, rape and—above all—constant bloody armed struggle for control of resources. That is why what matters is not which side wins this month, this year or the next, but the process. That process—western intervention, mercenaries, gun running and diamond dealers—has reduced the people of Sierra Leone to the poverty that we see today, and is causing the people from Sierra Leone I know so much anguish and anxiety.
  That is why it is wrong to dismiss this whole affair as "hoo-hah". We are talking about a pattern of events that has reduced that potentially rich region—when Britain left it, post-empire, it was potentially wealthy and could have guaranteed its people a decent standard of living—and the adjoining regions to the state in which we see them today. The House is focusing on that pattern of events.
  Ministers have told us that President Kabbah is pleased to have been reinstated, and I am sure he is, but I suspect that ordinary people in Sierra Leone would have been even more pleased if there could have been a peaceful resolution, and more pleased still if this Government were pursuing policies that would once and for all draw a line under Sierra Leone's bloody history of mercenaries, coups and counter-coups. From what I heard in the Select Committee and read in newspapers, it is not clear that the Government have been pursuing such policies. Even if their policies represent a good outcome this week, it is not clear that they represent a definite departure from that terrible history.
  As a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, I was glad to hear its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), tell the House that he sees a role for that Committee in looking into these events, and that we would press ahead with that work. Many hon. Members welcome that. However, I must take this opportunity to talk about the evidence that the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd,) gave the Committee. Those of us who have queried it, or who have even asked questions of the Minister of State, have been roundly

  635
  abused for not showing sufficient loyalty towards the Labour Government. We have been accused of nit-picking and self-importance.
  In a modern Government, as we approach the millennium, given the large and varied scope of Government activities, Select Committees play a key role in ensuring the accountability of Ministers. If Ministers are to be accountable to the House and ultimately to the people we represent, it is fundamentally important that they come before Select Committees in good faith and that they do not mislead the Committees of the House, either intentionally or unintentionally. When the Minister of State came before the Select Committee, he made not merely errors of interpretation, but a number of statements that have since been proven to be false. For example, he said:
  "because there is an outside inquiry by Customs and Excise at this moment in time we could not authorise an independent inquiry."
  Well, what do you know, the Foreign Secretary came before us the very next day and told us that he had authorised an independent inquiry. The Minister of State also said:
  "the first I knew of this story was also on Friday night and there has not been a chance for me to be briefed beyond what the Foreign Secretary had issued by way of statements over the weekend."
  We now know that papers went to the Minister of State rather earlier than that.
  I cannot boast that I have been a Minister, as other hon. Members have, but I was a career civil servant and I know this: when a Minister is sent a document for noting, he is supposed to read it. To talk of documents being sent to Ministers for noting as though it were some abstract process in which there is no connection between the information on the page and the Minister's brain is clearly contrary to everything that I know about the way in which a private office operates. I am grateful for this opportunity, even as a humble ex-administration grade civil servant, to put that on the record.
  Even during his evidence, the Minister of State contradicted himself. He said:
  "I have not had an opportunity to speak to the Foreign Secretary."
  A few paragraphs later, he said:
  "I spoke briefly to the Foreign Secretary over the weekend."
  He said:
  "I am only aware of Sandline's activities in terms of what has been reported in the newspapers",
  and, later:
  "Clearly I have read the newspapers, I have information from that base".
  I could continue, but I will not do so because I hope that the Select Committee will have the Minister of State back in person to explain a series of misrepresentations to the Committee.
  I say sincerely that, for me and for many Labour party supporters outside the House, it is not good enough for Ministers to tell the Select Committee that all they know of events in Sierra Leone is what they read in the newspapers. Many people outside the House who worked for 18 long years to return a Labour Government believed that that Government would take Commonwealth issues and those relating to the rule of law there and, indeed, to Africa, far more seriously than the previous Government.
  636
  It may cut ice with the Opposition, but it cuts no ice with Labour supporters to hear the Government say that they are merely replicating the procedures that obtained under the Conservative Government. Millions of people outside the House expect something rather better from a Labour Government.
  Mr. Winnick: I hope that I am also capable of criticising the Government, but I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has touched on the central point. She says that the Labour Government should give a lead and so forth in the Commonwealth. Will she say how we should have dealt with the junta? Was it right to take the view that only peaceful means could get rid of it? Or does she think that in certain circumstances military means—although certainly not the sort of methods that were used—should be used?
  Ms Abbott: My hon. Friend asks a reasonable question, and I would ask one of him. Of all the members of the Security Council the British Government were bound to have the best, the most long-standing and the most up-to-date knowledge of events in Sierra Leone. If, at the point of drafting the resolution, the Government thought that it would not be possible to remove the junta by peaceful means, why on earth did they draft the resolution in those terms? Why did we pass the Orders in Council in those terms?
  Colleagues cannot get away with the spin of the day, which is, "Oh, well. The UN resolution was a bit vague and woolly. No one knows what it meant." We knew what it meant—we were on the Security Council and we knew more about Sierra Leone than anyone else. If we thought that it was not possible to remove that regime by peaceful means, we should never have put our name to that resolution.
  I cannot leave the subject of the Minister of State's evidence to the Select Committee without referring to Sir John Kerr. I have not known him as long as many other hon. Members have, but I must say that for someone of his eminence to come before the Select Committee and then, within hours, to use the rather inept formulation that he had had the opportunity to reflect and look at the files, is not credible. Sir John Kerr must have known that when Ministers knew was at the heart of parliamentary interest in this issue. We are asked to believe that he made a genuine error about when Ministers knew, which is beyond belief. If he really made an error of that nature, the civil service is not what it was when I was a trainee.
  In the tit for tat and media frenzy about the issue, a number of questions have been asked over and again. What did Ministers know and when did they know? I would ask a third question, which is why did they not find out? As someone who worked in the civil service, albeit as an administration trainee, I know that there would have been a wealth of information about the meetings with Sandline. There would have been memoranda, minutes, telegrams and Security Service briefings.
  I have to take Ministers at their word when they say that they did not know, but, if they did not know, I want to know, as someone who is genuinely interested in Africa and who realises that many people in Africa look to this Government to take a stronger and more ethical interest in them than previous Governments have done, why Ministers did not ask. I do not believe that, if civil servants had been asked to give the fullest possible

  637
  briefing, they would have held back information. Whenever I have heard the Government's version of events, the question that has gone through my mind over and again is not what Ministers knew, but why they did not ask.
  I am surprised that the inquiry's terms of reference, which are in the Library, contain nothing about whether UN sanctions were breached. They say:
  "The investigation will look into these allegations with a view to establishing … what was known by Government officials … and Ministers … whether any official encouragement or approval was given to such plans … and … if so, on what authority".
  A breach of UN sanctions is not mentioned. I was a humble civil servant, but I learned a thing or two about how to fix an inquiry. Opposition Members have focused on who will conduct the inquiry, but, as an ex-trainee mandarin, I know that one way in which to fix an inquiry is through the terms of reference. How strange that, after all the debates on UN sanctions—on not only Sierra Leone, but Iraq—this well-trumpeted inquiry should be set up with nothing in the terms of reference about whether UN sanctions had been breached.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Lady conducts a penetrating analysis of the terms of reference. Does she agree that it is all the more strange to appoint as the chairman of the inquiry someone who, although he is described as a distinguished lawyer, will not, under the terms of reference, have to exercise his legal expertise?
  Ms Abbott: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. The chairman is said to be a distinguished lawyer, yet he is not supposed to look into the central legal issue—whether UN sanctions were breached.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: In support of the hon. Lady's point, may I remind the House that, on 6 May, the Foreign Secretary stated:
  "I accept that if there has been a breach, that is a very serious matter which must be fully and openly investigated so that the full facts can be established."—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 726.]?
  Ms Abbott: I am at a loss. It is hard to square the terms of reference with the focus of the debate on Sierra Leone so far—it has been like Hamlet without the prince. We shall have an independent inquiry—the Foreign Affairs Select Committee will consider with all due energy the areas into which we believe that we can usefully inquire.
  Ministers may have paid insufficient attention to Sierra Leone because they thought that little events in some Commonwealth country were marginal to the Government's big picture—I do not know. However, the Government should remember that many of the people—in this country and abroad—who waited long years for a Labour Government hoped for a different approach to foreign affairs, in terms not only of ethics, but of rebuilding and breathing new life into our relations with the Commonwealth.
  Many people in this country and in the Commonwealth are looking to what the Government now do and say about Sierra Leone. They want to know whether the Government are genuinely interested in and committed to Commonwealth countries such as Sierra Leone. The Commonwealth may not be terribly new Labour, but we owe it a moral and political debt. For as long as some of us are Members of Parliament, we shall try to ensure that that debt is paid.
  6.3 pm
  Sir Peter Emery: In following the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who is one of my companions on the Foreign Affairs Committee, I make it absolutely clear that this debate is meant not as criticism of what happened in Sierra Leone—I am delighted that the democratic Government were restored; if force was necessary, so be it—but to hold the Foreign Office to account about the proceedings and to determine whether it was efficient in dealing with the problem.
  My worry is that the Foreign Secretary has decided not to hold the inquiry in public. If it is carried out by someone who has spent the whole of his working life in the civil service, assisted by someone else who has spent much of his working life in the civil service, and comes out in support of the Government, some people will shout whitewash—anyone who denies that does not live in the real world. Why not—as the Labour party demanded time and again in opposition—refer the matter to the Foreign Affairs Committee? It could conduct an inquiry in the terms outlined by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, as it has the power to summon Ministers and other persons and to call for papers.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) described it, the choice of who will chair the inquiry and its terms of reference sound like a script of "Yes, Minister"?
  Sir Peter Emery: I was about to say that—my hon. Friend takes my better lines.
  The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington mentioned the terms of reference, which include:
  "what was known by Government officials … and Ministers about plans to supply arms … whether any official encouragement or approval was given to such plans or to such supply; and … if so, on what authority".
  They do not include the factor that is of major relevance—whether the actions of Ministers or officials could be interpreted as wishing to give encouragement to Sandline to remove the rebel Government. That is the factor that needs inquiry.
  On Thursday, I asked Sir John Kerr whether Mr. John Everett, Mr. Craig Murray, Mrs. Linda St. Cook, Mr. Tim Andrews and Mr. Philip Parham had had some contact with Sandline—he said that they had. I then suggested that, given the efficiency of the Foreign Office, notes and memoranda would have been made. Sir John agreed immediately. When I told him that the Foreign Affairs Committee wanted to see those notes and memoranda, he—if I may be somewhat unkind—hoo-ed and hah-ed a little before suggesting that that could not happen because of the Customs and Excise inquiry.
  Now that the customs inquiry is out of the way, the Committee should have the papers immediately, as they will prove whether what the Government are suggesting can be substantiated. If, as the Prime Minister says, the Government want to be open and to hide nothing, why are not the telegrams about aspects of Sierra Leone and the west coast of Africa to the Foreign Office available for scrutiny, as the Committee demanded more than 10 days ago? It has been said that they are not for general

  639
  circulation, but there is a precedent—members of the Committee have been asked to examine the telegrams in the Foreign Office. We must ensure that that is done.
  If there is nothing to hide, why the restriction? As soon as there is restriction, people immediately suspect that there is something to hide. If the Government are so determined to clear their name, let us have the political facts out in the open—the matter is no longer ultra vires, as there is no prosecution.
  I find it amazing that the Foreign Office should refer to the restrictive enforcement unit—of whose existence Sir John said that he did not know—on 18 February, as we were led to believe that nothing had happened until the Foreign Office sent the letter on 10 March. That is also of considerable importance and illustrative of the way in which Ministers are trying to sidestep the issue.
  Earlier, I asked the Foreign Secretary how many references relating to arms and a United Nations resolution had been made to Customs and Excise. Undoubtedly, many references were made on a host of different subjects, but who can really believe that a reference on arms, on the breach of a United Nations resolution, is not important enough to be referred by civil servants to a Minister? Moreover, who can really believe, in all honesty, that civil servants would not do so for two and a half months? I cannot believe it, so I think that there is something that we must get to the bottom of.
  There are only two alternatives. Either the matters were referred to Ministers and Ministers either did not see them or did not want to see them, so Ministers must be held to account; or the Foreign Office did not send them to Ministers—we must ask, why not?—in which case the Foreign Office is at fault. It must be one or the other, and in either case the buck stops with the Foreign Secretary. Whether or not the Foreign Office was wrong, he must be held responsible; and I believe that the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House has the power and the right to carry out an inquiry, so that we may get to the bottom of this.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Hugh Bayley: The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) is the first Conservative Member unequivocally to welcome the fact that Major Koroma's regime was toppled by the action earlier this year. Conservative Members, including those on the Front Bench, have displayed a certain naivety by concentrating on the minutiae—the little issues of administration at the Foreign Office—to the exclusion of issues of policy.
  No one in any part of the House disputes the fact that the election of President Kabbah in 1996 gave us, for the first time for a very long time, a democratically elected Government in Sierra Leone. If development is to take place in Sierra Leone—which my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) was talking about—a precondition is that there should be the rule of law under a democratically elected Government. When President Kabbah was overthrown, that went out of the window. He was replaced by a regime that brought down upon itself worldwide condemnation.
  The Amnesty International report published in October 1997 recorded that the rule of law simply did not exist in Sierra Leone. It drew attention to widespread abuse and
  640
  violation of human rights, to arbitrary arrest, torture, rape and looting, and to reports of extra-judicial executions. All parts of civil society in Sierra Leone were opposed to that regime and to the coup.
  Mr. Blunt: The hon. Gentleman is giving a graphic account of the appalling situation in Sierra Leone, yet our Government were complicit in enabling that regime to stay in power, by their drafting of the United Nations Security Council resolution, and by the fact that they were prepared to ensure that the only institution that could overthrow that regime—ECOMOG—was not allowed, under the terms of the Order in Council, to receive arms and assistance from this country. The Government were adopting a policy of Pontius Pilate, washing their hands of the Sierra Leoneans, who were dying in their droves. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will note that what we did was to give them money, and give them a radio broadcast so that President Kabbah could invite them to rise in revolt. We did not have the necessary will to support them in that task.
  Mr. Bayley: I have seldom heard such arrant nonsense. The hon. Gentleman should read the UN Security Council resolution again, very carefully. It does not, as he suggests, rule out any role for ECOMOG. That role is included. The resolution also says that, every 30 days, ECOWAS must report to the committee supervising the sanctions on what is happening. In my opinion, the Security Council resolution, read in conjunction with the three statements made last year by the Security Council, does not make it clear that sanctions were broken by any British party. That is something for the inquiry to establish, but unlike many hon. Members, I do not take it as read that that is cut and dried.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bayley: No; I must make progress.
  I draw the attention of hon. Members on both sides of the House to the fact that the statement issued by the Security Council in February, after the regime was overthrown, said that it welcomed
  "the fact that the rule of the military junta has been brought to an end"
  and encouraged
  "the Military Observer Group of ECOWAS (ECOMOG) to proceed in its efforts to foster peace and stability in Sierra Leone."
  If, as Conservative Members are suggesting, the UN Security Council resolution did not consider that there could be any circumstances in which military action could take place, the Security Council would not have made that statement.
  Mr. Gapes: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the United Nations Security Council resolution adopted in October 1997 specifically expresses strong support for the efforts of ECOWAS, and that ECOWAS is the regional organisation whose military arm is ECOMOG? Therefore,

  641
  the UN Security Council was supporting the actions of ECOWAS and its forces to restore democratic government in Sierra Leone.
  Mr. Bayley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is what the Security Council resolution says, and what Conservative Members are seeking to ignore.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Bayley: No. I am afraid that, because of shortage of time, I cannot give way.
  Conservative Members also seek to ignore the fact that paragraph 7 of the resolution makes it clear that it applies differently to the two Governments—to the democratically elected Government in exile and to the then illegal Government of Johnny Koroma within the country. The Security Council welcomed the overthrow of the Koroma regime because it was the policy of the Security Council that the democratically elected Government should be reinstated, and it was seen from the start that ECOWAS and its military arm, ECOMOG, would have a crucial role in ensuring that that took place.
  Mr. Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bayley: No; I will not give way to the hon. Member a second time.
  Of course hon. Members would be happier if the overthrow of Koroma's regime had been achieved by peaceful means. The Conakry agreement required Koroma to pass over power to the constitutional Government; it would have been much better if he had decided to do so, but he did not, and it was obvious that a peaceful surrender of power was not going to happen.
  Like other hon. Members, I am uneasy about the involvement of the Nigerian regime in military action in west Africa, but in practice, if there was to be a military component in the solution, it had to involve either Nigeria or South Africa—and the latter made it clear that it could not participate. Paragraph 7 of the UN resolution makes specific provision for proposals for military action to be considered, because it gives power to ECOMOG to seek exemption from the terms of the Security Council resolution—
  Mr. Robathan rose—
  Mr. Bayley: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that I do not have time to give way.
  It is quite clear that no exemption was sought before the military action, but had it been sought, ECOMOG would simply have been announcing its intention to take action. It is naive of Conservative Members to pretend that justice could have been done and that the constitutionally elected Government could have been restored had we simply resorted to talks. Action was necessary, and when military action is taken in west Africa, Marquess of Queensberry rules just do not apply.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. David Faber: This has been a good debate. I warmly congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on their speeches; I also congratulate the hon. and
  642
  learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). In a splendid speech, the latter delivered a devastating indictment of Labour Ministers.
  It will not have escaped the notice of the wider world that at no time in the past two weeks have Ministers come voluntarily, at their own instigation, to the House to offer an explanation for this extraordinary affair. They have been summoned by the private notice questions tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. Today, once again, it has been left to the Opposition to try to elicit answers to important questions.
  The ministerial code of conduct, complete with its stirring foreword by the Prime Minister, tells us that Ministers
  "have a duty to Parliament to account, and to be held to account for, the policies, decisions and actions of their Departments … It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity".
  Mr. Blunt: In the debate on Sierra Leone on 12 March, the Minister of State spoke of an article in The Observer, which referred to
  "Britain's talks with hired killers, and about the Foreign Office admitting our ambassador's link to notorious mercenaries".
  The Minister said:
  "The suggestion that Britain was conspiring with hired killers is wrong, and I wish to make that clear on behalf of the Government."—[Official Report, 12 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 844.]
  On 23 December, President Kabbah had been in direct contact with Sandline on the telephone in the morning; on the same day, our high commissioner had lunch with officers of Sandline; and a contract was concluded between President Kabbah and Sandline by fax that afternoon. That suggests that the Minister inadvertently misled the House.
  Who is kidding whom? Was the high commissioner kidding the Minister of State, or was the Minister of State kidding the House?
  Mr. Faber: I am not in possession of the facts about that meeting, but it clearly predates any dates about which we have already been told. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that at the end of this debate.
  The code of conduct for Ministers goes on:
  "Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest".
  The truth is that, when it comes to the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State, information has to be prised out of them in a process more reminiscent of drawing teeth than of open government. They have consistently failed to reach the standards expected of them, and have at best bent and at worst broken the ministerial code.
  Evidence given to the Select Committee on two occasions has had to be retracted or corrected. Collective amnesia seems to have gripped the corridors of the Foreign Office; the Foreign Secretary's speech today yet again utterly failed to clear up many of the unanswered questions posed by my right hon. and hon. Friends. We welcome the setting up of the inquiry, but our admiration of Sir Thomas Legg as a distinguished civil servant

  643
  notwithstanding, I echo the concerns expressed to the effect that someone should have been picked from outside the civil service, preferably a learned judge. We condemn the fact that, for reasons that the Foreign Secretary did not adequately lay out, the inquiry is not to sit in public, and its terms of reference are wholly inadequate—as the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington pointed out.
  It is right that the inquiry should embrace the Ministry of Defence, but should it not also include the Department for International Development, since aid would have been delivered with the assistance of Sandline? As the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington rightly said, the inquiry should consider whether arms were supplied in breach of the UN resolution and the Order in Council.
  It is perhaps worth quoting the statement issued by Customs and Excise this very afternoon. It is extraordinary that the Foreign Secretary did not choose to read it into the record this afternoon, and that it has not been supplied to the House. It says:
  "Even though offences may still have been committed, the particular circumstances leading up to the supply affect the fairness of the case to the extent that any prosecution could well fail and would certainly not be in the public interest."
  That is both a staggering admission and a damning indictment of the Foreign Office. The absence of a prosecution, therefore, does not imply that there was no breach of the embargo; and it is ludicrous that the inquiry should not look into any such possible breach. As the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said, the terms of reference have been well and truly fixed.
  The Foreign Secretary told us that only one meeting had taken place at the FCO between officials and representatives of Sandline but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) pointed out, Sir John Kerr in his evidence described numerous telephone calls—and almost certainly meetings in Conakry—which had also taken place.
  When the Minister winds up the debate, will he at last give us detailed answers to two specific questions? First, what is the definitive policy of the Government towards Sierra Leone, in particular to the implementation of Security Council resolution 1132?
  I want to make one thing abundantly clear: we unreservedly welcome the ousting of the military regime in Sierra Leone and the restoration of President Kabbah's legitimate Government. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe made the very same point in his opening speech. We recognise, as do hon. Members on both sides, the appalling atrocities that took place and continue to take place in the name of the military junta. We condemn them absolutely, and the Prime Minister's pathetic attempt to pretend otherwise at questions last week, supported by some today, did him no credit and serves only to underline the increasingly patronising and ill-informed manner in which he deals with any question to which he does not know the answer. To the Prime Minister, a counter-coup in west Africa, and a possibly serious breach of a UN arms embargo, are nothing more than overblown hoo-hah and hype in the media.
  Both my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe and the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife have referred to the detrimental effect
  644
  which the Prime Minister's extraordinary intervention may have had on the Customs and Excise investigation. The statement from this afternoon serves only to underline that point. We have heard today from the Foreign Secretary and the Attorney-General that Customs and Excise has completed its investigation and that prosecutions are not to follow, so will the Minister answer the question posed to the Attorney-General in the Chamber earlier today by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell): was the decision taken on evidential or on public interest grounds?
  The Prime Minister told us yesterday that the Foreign Secretary's actions had led to the restoration of President Kabbah, yet this is the same Foreign Secretary who claims to have no knowledge of events in Sierra Leone and no responsibility for them. He is the same Foreign Secretary who told the House on 6 May that this was a matter of "proper concern" to the House. He expressed his deep concern, saying that no one should "underestimate its gravity", and he described the line taken by the Prime Minister—that the ends should justify the means—as "wildly out of touch" with reality.
  Moreover, on the same day—6 May—the Foreign Secretary asserted that there was no Government policy in favour of, or UN support for, military intervention to restore President Kabbah, whose regime was to be restored through diplomatic negotiations, not military intervention. In that increasingly infamous Adjournment debate on Sierra Leone of 12 March, the Minister of State confirmed that that was the policy at the time. He told the House:
  "Let me make it clear … that while we welcome the fact that the rule of the military junta had been brought to an end, we were unable whole-heartedly to endorse the ECOMOG action. We believe that any use of force should be based in international law"—[Official Report, 12 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 842.]
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
  Mr. Faber: Yes, we agree—although clearly the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley) does not. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling pointed out, Baroness Symons emphasised that point in another place. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, with the benefit of what he now claims to know, the ECOMOG action to reinstate President Kabbah was illegal and in breach of the UN resolution? Is that the Government's view?
  As the noble Lord Steel pointed out in a letter to The Times today—again, this was reinforced by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington—
  "the British order in council enforcing the embargo is a good deal more extensive and detailed in drafting than the UN resolution itself."
  The Government took a leading role in sponsoring and drafting resolution 1132. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe pointed out earlier, it was precisely because the Government did not support military action that 1132 was translated into an even more clearly worded and strengthened Order in Council.
  This evening, the Minister has the first opportunity since his ill-starred appearance before the Select Committee to put the record straight and to answer the questions already posed to him many times.

  645
  His performance before the Select Committee was explained away, not least by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), by his having been invited to speak on the subject not of Sierra Leone, but of human rights. I should have thought, incidentally, that human rights were of considerable concern in Sierra Leone.
  The Minister's performance was also explained away by the fact that it took place the day after a bank holiday weekend. Today is the day after an ordinary weekend but, given the Foreign Secretary's proud boast about his paperwork, perhaps it was optimistic of us to expect any new answers today.
  If the hon. Gentleman were so badly briefed for the Select Committee meeting on 5 May, why had his office felt able to issue a statement to The Sunday Times the day before, in response to an article in the newspaper,
  "denying that Ministers knew of any collaboration in the military operation by Foreign Office officials."
  Was that statement cleared with the Minister at the time and, if so, was it not suggested to him by his officials that it just possibly might be raised at the Select Committee two days later?
  In the debate on 12 March, the hon. Gentleman attacked The Observer for what he described as
  "an ill-informed and scurrilous article"
  which had, he went on,
  "talked about Britain's talks with hired killers, and about the Foreign Office admitting our ambassador's link to notorious mercenaries plotting against the Sierra Leone Government."
  It is worth considering the Minister of State's rebuttal of the two points that he himself had made. First, he cites the high commissioner, Mr. Penfold, as confirming that
  "on no occasion did he attend any meetings at which Sandline—the company mentioned—and President Kabbah were present together."—[Official Report, 12 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 844–45.]
  That was not the issue. The fact that Sandline, President Kabbah and Mr. Penfold were never together is irrelevant to the question whether Mr. Penfold recommended the firm's services to President Kabbah, whether he liaised with Sandline in the ways outlined in Sandline International's solicitors' letter, and whether he informed the Foreign Office of what he was doing.
  Sir John Kerr has since confirmed in his evidence to the Select Committee that Sandline had had meetings in the Foreign Office and had regularly telephoned officials. He also suggested that Mr. Penfold may well have had meetings with Sandline in Conakry.
  As early as February, the attention of the Foreign Office had been drawn by Lord Avebury to the role allegedly played by Sandline International in flying arms from Bulgaria to support President Kabbah in his efforts to regain control in Sierra Leone. The Foreign Secretary informed the House on 6 May that,
  "on 10 March, the Foreign Office formally advised Customs and Excise of the allegations, with the suggestion that it commence an investigation."
  However, Sir John Kerr informed the Select Committee last week that the investigation had been agreed at a meeting on 18 February.
  In the same debate of 6 May, the Foreign Secretary told the House that the Minister of State
  "received copies of papers on the customs investigation in early April, and they were shown to him for noting in mid-April."—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 721–22.]
  646
  Again, the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington has pointed out the fallacy in that argument. It contradicted the Minister of State's evidence that he was not told until 1 May, a statement that he has since revoked, but for which he has not yet apologised.
  By early April, the Customs and Excise investigation was well under way, with visits being paid by officials to the Sandline International offices and the private residences of Colonel Spicer. We are asked to believe that the first intimation that the Minister of State received of the alleged breach of a United Nations arms embargo by a British company was at least three weeks, and possibly more, after the investigation had begun, and that the Secretary of State was informed only on 28 April.
  It is essential that we are told what were the contents of the papers received by the Minister of State, and what other form of briefing he received. Was he told of arms being involved? Was the role of the high commissioner in Sierra Leone mentioned? Was he briefed that Sandline had had discussions with the several officials in the Africa department of the Foreign Office who are named in Sandline's letter?
  Why, in the words of the Foreign Secretary, was the Minister of State not fully informed of the allegations made by Sandline before Friday 1 May? Does he prefer to receive his briefings by instalments, or does that reflect yet again the appalling breakdown of communication that is becoming daily more evident between officials and Ministers at the Foreign Office?
  Many of us who are seeking to get to the heart of this vital matter felt that we might at last be getting somewhere when the permanent under-secretary, Sir John Kerr, gave his evidence to the Select Committee. He told the Committee that he believed that a briefing prepared for the Minister for the debate on 12 March did include reference to a letter sent two days earlier to Customs and Excise, formally asking it to investigate the allegations made about Sandline.
  Sadly, as the House knows, our optimism was premature. Some hours later, a letter from Sir John to the Committee was released in which he stated that he now recalled that the
  "briefing pack prepared for Mr. Lloyd's use in the debate on March 12… does not mention arms shipments; and, as I thought, it does not say that one such report had already been passed to the Customs and Excise."
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) rightly said, that briefing pack must be published now, together with the notes of the conversations between Foreign Office officials and representatives of Sandline International to which Sir John Kerr referred in his evidence, and with all relevant telegrams from Sierra Leone and Guinea during the period in question.
  May I ask the Minister, as did his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East, to throw a little more light on the role and the brief given to Mr. John Flynn, a distinguished former diplomat, appointed by the Foreign Secretary on 9 January as his special representative to Sierra Leone. He was described at the time as having
  "a wealth of experience in conflict resolution in Africa",

  647
  and the Foreign Secretary has said that he was
  "to co-ordinate international support for the restoration".—[Official Report, 12 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 153.]
  of President Kabbah. What precisely was his role? How frequently did he visit Sierra Leone, and did he meet representatives of Sandline there or in London? Did he accompany the Minister to Freetown on 31 March? On how many occasions did he meet the Minister and the Foreign Secretary?
  During the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, the Minister intervened to answer the question that I asked him at Foreign Office questions last week. He said that he did not discuss Sandline at the meeting that he held with John Flynn at the Foreign Office on 19 March, or at the meeting that he held with non-governmental organisations on 1 April.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify for the House exactly what he is insinuating about Mr. Flynn?
  Mr. Faber: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I am not insinuating anything. I am asking the Minister to give further details about the role that Mr. Flynn was asked to play. I am keen to know whether Mr. Flynn is still involved in implementing the Government's policy in Sierra Leone, or has he, too, become disenchanted with their performance? We read yesterday about his recent meeting with the Foreign Secretary, after which he is said to have complained privately that the Foreign Secretary had
  "seemed uninterested in the subject, apparently preoccupied by other matters".
  Mr. Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman will not wish to mislead the House. I should inform him and the House that I have received a letter from Mr. Flynn in which he flatly denies making any such statement and reasserts my interest in Sandline and Sierra Leone. He is greatly distressed by the way in which remarks that he did not make have been attributed to him.
  Mr. Faber: I would not wish to add to the distress of Mr. John Flynn. The Foreign Secretary has answered the question.
  Does the Minister expect us to believe that he was briefed for a debate on 12 March, but that he was not told of Sandline's activities, or of the Customs and Excise investigation begun, according to Sir John Kerr, on 18 February? Did the Minister hold meetings or conversations with Mr. Penfold or Mr. Flynn, and yet was told nothing of Sandline International? We are led to believe that the word "Sandline" never occurred in any conversations that he had with Mr. Penfold or Mr. Flynn.
  Did the Minister visit Freetown himself on 31 March, without the word "Sandline" or reference to its operations there passing the lips of anyone whom he met? Did he hold a meeting with NGOs on 1 April to discuss the position in Sierra Leone, and in particular the delivery of aid, yet during the meeting not one of them mentioned the role played by Sandline?
  648
  What has the Minister been doing for the past few months, if not one person, from his own officials to those on the ground in Sierra Leone, felt moved to inform him about the activities of a British company helping militarily to restore President Kabbah to power? It is time for the Minister to tell us when he first knew of the allegations and from whom. Last Thursday he told the House:
  "my statement in the House on 12 March was an exact statement of my knowledge at the time. If, given the events of time, I need to correct that, I shall of course seek to do so before the House."—[Official Report, 14 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 537.]
  Tonight is his opportunity.
  In a debate in the House on 2 April on the international arms trade, the Minister described my speech, which had criticised the Government's so-called ethical foreign policy, as "sad" and "churlish". It is not my behaviour in this sorry saga that we are debating tonight that I consider to be sad. The hon. Gentleman went on—as Ministers always do—to blame the previous Government, and said that I should have stood up and said that we were genuinely sorry. Tonight, the House will want to know whether the Minister is a big enough man to stand up and say that he is sorry.
  6.39 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): I am delighted to speak about Sierra Leone before such a packed House. The House of Commons tonight, with full Opposition Benches, contrasts markedly with the House during the debate on 12 March. My speech on that occasion has attracted the interest of both the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), and his junior spokesman, the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber). However, neither of them took the trouble to attend that debate—although a solitary Conservative Back Bencher spoke in it. That was the level of Opposition interest in the events in Sierra Leone. We have had to wait from the restoration of President Kabbah until now to hear the Opposition even welcome the President's return to power in that country.
  Let me say at the outset that the Government's policy with respect to Sierra Leone has been a success, and it has been a success for an ethical foreign policy. I shall tell the House a little about the events that took place.
  Mr. Robathan: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lloyd: No, the hon. Gentleman has already made several interventions.
  From the time of the coup, the Government recognised and supported the legitimate elected Government of President Kabbah, even while he was in exile. We regarded as illegitimate the junta that had taken his place. We wanted democratic Government to be restored and we were delighted when it was. However, we wanted it done legally—that is an important point as many Opposition Members, particularly the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), have fudged such issues. We wanted it to happen in accordance with United Nations Security Council resolutions as that is the correct way for such things to occur.
  We contemplated the threat or use of force, but only as a last resort. When we were asked about it—only one Conservative Member asked a question about Sierra

  649
  Leone from the time of the coup last July until recently—we said that we preferred to see negotiations, which would avoid bloodshed and harm to the people of Sierra Leone. We made it clear that the possibility of force was available as a last resort, but only with the blessing of the United Nations. That is the right and proper way for the Government to behave, and we do not resile from that approach.
  We did not want arms to flow into the region—that goes to resolution 1132, which the hon. Member for Westbury does not seem to have read—even if they were meant for the good people, as they could easily have ended up in the wrong hands. We made it clear over and over again that we would not support any illegal action. President Kabbah got the message. In his letter to the Prime Minister of 11 May, he said:
  "I recall, during the Commonwealth meeting in Edinburgh, Mr. Tony Lloyd remarking that while the British Government would continue to give diplomatic and other support to my Government, it could not provide it with lethal materials or weapons. As far as I was concerned, the matter was closed."
  Several interesting points have emerged during the debate, and one of them concerns the role of the Opposition. I am not even sure whether the shadow Foreign Secretary knows who got rid of the junta in Sierra Leone. I can inform him that ECOMOG, not Sandline, got rid of that regime. The shadow Foreign Secretary and his hon. Friends do not seem to realise that. ECOMOG conducted a significant military operation and forced the junta to take flight. President Kabbah's letter to the Prime Minister said:
  "As I review the media reports in London, it struck me that Sandline's role in the removal of the illegal regime and the return of my Government has been exaggerated."
  That is an understatement. He goes on to say that the weapons arrived only after the removal of the illegal regime—that is an important point—and the liberation of Freetown by ECOMOG. President Kabbah said:
  "I assure you most emphatically that at no time did my Government utilise mercenaries provided by Sandline."
  He continued:
  "It is erroneous for anyone to suggest that Sandline was involved in a coup … on my behalf."
  Sandline did not restore President Kabbah's Government.
  Mr. Blunt: At this point, the Minister should know that the issue of arms is neither here nor there. Crucial to the military success of the ECOMOG operation was the military assistance and advice given by Sandline to President Kabbah, with the knowledge of the High Commissioner. That package included arms, and President Kabbah signed the end user certificate knowing that they came from a British company.
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that there is nothing in the Security Council resolution or in Britain's national legislation—the Order in Council—that could control advice provided to President Kabbah. Is the hon. Gentleman serious in raising that point? We have said continually that there was no ministerial approval of any breach of the United Nations arms embargo. I reiterate that Sandline did not restore President Kabbah's Government: that was achieved by forces, chiefly Nigerian, contributed by ECOMOG. It was a trained and
  650
  well-equipped army, and, frankly, a few mercenaries with a handful of arms shipped via Bulgaria could not do the job.
  Dr. Tonge: I thank the Minister for giving way. Will he tell the House whether he and his Government are entirely happy about the involvement of the Nigerian Government in restoring power to President Kabbah? Many people in Sierra Leone are particularly worried about that and about the influence that Nigeria will have over them in the future.
  Mr. Lloyd: I shall come to that point in a moment. The British Government—this is germane to the hon. Lady's question—did not fully endorse the ECOMOG action, because there was no Security Council resolution mandating that invasion.
  Mr. Howard rose—
  Mr. Lloyd: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to finish my point, I shall certainly give way.
  On 12 March, I told the House:
  "while we welcome the fact that the rule of the military junta has been brought to an end, we were unable wholeheartedly to endorse the ECOMOG action. We believe that any use of force should be based in international law."—[Official Report, 12 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 842.]
  I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will endorse that view.
  Mr. Howard: Certainly. If the hon. Gentleman takes the view—as he has done consistently—that the ECOMOG action that restored President Kabbah was contrary to international law, how can he conceivably justify his claim at the outset of his speech that the return of President Kabbah was a great success for British foreign policy?
  Mr. Lloyd: Self-evidently, the return of President Kabbah is welcome, and Britain did several things to assist it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not seem to be aware that, while we regret that the military observer group of the Organisation of West African States—ECOWAS—did not await a United Nations mandate before intervening, Britain worked very hard to ensure that it knew that we would support such a resolution if proper rules of engagement and a proper military plan were presented to the United Nations to give it legal legitimacy. That is the action of a responsible Government.
  Since then, we have contributed to ECOWAS. We have offered logistical support, and we have contributed £2 million to the United Nations trust fund for ECOMOG, which is targeted at issues such as disarmament and demobilisation. However, we did not fully endorse the actions of the Nigerian army that did the job. Therefore, it is ludicrous to suggest that we would endorse the actions of mercenaries who made no difference in that situation.
  Mr. Garnier: In light of the Minister's remarks in the past five or 10 minutes, does he agree that the Prime Minister's intervention and his description of this affair as "hoo-hah" were deeply unwise?
  Mr. Lloyd: The Prime Minister always made quite clear the parameters of events. He made it clear that we

  651
  strongly welcome the restoration of President Kabbah—and the Opposition concur with that view. The Prime Minister said that the restoration of the legitimate Government in Sierra Leone was possible only through legal action, and he has never said anything other than that. He is consistent in that view.
  Equally, the Prime Minister has not endorsed any action—he made this very clear, and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) should know that—that is in breach of the United Nations arms embargo, which would be deplorable. However, the Prime Minister did say that the Opposition's attempts to use the incident for domestic political purposes were the kind of hoo-hah that we all deplore. [Interruption.] At the end of the day, the shadow Foreign Secretary knows that.
  That is why, between May last year and May this year, Opposition Members asked not one question about Sierra Leone. They made not one observation about Sierra Leone, and they made no attempt to raise issues regarding human rights abuses in that country—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I will not allow any shouting in the Chamber. The House must come to order.
  Mr. Lloyd: Opposition Members may shout all they want, but the simple reality is that the shadow Foreign Secretary and his junior spokesman showed not one scrap of interest in Sierra Leone during those long months.
  I shall tell the House what has happened in Sierra Leone. This is important. I shall try to do this dispassionately. When I went to Sierra Leone I was shown pictures of the atrocities committed by the Revolutionary United Front. I was shown a picture of a decapitated body. The head had been placed between the legs as a warning to others. That is an example of the atrocities that took place regularly. At no point during 12 months did one question come to the Foreign Office from the shadow Foreign Secretary. Why not?
  Mr. Faber rose—
  Mr. Lloyd: It seems that the junior Opposition spokesman will explain why. Please do.
  Mr. Faber: I made this clear in my speech. We deplore the atrocities that took place. I referred to the Prime Minister's intervention on this matter as pathetic, and pathetic it was. As the Minister took such a close interest in matters in Sierra Leone, will he tell us when he first knew, and from whom?
  Mr. Lloyd: It is astonishing that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to rise to speak about his own actions. For 12 months, the hon. Gentleman with Opposition responsibility for Africa seemed oblivious to the fact that the coup had taken place in Sierra Leone. He raised not one question or protest during that period. Not once did he display interest in what had happened in Sierra Leone.
  Dr. Tonge: I thank the Minister for giving way again. I well remember when he told the House of the atrocities
  652
  in Sierra Leone, because that was during the debate on arms contracts and arms sales. The official Opposition did not attend that debate.
  I noticed from the Foreign Office press releases that on the day when you were speaking about those atrocities in Sierra Leone, and horrifying the House with your descriptions, you had that morning met President Kabbah of Sierra Leone. I wonder whether you had heard anything about this matter—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have not met President Kabbah.
  Mr. Lloyd: I am not sure about the matter of Sandline, to which the hon. Lady has referred, and President Kabbah. President Kabbah and I never discussed Sandline during the various meetings that I have had with him.
  I shall tell the House what the Government did do. Most certainly, Britain was responsible consistently for actions at the United Nations. Britain was responsible for making sure that President Kabbah was invited to Edinburgh for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, uniquely for a president in exile. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister appointed John Flynn, and his role is perfectly straightforward. He has not been appointed to conspire on behalf of Sandline. He is to work for the Government in terms of our policy.
  The hon. Member for Westbury should be careful about the level of innuendo—[Interruption.] John Flynn is a respected former diplomat and should be given that recognition.
  Britain sent in HMS Cornwall after the coup had been thrown out, as it were, in Freetown. The ship took part in humanitarian activity. HMS Cornwall took no part in military action against the coup plotters or even in favour of President Kabbah. The House should be more proud of the Royal Navy's role and a little ashamed of the insinuations that it has behaved somehow dishonourably. I hope that the shadow Foreign Secretary will be very careful.
  Sir Peter Emery rose—
  Mr. Lloyd: No, I shall not give way. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to forgive me.
  Since then I have visited Sierra Leone, along with the Commonwealth ministerial action group. I met once again with President Kabbah. I met nobody in Sierra Leone from Sandline. I have met nobody from Sandline, and will meet nobody from Sandline. I think that my record on that score stands complete.
  Since the coup Britain has been working hard at the United Nations to ensure that there is a peacekeeping role for ECOMOG—to make sure that there are military observers to take part in the process of demilitarisation and demobilisation.
  I shall make a political point about what happened hitherto in Sierra Leone. The coup took place because the Conservative Government did not make an effort to ensure that democracy was solid in Sierra Leone. That is why the coup took place. We shall not make that mistake again. That is why we are continually engaged—that is why £2 million has gone into the United Nations trust fund.
  Mr. Howard: As a matter of fact, it was the previous Government who paid for the elections as a result of which President Kabbah came to power.

  653
  The Minister of State has seven minutes left to answer the many specific questions that have been put to him during the debate, not least by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). Will he now answer the questions that have been put to him and account to the House for his conduct in this matter?
  Mr. Lloyd: My account to the House is very clear. I made a clear statement last Thursday and I shall be judged by that. I shall come on to that in a few minutes. Before doing so, I shall quote once again from President Kabbah in his letter to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He wrote:
  "I hasten to add that the people of Sierra Leone will be for ever grateful to your Government and the British people for the timely assistance, encouragement and support you gave us in our hour of need."
  Those are not the words of someone who thought that Britain had not done enough. They were the words of a man who thought that Britain had played a noble role in the restoration of democracy in Sierra Leone. It is a role that I am proud to have had a part in, and that is the position of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
  Sir Peter Emery rose—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. The House must be quiet.
  Sir Peter Emery: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that Conservative Members are terribly interested in listening. However, it is clear that Sandline has made many allegations. It wanted to exaggerate its military role and its contacts with officials. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already said, we should be careful in not repeating allegations made by Sandline to those who cannot defend themselves in this place. However, that does not mean for one second that we would condone any breach of the United Nations' ban or sanction. Any such allegation is treated with the utmost gravity. That is why the allegation was referred to Customs and Excise.
  I cannot go beyond the statement of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General except to say that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not seen the report of the officers of Customs and Excise. My right hon. Friend was not a party to the decision made by the commissioners. I cannot add to the statement that they have made today. However, I can assure the House that, if the conduct of anyone in the Foreign Office has been a factor in the commissioners' decision, that will be fully investigated and revealed by the investigation that my right hon. Friend has already announced. That is an important assurance to the House. Hon Members should give the House the courtesy of accepting that the inquiry should go ahead on the basis outlined, so that it can get to the bottom of these matters.
  Clearly, the inquiry must go to the truth and it will get to the truth. It is worth the House recognising something that the Opposition are reluctant to accept, in that it was Foreign Office officials, whom the Opposition scorn, who warned Sandline, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said, that the United Nations arms embargo was in force. Once Foreign Office officials were told that it was alleged that the arms embargo had been breached, they referred the matter to Customs and Excise.
  654
  The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) said in the House last week that it was astonishing that the matter had not been referred to me before being put to Customs and Excise. The right hon. Gentleman is not only wrong but outrageous. It would be ridiculous for Ministers to be asked to comment on the reference of potential criminal activities. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take this opportunity to retract.
  Sir Peter Emery: In a slightly calmer vein, and in an effort to defend Foreign Office officials who the Minister says cannot defend themselves, will the Minister give the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, as it has requested, the memos of the meetings of officials that are in the hands of the Foreign Office along with the notes made and the telegrams that have been received? Those documents will speak louder than any of the Minister's words, and we shall then know the truth.
  Mr. Lloyd: These are clearly matters for the inquiry. It is a shame that the right hon. Gentleman did not retract his ridiculous statement of last week.
  I have many meetings with many people. The one common thread joining non-governmental organisations, President Kabbah and many other people is that the subject that did not come up was Sandline. Sandline was a sideline.
  The House is being gripped by Sandline fever. The shadow Foreign Secretary has been determined to try to make his name on it. We understand why. In the absence of any foreign policy, it is necessary to grasp at whatever comes to hand.
  The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) asked whether the inquiry would cover the Nixonian formula: what Ministers knew and what they should have known. Let me make it clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I shall welcome appearing before an inquiry, and shall welcome precisely that line of questioning. It is important for the confidence of this House in my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and in me, that such questions are asked. I shall co-operate fully with the inquiry and ensure that those questions are answered.
  Many questions have been put to me. I congratulate the shadow Foreign Secretary on the award that he won last week from the Royal Television Society for his interview with Jeremy Paxman, when he refused 14 times to answer a question about whether he had overruled Derek Lewis.
  The Government have nothing to hide and will hide nothing. We shall get to the bottom of all this. Contrast that with the sleazy actions of the previous Government, of whom the shadow Foreign Secretary was part. They covered up arms to Iraq—a real scandal—and still do not apologise.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 287.

  Division No. 277]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Baldry, Tony

  Amess, David

  Bercow, John

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Arbuthnot, James

  Blunt, Crispin

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Body, Sir Richard

  655

  Boswell, Tim

  Letwin, Oliver

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Brady, Graham

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Brazier, Julian

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Loughton, Tim

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Luff, Peter

  Bums, Simon

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Butterfill, John

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Chope, Christopher

  MacKay, Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Madel, Sir David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Maples, John

  Collins, Tim

  Mates, Michael

  Cran, James

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Day, Stephen

  Ottaway, Richard

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Page, Richard

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Pace, James

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Paterson, Owen

  Evans, Nigel

  Prior, David

  Faber, David

  Randall, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Flight, Howard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Ruffley, David

  Gale, Roger

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Garnier, Edward

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gibb, Nick

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Shepherd, Richard

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gray, James

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Green, Damian

  Spring, Richard

  Greenway, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Steen, Anthony

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Streeter, Gary

  Hammond, Philip

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hawkins, Nick

  Syms, Robert

  Hayes, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Heald, Oliver

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Tredinnick, David

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Horam, John

  Walter, Robert

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Wardle, Charles

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Hunter, Andrew

  Wells, Bowen

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Wilkinson, John

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Key, Robert

  Woodward, Shaun

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lansley, Andrew

  Mr. John M. Taylor and

  Leigh, Edward

  Mr. John Whittingdale.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Beard, Nigel

  Alexander, Douglas

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Allen, Graham

  Benton, Joe

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Berry, Roger

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Betts, Clive

  Ashton, Joe

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Blizzard, Bob

  Austin, John

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Banks, Tony

  Boateng, Paul

  Barnes, Harry

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Battle, John

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  656

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Grant, Bernie

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Browne, Desmond

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Grocott, Bruce

  Burden, Richard

  Grogan, John

  Burgon, Colin

  Hain, Peter

  Byers, Stephen

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Caborn, Richard

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hanson, David

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Healey, John

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hepbum, Stephen

  Cann, Jamie

  Heppell, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hesford, Stephen

  Caton, Martin

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hill, Keith

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Chaytor, David

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Clapham, Michael

  Home Robertson, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hope, Phil

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Clelland, David

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Coaker, Vemon

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Colman, Tony

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Connarty, Michael

  Hutton, John

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cooper, Yvette

  Illsley, Eric

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cranston, Ross

  Jenkins, Brian

  Crausby, David

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cryer, John (Homchurch)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Kidney, David

  Doran, Frank

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dowd, Jim

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Drew, David

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Edwards, Huw

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Efford, Clive

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lepper, David

  Fatchett, Derek

  Leslie, Christopher

  Fisher, Mark

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Linton, Martin

  Flint, Caroline

  Livingstone, Ken

  Follett, Barbara

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lock, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McAllion, John

  Fyfe, Maria

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Galloway, George

  McCabe, Steve

  Gapes, Mike

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Gardiner, Barry

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gerrard, Neil

  McDonnell, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Godsiff, Roger

  McNulty, Tony

  Goggins, Paul

  MacShane, Denis

  657

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Primarolo, Dawn

  McWilliam, John

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Purchase, Ken

  Mallaber, Judy

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Radice, Giles

  Martlew, Eric

  Rammell, Bill

  Maxton, John

  Rapson, Syd

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Meale, Alan

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Merron, Gillian

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Michael, Alun

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Milbum, Alan

  Rogers, Allan

  Miller, Andrew

  Rooker, Jeff

  Mitchell, Austin

  Rooney, Terry

  Moffatt, Laura

  Roy, Frank

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Morley, Elliot

  Salter, Martin

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mudie, George

  Sawford, Phil

  Mullin, Chris

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Norris, Dan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Singh, Marsha

  O'Neill, Martin

  Skinner, Dennis

  Osbome, Ms Sandra

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Pike, Peter L

  Snape, Peter

  Plaskitt, James

  Soley, Clive

  Pollard, Kerry

  Spellar, John

  Pond, Chris

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Pope, Greg

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pound, Stephen

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  658

  Stott, Roger

  White, Brian

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Wills, Michael

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Winnick, David

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wise, Audrey

  Todd, Mark

  Wood, Mike

  Touhig, Don

  Woolas, Phil

  Trickett, Jon

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wright, DrTony (Cannock)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Vaz, Keith

  Mr. John McFall and

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes the Government's consistent policy of support for the restoration of President Kabbah and recognition of him as the elected and legitimate President of Sierra Leone and welcomes the success of that policy and the overthrow of the brutal and repressive military regime; applauds the open and proper manner in which the Government have responded to allegations of a breach of the UN arms embargo; and congratulates the Government on its commitment to an urgent outside investigation and publication of a full report.

Territorial Army
7.14 pm
Sir George Young: I beg to move,
That this House views with concern recent reports that the size of the Territorial Army may be reduced to 40,000 and that it may be stripped of many of its combat units; recognises the role of the Territorial Army both in complementing the role of the regular army on active service in places such as Bosnia and in providing a strategic reserve of trained combat and supporting units in case of wider conflict; applauds the work of the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations around the country in providing opportunities for young people to volunteer in the reserves and cadets, and in building bridges between local communities and the armed forces; and urges the Government to use the Strategic Defence Review to develop rather than undermine the role of this important national resource.
Over the past 10 years, most Opposition days have been used to castigate Governments for mistakes that they have been perceived to have made. We have a different objective: to persuade the Government to avoid a mistake that we fear that they are about to make. The motion that we have tabled on the Territorial Army is as non-partisan as they come. It embraces views that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, at both ends of the building and by informed opinion outside Parliament about the feared impact of the strategic defence review on the size and the role of the TA.
I am slightly surprised that the Government are seeking to amend our motion, and no doubt we shall hear which of its propositions the Government have difficulty with, but the absence of invective on the Order Paper should not disguise the concern that has inspired the debate and, indeed, a recent spate of hyperactivity in the Ministry of Defence, doubtless in the hope of avoiding intervention by the Minister without Portfolio.
The cause of our concern is a series of reports by defence correspondents, especially Michael Evans of The Times, who seems to be well informed, that the TA will be cut to 40,000. I also understand that the SDR reserves paper, which was discussed in the MOD on 6 February, proposed that the size of the TA should be approximately 40,000. Perhaps the Secretary of State can confirm that. We know from Ministers that they plan to retain or to enhance the TA's specialist capabilities, so the only way that they could reach the figure that I have mentioned is by substantial reductions of about 80 per cent. in the infantry.
In response to that suggested reduction, we have had two lively debates in the House. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) for their diligence in initiating those debates and for their advocacy during them. However, nothing that Ministers have said in reply has allayed that concern.
There was also a much longer debate in the other place. There were no fewer than 33 Back-Bench speakers—many only recently retired from advising Ministers at the MOD—of whom only two took the Government brief. Commenting on the possible reasons for that, Lord Gilbert said:
"One is that my noble friends have total confidence in the way the Government are running the country".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 April 1998; Vol. 590, c. 1225.]
660
A less charitable commentator might be driven to the opposite conclusion.
I choose just one quotation from the many speakers in our three excellent debates. The hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, whom I of course notified of my intention to quote him, said:
"The fact that there are so many Members here in the early afternoon is a warning to the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence that messing around with what is left of our reserves would be difficult and dangerous … Warfare has not changed so greatly as to render our traditional reserves superfluous; nor are they there only to plug holes left in the MOD's budget … If we find that the reserves have been relegated to superfluity, I am convinced that there will be tremendous reaction throughout the country, reflected in the House."—[Official Report, 8 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 313.]
I believe that he is right, and if Ministers will not listen to me, they should listen to him. I am delighted that he is in his place for the debate.
The Opposition want to give further momentum to the concern to which I have referred. We hope not only to persuade the Government to change their proposals, but to bring to a swift conclusion the increasingly embarrassing delay in publishing the SDR, for which we still have no date. Ministers keep telling us how thorough, inclusive and transparent was the exercise that led to the report that they sent to their colleagues at the end of March. Despite that, however, their colleagues want between three and four months to validate that comprehensive exercise. As we have constantly been told that it is not Treasury-driven, we wonder who is holding it up.
In the meantime, there is an increasingly damaging impact on morale, on recruitment and on procurement. The Secretary of State is probably equally frustrated by the delay, but is too polite to say so. However, he owes it to the service for which he has responsibility to bring the exercise to a swift conclusion.
In speaking about the TA, it is no part of my case to look backwards rather than forwards or to set regular against reserve. There must be a good, forward-looking relationship between the two because they depend on each other. The Regular Army depends on the TA to complete battalions that are sent to Bosnia; the TA depends on the Regular Army for its marching orders, and they share a common culture and ethos. The future of the TA and the long-term health of the Regular Army are inextricably linked, and there is no advantage in reducing the TA infantry to insignificance, as the strategic defence review apparently suggests, while hoping to man an enhanced regular infantry.
The Minister for the Armed Forces has said that the reserves can make their case in public while the regulars cannot. That is a fair point, but, of course, the regulars are much closer to the decision-making process and have more senior officers within the Ministry of Defence. An advocacy that is private rather than public may be every bit as influential.
There are two key questions for the House. They are, first, what is to be the role of the TA over the next 15 to 20 years; and, secondly, can that role be filled with the manpower that the Government are examining? The role of the TA is as a general reserve to the Army. It is there to reinforce the Regular Army when that is required with individuals, units or sub-units in the UK or overseas. It also provides the framework and basis for regeneration and reconstitution in times of national emergencies.

661
The TA performs other roles. In many parts of the country, it is the only link between military and civil in our demilitarised society. It is an important source of recruits for the Army and is an alternative to conscription. It offers opportunities for volunteering to the responsible citizen; it assists other Government objectives and programmes, such as welfare to work; and it offers opportunities of a structured life to young people who might otherwise lack contact with order and discipline.
I shall outline the case that Government must answer. The manpower that the Government apparently propose will mean that the TA will lack the critical mass that it needs to remain a viable organisation. Cuts focused on the infantry will mean that its heart will become starved of oxygen and its limbs will become less efficient. Infantry reductions of about 80 per cent. mean that it will no longer be a truly national organisation. The shrinking will not only have the impacts that I have mentioned but will affect the perceived role of the TA in society, the employer's willingness to release employees for training for a valued purpose, and people's motivation to join.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: My right hon. Friend is dealing with the important roles of the TA. Does he agree that the TA is vital to the future of the Army cadet force because throughout the country, and certainly in my constituency in the Camberley area, cadets rely on the TA for stores and training and for many other services? To damage the TA is to damage the cadets.
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I had intended to speak about that issue, but he has raised it more eloquently than I could.
I shall now deal with the TA's role as general reserve to the Army, and assume that at one end of the scale we plan for a high-intensity conflict for which we field one division. It is legitimate to contemplate such a conflict: we contemplated one in the House only a few weeks ago. If we assume 15 per cent. casualties in four days, on the TA figures that we are debating, the Army would have to call up ex-regulars on day five. The trouble with that is that 50 per cent. of the addresses of ex-regulars are incorrect. In addition, they may not be fit or trained on current equipment, and may not want to serve.
The strategy of cutting the TA and relying on ex-regulars to save money rejects the trained, fit and willing volunteer for the possibly unfit, unwilling and untrained ex-regular—if one can get hold of him. We could be into that scenario quite soon. Sustaining any operation requires depth, and if the reserves are cut, there will not be the depth to sustain an operation. In a lower-intensity conflict with fewer casualties, with inadequate reserves there would be a shortage of manpower after about 90 days. At the other end of the scale, there is the example of the recent floods in the midlands. The Army locally was on block leave and the territorials stepped in and were the only soldiers who were present.
Most regular units deploy with a TA increment on operations or on exercises. Some 10 per cent. of the implementation force, IFOR, and the stabilisation force, SFOR, manpower in Bosnia was found from reservists, of whom about 1,200 were infantry. Without such back filling, the regular infantry would be even more stretched, and that would lead to worse retention and an ever-increasing reduction in regular manpower.
662
The TA has gained much respect for its role in Bosnia. More broadly, while we have a small regular force, the volunteer reserve forces help to provide the capacity to punch above our weight, and that has enabled Britain to have an effective foreign policy. All that is at risk.
Reducing the TA has other consequences, such as those that were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). TA premises are used by others such as cadets, who also use vehicles and equipment with TA infantry instructors. To get a clearer idea of the exact impact, I have today written to the regional chairmen of the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association to get their assessment of the consequences of what we are discussing.
The whole of the reserve forces cost about 3 per cent. of the entire defence budget. The TA is astonishing value for money; my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) will expand on that at the end of the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury made the point in his perceptive piece in today's issue of The Daily Telegraph. As one noble Lord put it, it is like saving money by ceasing to pay for the insurance policy.
The role of reconstitution as well as that of general reserve may be compromised by the strategic defence review. It is fine to say that we shall have time to do that because there will be adequate warning, but history tells us otherwise. It was not until the spring of 1939 that it was decided to double the size of the TA. That decision ensured that many units went to war partly trained and ill-equipped and the price was heavy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) may recall how difficult it was in 1971 to train and recruit the new infantry battalions that he formed. It took five or six years to build up the expertise on which a unit relies.
The strategic defence review will take us up to 2015—17 years ahead. We only need to look back 17 years to 1981 to appreciate what we did not foresee at that time—the Falklands, Iraq and Bosnia, to name but three major demands on the armed forces. The record of forecasting military conflict is not good. There is a hint that there will be no need to call out complete units again. I am not sure that I agree with that. In replying to a recent debate and at defence questions today the Minister for the Armed Forces said that the Russians would not land tomorrow. That is correct, but who can predict the shape, location or duration of future conflicts? For expansion, the infrastructure and the framework must be in place, and it is precisely those which we are likely to lose.
We do not know exactly how forces may be required, and that means that we need a general rather than a specialised reserve. That is why cuts of 80 per cent. in the infantry would be so dangerous. Infantry is flexible; it can re-role. One company in Winchester has re-roled from infantrymen to amphibious engineers. The infantry has the key soldiering skills to an extent that specialists have not, and that makes it the heart of a genuine multi-purpose reserve.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I fully endorse my right hon. Friend's excellent case on behalf of the Territorial Army. Does he agree that, if the TA is cut to the extent that many of us think it will be, that will deprive ex-regulars, who have cost a great deal to train,

663
of the opportunity to become TA soldiers and officers, with the tremendous benefit that that can bring to the services and to younger recruits?
Sir George Young: My hon. Friend's point is well made, and I am grateful to him.
I shall now turn to the issue of recruitment. Currently, the Army is about 5,000 below strength and has a turnover of some 15,000 a year. Some 40 per cent. of Regular Army recruits come from the TA and the cadets, and they come disproportionately from the infantry. Cutting the infantry in the TA therefore runs the risk of double jeopardy. Not only does it cut off a promising source of recruitment for undermanned regulars, but it leaves the regulars even more exposed because the reserves are no longer there to support them. The reserves are being squeezed to make headroom for a sixth deployable brigade, but that is the wrong way to do it. The Army's top priority at the moment is recruitment and retention. My contact with the armed forces parliamentary scheme over recent weeks has brought that home to me, but cutting the TA makes that problem worse, not better.
I turn to the argument about footprint—the need to have a physical presence throughout the country that is seen, felt and respected, not least for recruitment. If the number comes down to 40,000, Scotland looks particularly naked, which I am sure would be of concern both to the Secretary of State and the Minister for the Armed Forces. That is because Scotland has a very high infantry profile and is the area where the reductions are likely to be made.
Mr. James Gray: My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. Is he aware that, if the infantry and the yeomanry were to be abolished, similarly the whole of Gloucestershire and most of Wiltshire would be entirely empty of the Territorial Army?
Sir George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. When I receive the replies to the letters to which I have referred, we will have a much clearer picture of exactly what the regional distribution of the cut might be.
On the role of the armed forces, I quote Brigadier Richard Holmes, now the Director of Reserve Forces and Cadets in the MOD, on the need for a presence:
"Not in a brassy and intrusive sense, but the daily and repeated demonstration, to the men and women who we defend and from whom we draw our strength, that we are them—and they are us: the nation's mirror, indeed."
In many parts of the country, the only adult military presence at the Remembrance day parade is provided by the TA. Cut the TA and that goes. With no national footprint, the armed forces become more isolated from the communities that they serve.
Many hon. Members want to speak in the debate, so let me conclude by quoting from the same article on the TA, which was written by Brigadier Holmes in 1995:
"But there is an irreducible minimum amount of funding: fall below it, and units are gut-shot … In our view we are dangerously close to this irreducible minimum, and we should be well aware that the effects of a small saving could be disproportionately destructive."
That was when the figure was 59,000, with which he expressed delight.
664
In the previous debate on this subject, the Minister for the Armed Forces told us that no final decision had been taken. I believe him. We hope that there is time to change what is proposed. If not, I guarantee that Conservative Members will want to return to the subject. When we do, the atmosphere may be different, not just here, but outside. I hope that the Secretary of State will now tell the House that that will not be necessary.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I wish to announce that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
7.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
supports the Government in its determination to ensure that the United Kingdom has armed forces that are modern, capable, relevant and structured for the new post Cold War strategic realities; considers that the Territorial Army, like the rest of the armed forces, should continue to adapt to these realities; welcomes the valuable role played by the Territorial Army in the wider life of the nation; and is confident that the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review will be capable, relevant and even more usable reserve forces to help support Britain's foreign and security policies.
The speech by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the Opposition spokesman, and the terms of the Opposition motion strike a commendably less hysterical note than much of the commentary and speculation in recent months about this one aspect of our armed forces, which have been part of a strategic defence review, which was widely welcomed by many people, including many hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is the most unprecedentedly open defence review in the recent past. It is open and consensual, and is designed to establish the widest possible agreement on what our armed forces should do in future and how best they can do it.
On that subject, we have had several good and well-informed debates and I am certain that this will be another. The Territorial Army has a long and honourable tradition in the service of our country. Generations of willing volunteers have served. Soldiers of the TA have fought with great distinction in some of the most desperate struggles that this nation has known.
Even today, individual TA members serve on special engagements with regulars in Northern Ireland and the Falklands, and in Cyprus with our commitment to the United Nations. Some 2,500 volunteers have served with the regulars in Bosnia. I pay tribute to their efforts in that stricken country, where the work of the British Army, regulars and Territorials together, and of our other services has done so much to bring hope where, at one point, there was none.
I look at that military experience, which the motion that has been tabled in the name of the Opposition acknowledges, and I see an inconsistency in the motion and in the argument of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire. The strategic defence review does not and will not undermine the Territorial Army; it will strengthen it. We do not intend to destroy the TA; we intend to enhance it. The strategic defence review will not downgrade the Territorial Army; it will, as the motion suggests and recommends, develop it and modernise it. We intend to ensure that the TA is relevant, usable,

665
capable, effective, integrated and valued throughout the country. I am confident that, when the strategic defence review is eventually finalised, agreed and published in a White Paper, there will be wide agreement that what we have produced is a plan for modern forces in the modern world.
Mr. Mike Hancock: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way on that point: the strengthening of the TA via the defence review. Is he then saying that, if there is a cut in manpower, there will not necessarily be a cut in the defence budget to the TA and that that money will be recycled within the TA, or is he saying that there will effectively be a reduction both in manpower and finance? I cannot see how he can square what he is saying if no more money is put in or if the money does not stay in, and how is it going to be used to strengthen the TA?
Mr. Robertson: Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman waits and listens to what I have to say and to tell him, he will understand precisely why it is that I say that our whole purpose and design is to ensure that the TA is strengthened and that its role is enhanced. The exercise was not done as some way of salami-slicing one section to fund another section. We have taken, unprecedentedly, as I said, a holistic view of the whole defence budget and of all the military capability that this country has and needs in future.
There are going to be winners as well as losers in any strategic defence review. The point that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire has underlined—that the Territorial Army and the reserves are among the only group of people who are capable of lobbying Members of this House and the populace in general—should be borne in mind. Let people come to their conclusions when they see the way in which we have reconfigured the whole picture, not one section of the picture, which has happened to put specific figures speculatively into the public domain.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robertson: I want to make a little progress before I take all the jumping up and down on the other side. [Interruption.] I make a sensible point. I intend to be constructive because we are interested in the quality of all sections of our armed forces. I am willing to take interventions, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will at the end of the debate, so that hon. Members have an opportunity to put their view across.
When we have published the defence review, we will have reserve forces that will be integrated as part of a coherent approach to defence and will be relevant to needs today, tomorrow and long into the future. Numbers are not the only or even the main issue that is at stake here. Indeed, the previous Government made much of that fact in the reductions for which they were responsible in the reserves and in the Territorial Army.
We will also continue the invaluable local links and the wider involvement of the Territorial Army in our society. The Territorial Army draws much of its strength from its local roots and enjoys the support of the communities in
666
which it is based. I know that the concern that has been expressed in this and other debates by hon. Members on both sides of the House reflects the concerns of those communities.
Mr. Barry Jones: On that point, may I tell my right hon. Friend of the anxieties of the Royal Welch Fusiliers? The third battalion TA, which I visited today, has anxieties and the communities that it serves support it. We hope for a continued strong presence in north Wales. I visited the battalion today and, as an ex-service man, I would say that it gave a brilliant demonstration. I hope that he might be able to help.
Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for his constituency and for the regiment based in it. When any review takes place, there is inevitably anxiety across the forces—not just in individual Territorial Army units, but in the Regular Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. Frankly, over the past couple of decades, the only experience they have had of reviews is of exercises that have pretended to be strategy-led, but which resulted in huge cuts in capability. I ask my hon. Friend to tell his territorials that we have considered the matter on the basis of the operational capability that this country will need for the future. We will achieve that inside the budget that we have inherited.
I have no doubt that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, in the unlikely event that the Conservatives had won the election, would have been faced with many of the same tough decisions that I am having to make now. These are not easy options. The last Government reduced the defence budget by one third in their last seven years. There was no prospect that they would increase the defence budget.
It is true that the Territorial Army offers many in the wider community contact with the armed forces which they might otherwise not experience. Furthermore, the training it provides and the values it instils in the volunteer are of great benefit to society. I have no doubt that many hon. Members will wish to reinforce to me tonight just how important they are.
I acknowledge the importance of the TA's specific role in supporting the cadet movement, which we greatly value—not just for the youth development work which is its primary role, but for its recruiting effort on behalf of the armed forces. As a former Army cadet, I could hardly conclude otherwise. We are looking to see what we can do for the cadets, and we will increase the support that is given to them.
Mr. A. J. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman has listed a number of benefits that the Territorial Army brings to the community, to youth work and to the public perception of the Army. Is there some mechanism whereby all that added value can be costed into the whole equation of the strategic defence review, or is he merely looking at that side of the balance sheet that assesses the TA's operational role? Significant as that is, there must be some way of measuring other benefits as well.
Mr. Robertson: We have to make exactly the same calculation for the Regular Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, and for all the capabilities that this

667
country has at its command. However, at the end of the day, the decision is that the budget of the Ministry of Defence will be in excess of £21 billion—the figure we inherited from the Conservative Government. There was a massive one-third reduction over seven years.
We have to consider all the measurements within the whole. We have to measure the value and the utility of the TA and the other reserves. It is interesting that tonight the Opposition have tabled a motion about the Territorial Army alone. They seem to have no interest in or concern about the RAF and Navy reserves. They all have to be measured in the equation.
All these aspects are important, but, above all, the Territorial Army is there to fulfil an operational role, and it is on the operational role that I want to concentrate tonight.
The Territorial Army has seen change since the end of the cold war. Its strength has fallen from a peak of 78,500 in 1987 to 56,700 today. The establishment of the TA in 1987, under the last Administration, was 91,000, but it was reduced to 59,000—the figure that we inherited. Therefore, if people are to make judgments about what might happen in this defence review, they would be wise to look at the Conservative party's record before doing so.
Sir George Young: The Secretary of State must recognise that there was a dramatically improved security position in Europe, and almost every NATO country was able to reduce its budget by between 20 and 30 per cent. That is not the position now, so there is no justification for such a reduction. The right hon. Gentleman must not continue to assert that the reductions under the Conservative Government were the result of some Treasury-driven craze; it was a logical and balanced response, enabling us to put resources into health and education.
Mr. Robertson: It takes formidable acting skills to tell us now that the cuts that were made under the last Administration were driven solely by the end of the cold war and not by the Treasury exacting a heavy price. The evidence of the Treasury's hand is the incoherence of the cuts that were made. Of course strategic circumstances change; of course there were bound to be reductions in defence expenditure in this country, as in other countries. The main criticism of the previous Government was of the way they left holes in capability that robbed us of the opportunity to put our troops into the right place at the right time.
Further changes are taking place in the strategic landscape, and they will increase over the next 10 to 15 years. It is because we are configuring our armed forces for the new challenges, and because of the huge operational strains, that we have embarked upon the review. Just as we have looked at every capability of each of the three services and the civilian back-up, so, too, should we look at the role of the Territorial Army.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Does not my right hon. Friend find it rather strange that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) should talk about cuts in the way he has when, from 1985 onwards, year on year, the Conservative Government cut the money
668
available to the armed forces? If I catch the Chair's eye, I will illustrate that. The right hon. Gentleman is silly to come up with such an argument.
Mr. Robertson: The defence communities are aware of that. They want a coherent outcome that makes sense in the circumstances. They know that some reductions in capability will be necessitated by the fact that capability shortfalls must be made up if we are to send troops into conflict safely, securely and effectively. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire knows that, and the public know it. They will be sensible when they see the outcome.
Mr. Tom King: The right hon. Gentleman knows that there was a change in strategic circumstances, and that the most significant change under "Options for Change" was the withdrawal from Germany at the end of the cold war, and the consequent number of forces that we brought back. He will also know that the architects of "Options for Change" were Lord Vincent—who was an outstanding Chief of Defence Staff, much respected throughout the Ministry of Defence, and subsequently chairman of the military committee in NATO—and the current permanent secretary at the Ministry, Richard Mottram. I should be very worried if the right hon. Gentleman were accusing them of incoherence. I have the greatest respect for their abilities.
Mr. Robertson: It is a bit much for a former Defence Secretary to blame officials for the outcome. I dare say that Lord Vincent, who has been assisting me in the defence review as a member of my expert panel—I very much value the advice that he has given—and the permanent secretary may well have assembled much of the information, but the responsibility for the outcome has to lie at the door of those responsible for "Options for Change" and for the defence cost studies. Therefore, in this debate, let us not try to blame officials. We should grant them immunity to that.
I realise that the changes and reorganisation have not been easy for territorial and reserve units, which are composed largely of people who work a few hours or a couple of days a week. Such organisations face challenges in adapting to the new circumstances. However, I should like to make two points about the position in which we have been left by the various reorganisations and changes made under the previous Administration.
First, most of the Territorial Army is currently held at low readiness against the possibility of a cold war threat—to defend against an invasion, primarily by the Soviet Union, and spetznaz attacks on vital installations in the United Kingdom. Part of the judgment in determining that readiness level was that, understandably, the Government would resort to compulsory call-out of the Territorial Army only in the most extreme circumstances. However, that begs the question of what to do if the possibility of such circumstances arising becomes so remote that we do not have to maintain any standing forces against them.
After our foreign policy analysis—which we have shared widely, and which is widely shared—that issue has arisen—[Interruption.] If Opposition Members really anticipate a massed attack by components of the former Soviet Union, I should be interested to hear their views.
Secondly, across the entire British Army, we have 73 battalions: 33 TA battalions, the majority of which are geared to fight on British soil; and 40 regular battalions.

669
Altogether—in one guise or another—61 battalions are light infantry battalions. Therefore, 61 battalions could not be put into the front line of a modern armoured battle. We should also compare that number of battalions with our eight tank regiments, seven air defence regiments, 14 artillery regiments, 19 engineer regiments and 16 field ambulance units.
We need many regular battalions to manage all our current operations. The House, if not the public, will be familiar with the level of commitment currently faced by our regular forces. Although we welcome the support given by individual members of the TA infantry to the regulars in all those operations, in no credible or plausibly foreseeable circumstances will we need at one time 61 light infantry battalions. Most obviously, the level of force that we are committed to fighting at home is out of all proportion to the threat.
Mr. Julian Brazier: As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) said, most of our wars have been unanticipated, and the past two wars—the Gulf war and the Falklands war—were both fought in open terrain, with no civilian populations, where large ground forces were unnecessary. Let us suppose that the Balkans—where 14 Axis divisions proved to be inadequate in the second world war—were to blow up tomorrow, or that we had to invade Iraq. We should remember that the American, Australian and Canadian armies all have greater combat capabilities and more infantry in their reserve forces than they do in their regular forces.
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman—any hon. Member—can postulate a series of possible future threats and quite easily state the necessary capability to deal with those threats. However, there is a finite defence budget, which the previous Government reduced to £21 billion.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: We have to anticipate anything.
Mr. Robertson: We cannot plan for every eventuality and every surprise. We have to have a portfolio of forces that is able to deal with as much as we can currently possibly anticipate. It is perfectly sensible to take that point of view.
I tell the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier)—who speaks with some authority on the matter, and takes a very strong interest in that one key component of our capabilities—that, since the second world war, we have never compulsorily called out formed units of the Territorial Army. We did not do so in Korea, in Suez, in the Falklands or in the Gulf. We have not called out any of the formed units of our Territorial Army.
Sensibly, calmly and moderately, I make the point to the House that we have to strike a balance between our Regular Army and our Territorial Army, and between the Navy and the Air Force, taking into account the likely eventualities. There is not likely to be a Government, Conservative or Labour, who will expand the defence budget to take into account every conceivable eventuality.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is precisely because of the changed strategic environment that the Government have to
670
develop a changed role for the TA? Unless the TA has a believable and a real role, there is no argument for it. Does he agree also that the role performed by the pre-formed Territorial Army battalion of the Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire—which went as the first pre-formed unit to Bosnia—is the type of role that the Government should be considering in their defence review, to build a real role and to give a real future to the TA?
Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend speaks eminent common sense. We are examining precisely that type of role. As I progress towards the end of my speech, some of the thinking that has influenced us—on precisely how we will strengthen the TA—should become apparent. We are not interested simply in sidelining the TA—far from it. We shall find a new role in the new circumstances for the TA, making it much stronger and much more valued in society. I believe that we will also make it much more welcome.
Some people say that Territorial Army units are far less expensive than regular ones. Of course they are. However, no military capability is cheap. Each of the battalions costs annually between £2 million and £3 million to maintain. A total of £350 million of the annual defence budget is spent on the Territorial Army, not including the cost of their equipment, which could be valued at about £1 billion. We should remember also that Territorial Army units do not, like their regular colleagues, provide a 365-day, year-round capability.
Defence resources are limited. Moreover, there are glaring gaps in other areas of defence that—as Opposition Members know—we will have to fill.
So much for the financial balance sheet. There is another penalty to pay in maintaining units that we do not need, in roles that we do not need, against a threat that is receding and may never return. Furthermore, the penalty is paid by the units themselves.
The House will be aware of the consultations that the Government launched in parallel with the review, and will know that we have consulted widely with experts—for example, with former Secretaries of State for Defence, and Chiefs of the Defence Staff—within the services, and with members of the public.
The House may not be surprised to hear that the public's understanding of the Territorial Army seems to be very patchy. Whereas some people know a lot about it, others know very little. However, most worrying, I think, is a perception—with which hon. Members also may be familiar—of the Territorial Army as "weekend warriors". Some people say that the TA is not necessary and not serious. Such a view is sad and wrong, but it exists. I intend to change it, because the Territorial Army deserves better.
The House may recall last year's public speculation that we were about to declare the Territorial Army a leisure brigade. I hope that not only that but much other speculation is now dead. However, such speculation demonstrates my point about how the debate on the issue has been conducted.
We will do the Territorial Army no service by leaving large parts of it to languish in declining roles. However, I see an alternative to a declining role, in which the Territorial Army forms a key part of our armed forces. It is a role in which the Territorial Army can say to the

671
public and to their comrades in defence, "You will need us, and we will be there." It is role for which, today, I say to the Territorial Army, "I need you; the Armed Forces of our country need you; and the country needs you."
The territorials—like hon. Members—have to adapt to the new strategic realities. We all know what those strategic realities are. First, we can count on much longer warning times, compared to the cold war, before a major and direct threat to the United Kingdom emerges. Secondly, the pursuit of our foreign policy objectives in this uncertain world calls for the ability to project power for many lesser eventualities. How many can we see immediately on the horizon? Thirdly, therefore, our armed forces must be structured and resourced to meet the unpredictable at short notice, when required.
We need the territorials. We need them to provide formed units that may be integrated into our Army brigades and higher formations for what we might term "power projection" operations. We also need the territorials, and the regular reservists, to provide individuals to reinforce our units for warfighting, because in war we need our units to be larger than they are in peace. Looking to the long term, we need the Territorial Army, our regulars and our regular reserves, to act as a basis from which we might expand our forces should the need arise.
Let me concentrate on power projection. We shall gain much by giving the territorials a greater role in power projection. For example, if we envisage a crisis on NATO's periphery for which we need to put a full division into the field, the presence of thousands of Territorial Army soldiers would greatly increase our capability. But if we are to do this, then we, here, must be prepared to call them out in such circumstances. In the recent past, we have not done so.
When I attended the TAVRA council seminar that was held to get over a strong message about the territorials, one thing that I heard loud and clear was that the territorials wanted to be in a position to be called up. That is one of the points of view that I have taken on board.
Mr. Brazier rose—
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman will probably have the opportunity to speak. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will wind up the debate, and I should not take too long, despite the interventions I have accepted and the points to which I have responded.
As I was saying, this is an important point, and one that deserves cross-party agreement, which I hope we can get. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) will agree with me about call-ups, but I hope he will. Let us make no mistake: if we go down this route, the territorials will not be just a nice add-on to a Regular Army which would be self-sufficient, anyway—they will be a vital addition to the Army.
We will need signallers, drivers, artillery men and women, military police, intelligence and survey teams. We will need TA soldiers who can repair battle-damaged vehicles, operate sophisticated military equipment, deal with local civilian populations, and engage in a very wide range of other specialist and core military tasks. Military
672
jargon might label this "support", but it is real soldiering: dirty, dangerous, in the line of fire, and absolutely essential to any conflict in which we might be engaged.
I expect that we will conclude that we need many more medical reserves. As I said at Question Time today, the defence review has shown that there are serious weaknesses in many aspects of our medical forces, which we must address.
We are going to need units to be trained, capable and deployable at the readiness for which we require them. We are looking at how we may best bring territorial and regular training together, so that we can make better use of all the training that defence provides. However, we must recognise—this is perhaps the hardest part—that the need to defend the United Kingdom from a potential Soviet threat has diminished, and in many ways disappeared.
As most of our territorial infantry battalions and, indeed, many of yeomanry regiments are intended to fight at home, hon. Members will understand from what I said earlier that we will find it more difficult to see roles for these units than for others, but re-roling is one of the alternatives available to make these units more usable and much more satisfied.
We must also ensure that, where we do need a capability at very short notice, the unit that provides it is regular. We need to improve and enhance our management of the Territorial Army. I am thinking here of mobilisation procedures which at present are ad hoc, and need to be put on to a more dedicated footing. We also need better career management of individuals within the TA.
In previous debates, many hon. Members have referred to the work of the Territorial, Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations, as did the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire. I join all those who have paid tribute to the TAVRAs. Their members give their time freely out of a deep commitment to this country's reserve forces. I have met senior members of the TAVRAs a couple of times in the course of the defence review.
The role of the TAVRAs—it is one that works—has much to offer the Defence Council which they exist to advise. The TAVRAs have stood the test of time in a way that few other tri-service institutions can boast, as their last reorganisation was in 1968. While we are considering some administrative changes to them, we see the attractions in retaining all the essentials of this relationship. We want to continue both their role as advisers to the Defence Council and their function in administering a range of day-to-day functions on behalf of the reserve forces.
The strategic defence review has given us the opportunity to modernise and restructure our regular and our reserve forces in a coherent—
Mr. Owen Paterson rose—
Mr. Robertson: I am sorry, but time is against me, and many other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate.
The review has given us the opportunity to modernise and restructure our regular and reserve forces in a coherent and enduring way. It has confirmed the need for many current roles and some new ones, but also the need for some changes to existing roles.

673
The new Territorial Army will be capable and usable, and fitted to work with regular forces on all types of operations to a much greater extent than before. It will be sufficient to meet any likely operational eventuality. Details of the new structure are now being put together against a set of principles that have been agreed in consultation with senior Territorial Army officers.
The traditions of the Territorial Army are proud, and its members are committed. It must be possible, with that pride and commitment, with the right training, the right structure and the right direction, to fashion a new future for the Territorial Army, a future in which the TA will again be a key instrument for our security policy, and a credit to the nation.
8.6 pm
Sir Edward Heath: I strongly support the positive approach adopted by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). I hope that it will be adhered to for the rest of the debate, which I hope will not descend into the noisy wrangle that has unfortunately now become characteristic of the House of Commons.
My maiden speech was on European union for political, economic and military reasons. That was on 26 June 1950. My second speech was made on 18 April 1951 and it was on the Territorial Army. I had to get special permission to make that speech because, in the meantime, I had become a Whip and was not allowed to express myself without the permission of the Chief Whip. I made that speech because of my connection with the TA, which I declare to the House now.
The Honourable Artillery Company was formed in 1537 and is the oldest of all such institutions. It was formed by Henry VIII. At the end of the war, I commanded a regiment of it, and in 1947 I commanded the newly formed 2nd Regiment of the HAC for four years. I then commanded the guard at the Tower of London as master gunner. I therefore have many connections with the TA. I have been a member of the HAC for 53 years, and it is of immense importance to me and many others.
We have become accustomed to discussing the TA in rather difficult situations. We did so in the early 1950s while the Labour Government were still in office, and we did so in the 1960s when the numbers started falling rapidly. The Government of 1970–1974 managed to restore them to a certain extent, but not enough. They declined again under another Labour Government. So in our debate tonight, we are continuing a rather repetitive performance, but one that can be very healthy, as the Secretary of State said.
I was glad to hear the Secretary of State say that there is a strategic review. He went on to mention foreign policy. Of course, the two are closely interbound, and I am glad that he emphasised that, because a review is desperately needed in both respects. It must take account of our political position as a member of the European Union and of our economic possibilities as far as our defence forces are concerned. Both must be taken together.
I am afraid that, all too often, declarations from political leaders give the impression that we can deal with any problem throughout the world and, in fact, we have a mission to do so. Today, nothing could be further from
674
the truth. We are just not capable of doing so. I have heard such declarations made by former Prime Ministers and by the present Prime Minister, who gives the impression that the world is at his feet and he will organise it. I hope that that is not really his view, and if it is, I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence will correct him, because that can lead to serious mistakes. When the review is finished, we shall examine very carefully how it is proposed that we should handle world affairs in future and where we believe that we can play a part.
The military is important in all that. We are emphasising tonight, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) did in an earlier debate, and as we have done before, the importance of the Territorial Army, as well as the other territorial arrangements that the Secretary of State has rightly emphasised. The Territorial Army is not, for obvious reasons, as important as the Navy and the Air Force, but that has always been accepted.
We come to the question how the strategic significance of the Territorial Army has to be assessed. It has long been widely recognised that one can review such matters, but one of the difficulties is that the representation—to use a grandiose word—and influence of the Territorial Army at the highest levels are very small. There is no point in trying to deny that, and every senior officer whom I have met and had counsel with, from the highest levels downwards, has always, when pushed to the point, accepted that. There is no conspiracy, as some people are saying. It is natural that if one has no direct relationship with the Territorial Army and one wants to find a solution, one seeks it without taking particular notice of the TA.
The Secretary of State has tonight given us many assurances, and I hope that he will be able to maintain them. I shall come to one of those assurances in a moment. As the TA has very little influence in any Ministry of Defence organisation, it is easy to see why unwelcome incidents occur.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire put forward the strong argument that maintaining the Territorial Army is far less costly than maintaining the Regular Army or other forms of military activity.
The idea of weekend holiday boys was mentioned. Those are the jeers of members of the press, which were wryly reported this weekend, and of people who have no sympathy whatever with any form of military activity, regular or territorial. We ignore that, but I agree that a large operation is required to inform the public of exactly what being a territorial involves. I was glad to hear the Secretary of State say that he is determined to bring that about. I shall not inquire at this point how he proposes to do it, because he may not have made up his mind, but it will be quite a task to bring home to the public the part that the territorials play and how important they are.
That is an issue that we were dealing with when I was commanding the HAC two nights a week plus weekends and a fortnight in camp. That is quite a demand on an ordinary chap, and the return that he gets to cover expenses is not all that great. He makes a big contribution.
I come now to the important point—the general suggestion that the strategic review will examine the territorial on the basis of how he fills the gaps. That is emphasised by recent operations in which territorials were

675
sent to Bosnia and elsewhere. They do not do so as a separate entity; they go where there is a need that regular forces have not been able to fulfil. That is what worries all the territorials I know. They do not want to be simply a stop-gap operation; they want always to be a separate entity and to operate as such, and then they will meet the requirements of the strategy, providing that it is worked out on that basis. That is why the strategic review will be of great importance.
If those at the top of the Ministry of Defence say, "We have a gap here, so we must encourage a particular body to fill it," that will not meet the needs of the Territorial Army, because it is far greater than a series of gap-fillers or specialists who may be needed. To exist at all, it must be a complete social organisation that depends on its internal relationships to produce the answer that it wants and that those outside want. It must be complete in that sense, and if it is not, it will not continue, but will gradually fragment and break down.
I hope that when the Secretary of State considers his strategic review and what is proposed, he will always bear it in mind that territorials must be entities and have their own future. He can stand up against the demands that it should always be the Territorial Army that suffers and say that the regulars could also be reduced to meet our present requirements.
As I have tried to emphasise, those requirements are important in a proper assessment. We are no longer the world power that we once were. There is no point in pretending otherwise. We are no longer able to tell people exactly what to do. Even the Americans have discovered that today they cannot govern every trade deal in the world as they want to. It was a big blow when America became the major power rather than one of two super-powers, and it still has not accustomed or acclimatised itself to its role in the world.
We must allow for that, and we must not allow ourselves to be moved to one side. We must work out our own policies as part of the European Union and with other, limited responsibilities in other parts of the world. Unless we now face up to all that, we shall simply have another period of wrangling, arguing and doing no good, particularly when we are overstretching our capabilities.
I wish the Secretary of State well in his strategic review and the decisions that he must make. From what he has said, we can rely on proper respect for the Territorial Army and its future. I also hope that he will ensure that it retains its entities and does not become simply a filler of gaps that exist for other reasons. If he does so, he will indeed be praised.
8.18 pm
Mr. Allan Rogers: It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), especially as he has such a positive approach to the problem that we are discussing. Like him, I hope that we can all contribute positively to what the Government are proposing.
I must confess that I approached this debate with a measure of hostility. As an ex-member of the Royal Welch Fusiliers, and having served in the Monmouthshire Regiment of the Territorial Army, I am very much on the TA's side—like many who have been associated with it.
676
We know the value of it and its contribution not just in our communities but in a military sense. Now that I have listened to the Secretary of State, however, my hostility is washing away, particularly because of his positive approach and the way in which, as he described, he is considering the problem of trying to define a new role for the Territorial Army for the next millennium.
I had the privilege—perhaps—of being an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on these matters while the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who is no longer present, and some of his predecessors were chopping our military potential. That was not after the cold war had ended; it was between 1985 and 1989. The Russian problem—the cold war—still existed, yet huge cuts were made in the armed forces. More than that, we had very long-term commitments in other areas.
Therefore, it is no good the Opposition attacking the Government from a holier-than-thou stance. If we consider "Options for Change" and what the Conservative party did in power, Conservative Members look rather ridiculous when they criticise the Government in such a debate. The irreducible minimum, which the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) attributed to Brigadier Holmes, was brought about by the Conservative Government. If there is an irreducible minimum, it is because of the previous Administration.
The Secretary of State has given me a great deal of hope by describing how he is trying to fit our forces into a role that relates to the strategic review. Time and again, in opposition, we asked the Government to do that, but all we had were substantial Treasury-driven cuts, year in, year out. Those cuts had nothing to do with the changing role of the armed forces or a strategic review, for which we continually asked. Let no one on the Opposition Benches attack the Government for not approaching the matter positively. The phrase that was trotted out was that the Government were creating a leaner and meaner machine, yet such a process produced an irreducible minimum, which left our military capability in an extreme state.
Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rogers: Others want to speak, so I shall not give way.
I hope that the Secretary of State will think about some of the points that are being made. To an ex-infantryman, the idea that the infantry will play a lesser role, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State seemed to be saying, is rather sad. I have always thought—at least I was always taught—that infantrymen were needed, after all the gunners, engineers and everyone else, to fill up space. I therefore wonder quite what the strategic role will be and why we need forces at all if sufficient infantrymen are not to play a proper role.
The most prominent example concerning the argument about the role of the reserves, how soon they can be put into action and whether they are capable, was in 1914. I am not quite old enough to remember that far back, but I have read how the British expeditionary force was wiped out. The massive input of reserves from the Territorial Army and the county yeomanry was the only reason why we managed to hold our position in France. That is a classic example of why a full civilian reserve Army is necessary.

677
The Secretary of State described medical skills in the Territorial Army and how they can be developed as a back-up, in making the point that civilians enter the Territorial Army with a high degree of skill that they have acquired in their civilian lives. Engineers, those with skills in new technology and the various technical regiments have been trained by industry, without the public purse being charged, and transfer their skills to the armed forces.
There is a general level of fitness, especially among infantrymen and special combat forces, and the level of ability among the TA's infantry men is very high. I have seen them in action; they can make an enormous and very positive contribution. It is not as if Dad's Army is to be called up in a crisis.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rogers: I cannot resist giving way to the hon. Lady.
Mrs. Gorman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the enormous contributions that the Territorial Army makes is in education? Many young people who join as cadets and become full members enhance their qualifications, and therefore fit in well with the Government's drive for education, education, education.
Mr. Rogers: If the hon. Lady had been present for the Secretary of State's speech, she would have heard him make that very point. We all recognise the enormous contribution that the Army cadet force makes, using the facilities of local territorial buildings. We cannot underplay the value of such units in the community. One of the great strengths of an army—or a defence force, call it what we will—is that it is often locally based. Comradeship in the infantry is developed because regiments are county-based, and those in them have often been to school or worked together before joining the armed forces.
I am pleased with what the Secretary of State has said. We seem to have moved away from just Treasury-driven cuts and are adopting an holistic approach, to make our forces not just leaner and meaner but more effective, in a clearly redefined role. Opposition Members would do well in this debate to sit down and shut up, because their record in this area is pretty bad.
8.27 pm
Mr. Mike Hancock: I should like to pick up one of the points made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), which was also picked up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) when he asked a question about the link between the Territorial Army and the community. Sadly, the Secretary of State did not describe that future role. I should think that the majority of hon. Members would agree that there is a very strong link between TA units and the local community, and I am sure that every one of us would want it to continue. I hope that the Minister for the Armed Forces will react to that point and develop it when he replies to the debate.
We are fortunate to have the opportunity to debate the Territorial Army. I congratulate the Conservative Opposition on tabling the motion. How disappointing it is
678
that we are debating it without knowing what the defence review is about. We were promised that, by now, the outcome of the review would be available for the nation to discuss. Had it been possible to keep to the timetable, we could have been debating the outcome of the review.
In responding to the motion, I am afraid, the Secretary of State did not go far enough for some of us to be able to support him in the Lobby. Despite many fine words, there was a lack of clarity in his response. Like the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), I wish the Secretary of State luck. Most of us know that the defence review is in the hands of the Treasury. Indeed, one could question whether the TA is safe in its hands. One could seriously suggest that it is not. We have strong reservations.
It would have been good if the Secretary of State had been able to say that the Conservative motion was nonsense, and that the suggested 40,000 reduction would not happen in any shape or form. However, one would need to support the Government powerfully to believe that what he said would not lead to that outcome. He did not refute it, and the Liberal Democrats will support the Conservative motion, although with a heavy, not a glad, heart. We had hoped against hope—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) can smile, but some of us were optimistic that the Secretary of State's opening speech would give us some enthusiasm for the idea that the Territorial Army would be safe in the Government's hands.
Many of us—if not the whole nation—recognise the work and value of the TA. The Secretary of State was kind enough to say that it still links with regular services in Northern Ireland, Cyprus, the Falklands and Bosnia. However, despite its fine record of achievement, the force's future remains murky at best. What the Government have in mind for the TA is not clear.
The Conservatives stand convicted of making judgments of which they might now think better, because they presided over a substantial reduction in the TA between 1988 and when they left office. In 1988, its membership was 74,700; by 1997, it was down to less than 56,000. There were 41 battalions and 164 companies in 1988; there are now 33 and 95 respectively. The Conservatives cannot stand one pace removed from the blame that they are trying to attach to the Government.
TA centres play a vital role in communities, but their numbers have fallen by nearly 100 since 1988. We must all accept, as the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) have pointed out, that there is a changing climate. We Liberals are no different; we recognise the changing climate, the peace dividend and the fact that the TA and other reserve forces cannot stand back from the realities of life.
That said, the TA does much more than support the community and the regular forces, when required. Hon. Members who have spoken—and, I am sure, those who will speak—have paid tribute to the commitment of TA service personnel, both men and women, who are serving in Bosnia. Hundreds, if not thousands, have done valiant work there. The TA's role is changing, and it has allowed itself to change from within. It has adapted, and it continues to do so.
I stress the importance of the TA in education and training, and the opportunities to return to full-time employment that it has offered to countless people whom

679
I represent, who have gained successful employment because of TA training initiatives. I spoke recently to a group of truck drivers at the ferry port in Portsmouth, and found that six out of 30 of them had gained heavy goods vehicle licences through the TA. They all admitted that they would not otherwise have been in employment, because no one—certainly not the Conservative Government, who did not put money into giving those men an opportunity—would have funded such a programme. They are now back in work, and remain committed to the TA. It was interesting to hear their thoughts on the future.
The hon. Member for Rhondda was right to talk about the skills that the TA brings to the regular Army. Officers and non-commissioned officers in the TA willingly share their skills with others, and that helps to produce many ready recruits for the regular Army; 10 per cent. of Army recruits join because of the opportunities offered by the TA and the cadet forces, and bring with them techniques that they learned in the TA.
It would be a travesty of all that the Secretary of State has said if the review seriously undermined the Army cadet force.
Mr. George Robertson: The hon. Gentleman may not have been listening, but I said that we would give increased resources to the Army cadet force.
Mr. Hancock: I am grateful for that clarification. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I was listening, but I had hoped to hear a commitment that spelled out what that meant. What does giving more resources to the Army cadet forces really mean? Many such forces survive only because they are located close to TA units.
Mr. Brazier: And to infantry units.
Mr. Hancock: Yes, and to infantry units.
The TA has an ability to change. For example, the unit at Winchester has transformed itself, not because of any clear directive from the Ministry of Defence, but because it made a determined effort to address a changing world. The TA has not stood still, and flatly refuses to do so. It wants the Government to give a continuing commitment to ensuring its future in the defence of the country.
The TA is not only about skills and education, passing on skills or community links. It is about the jobs that are provided in the civilian world. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) tells me that 30 civilians were employed by the TA in his area, and he is seriously concerned about the future of the unit and those jobs. A leading Scottish newspaper, Dundee's The Courier and Advertiser, last month claimed that the TA was bringing millions of pounds to the Scottish economy by creating jobs for part-time and regular officers—men and women—and scores of civilian jobs. That is not peculiar to Scotland; it is the same in most constituencies in which the TA is located.
The Government have made great play over the past few months with the claim that the defence review is not financially driven. If that is so, they would be wise to think of the TA as a financial success story. It has cost us £340.4 million in the past year, which is 1.6 per cent.
680
of the entire 1997–98 budget. For comparative purposes, let me say that the average TA member cost the Government about £6,100; that is cheaper than the reserve forces for the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, but I share the view that they are equally important. As I represent a Portsmouth constituency, I strongly advocate strengthening our commitment to the Royal Marines and the Royal Navy.
Having taken those costs into account, how can the Government possibly object to the continued spending of 1.6 per cent. of the defence budget, when they are willing to accept—if not gladly—the £3 billion cost of over-expenditures contained in the National Audit Office's latest report on 25 major projects?
Ms Rachel Squire: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have inherited the £3 billion costs mentioned in the NAO report because of the mismanagement and incompetence of the previous Government?
Mr. Hancock: I could accept that if, at the end of the report, the Government had said what they were going to do about it. I remember a similar report this time last year, when the Government also said that they had inherited problems. The inheritance argument can be used for only so long. There comes a time—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): It refers to 1997.
Mr. Hancock: Of course it refers to schemes for 1997, but I thought that the Government came to power on 1 April 1997.
Mr. George Robertson: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about waste in the Department, but the report that he is waving covers the period before we came to power. In the strategic defence review, I promise that there will be radical proposals to the sort of problems highlighted in that report and to those that have been created over the years. I hope that it will be successful and that he will be able to congratulate us, but I also hope that he will not blame us for everything that went on before.
Mr. Hancock: I would not dream of blaming you for what went on before.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I trust that the hon. Gentleman is not blaming the Chair for all those problems.
Mr. Hancock: Some hon. Members can claim no involvement, whether for or against, what went on. I was not here during the period concerned. If I had been, perhaps I might have had more to say at the time. Of course I am not blaming the Secretary of State or the Government for the problems that they inherited. I am saying that there is a more worthy response than the one that we have had to those problems rather than simply shirking and passing the blame, which is not good for anyone.
As every right hon. and hon. Member has said, the Territorial Army is a great asset to the nation and a real bargain, yet the Government fail to realise that. Buying an overpriced missile seems to be more impressive to them—some people will always prefer the Ferrari to the Ford.

681
The TA is truly a people's Army. It really embraces the community and men and women from all walks of life. It gives great opportunity and is worthy of support. If we are unable to give that commitment to those men and women, how on earth can the Secretary of State suggest, as he did tonight, that he will go further with them and that we will get more out of them? How does he hope to do so if the Government cannot give the assurance that they need? They offer diversity of skills and combat support enhancement and they seek a guaranteed and continuous role.
Anything short of that from us here tonight will be seen as a slap in the face for men and women who give up their time week in and week out, many of whom are prepared to put their lives on the line in Bosnia and Northern Ireland, for example, for the sake of this country's defence. Those people are worthy of more than a slap in the face. They are worthy of continuous support and of a bright and clear future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I remind the House that this is a relatively short debate and that many Members want to contribute, so it would be helpful if speeches were limited.
8.41 pm
Mr. Huw Edwards: I acknowledge the contributions made by right hon. and hon. Members to the debate. As a relatively new Member, it is a particular privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who has a distinct expertise in this matter. The debate has certainly shown that there is much expertise in the House on the subject. I confess that I do not have a military background, but simply represent an area with a fine military tradition. I wish to speak to that tradition and about the role of the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers.
This should be part of a national debate and not merely an Opposition day debate, because there is considerable misunderstanding and a lack of appreciation of the role of the Territorial Army and other reserve forces. The TA has played a long and distinguished role in our armed services and will play a distinguished role in the future. I shall illustrate that by referring to the regiment in my constituency. Monmouth is the regimental headquarters of the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers (Militia)—the senior regiment in the Reserve Army.
Mr. Gray: I have heard the hon. Gentleman say before that the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers is the senior regiment in the Territorial Army. He is incorrect, as the Honourable Artillery Company is the oldest regiment and takes right of line, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and I have both been members of it.
Mr. Edwards: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I have sought clarification. The Honourable Artillery Company is the oldest regiment and the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers is the senior. I have that on the authority of the recently retired commanding officer, with whom I clarified the matter a few weeks ago.
The regiment can trace its history back to 1539. It is the oldest unit in the entire British Army after the Honourable Artillery Company. Last Saturday, I attended the beating
682
of the retreat ceremony and I have attended other regimental events, notably the dining out ceremony of the previous commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Paul Lodge, to whom I pay particular tribute for his work to bring the regiment closer to the community in Monmouth and for work undertaken in a number of areas.
The Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers is one of the nine Territorial Army engineer regiments, providing general support and multi-capability support for the Regular Army. Squadrons of the regiment are based in a wide area from south Wales to the west midlands, including 100 Field Squadron at Cwmbran and Cardiff and 108 Field Squadron at Swansea. As part of the Royal Engineers, the regiment provides a wide range of skills and trades, including bridge building and the construction and repair of airfields, roads and railways, plus the skills that individual members bring from their civilian life.
I must highlight some of the achievements of the regiment at home and abroad in recent years. In Bosnia, the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers was the first TA regiment to work for a full six-month secondment in support of the Regular Army when a troop of two officers and 20 other ranks under Captain Louise Clarke supported 21 Engineer Regiment in such tasks as mine clearance, snow clearance and road building. I pay a particular tribute to Captain Clarke, who is an example of the way in which many women officers have played a higher role in the Territorial Army than in the Regular Army. More recently, Captain Nevill Simpson has returned from the multinational liaison headquarters in Bosnia.
Bosnia has provided an example par excellence of the role of the TA in supporting the Regular Army which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State acknowledged and paid tribute to earlier. The regiment has also provided troops to support the Regular Army on exercise recently in Wainwright in Canada.
Of course, the Territorial Army plays an important civilian role under the military aid to civil communities programme. For example, the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers has been involved in the construction of an adventure playground, in river diversion, bridge building, forestry work and woodland tracks. Those have included a track in Llanybydder in west Wales for people with disabilities, bridges over tributaries in the Wye valley and work on the construction of the new monkey house at Dudley zoo—activities that will be maintained and enhanced given the commitment—[Laughter.] I can assure Conservative Members who are laughing that I have been well briefed. I refer those who doubt what I say to the excellent report produced by the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve for Welsh Members at a briefing that I sponsored here.
When necessary, the Territorial Army is on call for disaster relief. It could have assisted during the recent floods in my constituency had it been requested to do so by the local authorities. I was sorry to hear that, because of the financial constraints imposed by the previous Government in the early 1990s, local authorities and other public bodies are charged heavily for the use of the Territorial Army and are therefore reluctant to request the use of equipment and personnel that are readily available.
The TA also makes a valid contribution to the local community in my constituency, often without adequate recognition. In the past two years, the regimental headquarters has been the setting for productions of

683
"Macbeth", and of "Henry V", who was born at the castle in Monmouth. The Gwent young people's theatre put on those productions in conjunction with the regiment, and I encourage hon. Members to visit Monmouth in July to see this year's production of "The Royal Hunt of the Sun" at the castle. Finally, the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers contributes so much to maintaining the dignity of the annual remembrance service in Monmouth.
About 70 per cent. of the Army medical service is provided by the Territorial Army. In Wales, we have 203 Field Hospital Royal Army Medical Corps (Volunteers) although I regret that, in recent years, that corps has been severely reduced from a general to a field hospital. There is natural concern that "Options for Change" imposed excessive cuts on the Royal Army Medical Corps—I know that the Government want to deal with that.
The Army cadet force helps young people to develop leadership skills and discipline, training them primarily to become good citizens. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has acknowledged its role and committed additional resources to it. Recently, I met a group of Army cadets at the opening of the new Gilwern detachment in my constituency—I look forward to visiting the cadet forces' camp in Leek, Staffordshire, in July.
Mr. David Drew: I concur with my hon. Friend's point about the inextricable link between the TA and the Army cadet force. I am sure that he will agree with the chief constable of Gloucestershire, Mr. Tony Butler, who wrote to me on the importance of that link and of our recognising the social value of the cadet force.
Mr. Edwards: I certainly agree. In my constituency, the social services have forged links with the Army cadet force, as they have appreciated the role that it can play, especially in areas of social deprivation and with children and young people who are on the edge of juvenile delinquency.
This is clearly a crucial time in the strategic defence review, and there has been considerable speculation about the future of the Territorial Army and other reserve forces. I have no doubt that the TA provides a role in supporting the Regular Army and in contributing to the civilian duties that are not adequately appreciated by the public—we, as Members of Parliament, have a responsibility to inform and enlighten our constituents and our political parties about those important roles.
The Royal Engineers has nine TA regiments. I convey the concern that I have heard that, because of successful lobbying by the infantry territorial regiments, the Regular Army is required substantially to reduce the reserve engineers—from nine regiments to perhaps three. Like those with whom I have recently discussed the matter, I believe that that would be disastrous. The engineering regiments have combat and military skills that can have immense benefits in the aftermath of conflicts, as was demonstrated in Bosnia.
The Government have said that there must be a substantial reserve force, which is properly resourced to meet the new roles and requirements identified in the strategic defence review. The reserve forces must be relevant, usable and integrated—they must be capable of
684
being speedily deployed at times of international and national crisis. I sincerely hope that the engineering regiments, most notably the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers, have demonstrated that they meet those requirements. I commend the Government's commitment to enhance, rather than to destroy, the Territorial Army.
8.52 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: This debate goes to the heart of what the armed forces are for. I am proud to follow the excellent opening speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the Father of the House.
On several occasions, Ministers have suggested that the TA is the only part of the armed forces that can speak for itself. As the son of a Regular Army officer, I find it particularly hard to make two harsh comments about the conduct of a small group of regular staff officers—neither of which, I believe, were what Ministers wanted. First, a decision was taken to make no comparative appraisal of the relative cost-effectiveness of regular and territorial combat units such as have been carried out in other countries. From the outset, it was decided to avoid any appraisals—the downgrading of the role of the Territorials from combat was never intellectually challenged.
Secondly—and more unedifying—we had the spectacle of a regular major-general openly boasting about leaking to the press proposals to decimate the Territorial Army. He must have known that that would hit TA morale and that the TA has no general officers to defend it. The TA had to turn to Members of Parliament—it had no one else. Many parts of the TA, including the infantry, had better recruitment records than their regular counterparts but, needless to say, TA recruitment has plummeted in recent months because of that dreadful publicity.
On the big picture, the armed forces have very important peacetime duties. As we know, they are overstretched because of Ulster and Bosnia—Ministers were right to take full account of that in the strategic defence review. However, grave as those duties are, the most important function of the armed forces is to participate in major conflicts, which, sadly, we almost never foresee. The first world war was unforeseen a few weeks before it happened; the Gulf war was unforeseen a few days before it happened.
The two most recent conflicts—in the Falklands and in the Gulf—were both fought over open, unpopulated terrain. Not since the Indonesian confrontation have we needed a large number of soldiers on the ground—of course, the Regular Army was much larger then. However, we may need substantial forces again, especially if the Balkans catch fire or if it proves necessary for the west to invade Iraq on the ground, which no Minister of the Crown should rule out.
As third-world countries steadily acquire weapons of mass destruction, the prospects of our suffering heavy casualties in defending our vital interests from some totally unanticipated threat are increasing, not declining. This is no time to bank on optimistic projections. Recent events in India and Indonesia are further reminders of the dangerous instability of the world in which we live.
Reserves are critical for two reasons. First, as is widely accepted, they provide military understanding in the wider civilian community—I know that the Minister is very

685
conscious of that. Given the demise of the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, which are now very small, that frail link is largely provided by the TA. Secondly, and even more importantly, the high cost of modern manpower means that we can afford only a small Regular Army in peacetime. Today, there are only two regular divisions; we should remember that 14 Axis divisions proved totally inadequate to pacify the Balkans in the second world war.
The combat arms are by far the most important element of the reserves. I do not underrate the importance of logistic and supporting units—many of them, particularly the medical units, play an important role in bolstering inadequate regular functions. The fact remains, however, that those regular units at least have civilian counterparts—from the national health service, BT and so on—who can, in principle, be put into uniform, whereas there is no civilian equivalent to combat units.
In America, comparisons were made between regular and National Guard combat units. When the excellent performance of the National Guard artillery in the Gulf war was examined, it was decided that more than 70 per cent. of American artillery should in future be held in the reserve forces. In a recent trial in the Nevada desert, a National Guard tank unit completely outmanoeuvred and thrashed a regular tank unit. The Americans have identified how to get more bangs for the buck.
In Australia, a largely reserve brigade is being stood up for deployment at 90 days for overseas power projection, which the British Government also want. At a fraction of the cost of their regular counterparts, reserve combat forces are regarded in Australia as highly cost-effective. Why, I repeat, was no appraisal carried out of reserve brigades in this country? From the beginning, it was argued by an almost entirely regular staff—most of whom had no experience of the TA—that the TA should be pushed out of combat into logistic roles.
Each country's circumstances are, of course, different. None the less, we are not alone in the fact that regular defence staff want to plunder the reserves to favour regular forces, under the guise of allegedly objective advice to Ministers. Many regular officers, serving and retired, disagree with the advice of that small group of staff officers.
In America, Congress unearthed the details, which had been concealed by the Pentagon, of the exhaustive trials that had taken place in 1992, showing that the performance of the National Guard armoured infantry battalions was very close to that of their regular counterparts. American Ministers recently overruled their chiefs of staff to enhance two National Guard divisions for short notice power projection abroad.
It would be very sad if MOD Ministers were to accept their advisers' line that proud British reserve units should be seen as gap-fillers to the Regular Army. Territorials are pleased to serve in Bosnia, but that is not why they enlist. They join—as speaker after speaker in another place remarked—to serve with their friends as members of their local units, generously preparing to serve Britain in the next major conflict.
The Minister for the Armed Forces knows that I have the highest respect for him. When I was a rebellious Government Back Bencher, he and I joined forces more than once. I ask him and the Secretary of State to ask themselves, and to press their regular staff officers and
686
ask, why does an up-to-date role for reservists in America and Australia mean combat brigades of reserve troops, while in Britain it means driving trucks for the regular Army?
8.59 pm
Mr. Hilton Dawson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the brief opportunity to take part in what has been a restrained and serious debate on a serious subject. We have had much discussion across the Floor of the House about the Territorial Army's role. A person from Lancaster does not need to hear many lectures on the Territorial Army's importance to the well-being of the United Kingdom. People in Lancaster were angered and demoralised by a previous Government who made regular cuts but failed to review roles, and who stretched vital defence responsibilities more tightly over decreasing resources.
In Lancaster, we are very proud of the Territorial Army. Lancaster is the home of the fourth battalion of the King's Own Royal Border Regiment. We are steeped in history. We have had a volunteer force in Lancaster since Napoleonic times. In the two world wars this century, three Victoria Crosses, six Military Medals and two Distinguished Conduct Medals were awarded to Territorial Force/Territorial Army soldiers of the King's Own.
However—despite the excellence of the King's Own Royal Regiment museum—we do not live in the past. I won the most recent general election in Lancaster openly and explicitly on a platform that emphasised the need for a strategic defence review to provide for effective defence, led by foreign policy to react speedily to events, to co-operate with allied forces and with the United Nations.
Despite all the worries about the future of the Territorial Army, I really hope—indeed, I think—that the TA has nothing to fear from the challenges of modernisation, from the demands of new tasks and from the requirements to take on new skills and to respond quickly and flexibly as a vital part of a coherent, properly resourced defence force.
The fourth battalion of the King's Own Royal Border Regiment does not live in the past. It is a substantial force of some 422 soldiers, who occupy a new, purpose-designed headquarters, which was also a very effective base for the local Army cadet force. In recent years, the number of women serving in the TA in Lancaster has doubled. A few weeks ago, on 27 April, 23 men of the fourth battalion returned from an invaluable six months' service in Bosnia. Ten of those soldiers will be staying on in the Regular Army.
The party that made defence cuts year on year—however Conservative Members might portray it—does not do much service to the bravery and integrity of the Territorial Army when—
Mr. Blunt: What will the hon. Gentleman do if the fourth battalion of the King's Own Royal Border Regiment pays the price for the Government's unwillingness to increase the defence budget to accommodate a TA of 55,000?
Mr. Dawson: It is slightly absurd that such an issue is raised by an official Opposition who made cuts year on year when in government.

687
It is essential that in the debate we consider the national interest, strategic defence policy and effective defence policy. I believe that the fine women and men of the Territorial Army will meet the challenges of the future, welcome newly defined roles and responsibilities and serve this country well as a substantial reserve force. We need to ensure that they have an effective future, and I very much hope that Lancaster has a very effective future as a base for a modern Territorial Army. Ultimately, however, the national interest, the strategic interest and the defence interest of the United Kingdom will lead the way, and it is essential that we have a modern, well resourced reserve force to meet the UK's interests.
9.5 pm
Mr. Tony Baldry: In the 1970s and 1980s, while many of the Labour Members and their supporters were attending Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament rallies, hundreds of thousands of men and women—among whom I was proud to include myself, having served in the TA for 18 years—were supporting the regular forces and supporting a commitment from a Conservative Government and a commitment through NATO which, in due course, led to the disintegration of the Warsaw pact and the collapse of the Berlin wall. What the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) calls defence cuts were in fact a substantial peace dividend, accumulating because we had shown the determination to ensure that the Warsaw pact would disintegrate and collapse. Significantly, many of those countries now wish to join NATO, and NATO exercises frequently take place in erstwhile Warsaw pact countries.
This is a short debate, and I simply wish to make two or three points. First, for a long time the Regular Army has required the support of the TA in many specific roles. I have the privilege of being honorary colonel of my unit. When all the men and women in my unit are on parade, they manage to muster between them every campaign medal from Aden to the present day, because they have no equivalent in the Regular Army. They are the laundry squadron—not an especially glamorous unit, but the only unit to provide laundry for field hospitals and to provide support for men and women training in them. There are several such units.
I say to the Minister for the Armed Forces, the members of that squadron and all members of the TA fear that the current defence review is Treasury-driven, and they are worried that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said, the Regular Army will protect its Budget and its back, and has pushed the cuts down to the Territorial Army. Not only will there be cuts in the infantry units, but the specialist units will be rendered inoperable because they will not have enough training days. If we call upon people to carry out specialist tasks, they require sufficient training days for the purpose. Without an allowance of enough training days, commanding officers may be tempted to keep on their books men and women who are less than effective so as to use their training days for others who are effective and efficient.
The Secretary of State talks of re-energising the Territorial Army. I hope that the Minister will ensure that units are given a decent number of training days. It is impossible to provide the regular Army with specialist support on a shoestring.
688
Those of us who have been involved with the armed forces must continually repeat that we cannot see into the future. Almost every conflict in which we have been involved has been unforeseeable. If the Regular Army is to have the right support, it will require fully trained men and women—and much of that training will apply to TA general units. It is not possible to train up men and women with good signalling or other military and disciplinary skills in a matter of days—they take time to acquire.
Of course I understand the temptation to say that the threat has disappeared so the needs of the Army have changed. We all recognise that they have—but who would have envisaged UK troops staying in Bosnia for as long as they have? We are, after all, a permanent member of the Security Council, and there is always the temptation, or the need, to punch above our weight in the world and to send troops to parts of it where we never imagined they might be needed.
Only recently, we debated in the House whether to send troops to Albania. Had we done so, among their number would have been many members of the Territorial Army. If the Government chip away at the backbone of the TA to such an extent that it can no longer provide generalist units to serve overseas in support of regular units, they will undermine the effectiveness not just of the TA, but of the Regular Army, too.
Ms Squire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Baldry: I was about to conclude, and many other Members are waiting to speak.
When considering the defence review the Government will appreciate, I hope, that this is not just a matter—those of us who have been Ministers understand the financial pressures—of taking a budget and wondering how to shoehorn the TA into what the Treasury has allowed. The Territorial Army is a priceless asset, and we destroy it at our peril. It is based on a culture of tradition and discipline, passed on from generation to generation, from sergeant major to gunner. Once destroyed, that culture can never be rebuilt. By reducing the TA, the Government will damage the whole of our armed forces. I hope very much that they will think again.
9.11 pm
Ms Rachel Squire: I agree with the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) that the Territorial Army and our reserve forces are a priceless asset. I would certainly not support the Government's strategic defence review and examination of the future role of those reserve forces if they thought otherwise. It is, however, rather bizarre to hear Conservative Members arguing that the TA should not just be kept at its present size but enlarged, on the ground that we cannot foresee future conflicts. After all, it was the Conservative Government who cut our regular forces by as much as one third, arguing that they were no longer required in the same numbers because of the end of the cold war. There seems to be a contradiction there.
I should like to make my points in the spirit of those of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who said that we should debate the issue in an atmosphere of mutual recognition of our commitment to, and admiration for, the TA and the

689
reserve forces. I would welcome more time for such debates. I support the comments about their key role in the community and their educational role.
Although I have had limited contact with the Territorial Army in its Dunfermline and West Fife area, I have listened with keen interest to the contributions of other hon. Members, and I have been closely involved with the reserve forces of the Navy and the Air Force. I should declare an interest with respect to the Maritime Volunteer Reserve Service, which was formed as a result of the previous Government ending the Royal Naval Auxiliary Reserve. I am well aware of the negative emotions that that produced.
Our reserve forces are invaluable and should be given an enhanced role in the future defence of the country. We live in an unpredictable world, and we must recognise the changed nature of conflict. I was interested to read an article in the RUSI Journal—the Journal of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies—by Brigadier Richard Holmes, the director of reserve forces and cadets. He states:
"In place of quantifiable threats we have more elusive risks. In place of a war of necessity, we have the prospect of wars of choice, where the decision to intervene—and, no less important, at what level and for what duration to intervene—is seldom likely to be simple."
That encapsulates the changed nature of the defence and security environment, the importance of the strategic defence review and the need to consider the future role of both regular and reserve forces.
Our reserve forces must not be allowed to feel that their role is being downgraded or, as was said by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup and others, that they are being used to fill the gaps in the role that should be played by our regular forces.
There are three aspects worthy of our consideration, and I support the approach to them taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces. The first is the increased need for rapid reaction. We require a substantial, highly trained and well-equipped force that can respond quickly. The training of our regular and reserve forces is crucial for them to fulfil that role.
The second aspect is recruitment. I have been delighted by the success of the Army recruitment centre in my constituency in attracting more young people into the armed forces, in line with our new deal initiative, and in providing the initial gateway training that transforms those people's lives and ensures that they can meet the standard. The reserve forces must work in tandem with the regular forces, but we need to be clear about the balance between quality and quantity.
The third aspect concerns the regular forces' need for greater logistical and technical support. The reserves could play a role in that area. We must build up the defence medical services, which I think all hon. Members will agree were reduced drastically beyond the level necessary to provide vital back-up in the field of conflict.
I am well aware that other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. I support the Government in their review because I think that it will enhance the role and the reputation of our reserve forces. We have an opportunity to show the Territorial Army that we recognise its value and that we are determined that it shall continue to make a vital contribution to the defence of
690
this country. To do that, we must include the Territorial Army in the strategic defence review, and we must work with the Territorial Army to strengthen, develop and modernise its role.
9.20 pm
Mr. Keith Simpson: Virtually every hon. Member who has spoken tonight has said that the Territorial Army is very important in terms of the operational effectiveness of our armed forces, the role that the Territorial Army plays in linking with civil society and its general social support role. That is not the area of disagreement. The Government's amendment argues that the Territorial Army must be seen as
"relevant and even more usable reserve forces to help support Britain's foreign and security policies."
If we are to examine the Territorial Army, we must return to those basic issues. I am sorry that I must reiterate the point, but we still do not know what the foreign policy baseline is. The Government have failed to provide that information. Until we know what the baseline is, we have no idea what our security policy is.
I agree with the Secretary of State and other hon. Members who said that the Territorial Army must not be preserved in aspic: it must change and be made relevant. We do not disagree about that. The problem is that the Opposition believe the Territorial Army will be squeezed to fund other areas of the armed forces because of the constraints on the defence budget. The strategic defence review has still not been published—and I do not think it will be published until July. There is no more money available.
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), I do not necessarily blame those staff officers in the Regular Army who, upon being faced with having to provide extra combat support for the Regular Army under the general framework of the strategic defence review and upon being told that there is no more money, have logically looked to the Territorial Army to find those cuts. I suspect that the Secretary of State's speech has cast great gloom over many men and women who serve in our infantry and armoured corps Territorial Army units. They realise that there must be changes and reductions, but they believe that they will occur because the defence review is ultimately Treasury-driven.
Several hon. Members have stressed that if the combat capability of the Territorial Army infantry and armoured corps falls below a certain critical mass, it will not be able to cope with the sorts of unexpected emergencies that have arisen all too often in the past. My former colleague and old friend Brigadier Richard Holmes, the director of reserve forces and cadets, has been quoted several times tonight—and who am I not to do the same? In his Royal United Services Institute lecture on 21 January 1998, he said:
"If there is a need to retain a reserve without commitment as to future employment, one could do worse than hold back some infantry battalions."
I fear that the strategic defence review may be one cut too many for the TA. I fear that it will consist of individuals and specialist units who will provide a great deal of support for our Regular Army, but will not be able to reconstitute our armed forces in response to a major national emergency. That could be the result of a cut too many for the TA.

691
I declare an interest in that I am an honorary colonel of the Royal Military Police TA, which comprises 1,100 men and women. Many have served in Bosnia, Northern Ireland and elsewhere. I am conscious while wearing that hat, and as a constituency Member, of the role carried out by the TA centres, many of which are threatened with being cut. If these centres are cut, along with the cadets, the Ministry of Defence will be cutting off its nose to spite its face.
In Norfolk alone, about 50 regular soldiers every year come from the TA and the cadets. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to support the Opposition's constructive motion. I fear that the cuts proposed for the TA are based not on modernising it and preparing it for new operational roles but on providing the necessary money to fund the Regular Army for its new commitments following the strategic defence review.
9.25 pm
Ms Dari Taylor: Much of the debate centres on the competence of the Territorial Army and reservists generally and on their relevance as a modern-day fighting force. It is often said—sometimes, I am sad to say, in the House and often among the public—that the volunteers represent a fighting force of the past. It is said that they are more to do with keeping retired soldiers busy than with providing an active soldier force. I find that offensive, although I am not a reservist and I am not a member of the TA. However, I have seen them at work and I acknowledge their commitment. I find it offensive when people make casual and cutting comments about the abilities of members of the TA and reservists generally.
There is a clear belief that modern warfare is not warfare for reservists. It is felt that we need rapid reactionary forces and that the reservists do not form part of that concept. I see no evidence of that. It is felt also that the reservists are not part of high-tech surveillance. The fact is that many people move from the outside world of high-tech to give the Army information and techniques that it does not have. Accordingly, there is no evidence that reservists are not part of high-tech surveillance.
There is a belief that the infantry is a highly trained team-based war machine of which reservists cannot be part. I see no evidence of that. Surely Bosnia especially told us that there is no evidence of that.
Many of our experts talk about the future of warfare, and somewhere we seem to be falling between the potential for guerrilla war on the one hand and high-tech surveillance on the other. There is the notion that perhaps we are moving towards casualty-less war. Surely recent evidence tells us that that is not the case. Bosnia, especially, tells us that.
I have seen the British Army at work in Bosnia. It was made up of regulars and reservists. There was no differentiation. No one knew who was what. Everyone was working together as a team, and an extremely effective one. There was an incredible volunteer organisation. I am speaking of people who gave their time and commitment. They gave Bosnians—both Serbs and Muslims—a belief that they had a future. I saw our reservists in a war-torn, frightening country. Houses and
692
gardens were ribboned off because they were mined. Blocks of flats were no more than shells, and hospitals, schools and homes were rubble.
To see our reservists working there gave me a sense of pride. One cannot pretend about that sense of pride; one looks at them and knows that they represent the best of Great Britain in the Army. They were committed, concerned and determined, and there was no differentiation between reservists and regulars. I would hate to believe that we will start to make that differentiation.
My honourable colleague, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), is right: the Ministry of Defence has many people—experts, generals and others with a history in the armed forces—who blind it to the quality of the reserve forces in Great Britain and to the fact that those people give so much more than simply the time in which we see them perform. Their quality is their professionalism in so many different spheres.
I should have loved the opportunity to speak for longer, but I am being told to wind up. I should like to have said how valuable the reservists are in my community. In the north of England, more than 4,000 youngsters are involved, and it is all down to the TA. I should hate to see them denied a sense of pride in their regiments and squadrons. They work within the community, they raise funds and they have fun, which is everything that we want youngsters to do. The reserve forces must be sustained and built on. They have a good future.
The Secretary of State made a clear statement that the TA has a future. It is now up to us to keep reminding him that we want a commitment in terms of the reservists' value and tremendous future. I am sure that he will say that they can face new challenges and are up to those new challenges. I am sure that we shall see an expanded reserve force, not a contracted one.
9.31 pm
Mr. David Maclean: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), because her central thesis was right. If she discovered in Bosnia that members of the Territorial Army were giving excellent service and were every bit as good as the Regular Army in their support roles of driving HGVs and providing a service in the Royal Logistic Corps and the Royal Engineers, she is absolutely right to conclude that members of the Territorial Army infantry units can give the same valuable service to the Regular Army infantry battalions if they are trained to do the job.
The Ministry of Defence used to consider the TA battalions to be an invaluable part of the infantry fighting forces. I was proud to serve in the 51st Highland Volunteers. I could probably take the Minister back to a particular part of Germany and show him the piece of ground that my platoon was allocated in the late 1970s and early 1980s. I could show him the trench that had been planned for me, as platoon commander—not 50 miles behind the line or back in the KP, but on the front line—as part of a battalion committed to 1st BR Corps. We were committed on the expectation that, if the enemy forces came across, we would be wiped out within the first 12 hours, along with all the regulars.
If we could train for a combat infantry role then, surely we can now train for a combat infantry role in the new, changed circumstances. The Secretary of State seemed to

693
say that, as so many of our TA battalions now play a home defence role, and there is no real home defence role for them to play, they must either be scrapped or we must boost the support role of TA battalions and have more HGV drivers and Royal Logistic Corps people.
A few years ago—before the Berlin wall fell and we had the peace dividend—the bulk of our territorial infantry was committed to Germany and front-line forces. The Minister is a reasonable man. I gave him a standing ovation when he performed admirably at the annual dinner of the London Scottish a couple of years ago. I shall remind him what he said there.
We used to have that combat role, and we can have it again. We cannot have a viable TA made up only of support troops, although Welsh Members, who argued for their engineering battalions, should look at the history of the Royal Engineers, especially those engineers from Wales who were caught up at Rorke's drift. They thought that they were engineers first, but they were soldiers first and engineers second. Every person serving in the Army should be a solider first and a specialist second.
There is scope to maintain the current level of TA infantry. I should not regard it as strengthening and enhancing the role of the TA if the number of infantry were cut and the number of HGV drivers increased. I know the reserve forces and I apologise, through the Minister, to the general in charge of recruiting: I have not sent back my yellow form yet, because I could not find the right boxes to tick when asked for my specialist skills. I am tempted to take up my HGV course, because then I would have a relevant skill that the TA might need. It should not be that way. There is still a need for infantry soldiers, and I look forward to the Minister honouring the commitments that he made at that wonderful London Jocks dinner.
9.35 pm
Mr. Robert Key: It was always intended that the debate would be constructive, and so it has proved. The Secretary of State gave little away in his opening speech, except some rather disturbing pointers of which we shall hear more anon. He said that the strategic defence review would strengthen the TA and used the words "relevant", "usable", "capable", "effective" and "better integrated". We all, of course, agree with that. He also said, however, that numbers were not the only or even the main issue. We could probably agree with that proposition, but we do not know enough about it to know what it means.
The Secretary of State mentioned cuts to the TA under the previous Administration. He realised that there were bound to be cuts in the defence budget—that is true—but the Labour party in those days wanted even bigger cuts to the post-cold-war defence budget. That seems conveniently to have been forgotten, as history has been rewritten.
It was a pleasure to listen to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the Father of the House, who is my constituent when he is not in his constituency. He has a feel for the history of our nation and our communities and for the TA. We have always acknowledged his deep knowledge, which, fortunately, has not been shared by successive generations: because of the sacrifice made by his generation, they have not had to engage in warfare on the
694
same scale as his generation did. We acknowledge his wise words, and I agree with him that the TA should be a complete social organisation, not a bunch of gap-fillers.
As ever, I listened with pleasure to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers): his was a loyal speech from an old soldier. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) made a good speech, in which he said that the White Paper should by now have been published. Of course it should; it should have been published when it was promised—months ago. He also accurately said that the strategic defence review is in the hands of the Treasury; of course it is, even though we are told that the consultation is still going on. He was also right to draw attention to the Army cadets. We shall welcome his support in the Lobby.
The hon. Members for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards), for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) made sincere speeches, but my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) made an exceptional speech, as one would expect from an hon. Member who has been unstinting in his support for the TA and is recognised for the depth of his knowledge on the subject. His speech was cogent, succinct and pithy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who is honorary colonel of a TA regiment, was right to say that we cannot foresee the future and must remember the lessons of the past. He gave us an understanding of and an insight into the history and traditions of military activity, which are a feature in families with members of the TA, often generation after generation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) made the crucial point that the foreign policy baselines remain secret. I shall return to that. He also said that the Territorial Army must not be frozen in aspic. None of us wishes to see that.
Ministers seemed to say that they do not listen carefully to their advisers. I know that a senior regular infantry officer offered advice and said, "I believe that there is logic in discussing the increased use of TA infantry in innovative ways." We have not heard much of that in the debate. The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) graced the debate with wise words, and we look forward to hearing from her again soon on the subject.
It has been widely reported that last week, when the Foreign Secretary was in the eye of the storm over Sierra Leone, Defence Ministers were boasting that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had 10 times as many parliamentary questions to answer about the affair as the Ministry of Defence. Rather than boasting, they should have asked themselves, "What is the cause of that?" One reason for fewer questions to Defence Ministers is that hon. Members know that it is not worth asking questions, because Ministers will not give answers. Apparently, they have few friends in the Cabinet. They are embarrassed, and they have much to be embarrassed about.
The big promise of a six-month defence review has been so seriously broken that Defence Ministers have a credibility problem. They should be embarrassed every time they repeat their mantra that the strategic defence review is the most open policy-making process and the widest consultation exercise that has ever been held by the Ministry of Defence. It is no such thing. They know that people rumbled them a long time ago. The strategic defence review was an extraordinary consultation exercise. One cannot consult unless one starts with some

695
givens. We have not been given any foreign policy guidelines. A couple of speeches skating round the Foreign Secretary's pantomime on ice are about as credible as a Foreign Office Minister's policy on Sierra Leone.
We were not given any guidelines on the amount in the kitty for defence. The review has spawned a small industry among academics and journalists, who have been delighted to oblige with a period of free thinking and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get their dreams and prejudices off their chests and on to the desks of Ministry of Defence officials and, with luck, on to the desks and perhaps into the red boxes of a Defence Minister or two. The strategic defence review that matters is the one that is carried out within the Ministry of Defence itself, and that has been entirely different.
As usual, all three services responded magnificently to the challenge and completed their input on schedule. As usual, the internal strategic defence review that was completed by the military and the Ministry of Defence has been clinical and merciless. Unlike the rest of us, they knew the baselines and the arithmetic. They considered every option that they were asked to consider. They were told, "Rule out any increase in the TA budget or in TA strength, but consider all other options from a baseline of about 20,000 and float upwards to an irreducible minimum, viable figure of about 40,000." The professionals have had their say, and now it is a political issue for Ministers to handle.
The Government's proposals for the TA are being subjected to scrutiny by hon. Members who face the reality of ministerial dreams. In recent weeks, an increasingly bad-tempered Minister for the Armed Forces has criticised the TA for unfairly arguing for its existence. That is unfair, because the process was started by Ministers. This afternoon, the Minister for the Armed Forces described this debate as a cheap publicity stunt. It is far from that.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): I did not say that.
Mr. Key: The Minister will see it in Hansard in the morning.
Dr. Reid: I did not refer to this debate as a cheap publicity stunt. I shall stand corrected if I did. [Interruption.] I shall check it in Hansard, and if the hon. Gentleman is wrong, I take it that he will apologise.
Mr. Key: Of course. Similarly, I hope that, if the Minister is wrong, he will apologise to the House. He will find that I was absolutely right.
Much has been said about the importance of the territorials' footprint. Dots on a map of the UK representing military presence are getting fewer every year. Largely because of the Northern Ireland situation, there are fewer uniforms on our streets. That is likely to be the case for many years, however much we all hope that the Northern Ireland settlement will hold after Friday's referendum. When I was a child in Salisbury in the 1950s, it was very much a garrison town. Military uniforms were the norm, not the exception. These days,
696
service men and women are more likely to go to work in civvies and, if they wear uniforms, they will be under a mac. Less than 2 per cent. of the adult male population has any direct contact with the military.
I note the total absence tonight of the Scottish National party, yet again. As usual in defence debates, it is absent.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Key: Oh. One has turned up. I certainly will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has the gall to turn up at the last minute and to expect me to give way when he has not been here.
Mr. Welsh rose—
Mr. Key: Well, as I am such a nice chap, I give way.
Mr. Welsh: I have not just arrived; I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech. He got it wrong with me. I hope that he has not similarly got it wrong with the Minister for the Armed Forces. He should get his facts correct.
Mr. Key: Is that the sum total of the hon. Gentleman's contribution on behalf of the Scottish National party? He has been watching the television set in his room, instead of participating in the debate.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House paid tribute to the role of cadets. The cadet force is a vital and vibrant part of our community. I was in the cadet force a very long time ago. I rose to the dizzy heights of company sergeant major in the Combined Cadet Force. For many people, it was, of course, drudgery, but for most of us it was a challenge that we enjoyed.
Almost 40 per cent. of young men in my year at school went into the services. Many of them have had distinguished military careers. Commanders of nuclear submarines and the commander of the Desert Rats in the Gulf war, Paddy Cordingley, were among my friends who joined the CCF with me. Fifty-six per cent. of warrant officers and regimental sergeant majors started as cadets.
Often, cadets eke out their existence under the shadow of a TA unit. They use its buildings and equipment. They learn skills from TA professionals. We must be sure that those cadets continue.
There are many ways in which one could define viability for the TA. I must mention the whole question of a proper promotion structure within the TA. If the TA shrinks, so do promotion opportunities. We should also not forget that the regulars and the TA have a long history of rivalry. That rivalry is, I am sure, reducing: I think that we have seen in Bosnia that the old rivalries are no longer treated in the way they were. The rivalries were not always a happy thing to see.
When the Conservative Government reduced overall force levels, it was a clear and logical response to the end of the cold war. The figures were replicated throughout NATO, and the Ministry of Defence operated in its usual clinical and merciless style. The territorials were reduced as much as anyone else. They understood that. For the past three years, their position has stabilised, and we have solid, sensible and successful TA units.

697
The Secretary of State asked whether we would agree with him tonight. The whole point is that there is not enough yet to agree with. The strongest message that we have received from him is that the combat role of the TA as formed units is over. If that is true, it is against much of the advice that he has received from his Regular Army professionals. No wonder the Labour party will not be voting for our motion.
I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to illustrate their support for the future of the Territorial Army and to express their confidence in that priceless national asset by voting for our motion. Let us give the Government the opportunity to think afresh about the future of the Territorial Army.
9.48 pm
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): I think that we all expected a lively and well-informed debate, and, by and large, we have not been disappointed. I certainly have not been disappointed with the public intimation from the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) that, as he is not receiving satisfactory answers, he will no longer table parliamentary questions. That was the best news that I heard tonight.
Like many hon. Members here, I have a Territorial Army and a cadets movement in my constituency, and I want to preserve, to fortify and to enhance the TA. I want to give it a future that is not just a monument to the past, but where it has a clear, recognisable, usable and relevant role. Indeed, it is more so than in the past.
I want first to refer to the speech of the Father of the House, the right hon.—indeed, tonight I would say right hon. and gallant—Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). He was originally a gunner, was a major by 1945 and, between 1947 and 1951, he was commander of 2nd Regiment of the Honourable Artillery Company. He speaks with seriousness, gravity and import in these affairs. I understand that he was mentioned in dispatches, so he has practical as well as theoretical knowledge.
The right hon. Gentleman said two things that were important. First, he said that we must be careful when viewing the world from our present position, because we cannot do everything. I wholly accept that. Indeed, one of the problems for those who ask why we spend money employing the forces is that it is not so much a question of what the armed forces do, as of explaining to a public, keen to see us play a role in the world, that the armed forces cannot do everything. There is a constant demand upon them. However, because we cannot do everything does not mean that we should not do what we can to discharge our responsibilities in the world, both as a citizen of the world in defending our rights and discharging our responsibilities, and as a member of the permanent five of the Security Council.
The point that the right hon. Gentleman made about the Territorial Army is that we do not want it to be a stopgap; we do not want it to be used merely to fill the gaps in the Regular Army. That accords with what the Government believe. If Opposition Members would stop for a minute and listen to what we are proposing, they would understand that we are proposing a radical enhancement of the Territorial Army.
The reality is that, over the past 50 years since the right hon. Gentleman served in the armed forces, the TA has been used in a voluntary capacity, either as individuals or
698
as larger units, to fill gaps in the regular forces. We have been told tonight about the unpredictability of the world. Many hon. Members asked who could have foreseen the Falklands, the Gulf, Malaysia or Cyprus. What they did not point out was that no Territorial Army units were called up in the Falklands, the Gulf, Malaysia or Cyprus. In other words, for many years we have not been able to call up the Territorial Army, whatever the circumstances, unless it were for a major full-scale war with Russia. Does anyone genuinely believe that we are about to face a major full-scale war with Russia?
Mr. Keith Simpson: The legislation was changed.
Dr. Reid: The legislation was indeed changed, but thus far no Government have stated their intention to make the Territorial Army so usable, so relevant and so enhanced in its role in the British defence forces that the threshold would be lowered and the Territorial Army called up. That is our radical proposal for bringing the Territorial Army into the mainstream of our defence forces and enhancing its role in a way that has not been done in the past half century.
Mr. Rogers: I am sorry to be unhelpful to my hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "As ever."] No, not as ever. Surely the point of the Territorial Army and its relationship with the regular forces is that, when our regular forces have to be deployed abroad, the role of the territorials is upgraded and they act as our home forces.
Dr. Reid: I take my hon. Friend's point. The essential point that I am making tonight is that, in a strategic defence review, not only do we want to derive from our foreign policy a configuration that is relevant, but we want the units within that defence posture to be relevant. It so happens that our proposals on the Territorial Army are relevant.
I stand second to no one in my respect for the Territorial Army, and would never have called today's debate "a cheap publicity stunt". I told the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) that, in 10 months, all we have had from the Opposition is three debates on the TA, because they think that cheap popularity is to be gained in having such debates. Will the hon. Gentleman now apologise, as he promised?
Mr. Key: Yes, of course—I unreservedly apologise. However, I hope that the Minister will get the message that, if he uses such words unwisely, it will do neither the TA nor his own position any credit.
Dr. Reid: Nothing is more demeaning than a grudging apology when someone is proved wrong.
I should like to deal with some of the points that have been made in this debate. As for cheap popularity, I realise that an argument can be made for taking the low road. An argument can be made for saying: "Fifteen thousand, 10,000 or 5,000 people will possibly be without a job. Regardless of the strategic merits, that is their Achilles heel, and we will run the popularity con." However, if we do not have the courage to configure our defence forces to meet today's threat and security needs—and to find the money to supply the defence medical

699
services, the second line of logistics and heavy lift—we shall be putting our soldiers lives at risk, which is something that the Government are not prepared to do.
Mr. Blunt: The real problem is that the Government are proposing to cut 16,000 people from the Territorial Army. In subsequent years, the problem will be magnified as the number of people in the United Kingdom without military experience increases. That is the strategic problem.
Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman was the special adviser to a Secretary of State who cut 35,000 regulars from the British Army. [Interruption.] Today, he has the audacity to come here—
Mr. Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has misled the House. Will you advise me on how he can put the matter right?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. No hon. Gentleman would mislead the House.
Dr. Reid: I will not ask for another grudging withdrawal or apology. However, it seems that the Opposition, not me, are becoming irritable.
At great length, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) told us that he does not know: what the outcome of the review will be; the configuration that we are suggesting; or the roles that, he complained, we are imagining. He was also not aware of the enhancements that we might want to make, and did not have a clue—because we did not outline it—about the footprint. He said that, on the basis of all that knowledge, he will steadfastly vote against our proposals at the end of this debate. His argument was not an entirely convincing one on which to build a case.
Mr. Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Reid: I have only three minutes left, and the hon. Gentleman has had his opportunity to speak.
We have made it plain that we want to enhance the role of the Territorial Army. We want to make it more relevant, more usable, more modern and more integrated.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: And smaller.
Dr. Reid: We want to raise the Territorial Army's profile and importance—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) will not shout like that in the Chamber.
Dr. Reid: We shall ensure that those adjectives describe the modern Territorial Army. We shall make it more relevant by reducing its outdated home defence role and focusing on a role comprising skilled trades. We shall make it more usable by lowering the call-out threshold, and by ensuring that, for the first time in half a century, we can call the Territorial Army into action when we need
700
it. We shall make it more integrated by making it one combined force of regulars and territorials, rather than separating them. We shall make the TA relevant, usable, integrated and modern. The entire purpose of the strategic defence review has been to produce modern forces for a modern world.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Reid: The Opposition are seething because, year after year, the Treasury led them by the nose. Cuts were proclaimed in advance. The previous Government cut personnel by 32 per cent. and finance by 30 per cent., and they reduced the Territorial Army by 31,000 members, but they still ended up with a force configuration that did not meet the security needs of the day. This Government will not take that road. Our Army, Air Force and Navy, regular and reserves, will be combined in an integrated framework that is coherent beyond any of their expectations.
Mr. James Arbuthnot rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 286.

Division No. 278]

[10 pm

AYES

Allan, Richard

Cran, James

Amess, David

Curry, Rt Hon David

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Arbuthnot, James

Day, Stephen

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Duncan Smith, lain

Baldry, Tony

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Ballard, Mrs Jackie

Evans, Nigel

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Faber, David

Bercow, John

Fabricant, Michael

Benesford, Sir Paul

Feam, Ronnie

Blunt, Crispin

Flight, Howard

Body, Sir Richard

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Boswell, Tim

Foster, Don (Bath)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Brady, Graham

Gale, Roger

Brake, Tom

Garnier, Edward

Brazier, Julian

Gibb, Nick

Breed, Colin

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Gorrie, Donald

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Gray, James

Bums, Simon

Green, Damian

Burstow, Paul

Greenway, John

Butterfill, John

Grieve, Dominic

Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Cash, William

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Chidgey, David

Hammond, Philip

Chope, Christopher

Hancock, Mike

Clappison, James

Hawkins, Nick

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

Hayes, John

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Heald, Oliver

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Collins, Tim

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Cotter, Brian

Horam, John

701

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Ruffley, David

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Hunter, Andrew

St Aubyn, Nick

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Salmond, Alex

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Sanders, Adrian

Jenkin, Bernard

Sayeed, Jonathan

Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Shepherd, Richard

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys MÖn)

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Key, Robert

Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Soames, Nicholas

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Spicer, Sir Michael

Kirkwood, Archy

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Steen, Anthony

Lansley, Andrew

Streeter, Gary

Leigh, Edward

Stunell, Andrew

Letwin, Oliver

Swayne, Desmond

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Syms, Robert

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Llwyd, Elfyn

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Luff, Peter

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Tonge, Dr Jenny

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Tredinnick, David

MacKay, Andrew

Tyler, Paul

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Tyrie, Andrew

McLoughlin, Patrick

Walter, Robert

Madel, Sir David

Wardle, Charles

Maples, John

Waterson, Nigel

Mates, Michael

Wells, Bowen

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Welsh, Andrew

May, Mrs Theresa

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Whittingdale, John

Moss, Malcolm

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Norman, Archie

Wilkinson, John

Ottaway, Richard

Willis, Phil

Page, Richard

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Paice, James

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Paterson, Owen

Woodward, Shaun

Randall, John

Yeo, Tim

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Rendel, David

Robathan, Andrew

Tellers for the Ayes:

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Mr. Peter Ainsworth and

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Mr. John M. Taylor.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Burden, Richard

Ainger, Nick

Burgon, Colin

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Byers, Stephen

Alexander, Douglas

Caborn, Richard

Allen, Graham

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Ashton, Joe

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Atkins, Charlotte

Cann, Jamie

Austin, John

Caplin, Ivor

Banks, Tony

Caton, Martin

Barnes, Harry

Cawsey, Ian

Battle, John

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Bayley, Hugh

Chaytor, David

Beard, Nigel

Church, Ms Judith

Benton, Joe

Clapham, Michael

Berry, Roger

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Betts, Clive

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Blizzard, Bob

Clelland, David

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Clwyd, Ann

Boateng, Paul

Coaker, Vernon

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Cohen, Harry

Bradshaw, Ben

Colman, Tony

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Connarty, Michael

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Cooper, Yvette

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Browne, Desmond

Corston, Ms Jean

Buck, Ms Karen

Cranston, Ross

702

Crausby, David

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Cryer, John (Homchurch)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Dalyell, Tam

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Darvill, Keith

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Jowell, Ms Tessa

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

Kemp, Fraser

Dawson, Hilton

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Dismore, Andrew

Khabra, Piara S

Dobbin, Jim

Kidney, David

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Kilfoyle, Peter

Doran, Frank

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Drew, David

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Kingham, Ms Tess

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Edwards, Huw

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Efford, Clive

Lepper, David

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Leslie, Christopher

Fatchett, Derek

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Linton, Martin

Fisher, Mark

Livingstone, Ken

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Flint, Caroline

Lock, David

Follett, Barbara

Love, Andrew

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

McAllion, John

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

McAvoy, Thomas

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

McCabe, Steve

Fyfe, Maria

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Galloway, George

McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

Gapes, Mike

McDonagh, Siobhain

Gardiner, Barry

McDonnell, John

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

McFall, John

Gerrard, Neil

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Gibson, Dr Ian

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Godsiff, Roger

McNulty, Tony

Goggins, Paul

MacShane, Denis

Golding, Mrs Llin

Mactaggart, Fiona

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

McWilliam, John

Grant, Bemie

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Mallaber, Judy

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Grocott, Bruce

Grogan, John

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Hain, Peter

Martlew, Eric

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Maxton, John

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Hanson, David

Meale, Alan

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Merron, Gillian

Healey, John

Michael, Alun

Hepburn, Stephen

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Heppell, John

Milburn, Alan

Hesford, Stephen

Hill, Keith

Miller, Andrew

Hinchliffe, David

Mitchell, Austin

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Moffatt, Laura

Home Robertson, John

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Hoon, Geoffrey

Moran, Ms Margaret

Hope, Phil

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Morley, Elliot

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Mudie, George

Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)

Mullin, Chris

Humble, Mrs Joan

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Hutton, John

Norris, Dan

Iddon, Dr Brian

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Illsley, Eric

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

O'Neill, Martin

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Jenkins, Brian

Pearson, Ian

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Perham, Ms Linda

703

Pickthall, Colin

Squire, Ms Rachel

Pike, Peter L

Steinberg, Gerry

Plaskitt, James

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Polland, Kerry

Stinchcombe, Paul

Pond, Chris

Stoate, Dr Howard

Pope, Greg

Stott, Roger

Pound, Stephen

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Powell, Sir Raymond

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Primarolo, Dawn

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Purchase, Ken

Quin, Ms Joyce

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Quinn, Lawrie

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Radice, Giles

Tipping, Paddy

Rammell, Bill

Todd, Mark

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Touhig, Don

Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

Trickett, Jon

Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Rogers, Allan

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Rooker, Jeff

Vaz, Keith

Rooney, Terry

Ward, Ms Claire

Roy, Frank

White, Brian

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Wicks, Malcolm

Ryan, Ms Joan

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Safter, Martin

Sarwar, Mohammad

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Savidge, Malcolm

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Sawford, Phil

Wills, Michael

Sedgemore, Brian

Winnick, David

Sheerman, Barry

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Wise, Audrey

Singh, Marsha

Wood, Mike

Skinner, Dennis

Woolas, Phil

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Wyatt, Derek

Snape, Peter

Tellers for the Noes:

Soley, Clive

Mr. Kevin Hughes and

Spellar, John

Mr. Jim Dowd.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House supports the Government in its determination to ensure that the United Kingdom has armed forces that are modern, capable, relevant and structured for the new post Cold War strategic realities; considers that the Territorial Army, like the rest of the armed forces, should continue to adapt to these realities; welcomes the valuable role played by the Territorial Army in the wider life of the nation; and is confident that the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review will be capable, relevant and even more usable reserve forces to help support Britain's foreign and security policies.

Territorial Army

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION

    BANKS AND BANKING
    That the draft Cash Ratio Deposits (Value Bands and Ratios) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 27th April, be approved.
    That the draft Bank of England (Information Powers) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 27th April, be approved.—[Mr. Clelland.]
    Question agreed to.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Thursday 21st May, Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community documents) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to the Common Agricultural Policy and the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on that Motion not later than 3 hours after their commencement.—[Mr. Clelland.]

  PETITION

    National Health Service (East Kent)
    10.14 pm
    Mr. Julian Brazier: I wish to present a petition, bearing 54,000 signatures, on behalf of people in east Kent who are against the proposed rundown of the Kent and Canterbury hospital. As it is so voluminous, I have brought just a small part of it into the Chamber. I understand that a further 140,000 signatures have been delivered to the offices of East Kent health authority.
    The petition states:
    The petition of the people of East Kent declares that the proposed substantial reduction of NHS services in East Kent conflicts with Government policy.
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Health to:

    (i) reject the proposed downgrading of Kent and Canterbury Hospital and the relocation of specialist services outside of East Kent, and

    (ii) support general practitioners and consultants wanting to retain acute services in Thanet, Canterbury and Ashford.

    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    To lie upon the Table.

Nursery Education
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]
10.15 pm
Sir Michael Spicer: This is a problem largely of the Government's own making. It threatens the very existence of nursery education in this country, and it is causing growing consternation and alarm in Worcestershire.
The voucher system was far from perfect, but its introduction was a firm step in the right direction towards parental choice, and it provided an opportunity for radical improvement in the education of very young children. The scheme's abolition for politically motivated and doctrinaire reasons has been disastrous. Local education authorities have taken full control of both provision and regulation of nursery education, and have used their new powers to devastating effect.
In Worcestershire, they have virtually obliterated nursery education for four-year-olds, and much the same can be said of the rest of the country. If the effect were an improvement in the early life of young children, that would be the end of the matter, but the plain fact is that it has been a massively retrograde step.
First, and probably least important, there is a budgetary question. Each year, £1,100 is made available for each child under five. By working 52 weeks a year, and employing nursery-trained teachers, rather than mainstream teachers, nursery schools are able to accommodate that subsidy in their budgets, but the same is not true of mainstream schools. Assuming a teacher-pupil ratio of 15:1—which is twice as high as the permissible ratio in nursery schools—the funding will not cover a teacher, let alone a teacher and an assistant.
Extra funds must therefore be provided by deflecting moneys from the budget allocated for teaching over-fives. Head teachers, especially in counties such as Worcestershire, argue that budgets are already overstretched. Money, however, is not the main issue. Much more important, most of the children whom local authorities are forcing out of nursery schools and into mainstream schools at the age of four are receiving a much lower standard of education.
The schools are not subject to the Children Act 1989, and therefore have no statutory limit on pupil-teacher ratios. Nurseries are compelled to maintain a ratio of 8:1, but schools can apply whatever ratio they think fit. Typically, that results in ratios of between 15 and 20:1. What is more, teachers in schools, although they are much more expensive than nursery teachers, are often not much better qualified to teach really young children. Certainly that is true of the often totally unqualified assistants who work with them.
What is more, as a recent Channel 4 programme vividly illustrated, the structure and environment of the school is often totally inappropriate to tiny children. A body of evidence is even emerging, especially from Scandinavia and Switzerland, that the semi-formality of the teaching of four-year-olds in schools is a severe impediment to their further development.
One does not have to accept entirely the pre-eminence of the theory of learning through play to have a feeling for the force of the argument that children in large establishments
706
can be educationally force-fed prematurely, to their permanent damage. There is a special requirement with the very young to treat the needs of each child individually, which is so much easier in small nursery groups.
The whole problem is compounded by the fact that the regulation of nursery and early education is controlled by local education authorities which, because of present demographic factors resulting in falling rolls, are struggling to attract more children to their schools and thus help their argument for further funding by the taxpayer.
Put bluntly, since this Government took over the schools, the LEAs have been forcing parents to send their four-year-olds to schools. Frankly, it is a scandal. Under the voucher scheme, it has to be said that parents were increasingly persuaded to send their four-year-olds to schools for fear of losing a place for them later, but at least under that scheme they had a choice. Now, they do not have any choice at all. The idea that, in those circumstances, there can be a genuine partnership between nursery schools and LEAs, as the Government seem to pretend, is at best disingenuous and at worst a deception.
In their recently published consultation paper on the regulation of nursery education, the Government are showing some signs of awareness of the problem and the anomalies, which is at least a start. The question is, what is to be done? It seems to me—this is the purpose of raising the matter tonight—that, first, a uniform system of regulation for all nursery education is needed, whether it is provided through the schools, nurseries or play schemes.
It is illogical, to say the least, for the conditions of the Children Act 1989, for instance with respect to teacher ratios, to be applied to nursery schools and not to nursery education within mainstream schools. Also, it is wrong that mainstream schools should be exempt from having to employ properly trained nursery teachers. It is also unacceptable that there should be unspecified cross-subsidisation of nursery teaching within schools from budgets allocated for the teaching of children over five years old.
It is essential that common standards should be regulated independently. At present, social services act as the LEA's agent in most authorities in much of the regulatory process. That role should be handed over in its entirety to an independent regulatory organisation, such as the Office for Standards in Education.
Above all else, what is required is that the Government should throw away their electoral rhetoric and political dogma, and recognise that, if parental choice, which is the only real alternative to control by the LEA, is to be reintroduced, some form of voucher system will have to re-emerge. If that forces the Government to swallow too much pride, perhaps vouchers will have to be given some other name. The Government have not been slow in other areas to rebrand Conservative policies.
The future of little children is what matters. Conservative Members must acknowledge that the voucher scheme had its flaws. Because of loopholes in the Children Act 1989, LEAs could, using often unfair and inaccurate prospectuses, seduce parents to send their four-year-old children to mainstream schools. Parental choice must be reinstated, and nursery schools put on a par with mainstream schools. The Act must be amended so that mainstream schools are compelled to comply with

707
the same regulations that apply to nursery schools—the two must be put on an equal footing. LEAs should also be told that they will not receive extra funding if they deflect into nursery education moneys that have been allocated to mainstream teaching.
The Government should start to think of children first and ideology second—the interests of the two are, in this case, antithetical. The Government should be big enough to admit that, in abolishing the voucher system, they made a mistake. They should introduce an even better voucher scheme than the one that we Conservatives left behind.
10.25 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) on raising this important issue. I had thought that the House had reached unanimity in our consideration of early years education. Children, not political point scoring, should be at the centre of the debate. I regret the fact that, in some of his remarks, he reverted to political point scoring, and failed to deal with the debate in which, over the past 12 months, I have been very happy to take part.
Sir Michael Spicer: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Morris: No. I want to make progress, although I may have time to give way later.
Let us consider a few facts. I accept that Worcester changed its admission arrangements in September 1997 to admit younger children. The notion that it decided to do so on 2 May after the election of a Labour Government is surely misplaced. The admission arrangements were changed as a direct result of the Conservative Government's nursery voucher scheme, which had an in-built incentive for local authorities to take young children into schools.
The money to fund the voucher scheme—bureaucracy and all—had come from local authorities in the first place. On the whole, it had come from local authorities that had done well by young children in providing early years education. To ensure that that money returned to the maintained sector, they had to compete for kids—money followed four-year-olds. I fail to see why Conservatives Members are surprised that the organisations that wanted to provide early education competed in the market that the Conservative Government created.
We inherited a situation in which, because of the nursery voucher system, local authorities throughout the country were changing admission dates, so that they could take younger and younger children into sometimes inappropriate placings. We cannot be held responsible for that; we can be held responsible only for what we have done in the 12 months since the general election.
Sir Michael Spicer: The hon. Lady said that I had been making political points, but the Labour party made massive political points about the voucher scheme during the general election—they conducted a major campaign on it. I accept that the scheme was flawed, as I have said, but at least it allowed for parental choice. Because LEAs
708
now control the system, parents are compelled to send their children to LEA schools. That is the fundamental difference, as I hope the Government understand.
Ms Morris: If that was the case, I would share the hon. Gentleman's concerns. All our actions show that I have not spent the past 12 months trying to squeeze out good private or voluntary sector providers.
Among the things that we have done with the money saved by the abolition of the nursery voucher scheme is to help to meet the costs of seven early excellence centres that we have opened—many in partnership with the voluntary sector. Playgroups contribute to those centres. We have been able to use money that was tied up in bureaucracy to develop EECs. No hon. Member in any part of the House has argued that early excellence centres, which are beacons of excellence in early years education and which show the way in integrating child care, early years education, working with families, the family literacy scheme and support for families, are not a good way forward.
Early years development partnerships have replaced nursery voucher schemes. The new Worcestershire unitary authority has produced an excellent scheme, and the chair of the Worcestershire early years development partnership, Professor Christine Pascal, is one of the best known people in the field of early years education. I assure the hon. Member for West Worcestershire that every provider that received money from the public purse for educating four-year-olds under the nursery voucher scheme has had the opportunity to be part of an early years development partnership, and that many—if not all—have taken that opportunity.
Mr. John Hayes: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Morris: Not yet; I shall finish this point.
In every instance where a member of the private or voluntary sector has not transferred from being a provider under the voucher scheme to being a provider under the partnership scheme, my Department has specifically gone to them and found out why they have withdrawn. Some have withdrawn because they do not want to aim at the desirable learning outcomes; some have not wanted to participate because they did not especially enjoy the experience under early years vouchers; but no provider has told my Department, "We are not part of the partnership scheme, because we have not been made welcome."
We have a choice. Do we want a system that brings those providers together on the basis of market economics, in which they will compete with one another and drive one another out of the market, as happened under the voucher scheme, or do we want to bring those providers together in partnership, in the interests of children and parents? We have tried to do the latter.
However, the key point, from the viewpoint of the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, is that the choice that existed under the voucher scheme—the same providers, from all sectors, as well as new providers from the voluntary and private sectors—is still available in partnerships. It is necessary to co-ordinate those partnerships; the administration and co-ordination are done by a local authority.

709
However, in the hon. Gentleman's local authority, Worcestershire, the partnership is not chaired by the chair of the education committee or by a local authority official, but by a woman whose standing in early years education is unparalleled in the country. Her standing is widely respected, and I defy the hon. Gentleman to find anyone who knows about early years education and lives in his constituency who does not accept that the leadership of his local partnership is in good hands, and is committed to making the partnership cohesive.
Mr. Hayes: The Minister speaks with her usual clarity and honesty, but, as private sector playgroups are closing by the day and by the week, will she give us some feel for the numbers that have closed since she came to office? If partnerships are so important, why did Labour local education authorities, of one of which I was a member for many years, fare so badly at providing such partnerships, when their discretionary powers gave them a perfect opportunity and right to do so?
Ms Morris: Far too many playgroups are closing, but the hon. Gentleman should not pretend that that did not happen until 2 May 1997. Playgroups closed last year because of the nursery voucher system. The hon. Gentleman should read the material sent out by the Pre-School Learning Alliance. It does not pretend that the closure of playgroups did not hit the nation until the past 12 months. The divisive, competitive nursery voucher system began the closure of playgroups.
The hon. Gentleman should remember that the provision that started in September 1997 was planned before the general election, and that anything that happened in the year starting in 1997 in terms of kids in settings was planned well before the general election. I cannot see how hon. Gentlemen can fail to draw the conclusion that that was a direct result of the system that the Conservatives had in place.
I am not happy that playgroups are still closing; neither is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That is why, only last week in a speech to the Pre-School Learning Alliance, he announced that a further £500,000 would be provided to stop good intermediate stage playgroups closing. We need those playgroups for the expansion in three-year-old education that we want, and for the work we want to do to extend child care and wrap-around provision. To prevent their being squeezed out of the market, we will be talking to partnerships and the PLA to see how best to ensure that they are not.
I will now try to reassure the hon. Member for West Worcestershire in several respects. He is right, for instance, about the mess of regulations. What is fair for one should be fair for another: they are the same kids, no matter whether they are in the private, the voluntary or the maintained sector. The system has grown up over the years in patchwork fashion, and nobody has ever taken it by the scruff of the neck to see what could be made of it.
We deserve some credit for having published, some months ago, a discussion document that honestly faced up to the difficult issues to do with regulating child care and early years education. The two are not the same: the hours are different, the expectations of parents are different, the training of the professionals is different. What might be suitable in terms of teacher/pupil ratios for two-year-olds might not be for a four-year-old.
710
To be generous to our predecessors, I suspect that they did not tackle this area because it is so complex. We, however, have done it. We have asked the right questions; and I will take the hon. Gentleman's comments this evening, if he so agrees, as a response to the consultation that we have launched. I shall ensure that they are incorporated in the relevant document. The hon. Gentleman was also right to question the wisdom of four-year-olds learning in classes of 30, given that, in another setting, they might be in smaller groups.
I congratulate the partnership in Worcestershire on taking steps to ensure that the ratio in its reception classes will be 1:15. We have not made Worcestershire do that: it is ahead of the game. I also congratulate the county on the partnership's innovative idea of creating a central pool of supply staff, so that teachers from all sectors—private, maintained and voluntary—can undertake training. Those are the actions of a group of people, led by a good chair, who are committed to making partnership work.
As for inspection, qualifications, initial teacher training for working with three, four, five, six, seven and eight-year-olds, and the curriculum—they all need examining. I will say, however, that in all those areas we have taken action. We are reviewing the qualifications with a view to making them more coherent. We are reviewing desirable learning outcomes. We are reviewing the inspection framework. We want to bring together the inspection of child care and of early years education.
I also take seriously the hon. Gentleman's point about the necessity for child protection of the utmost rigour. I shall make that point forcefully in the consultation process, in the cause of enhancing rigorous child care and early years education inspection.
Sir Michael Spicer: The review is good news, and I am glad that the hon. Lady has listened to the arguments and responded accordingly. However, since there was a change in regime, education for four-year-olds in nursery schools has been obliterated in Worcestershire and, as I understand it, virtually throughout the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) raised the serious matter of playgroups closing, but the situation is worse than that: for four-year-olds, nursery school education has ceased to exist. The fear is that, with all the problems, which the Minister has shown she understands, nursery school education will be wiped out entirely, even for three-year-olds. That is the real worry. If the Minister has grasped that point tonight—she may have grasped it before—that will be a tremendous achievement.
Ms Morris: May I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I do not envisage three-year-olds in reception classes? That does not go on, as far as I know, and if it came to my attention that it was happening, it would be a matter of great concern.
We have taken action this year to provide places for four-year-olds. Now we want targets to be set so that we can provide places for three-year-olds. In the provision for three-year-olds, where reception classes cannot cater for kids, we will need the wealth of experience that exists in the maintained sector. There is good maintained nursery provision for three and four-year-olds. Not all

711
kids walking through a school gate are going into a reception class at three and four. Some are going into a properly staffed, good-quality, rigorous nursery. We should not do down the maintained sector.
Because we realise that we will need the strengths of all the sectors to extend provision for three-year-olds, we have secured partnerships. That is why we provided the £500,000 of hang-on money last week to keep the playgroups going.
I imagine that the hon. Member for West Worcestershire and I will never agree on the reasons why, in September 1997, more four-year-olds went into reception classes than previously. I defy him to find any local authority that changed its admission age in the last two months of the summer term. Time would have been needed, to notify staff, to offer places, to take appeals and to allow parents to buy uniforms for their children and meet the infant class teacher. That does not happen in a six-week half-term.
Where the decision was made, as in Worcestershire, to change the starting point to four-year-olds rather than five-year-olds, it was made before 1 May last year. That is the legacy we inherited, and the turn-around that we have tried to achieve. We have not managed to do it within one year, but we have managed to give a clear signal to those in the field, but most of all to parents, that we are deadly serious about top-quality education for children.
712
That is the best start that we can give a youngster. Children are entitled to a proper setting, a curriculum that is appropriate to their needs, and staff who are properly trained to give them a good start. Families have a right to expect that their children will be in well regulated places, where high standards are maintained, and where the regime of child care and early years education meets the changing social and economic patterns.
I am sorry that we finish this Adjournment debate without agreement on the essential issues that caused the hon. Gentleman to call for it. When I knew that I would be responding this evening, I took the opportunity to look again at the Worcestershire plan. I know that, over the next year, the hon. Gentleman will have contact with the early years development partnership and with Christine Pascal. I hope that he will find that the seeds of partnership that have been sown will grow, in the interests of children and their parents. If they do not grow over the next 12 months, I would want to hear about it.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we would take action to ensure that what we have done this year to lay the foundations can be built on year after year, until we achieve our eventual objective of a good quality nursery place for three and four-year-old children whose parents want it, as a start to the children's school life.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Brown-field Sites
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure there are no procedural delays in the contracting of decontaminated brown-field land sites. [39497]

  Angela Eagle
  Contractual arrangements are a matter for the parties concerned and it is their responsibility to take account of compliance with any regulatory requirements in their project planning. In cases where a waste management licence is required for the remediation of contaminated land, the effect of section 36(9) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is to provide the Environment Agency with a basic period of four months in which to carry out statutory consultations and to determine an application. The Environment Agency is committed to providing an efficient and effective service and its Customer Charter includes the following commitment:"We will make decisions on applications for waste licences within four months of receiving a full filled-in application, with all supporting information. For example, we may need proof of planning permission and financial guarantees. We will decide on any modifications to licences within two months of receipt and will deal with licences you send back to us within three months of receiving them. Complicated cases may take longer and we will agree upon a period when we will get back to you."

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the capacity of NATS in terms of aircraft movements per hour over all of the peak hours at(a) City, (b) Southend and (c) Biggin Hill airports; and on what evidence this estimate was based. [39769]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand that discussions between National Air Traffic Services Limited and the airport operators are on-going. I have asked the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority to write to the hon. Gentleman on their completion.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each year of its operation the number of incidents where drivers of trains using the Channel Tunnel have passed signals at red, broken down by(a) Eurostar, (b) freight and (c) car shuttle services. [41558]
  218
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is as follows:

  Signals passed at red

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  (a) Eurostar

  2

  0

  0

  (b) Freight

  0

  0

  1

  (c) Car shuttle

  3

  6

  6

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each year of its operation the number of incidents where trains have been routed on to tracks where works were in progress in the Channel Tunnel. [41565]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is as follows:

  Trains routed on to tracks where works were in progress

  Year

  Number of incidents

  1995–96

  0

  1996–97

  2

  1997–98

  2

  All these incidents occurred on tracks within terminals.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each year of its operation the number of incidents involving staff working without protection on tracks in or approaching the Channel Tunnel. [41561]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is as follows:

  Staff working without protection on tracks in or approaching the Channel Tunnel

  Year

  Number of staff

  1995–96

  1

  1996–97

  0

  1997–98

  0

  Nuclear Deterrence
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his oral answer of 8 April 1998,Official Report, column 349, on nuclear deterrence, on what basis he asserted that the question asked by the hon. Member for New Forest, East was not truthful; and for what reasons he has not replied to the letter from the hon. Member for New Forest, East on this matter. [41661]

  Mr. Prescott
  My reply to the hon. Gentleman on 8 April 1998,Official Report, column 349, was based on the following:
  I do not consider it "deplorable" to support unilateral nuclear disarmament
  I have no difficulty in the approval of nuclear deterrence
  neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has ever emulated "evasive and slippery techniques".

  The hon. Gentleman should also be aware that CND supported unilateral and multilateral disarmament.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if ministerial advisers are eligible for consideration as members of the proposed regional development agencies; and what sources of advisers Ministers are using in respect of such appointments. [41713]

  Mr. Caborn
  Civil servants, and special advisers holding temporary Civil Service status, are not eligible to be considered for membership of Regional Development Agency Boards. The selection process will be subject to independent scrutiny as required by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

  Lorries
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if the United Kingdom's obligations to allow 40 tonne lorries onto the roads after 1 January 1999 apply to lorries other than those involved in carrying international traffic; [41900]

  (2) what plans he has to allow 44 tonne lorries onto United Kingdom roads; [41899]

  (3) if he will ensure that drivers of 40 tonne lorries will be required to demonstrate to enforcement officers that they are engaged in an international journey by producing appropriate documentation. [41901]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The obligation to allow 40 tonne, 5 axle lorries on UK roads from 1 January 1999 applies only to international movements. We are considering whether or not 40 tonne vehicles should also be allowed for domestic movements and will announce the outcome in the White Paper on Integrated Transport. Enforcement issues will be taken into account in reaching our decision. 44 tonne, 6 axle vehicles have been allowed in the UK since 1994 for certain road/rail movements. We are considering whether or not to allow any wider use of these vehicles and will announce the outcome in the White Paper on Integrated Transport.

  Refrigeration
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to encourage the development of sustainable refrigeration technologies. [41904]

  Angela Eagle
  The DETR, through its Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme, encourages the development of sustainable refrigeration technologies by the dissemination of independent, authoritative information such as Guides and Case Study material, on energy efficiency best practice. Also, through the future element of the Programme, it is able to offer financial assistance to those companies who are interested in researching and developing the energy efficiency technologies and techniques of the future.

  There are other programmes under which proposals of this type could be considered, for example LINK, SMART, and research funding through the relevant Research Councils. Consideration is also given to such technologies under the Partners in Technology scheme.
  220
  The Government also encourage the refrigeration industry to sign up to the declaration of intent which it has agreed with the industry. This discourages the use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) for any application where a risk of high emissions exists, by promoting the use of safe, reasonably practical, environmentally acceptable and energy efficient alternatives where available.

  Hydrofluorocarbons
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to implement the recommendations of the 4th report of the British Government Panel on Sustainable Development published in February in respect of the use of hydrofluorocarbons. [41903]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government welcome the Fourth Annual Report of the Government Panel on Sustainable Development. The Panel's recommendations in respect of the use of hydrofluorocarbons are currently being considered along with the Panel's other recommendations and the Government aim to publish their response shortly.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each local authority(a) the amount collected as national non-domestic business rates, (b) the amount paid back to the local authority via Government grant and (c) the net gain or loss in the current financial year. [41906]

  Ms Armstrong
  I have today placed in the Library of the House a table showing(a) the amounts calculated by English billing authorities as their provisional contribution to the non-domestic rates pool for 1998–99, and (b) the amounts of redistributed non-domestic rates payable to each receiving authority in England for 1998–99.

  The two amounts cannot be compared directly because (i) contributions to the non-domestic rates pool are made by billing authorities (eg London boroughs and district councils), whereas redistributed non-domestic rates are paid to all receiving authorities (including preceptors such as county councils and police authorities); (ii) the total redistributed from the pool includes amounts other than those received from billing authorities—ie payments in lieu of rates from Crown properties, payments from properties on the Central List, and Exchequer contributions to compensate the pool for income forgone as a result of transitional schemes.

  Road Traffic Reduction Act
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress by local authorities towards implementing the provisions of the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997. [41949]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Guidance to local authorities on implementing the provisions of the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997 was issued in draft on 15 January for public consultation. The consultation closed on 20 April, and we are now considering the responses received with a view to issuing the final version of the guidance later this year.
  221
  Local authorities will need to take account of this guidance in deciding how they intend to meet their duties under the Act. However, they have been asked to report on the broad approach they envisage taking, and the role they see for traffic reduction targets in their area, as part of their bids for Transport Policies and Programme funding, to be submitted by 31 July 1998.

  Liquefied Petroleum Gas
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review standard spending assessment formulae with a view to including incentives for local authorities to use vehicles which use liquid petroleum gas. [41950]

  Angela Eagle
  Proposals for changing standard spending assessment (SSA) formulae should be brought to the SSA Sub-Group of the Settlement Working Group, where possible changes to formulae are discussed by central and local government representatives. It should be noted, however, that SSAs are a measure of what an authority would need to spend in order to provide a similar level of service as other authorities, taking account of its demographic, social, economic and geographical characteristics. SSAs are not intended to provide incentives for local authorities to behave in any particular way. We seek to achieve this by using measures which do not depend upon the policies of local authorities.

  A number of local authorities have benefited from grants from the Energy Saving Trust towards the purchase of vehicles which use liquefied petroleum gas and other alternative fuels. These grants, which are made through the Trust's Powershift programme, are funded by my Department.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those local authorities which have adopted strategies to reduce air pollution by(a) five per cent., (b) 10 per cent., (c) 15 per cent., (d) 20 per cent. and (e) over 20 per cent. [41951]

  Angela Eagle
  This information is not held centrally. Under the new Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) system, which came into effect at the end of December 1997, district and unitary local authorities are currently reviewing the quality of the air within their area assessing it against statutory objectives for seven key pollutants. These objectives are based on those in the UK National Air Quality Strategy.

  Localities must be designated Air Quality Management Areas where the review and assessment show that national measures will not ensure the objectives are achieved by the end of 2005. The relevant local authority must then prepare an action plan in pursuit of the objective(s).

  The LAQM guidance which we have published to assist local authorities is listed in Environment Circular 15/97 (Welsh Office Circular 63/97) and is available in the Library.
  222
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in what circumstances it is permitted to proceed with road-widening schemes where the consequential PM10 pollution levels exceed 50 microgrammes per cubic metre of air as a 24-hour running average; and if he will make a statement. [41791]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 13 May 1998]: The objectives contained in the National Air Quality Strategy for achievement for 2005, including the one for PM10 would be taken into account in the appraisal of a proposed road scheme against the Government's five criteria of integration, accessibility, environment, economy and safety.

  Where an exceedence of a National Air Quality Strategy objective is forecast, whether or not as a consequence of the scheme proceeding, the local authority would be required to declare an air quality management area covering the area of anticipated exceedance. An action plan would then have to be prepared by the local authority, in consultation with the highways authorities, the Environment Agency and other stakeholders. The action plan would identify a range of measures, to be applied either locally or further afield, aimed at securing the achievement of the objectives throughout the air quality management area. Such measures might include enhanced traffic management, the application of more stringent emission limits to industrial processes or increased domestic smoke control.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimates his Department has evaluated from(a) North West Water and (b) Ofwat of (i) the total cost and (ii) the impact of average annual household bills in the period 2000 to 2005 of meeting EU bathing water standards on the Fylde coast. [42037]

  Angela Eagle
  The open letter of 30 April from the Director General of Water Services, "Setting the quality framework", includes assessments of the costs of meeting a wide range of potential obligations, including measures under EU Directives, based both on cost estimates provided by companies and on the preliminary challenge of that information by OFWAT. The letter expresses those costs both as total capital costs and as illustrative impacts on average household bills.

  The Environment Agency and North West Water estimated a cost of £100 million for their plans, announced in February this year, for work in the Fylde coast area to improve compliance with Directive bathing water standards. My Department, in consultation with OFWAT, is now considering the plans, their cost and the effect on customer bills.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he will be giving the Director General of Water Services under the periodic review of water price limits to apply from 1 April 2000, on(a) the scope for water companies to transfer the costs of meeting mandatory EU bathing water standards onto their customers and (b) the Government's priorities for improvements in water and environmental quality. [42035]
  223
  Angela Eagle
  In response to the open letter of 30 April from the Director General of Water Services ("Setting the quality framework", a copy of which is in the library), my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales will publish in the summer their guidance on the environmental obligations which they will expect the water and sewerage companies to meet, including their EU obligations. This guidance will take into account the advice of the Environment Agency and the views of other interested persons, and will reflect the Government's priorities for improvements in water quality and the water environment. It will then be for the Director General, in setting price limits, to ensure that companies are able to meet these obligations.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of North West Water's record in meeting mandatory EU bathing water standards along the Fylde coast; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of their recent bathing water improvement scheme in this area; [42034]

  (2) what undertakings he has received from North West Water that the latest investment programme to improve bathing water quality along the Fylde coast will result in compliance with EU Directive standards; and what reports he has received from the Environment Agency on this matter. [42054]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment announced the 1997 bathing water quality results in December and said that the results in the North West were especially poor and that this was particularly disappointing given that major bathing water improvement schemes had been completed in the area. In February this year, the Environment Agency and North West Water announced plans for further work in the Fylde coast area which they regard as necessary to improve compliance with the Directive standards. My Department has received a detailed report from the Environment Agency on these measures and the progress made.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reports he has received from the Director General of Water Services, under part of the periodic review of water price limits for the period 2000 to 2005, on the scope for further improvements in efficiency by North West Water to offset the cost of meeting EU bathing water standards on the Fylde coast. [42036]

  Angela Eagle
  The Director General has outlined his proposed approach to assessing the efficiency of the water companies at the next periodic review in "Assessing the scope for future improvements in water companies' efficiency—a technical paper" published in April 1998, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Fuel Poverty Working Group
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the Fuel Poverty Working Group to report its findings; what plans he has to make the group's conclusions publicly available; and what opportunity there will be for external agencies and individuals to respond to the group's findings. [41907]
  224
  Angela Eagle
  The inter-departmental group of officials is providing internal analysis and policy options for Ministers, and it is not proposed to make its findings and recommendations public. However, I launched a national debate on this subject in my speech on 14 May to the National Right to Fuel Campaign's conference on fuel poverty and invited interested parties to contribute. We will consult on any proposals for developing policies and programmes for tackling fuel poverty which flow from this process.

  London Government
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Government will legislate to provide in the election for the Mayor of London for the option of voting for "none of the above" candidates and for a further round of nominations and voting, if those voting in that way constitute the largest vote. [41896]

  Mr. Raynsford
  No.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy towards the proportion of the total London electorate required to vote in the elections for a mayor and assembly for the result to be binding. [41898]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The results of elections for the Mayor and Assembly will be binding irrespective of turnout, as is the case for all parliamentary, European and local government elections.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress in reducing discharge into the sea from nuclear installations at Sellafield. [42259]

  Angela Eagle
  The Environment Agency have recently completed a two month public consultation into applications for variations to the discharge authorisations for the Sellafield site and are now considering the responses received. The Government have reiterated to the Environment Agency that they wish to see progressive reductions in discharges and discharge limits at Sellafield. There have been requests for Ministers to `call-in' these applications and decide the matter for themselves and these requests are being considered.

  Insulin-dependent Drivers
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons the British Government do not allow in special circumstances the exemption of insulin-dependent drivers from the EU Driving Licence Directive as provided for under the Directive. [41372]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: The Directive provides for licences to be issued to or renewed for those whose diabetes is treated by insulin for driving passenger-carrying and goods vehicles (minibuses, medium-sized lorries, buses, coaches and large goods vehicles) "only in very exceptional cases", and subject to further conditions. The Secretary of State's Honorary Advisory Panel on Diabetes and Driving has hitherto advised that, in their opinion, there are no

  225
  exceptional cases. That is because treatment by insulin can lead to hypoglycaemic attacks which may occur suddenly and unpredictably, and which can lead to loss of consciousness without warning. A number of collapses at the wheel have been found to be associated with insulin treatment. UK legislation has therefore reflected the Panel's advice. However, in the light of evidence from the British Diabetic Association and other which claims that modern treatment and control methods minimise the risks, the Advisory Panel have, at the request of Ministers, been re-examining the issues in respect of the driving of minibuses and medium-sized lorries. The outcome of that re-examination will be made public shortly.

  Elections (Purley)
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the percentage turnouts in each of the polling districts in Purley, Croydon, for(a) 1994 and (b) 1998. [42237]

  Ms Armstrong
  A record of local election returns is not kept centrally by any Government Department. Inquiries relating to the turnout in an individual local authority should be directed to the Returning Officer for that authority.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the experimental polling station location at Tesco's in Purley, Croydon. [42238]

  Ms Armstrong
  Improving turnout in local elections is an important part of the Government's modernising local government agenda. The London Borough of Croydon should be congratulated on their efforts to make voting more convenient. We will be looking at the lessons from Croydon's initiative, as well as the responses to our consultation papers as we work up our Local Government White Paper to be published this Summer.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in securing the future of the channel rail link; and if he will make a statement. [42137]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In his answer of 27 March 1998,Official Report, columns 295–96, to my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), my right hon. Friend said that the cure period under the CTRL Development Agreement within which London and Continental Railways (LCR) could bring forward their improved proposals to the Government had been extended to 29 May 1998. Discussions with LCR are continuing and we await their final proposals. My right hon. Friend will make a statement in due course.

  London Underground
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the different options for restructuring London Underground put forward by London Transport; and if he will make a statement. [42363]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London Transport presented their evaluation of options for the future of London Underground to the Deputy Prime Minister in September 226
  1997. In the following months, there were numerous meetings, with different Departments, at Ministerial and official level, with LT and their advisers at which all the issues were debated. We fully considered London Transport's proposals in reaching our decisions on a Public/Private Partnership.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of who will be liable in the case of a serious infrastructure failure on London Underground after concessions for managing the infrastructure of London Underground have been awarded to private companies; and if he will make a statement. [42365]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Under our proposals, the private sector will be responsible for financing, maintaining and modernising the Underground's infrastructure. The contractor, or contractors, will be subject to a tough performance regime with penalties for failure or poor performance. We will be working with London Transport and expert advisers to establish the details of the division of specific risks and liabilities between the public sector operating company and infrastructure contractor(s).

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the potential impact on London Underground fares of a fall in net revenues after concessions for managing the infrastructure of London Underground have been awarded to private companies; and if he will make a statement. [42364]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government's financial advisers looked at a range of assumptions about passenger revenues. Their analysis showed that the option announced by the Deputy Prime Minister on 20 March 1998,Official Report, columns 1539–56, is robust against a fall in revenues, and that substantial fare increases would therefore not be necessary to pay infrastructure contractors or meet the operating costs of the London Underground operating company. Once the GLA is established, London Underground fares will be a matter for the Mayor.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what controls there will be on the charges contractors can make to London Underground for use of track, signals and stations under his proposals; what estimate he has made of the likely impact on fares; and if he will make a statement. [42394]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The infrastructure contractor, or contractors, will be responsible for financing, maintaining and modernising the Underground's infrastructure, and will be paid by London Underground according to their contract. We will be working with London Transport and expert advisers to establish the details of the contractual payment mechanism, which will be based on paying the contractor according to performance.

  There is no reason to expect large increases in fares, which, once the GLA is established, will be a matter for the Mayor.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the transitional costs and ongoing costs of(a) keeping London Underground in the public sector,

  227
  (b) privatising the whole of London Underground as a single unit and (c) creating a number of concessions to take over the London Underground infrastructure; and if he will make a statement. [42362]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government's financial advisers made assessments of the transitional and ongoing costs of keeping London Underground in the public sector, and of awarding a contract, or contracts to finance, maintain and modernise the Underground's infrastructure. These assessments, along with other important factors such as safety, were fully considered by the Government in reaching our decision on a Public/Private partnership for London Underground. The financial comparisons showed that the Government's preferred option is likely to represent better value for money than retaining London Underground in its current form. No assessment was made of privatising the Underground, which was ruled out in the Manifesto.

  Minibus Drivers (Medical Tests)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment. Transport and the Regions what plans he has to compensate car licence holders over the age of 70 years for the fee of £55 for the medical test which is required to enable them to drive minibuses. [41854]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: It is not the Government's practice to reimburse or compensate for the cost of medical examinations required for obtaining or renewing a driving licence, and we have no plans to do so for licence holders over the age of 70 years who wish to drive minibuses.

  Priority Estates Project (Coventry)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the Priority Estates Project in Coventry. [41918]

  Mr. Caborn
  I am not aware of any Priority Estates Project in Coventry. If the question is a reference to the Willenhall Estate in Coventry then I understand that satisfactory progress is being made in its refurbishment through Estate Action and English Partnerships and private sector investment.

  Mon-Fri open

  Mon-Fri closed

  Sat open

  Sat closed

  Sun open

  Sun closed

  Fenchurch Street

  0545

  2140

  0630

  2140

  0715

  2140

  Barking

  0515

  2200

  0545

  2200

  0645

  2210

  Upminster

  0545

  2100

  0615

  2110

  0645

  2140

  West Horndon

  0615

  2000

  0815

  1740

  Closed

  Closed

  Laindon

  0530

  2000

  0615

  2100

  0615

  2100

  Basildon

  0530

  2200

  0615

  2100

  0645

  2000

  Pitsea

  0515

  2200

  0815

  2330

  0715

  2145

  Benfleet

  0515

  2200

  0615

  2200

  0615

  2145

  Leigh-on-Sea

  0545

  2200

  0715

  2000

  0815

  1930

  Chalkwell

  0615

  2000

  0815

  1740

  0815

  1540

  Westcliff-on-Sea

  0545

  2200

  0815

  1740

  0815

  1540

  Southend Central

  0545

  2200

  0615

  2200

  0745

  2200

  Southend East

  0515

  2200

  0815

  1540

  0815

  1540

  Thorpe Bay

  0515

  2200

  0815

  1540

  0815

  1540

  Shoeburyness

  0615

  2200

  0815

  1740

  0815

  1540

  Dagenham Dock

  0615

  1340

  Closed

  Closed

  Closed

  Closed

  Rainham

  0615

  2200

  0815

  1540

  Closed

  Closed

  Purfleet

  0615

  1300

  0615

  1340

  Closed

  Closed

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many planning applications were made in England in each year from 1992 to 1997. [42152]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The number of applications for planning permission and other related consents in England is shown in the table. Figures include 'county matters' applications, which are predominantly concerned with minerals extraction and waste disposal developments.

  Year

  All applications received (thousand)

  1992

  473

  1993

  474

  1994

  485

  1995

  459

  1996

  475

  1997

  496

  More detailed information is published quarterly by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in its Statistics of Planning Applications Information Bulletin. Copies are available in the House of Commons library.

  LTS Rail
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the terms of the franchise granted to LTS Rail in respect of the times for the opening of booking offices. [42414]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The franchise agreement requires LTS Rail to comply with the terms of the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement (TSA), which is overseen by the Rail Regulator. The TSA sets out the ticket office opening hours which each operator has agreed to as a signatory to the agreement. These hours may be varied only with the approval of the Rail Regulator (any short-term issues affecting station opening, such as staff shortage, are for the operator to manage in the light of its other business commitments). The table shows the ticket office opening hours set out in the TSA for stations managed by LTS Rail.
  229

  Mon-Fri open

  Mon-Fri closed

  Sat open

  Sat closed

  Sun open

  Sun closed

  Grays

  0520

  2200

  0715

  2210

  0715

  2140

  Tilbury Town

  0545

  2200

  0645

  2200

  0800

  1525

  East Tilbury

  0645

  1334

  0745

  2200

  Closed

  Closed

  Stanford-le-Hope

  0540

  2200

  0645

  2200

  0715

  1440

  Ockendon

  0645

  1300

  0815

  1540

  Closed

  Closed

  1515

  1840

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Chafford Hundred

  0600

  2000

  0800

  1600

  0800

  1610

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many sites of special scientific interest there were in England on 31 March; and what was their total area in hectares. [42441]

  Angela Eagle
  At 31 March, there were 3,987 Sites of Special Scientific Interest in England covering 967,365 hectares.

  Mobile Homes
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he proposes to take on pitch fees for owners of mobile homes. [42361]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department has established a working party to examine a number of concerns facing mobile home residents, including pitch fees. It comprises representatives from national residents' groups, the two main trade associations, local authorities and officials from my Department. The group is aiming to present its recommendations to Ministers by Spring 1999.

WALES

  Agricultural Grants Department
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the availability of Welsh speakers in Cardiff with suitable qualifications to staff a centralised agricultural grants department. [40912]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  On 16 March 1998,Official Report, column 459, I announced my plans to engage consultants for a study to assess the options for securing improved administration of Common Agriculture Policy payments in Wales.

  At this stage, the consultants have been asked to consider all feasible options. These could include options for centralising the service, for transferring responsibility for administering payments to MAFF or the Intervention Board, or for developing the service using the existing office structure.

  All options will be assessed in terms of the costs, benefits and risks they represent for the Welsh Office, including their ability to deliver a local bilingual service to farmers.

  60 per cent. of Welsh Office staff who have expressed an ability in the use of the Welsh language are Cardiff-based.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times he has met the Wales TUC to discuss(a) inward investment and (b) the prospects for industry in Wales. [41647]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend and I are in frequent touch with the Wales TUC and constituent unions on a wide variety of issues and both attended the Wales TUC conference last month.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the CBI to discuss(a) inward investment and (b) the prospects for industry in Wales. [41646]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend has not met the CBI. However, I have met them on several occasions, most recently on 27 April. Welsh Office officials are also in regular contact with the CBI on a wide variety of issues.

  Local Government Boundaries
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many responses from Wrexham community and town councils to his letter of consultation on the proposed boundary review of Llangollen dated 22 August 1997 he had received prior to the reminder letter sent from his Office on 2 October to Denbighshire town and community councils extending the deadline for replies to 18 October 1997; [41793]

  (2) how many responses from Denbighshire community and town councils to his letter of consultation on the proposed boundary review of Llangollen dated 22 August 1997 he had received prior to the reminder letter sent from his office on 2 October 1997 extending the deadline to 18 October. [41795]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Prior to 2 October 1997, 4 responses were received from community and town councils in Wrexham and 8 from those in Denbighshire.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what criteria he uses to establish the need to request a review of local government boundaries. [41796]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Under section 54(1) of the Local Government Act 1972, when making proposals to the Secretary of State, the Local Government Boundary Commission needs to be able to demonstrate that any changes are judged by the Commission to be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government.

  Consequently, the Secretary of State, in considering whether to request a review, will also have regard to any relevant information that could suggest that the existing boundary may no longer provide for effective and convenient local government.
  231
  The Secretary of State would give careful consideration to the nature and level of representations from local councils, other elected representatives and the community at large.

  Given the diversity of local government areas, each request would be considered on its merit.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for what reasons no letter of reminder was sent to community councils in the Wrexham area following his request to them for their views on the boundary review of Llangollen and Llantysilio wards on 22 August 1997. [41794]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  On 22 August 1997, consultation letters on the proposed boundary review were sent to all local councils in both counties.

  On 28 September 1997, the Denbighshire Association of Local Councils sought an extension of the time allocated for responding to the consultation as it had information that the letter of 22 August had not reached all councils in the country. Community councils in that area were therefore given a further 2 weeks to respond.

  No representations were received then or since from community councils in the Wrexham area to indicate that they had not received the consultation letter or been denied the opportunity to make representations before the Secretary of State announced his decision in February 1998.

  Responses to the consultation from individuals and organisations received up to February 1998 were taken into account by the Secretary of State in reaching his decision on this matter.

  Gwent Tertiary College
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 8 May 1998,Official Report, column 513, on Gwent Tertiary College, if he will place copies of the letters from the Chairman of Gwent Tertiary College Further Education Corporation in the Library. [42147]

  Mr. Hain
  As the Chairman of Gwent Tertiary College Further Education Corporation has written to me on an in confidence basis, I think it would be better if my hon. Friend approached the College directly for a copy of his letters.

SCOTLAND

  A848
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in upgrading the A848 Salen to Tobermory Road since 1992; when the upgrade is expected to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [41631]

  Mr. McLeish
  Since 1992 there have been 4 schemes to upgrade specific sections of this local road. The current project which upgrades 4.8km of single track road to 2 lane carriageway from Tobermory is expected to be largely completed by the end of May. Further improvements are a matter for Argyll and Bute Council as local roads authority for Mull.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland had been on waiting lists for NHS treatment for(a) 0 to 3 months, (b) 3 to 6 months, (c) 6 to 9 months, (d) 9 to 12 months and (e) over 12 months on 31 March. [42337]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Information on the number of patients with a guarantee, and the time spent on waiting lists for NHS treatment in Scotland at 31 March 1998, is provided in the table:

  NHS patients on waiting list in Scottish hospitals: Number and time spent on waiting list at 31 March 1998

  Months1

  Number

  Under 3

  55,591

  3 to 6

  19,217

  6 to 9

  8,392

  9 to 12

  3,565

  Over 12

  0

  1 Length of time patients with a waiting time guarantee have waited on the waiting list. (Source SMR3).

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Over-the-counter Medicines
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to review resale price maintenance on over-the-counter medicine prices. [41578]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 12 May 1998]: None. This is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading, who has already brought proceedings before the Restrictive Practices Court asking it to review the matter.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she had received in respect of the future of resale price maintenance in the field of over-the-counter medicines; what proposals she has to safeguard the position of local pharmacies and to protect the supply of such medicines to consumers; and if she will make a statement. [42108]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have received a number of representations from right hon. and hon. Members and from pharmacists and their representatives about resale price maintenance on over-the-counter medicines. Proceedings before the Restrictive Practices Court have been initiated by the Director General of Fair Trading and I would expect the Court to examine fully all the issues which might arise from the retention or abolition of resale price maintenance in this sector, including the effect on local communities of the possible closure of pharmacies.

  Genetically Engineered Animals
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the United Kingdom patents which have been published since 1 June 1997 in respect of genetically engineered animals and processes for creating such animals. [42273]

  Mr. Battle
  There have been a total of three patent applications under the Patents Act 1997 published since 1 June 1997. Two of these are Patent Co-operation Treaty Applications which have entered the national phase and have been published as applications Nos. GB 2318792
  233
  and GB 2318578. They relate to the manipulation of animal embryos and the animals produced therefrom. The third, GB 2312899, relates to transgenic animals encoding an agent involved in the regulation of bone marrow. None of these applications has yet been granted. This information does not include applications filed at the European Patent Office and which may have the legal effect of UK patents if granted by that office.

  Mobile Telecommunications Networks
  Ms Hewitt
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the preparations for issuing licences under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts for operators of third generation mobile telecommunications networks. [42794]

  Mrs. Roche
  The UK has been at the forefront of developing mobile telecommunications in Europe, and I am determined that it should retain that position. Third generation mobile—also known as UMTS or Universal Mobile Telecommunications Systems—offers exciting prospects for new jobs, new services and new investment, and I aim to ensure that the UK benefits fully from this new technology.

  To that end, we intend to hold an auction of UMTS licences in the summer of 1999, subject to market and other developments and to final decisions nearer the time. This timetable takes account of responses to the Government's consultation document 'Multimedia Communications on the Move', further discussions with industry, and advice from N M Rothschild and Sons.

  In offering through an auction licences to use specified frequencies for the delivery of UMTS, the Government's overall aim is to secure, for the long-term benefit of UK consumers and the national economy, the timely and economically advantageous development and sustained provision of UMTS services in the UK.

  Subject to this overall aim, the Government's objectives are to (i) utilise the available UMTS spectrum with optimum efficiency, (ii) promote effective and sustainable competition for the provision of UMTS services, and (iii) subject to the above objectives, design an auction which is best judged to realise the full economic value to consumers, industry and the taxpayer of the spectrum.

  In developing detailed auction proposals, my Department will continue fully to consult industry.

  Motor Vehicles
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the pricing structure for the sale of motor vehicles in the UK relative to that in other EU countries; and what plans she has to review the pricing structure for the sale of motor vehicles in the UK. [42046]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Following an initiative by the Government at the meeting of European Union Finance Ministers at York in March, the European Commission has been asked to carry out an investigation into price disparities between different EU markets of a range of products and services, including cars.
  234
  I propose to await the outcome of this investigation, before considering whether it would be appropriate to take any further action.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the export from the UK of second-hand cars which do not meet environmental standards in the UK. [42048]

  Mr. Battle
  All vehicles sold in the UK must meet EU environmental standards for emissions. Any vehicle being exported outside the EU will have to meet the standards of the importing country, which may differ significantly from EU standards.

  It is not possible from Customs and Excise export figures to identify separately those used motor vehicles which do not comply with UK environmental standards,

  Nuclear Materials (Georgia)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on how many occasions she sought to prevent the importation of nuclear materials from Georgia. [42087]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: The issue of whether the UK should accept approximately 5 kg of high enriched uranium from Georgia was considered in the normal way through consultation among relevant Government departments and discussion by the appropriate Cabinet committee. Following these discussions, all departments involved, including the Department of Trade and Industry, agreed that, given the non-proliferation and nuclear safety arguments, the UK should agree to accept the material.

  Medical Isotopes
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the oral statement of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), of 22 April 1998,Official Report, column 821, if she will list the locations at which the UKAEA makes medical isotope targets. [42088]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: The UKAEA manufacture targets, for use in the production of medical isotopes, at their Dounreay site in Caithness.

  Oil Platforms
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many oil platforms there are in British waters; what is the estimated date of decommissioning for each; what decommissioning options are currently being considered for each oil platform in operation in British waters; and what is the Government's preferred option for disposing of oil platforms in British waters; [41123]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the potential cost to public funds of tax reliefs for the decommissioning of oil platforms in the North Sea over the next 10 years; [41124]

  (3) what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the disposal of oil platforms at sea. [41125]

  Mrs. Beckett
  There are approximately 250 offshore oil and gas installations currently located on the UK Continental Shelf. The majority will reach the end of their
  235
  useful lives during the next 25 years but the peak years for decommissioning activity are expected to be between 2003 and 2012.

  Our policy is based on a presumption in favour of land disposal except where, taking account of the environment as a whole, such a course is neither safe nor practicable. Generic studies have demonstrated that the great majority of existing installations will be brought onshore for re-use, recycling or disposal. These studies have also shown that the current generic solution for large concrete installations is to leave them in place. There is no single generic solution for heavy steel installations located in deeper water and we consider that these structures should be assessed on a case-by-case basis with decisions based on solid analysis and in the light of open and transparent consultations.

  Gross decommissioning costs over the next 25 years are estimated to be in the range of £7 billion to £10 billion at current day prices. The Inland Revenue estimates that around 50 per cent. of the costs will be met by the Exchequer through tax relief. Decommissioning costs generally qualify for tax relief under the normal Petroleum Revenue Tax and Corporation Tax rules. Royalty relief is currently available where royalty has been paid on that licence.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Security Clearance
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what account her Department takes of criminal records consisting solely of homosexual activity engaged in prior to 1982, where such activity has been decriminalised, in determining(a) security clearance and (b) employment within the RUC; and what changes to regulations have taken place since 1994. [41156]

  Mr. Ingram
  A candidate must meet the recruiting criteria in every respect. The RUC will take into account convictions for any and all criminal offences. The fact that an offence may have been decriminalised is not considered relevant.

  There have been no changes in policy relating to sexual orientation since 1994.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what circumstances(a) non-criminal homosexual activity and (b) sexual orientation would debar a candidate from security clearance to become an RUC officer; and what changes in the regulations have occurred since 1994. [41157]

  Mr. Ingram
  A candidate must meet the recruiting criteria in every respect. There is nothing to debar a person who had engaged in non-criminal homosexual activity or to debar a person because of their sexual orientation.

  There have been no changes in policy relating to sexual orientation since 1994.

  Petrol Stations
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many petrol stations have closed in Northern Ireland in(a) 1997 and (b) in 1998 to date. [41532]
  236
  Mr. Ingram
  This information is not held by NI Departments.

  Petroleum Products (Smuggling)
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions she had held with the RUC about the illegal importation of petroleum products into Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement. [41533]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have not held any discussions with the RUC about the illegal importation of petroleum products into Northern Ireland. This is a matter for HM Customs and Excise.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations she has received from the Petrol Retailers Association about the illegal importation of petroleum products; and what response she made. [41531]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received a letter from the Petrol Retailers Association concerning these issues. As importation of products across UK national boundaries is a matter for Customs and Excise and HMT, the letter was passed to HMT for answer.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action she is taking to prevent the illegal importation of petroleum products into Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement. [41536]

  Mr. Ingram
  Illegal importation of products across UK national boundaries is a matter for Customs and Excise and HMT and I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Financial Secretary on 14 May 1998,Official Report, columns 174–75.

  Castle Buildings Agreement
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the new commissions and other bodies that will be brought into being under the Castle Buildings Agreement, stating the estimated(a) annual running costs and (b) number of staff to be employed by each entity. [42161]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The new commissions and other bodies which will (or may) be brought into being under the Agreement are listed. No reliable estimates for annual running costs and the number of staff to be employed by each entity are yet available.>Northern Ireland Assembly
  Civic Forum
  North/South Ministerial Council
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  British/Irish Council
  British/Irish Intergovernmental Conference
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.

  In addition an independent Commission on policing for Northern Ireland will be established with the aim of publishing a final report by summer 1999.

  Assembly Members (Pay)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what salary and expenses she proposes to pay to(a) each member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and (b) each Minister. [42163]
  237
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The salary and expenses payable to members and Ministers in the New Assembly (depending on whether Section 1 of the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998 is brought into force) are under consideration and I am not therefore in a position to reply.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement about the decision concerning the number of graduate management trainees to be recruited to the Northern Ireland Civil Service in 1997. [42167]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  No trainees were recruited into the Management Trainee programme in 1997 but it is proposed to recruit a minimum of 10 trainees in 1998.

  Additionally, 20 trainees were recruited in 1996, the first year of operation of the scheme. This pattern of recruitment reflects Departmental manpower requirements.

  Election Personation
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement about the implications of the use of forged medical cards for election personation; and what recent progress has been made in eliminating this form of fraud. [42166]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Government are aware of concern over forged medical cards for election personation. While the medical card cannot be withdrawn from the list of specified documents without an adequate replacement, the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that my own Election Review is currently looking at every part of the polling process, both to enhance polling station procedures and accessibility, but also to consider alterations to present identity requirements.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Court Centres
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the court centres to which(a) he and (b) the Lord Chancellor have paid official visits since 1 May 1997, and the date of each such visit. [41714]

  Total legal aid budget (£ million)

  Personal injury cases (£ million)

  % of total

  Contractual disputes (£ million)

  % of total

  Judicial review cases (£ million)

  % of total

  Criminal cases1 (£ million)

  % of total

  Family law cases2 (£ million)

  % of total

  1992–93

  646.9

  85.1

  13.16

  29.1

  4.49

  5.0

  0.78

  283.9

  44

  272.4

  42.10

  1993–94

  813.9

  121.2

  14.89

  40.2

  4.94

  6.7

  0.82

  321.6

  40

  332.0

  40.79

  1994–95

  922.5

  151.5

  16.42

  44.1

  4.78

  7.9

  0.86

  362.1

  39

  351.2

  38.06

  1995–96

  1,071.5

  189.4

  17.67

  56.0

  5.23

  10.1

  0.94

  384.3

  36

  373.5

  34.86

  1996–97

  1,178.0

  219.8

  18.66

  60.3

  5.12

  10.5

  0.90

  411.1

  35

  392.5

  33.32

  1 The category Criminal cases includes details of criminal higher, criminal magistrates, duty solicitors and green form scheme

  2 The category family law cases includes divorce, divorce injunction, ancillary relief, residence and contract, nullity, domestic violence, Child Support Act 1995 and the Children Act 1989.

  Note:

  These figures are based on cases closed within each year.
  238
  Mr. Hoon
  Since 1 May 1997, the following visits to court centres have been undertaken by the Lord Chancellor and by me.

  Date

  Court centres

  Lord Chancellor

  27 June 1997

  Royal Courts of Justice, Belfast

  30 July 1997

  Central Criminal Court, London

  7 November 1997

  Chippenham Magistrates' Court

  6 February 1998

  Luton Crown Court

  Luton County Court

  20 February 1998

  Londonderry Court

  3 April 1998

  Royal Courts of Justice, London

  24 April 1998

  Birmingham Combined Court Centre

  15 May 1998

  Manchester Crown Court

  Manchester County Court

  Mr. Geoff Hoon MP

  18 July 1997

  Nottingham Magistrates' Court

  Ilkeston Magistrates' Court

  24 July 1997

  Royal Courts of Justice, London

  25 July 1997

  Stockport Magistrates' Court

  10 September 1997

  Coventry Combined Court Centre

  Stoke-on-Trent Magistrates' Court

  24 September 1997

  Newton Aycliffe Magistrates' Court

  Durham County Court

  Newcastle-Upon-Tyne Magistrates' Court

  25 September 1997

  Liverpool Combined Court Centre

  6 October 1997

  Royal Courts of Justice, Belfast Craigavon Combined Court

  Belfast Crown Court

  2 December 1997

  Central London County Court

  11 December 1997

  Snaresbrook Crown Court

  9 January 1997

  Stoke-on-Trent Magistrates' Court

  26 January 1998

  Uxbridge Magistrates' Court

  13 March 1998

  Cheltenham Magistrates' Court

  Gloucester Magistrates' Court

  22 April 1998

  Central London County Court

  1 May 1998

  Nottingham County Court

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Garner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list(a) the sums of money and (b) the proportions of the total legal aid budget for each of the last five years for which figures are available taken up by (i) personal injury cases, (ii) contractual disputes, (iii) judicial review cases, (iv) criminal cases and (v) family law cases. [41503]

  Mr. Hoon
  Gross expenditure in cases closed as a proportion of total expenditure in cases closed in each of the last five years for (i) personal injury cases, (ii) contractual cases, (iii) judicial review cases, (iv) criminal cases and (v) family law cases was as follows:

  Harassment
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which sections of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 have been implemented; and what are his plans for the implementation of outstanding sections. [42288]

  Mr. Hoon
  So far as England and Wales are concerned, all relevant parts of the Act have been commenced with the exception of section 3 sub-sections 3–9. These sub-sections will be commenced as soon as rules designed to facilitate the operation of the Act have been approved. The final consultation process on the rules is under way at present and will be completed as quickly as possible.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Drivers (Leaflets)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers he has to act against individuals distributing(a) leaflets and (b) other items to those in vehicles on the highway. [41792]

  Mr. Michael
  The situation described would be an operational matter for the police. Police officers could deal with it by a verbal warning and moving those distributing the material from the roadway. Alternatively, if they thought it appropriate, they could charge the offenders under a number of different statutes ranging from those concerned with obstruction of the highway to possible public order offences. The offences charged would depend on the precise circumstances of the incident.

  Foreign Nationals
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals were charged with(a) possession of a false instrument and (b) attempting to obtain services by deception; how many were subsequently sentenced to a term of imprisonment; and what was the average sentence length in the last year for which figures are available. [41816]

  Mr. Michael
  Under section 26(1)(d) of the Immigration Act 1971, a foreign national is guilty of a criminal offence if, without lawful authority, he alters any certificate of entitlement, entry clearance, work permit or other document made under or for the purpose of the Act; or if he has in his possession any passport, certificate of entitlement, entry clearance, work permit or other document which is known (or he has reasonable cause to believe) to be false. However, it is also possible that other legislation, which although not referring exclusively to passports, may be used to deal with foreign nationals arrested for this type of crime.

  Detailed information on persons charged by offence is not collected centrally. Information held on the Home Office Court Proceedings database for 1996 (latest available) shows nine prosecutions and five convictions under section 26(1)(d) of the Act. Only one offender was given a custodial sentence which was for the period of one month.
  240
  The Court Proceedings database does not record a person's nationality and is unable to identify all benefit fraud cases, as the majority are dealt with under section 1 of the Theft Act 1968, which covers a multitude of circumstances.

  Police Vehicles
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what directions he has given to police authorities on the conversion of vehicles in existing fleets to(a) liquid petroleum gas and (b) compressed natural gas. [42066]

  Mr. Michael
  No directions have been given, but a number of police forces are currently engaged in trials of alternative fuels, the results of which will be disseminated by the National Association of Police Fleet Managers.

  CS Gas
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines his Department issues on the use of CS gas against individuals being restrained by police officers. [41980]

  Mr. Michael
  The Home Office has not issued guidelines to the police on the use of CS spray. This is an operational matter and the responsibility of individual chief police officers. A copy of the guidance issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers, has been placed in the Library.

  Animal Care (Universities)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the letter of Lord Williams of Mostyn AP/981/10/207, what assessment he has made of the quality of animal care in British universities. [41121]

  Mr. George Howarth
  All designated establishments are regularly inspected, on both an announced and unannounced basis, by members of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate.

  I am satisfied that the quality of animal care in British universities generally attains the high standards required under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 and the Codes of Practice issued under the Act. Where unexpected problems do occur, it is important that, in addition to any action taken by the Inspectorate, local controls are in place to ensure appropriate remedial action is taken.

  We announced on 6 November 1997, Official Report, column 285, that local ethical review processes would become mandatory in all establishments. These will play an important role in promoting the care and welfare of animals within each establishment.

  Firearms Compensation
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how his Department has disposed of the guns and ancillary equipment surrendered under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. [42241]

  Mr. Michael
  The majority of guns and ancillary equipment surrendered will be destroyed in accordance with local police force arrangements. Some will be retained by the police for training purposes or acquired by suitably authorised museums.
  241
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he has made to handle disputes over levels of compensation under Category C claims of the Firearms Compensation Scheme. [42310]

  Mr. Michael
  The arrangements are set out in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the booklet on the original Scheme. Under the terms of Option C, claimants must submit valid documentary evidence of the value of the items claimed as at 16 October 1996. Where that evidence supports the amount claimed, then the claim will be paid. If the evidence is unsatisfactory, then the Firearms Compensation Section will request further evidence from the claimant. If that evidence is satisfactory, then the claim will be met. Where no additional evidence is submitted or the additional evidence remains unsatisfactory, the claim will be paid at the listed value or, where appropriate, the police force involved will be asked to obtain a further valuation from an independent source, selected at the discretion of the chief officer. Where this is obtained, the valuation will normally be used to calculate the payment to the claimant.

  This final independent valuation stage provides a last resort arrangement to ensure that no claim should be incapable of being resolved satisfactorily.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects claim reference HER 13040 to be settled under the firearms compensation scheme; and if interest will be paid on this claim. [41983]

  Mr. Michael
  The claim with the police reference number HER 13040 was received in the Firearms Compensation Section on 15 October 1997, and the Option A and B elements are now being processed. The Option C elements, which will require individual consideration of the evidence of value provided, will be dealt with at a later date.

  There is no provision in the compensation scheme for the payment of interest if claims are not dealt with in a particular time. As I have said to the House on many occasions, this is a complex and generous compensation scheme which Parliament approved, and which is being implemented as quickly as possible, having regard to the need for close scrutiny of claims to guard against fraud and incorrect payment.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the dates in the last 12 months on which members of the Association of Chief Police Officers Administration of Firearms and Explosives Licensing Sub-Committee attended the Home Office Working Groups on(a) the Reference Panel on Historic Firearms, (b) the Firearms Forms, (c) the Approved Club Criteria and (d) the Home Office Memorandum of Guidance on the Administration of Firearms revision; and if he will list the names of the (i) committee members, and (ii) others attending each of these meetings. [42412]

  Mr. Michael
  Details of those attending each meeting of the first three Working Groups (including members absent) for each date on which the Groups met in the last 242
  12 months are set out in the table. There is no working group on the revision of the Home Office Memorandum of Guidance to the Police.

  Members

  The Historic Firearms Reference Panel

  12 September 1997

  Mr. Graham Widdecombe (Chair)

  Home Office

  Mr. Simon Barrett

  Home Office

  DCC Graham Bennet

  Fife Constabulary

  Superintendent Jim Duncan

  Grampian Police

  Mr. Michael Lobb

  Northamptonshire Police

  Mr. Ian McColl

  Cambridgeshire Constabulary

  Mr. Richard Milner

  RFD

  Mr. David Penn

  Imperial War Museum

  Mr. Bob Pitcher

  London Proof House

  Dr. Christopher Roads

  Historic Arms Rescue

  Mr. Tom Warlow

  Forensic Science Service

  Mr. Herbert Woodend

  MOD Pattern Room

  Mr. Richard Worth (minutes)

  Home Office

  17 September 1997

  Mr. Graham Widdecombe (Chair)

  Home Office

  Mr. Simon Barrett

  Home Office

  Chief Inspector David Morris

  South Wales Constabulary

  Superintendent Jim Duncan

  Grampian Police

  Mr. Michael Lobb

  Northamptonshire Police

  Mr. Ian McColl

  Cambridgeshire Constabulary

  Mr. Richard Milner

  RFD

  Mr. David Penn

  Imperial War Museum

  Dr. Christopher Roads

  Historic Arms Rescue

  Mr. Tom Warlow

  Forensic Science Service

  Mr. Richard Worth (minutes)

  Home Office

  The Forms Working Group

  19 February 1998

  Mr. Simon Barrett

  Home Office

  Mr. Richard Worth

  Home Office

  Mr. Alec Moffat

  Fife Constabulary

  Superintendent Jim Duncan

  Grampian Police

  Sgt. Peter Johnson

  Merseyside Police

  Mr. Ian McColl

  Cambridgeshire Constabulary

  Ms Helene Rogers

  South Wales Constabulary

  B. G. Carter Esq

  Director, The Gun Trade Association Ltd.

  C. A. Ewing Esq OBE

  National Rifle Association

  Mr. Bill Harriman

  British Shooting Sports Council

  Mr. Derek Phillips

  Office of Legislative Affairs

  Mr. R. V. Malbon

  The Sportsman's Association

  David Penn Esq

  Imperial War Museum/Muzzle Loader's Association

  The Clubs Criteria Working Group

  17 November 19971

  Mr. Barrett (Chair)

  Home Office

  Mr. Courtney

  Muzzle Loaders Association

  Superintendent Duncan

  Grampian Police

  Mr. Ewing

  FCC/NRA

  Mr. Hoare

  BSSC/FCC/NRA

  Mark Groothuis

  Firearms Licensing Officer, Hampshire Constabulary

  Ch. Insp. Talbot

  Hampshire Constabulary

  Mr. Bottomley (Secretary)

  Home Office

  1 Apologies from Mr. Fruin, Home Office, and Ms McGlynn, Scottish Office

  Everthorpe Prison
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of recent measures to remove drugs and alcohol from Everthorpe Prison on discipline at that prison. [42062]
  243
  Mr. George Howarth
  Everthorpe has 96 prisoners in units reserved for those who are committed not to use drugs. These units were introduced three years ago. Places in them are available only to prisoners whose general behaviour also qualifies them for the enhanced regime, and the standard of behaviour in the units is good. On average, two prisoners per month are removed from the drug-free units, either for failing a drugs test or for failing to maintain the standard of behaviour required of prisoners on the enhanced regime.

  An alcohol counsellor has recently been re-engaged after a nine month gap, so it is too soon to comment on the effects of her work. However, there are no indications that alcohol is a particular problem at Everthorpe.

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the current numbers and percentages of the prison population using(a) cannabis, (b) ecstasy and (c) heroin. [41639]

  Ms Quin
  Our best estimate of the numbers of prisoners using illegal drugs is drawn from the results of random mandatory drug testing (MDT). While it is recognised that, for a number of reasons, MDT results cannot be a complete measure of prevalence of drug misuse in prisons, the results do provide for the first time a reliable and statistically valid way of measuring patterns and trends of drug misuse across establishments and over time.

  Laboratory screening does not differentiate ecstasy from the amphetamine group as a whole, or heroin from other opiates, so it is not possible to provide figures specifically for ecstasy or heroin.

  There were 45,613 random tests in total during the first three quarters of 1997–98. Of these, 7,754 (17 per cent.) were positive for cannabis; 91 (0.2 per cent.) for amphetamines; and 1,870 (4.1 per cent.) for opiates. Final figures are not yet available for the fourth quarter.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of prisons he forecasts will be free of the use of illegal drugs by 2002. [42060]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Our best estimate of the numbers of prisoners using illegal drugs is drawn from the results of random mandatory drug testing (MDT). A number of prisons do return entirely negative results of drug testing. But, because random testing involves the testing of only a proportion of a prison's population each month and, for a number of reasons, MDT results cannot be a complete measure of prevalence of drug misuse in prisons, it would not be safe to claim that a prison is free of drug misuse.

  We are committed to the aim of enabling all prisoners to have access to voluntary testing units in order to demonstrate that they are drug free.

  Over 4,000 places can now be provided in voluntary testing units and the Prison Service is working to expand this number to achieve our aim.

  It would be unrealistic to put a figure on the future number of drug free prisons, since there are too many unpredictable variables. However, we aim through
  244
  measures already underway and those planned for the future to reduce the number of prisons where illegal drugs are misused.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the(a) longest and (b) shortest jail sentence handed down to a person convicted of growing cannabis other than for his or her own use since 1980. [42138]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information is not available as to whether people convicted or cautioned for growing cannabis were cultivating it for their own use.

  Information on the length of jail sentences imposed for offences of the cultivation/production of cannabis is not available before 1986. Information for the period 1986–92 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Available data for 1993–95 are given in the table; similar data for 1996 are not yet available.

  Number of persons sentenced to immediate custody for production of cannabis

  England and Wales, 1993–95

  Length of sentence

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Up to and including 1 month

  20

  38

  40

  Over 1 month and up to 3 months

  16

  28

  43

  Over 3 months and up to 6 months

  8

  19

  33

  Over 6 months and up to 1 year

  5

  22

  32

  Over 1 year and up to 2 years

  3

  11

  25

  Over 2 years and up to 5 years

  1

  9

  15

  Over 5 years and up to 7 years

  0

  0

  3

  Over 7 years

  1

  0

  0

  Total

  54

  127

  191

  Average (months)

  6.7

  8.1

  10.2

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Equestrian Establishments
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the most appropriate way to support small equestrian establishments. [41667]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 12 May 1998]: None directly. However, the Government recognise the importance of sport and we want to ensure access to a wide range of facilities, including equestrian, for the many not the few. The English and UK Sports Councils continue to work with local authorities and governing bodies on the best way of meeting this aim.

  Swimming
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to ensure that the teaching of swimming is eligible for funding under the New Opportunities Fund. [41454]

  Mr. Banks
  Swimming teaching will be eligible for funding under the New Opportunities Fund, particularly under the out of school hours activities initiative which will include sporting activities which aim to assist the social development of children and young people. The
  245
  healthy living centres initiative could also raise awareness of the importance of healthy physical activity such as swimming since centres will be designed to provide information, advice and support to help people improve their health and wellbeing. Future initiatives supported by the New Opportunities Fund could also potentially provide funding for swimming. Swimming is, of course, already eligible for Lottery funding from the four national Sports Councils.

  Heritage Lottery Fund
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to ensure equity of distribution between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in the distribution of Heritage Lottery funds. [41450]

  Mr. Banks
  The Government are determined to ensure that Lottery money is allocated more fairly and equitably in the light of need across the whole of the United Kingdom and between different groups in society. The National Lottery Bill requires the Heritage Lottery Fund and the other Lottery distributors to demonstrate in their strategic plans how they will achieve this. The Bill also gives distributors new powers to encourage specific applications which do not come forward spontaneously. In addition, proposed new Policy Directions, drafts of which are in the Libraries of the House, emphasise the need to ensure that all parts of the country have equal access to Lottery funds. These measures should help areas that have benefited less in the past.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what criteria the Heritage Lottery Fund uses to decide whether an application has outstanding merit. [41451]

  Mr. Banks
  The Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) uses seven main criteria to assess applications. These are as follows:Importance of the project to the heritage
  Conservation benefits of the project
  Access benefits of the project
  Additional public benefits
  Quality of design of the project
  Financial need and viability
  Strengths of the organisation.

  Further information on the assessment process is set out in the HLF's application pack, which has recently been updated. Copies are available in the House Libraries.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Regional Grand Committees
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Council what proposals she has for regional Grand Committees. [41335]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  Standing Order No. 117 already provides for the establishment of a Standing Committee on Regional Affairs.

  Back Benchers' Debates
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the President of the Council what plans she has to improve opportunities for debates for Back Benchers. [41336]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  I am prepared to listen to any suggestions, but it will not be easy to find extra time for such debates within the current sitting hours of the House.

  Ministerial Replies
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on her progress in ensuring earlier replies to hon. Members from her ministerial colleagues. [41338]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  Further to my comments in the House on 12 March 1998,Official Report, column 752, I wrote to my Ministerial colleagues on 31 March 1998 asking them to take action where necessary and Sir Richard Wilson has written to all Permanent Secretaries asking them to make every effort to ensure high quality and timely replies.

  Modernisation Committee
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the President of the Council what representations she has received on the reports of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons. [41331]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  Almost all the representations I have received support the recommendations of the Committee. The House will be able to consider the third and fourth reports in a debate after the Whitsun recess.

  Parliamentary Working Hours
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Council what plans she has to alter the working hours of the House. [41334]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The Modernisation Committee will shortly be considering the parliamentary calendar, including the working hours of the House.

  Number of Members
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the President of the Council if she will undertake a review of the total number of hon. Members of the House. [41337]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The Scotland Bill, currently before the House, provides for some reduction in the number of Members of the House after the next Boundary Commission report is implemented. I have no other plans to review the size of the House.

  Recycling Sacks
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee how many recycling sacks were distributed around the Palace of Westminster last year. [41330]

  Mrs. Roe
  In Financial Year 1997–1998, 100,000 paper recycling sacks were issued over the Parliamentary Estate.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  India
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans her Department has to review aid contributions to the Indian sub-continent. [42563]

  Clare Short
  The British development programmes in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal are being reviewed this year in the light of the new policies set out in the Government'sWhite Paper on International Development.

  Pakistan
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid programmes her Department is currently supporting in Pakistan and at what costs; and what was the comparable figure for 1997–98. [42232]

  Clare Short
  The main focus of our development co-operation with Pakistan is improving basic social services, such as elementary education and reproductive health. We are also helping to create better basic infrastructure and livelihoods for poor communities, in both rural and urban areas; and we are supporting various initiatives by Pakistan to enhance the quality of its governance. Final disbursement figures for the 1997–98 UK Financial Year are not yet available, but are expected to maintain the present pattern of spending on our bilateral programme of around £25 million annually.

  Montserrat Building Society
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what actions she has taken and what actions she proposes to assist the Montserrat Building Society. [41805]

  Clare Short
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on 11 May 1998,Official Report, column 21. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is responsible for co-ordinating HMG's policy in respect of the Montserrat Building Society and other matters.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with(a) the Building Societies Association and (b) the Bank of England about the Montserrat Building Society. [41804]

  Clare Short
  None. HMG's policy towards the Montserrat Building Society is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office have been in close contact with the Bank of England. The Bank has offered advice but neither it nor the Building Societies Association has regulatory power in this case.

  Sri Lanka
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid programmes her Department is currently supporting in Sri Lanka and at what cost; and what was the comparable figure for 1997–98. [42234]
  248
  Clare Short
  We provided around £6 million of bilateral development assistance in 1997–98 to Sri Lanka, and expect to maintain this level of expenditure in the current year. The programme focuses on two major issues: raising the quality of primary education and helping those affected by civil conflict.

  We are working closely with the World Bank in improving education, concentrating on management and planning, and Maths and English. We are financing a relief and rehabilitation programme for families displaced by the civil conflict in the North and East, and contributing to parallel programmes of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). In addition, we are developing participatory management techniques with the Forest Department, raising the environmental management capacity of the Mahaweli Development Authority and improving the management of Colombo's sewers.

  Afghanistan
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid programmes her Department is currently supporting in Afghanistan and at what cost; and what was the comparable figure for 1997–98. [42258]

  Clare Short
  In March 1998, the Department for International Development (DFID) announced a £7.5 million humanitarian aid package for Afghanistan. This assistance will be disbursed over the 1997–98 and 1998–99 financial years as follows:£2 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) for medical relief;
  £4.4 million in response to the UN consolidated appeal for Afghanistan:
  £2 million for demining
  £1.9 million to help international agencies function in Afghanistan; support for strengthening co-ordination between aid agencies and for communications, logistics and aircraft to deliver essential supplies and personnel
  £500,000 for UN Food and Agriculture Organisation for improving livestock production;
  £1.1 million to non governmental organisations for education, health water and sanitation project.

  We do not yet have the final figures for expenditure during 1997–98; however, the expected outturn will be approximately £8 million.

  Consultation Papers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the consultation papers published since 1 May 1997 giving the date of publication, closing date for submissions and the number of respondents. [42242]

  Clare Short
  No consultation papers have been published by the Department for International Development.

  British Council
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures she proposes to take to ensure that the work funded by the grant in aid
  249
  to the British Council reflects her Department's aims of eliminating poverty in poorer countries; and if she will make a statement. [41806]

  Clare Short
  As part of the Departmental Spending Review, we are looking at the present funding arrangements of the Grant-in-Aid and the uses to which the funds are put. The outcome of the Reviews will be known by the summer.

  Sudan
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has held with(a) UNICEF, (b) the Red Cross and (c) representatives of the World Food Programme about humanitarian assistance for Sudan; and if she will make a statement. [41870]

  Clare Short
  I met UNICEF representatives on 29 April. My officials are in close contact with the Red Cross and other international non-governmental organisations about the humanitarian situation in Sudan. We are also in regular contact with the World Food Programme in Rome, Khartoum and Nairobi.

  The World Food Programme believes that there are now sufficient resources available and enough flights to deliver the supplies through until August, when the harvests are due to start. But we stand ready to provide more funds if needed.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what representations she has made to the Government of Sudan about restrictions on flights to Bahr al Ghazal since 9 March; and if she will make a statement; [41873]

  (2) what representations she has made to the Government of Sudan about the opening of relief corridors in Bahr al Ghazal since 9 March; and if she will make a statement. [41872]

  Clare Short
  We have pressed all parties to the conflict bilaterally and in our EU Presidency role for greater access to those in need. At our instigation, Sudan was discussed at the United Nations Security Council on 5 May.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will publish the Commonwealth Development Corporation's new code of conduct. [41746]

  Clare Short
  The Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC) existing statement of business principles refer to the annual report. CDC is currently working on a more detailed code of conduct which will be developed during 1998 based on a process of close consultation with interested parties. The new code of conduct will be published.

  UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made about changes to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child; and if she will make a statement. [42229]
  250
  Clare Short
  My Department has not made representations about changes to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. We support international efforts to enhance children's well-being through implementation of the Convention. We also promote children's protection and participation alongside the provision of effective and sustainable services.

  Indonesia
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much her Department spent in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) 1997–98 on programmes in Indonesia for(a) forestry management, (b) assistance to trade unions and (c) developing non-Governmental organisation activities in East Timor; and what plans she has for comparable expenditure in 1998–99. [42277]

  Clare Short
  Actual and forecast expenditure figures are as follows:

  £000

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Forestry

  4,038

  2,378

  11,350

  Trade Unions

  0

  0

  1250

  NGOs in East Timor

  0

  0

  1350

  1 Forecasts

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is giving to the Indonesian Human Rights Commission; and at what cost. [42276]

  Clare Short
  My Department is not currently assisting the Indonesian Human Rights Commission.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which assistance programmes in Indonesia have been discontinued by her Department in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–9. [42275]

  Clare Short
  All commitments inherited from the previous administration, some of which run to the year 2000, are running their full course. The Aid and Trade Provision is discontinued. We no longer support Police Training. Future assistance will centre on three areas; forestry management with stronger emphasis on the needs of the poor, trade unions and NGOs in East Timor.

  UN Agencies
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what was the financial contribution made by her Department to UN agencies during 1997–98; and what is the planned figure for 1998–99. [41748]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development (DFID) provided an estimated £123 million through multilateral programmes in 1997–98. In 1997, we also provided a further £30 million to UN agencies through our bilateral and emergency programmes in response to specific appeals.

  In 1998–99, we plan to provide at least £117 million to the UN through our multilateral programmes. In addition, we expect to provide further assistance under our bilateral and emergency aid programmes.

DEFENCE

  Army Recruitment
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest recruitment figures for the Army. [41294]

  Mr. George Robertson
  In the year to 31 March, the Army recruited 13,926 soldiers, the highest number since 1991. In addition, 708 officers were granted commissions during that period. The totals are, respectively, 88 per cent. and 97 per cent. of the targets for the year.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future deployment of British troops in the Balkans following the expiry of the SFOR mandate. [41313]

  Mr. George Robertson
  NATO is currently considering options for the size and shape of a force in Bosnia after June 1998. The Government will decide the precise nature of the UK's contribution in light of the recommendations of the NATO authorities and will announce the outcome to Parliament as soon as possible thereafter.

  Whilst the UK is seeking a reduction from its current contribution to SFOR, we expect to remain the second largest contributor after the United States.

  Warships
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many destroyers and frigates are undertaking long-term international commitments; and how many are currently undergoing refit or port maintenance. [41314]

  Dr. Reid
  Seven Destroyers/Frigates are currently undertaking long term international commitments. Four Destroyers/Frigates are undergoing refit or planned maintenance which reduces operational availability. Six Destroyers/Frigates are undergoing routine planned maintenance periods of three to six weeks which do not reduce operational availability and a further one is undergoing unplanned defect rectification.

  Carrier Operations
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those naval vessels which are required to support carrier operations. [41316]

  Dr. Reid
  Carrier operations are invariably supported by anti-submarine frigates, Air Defence destroyers and Royal Fleet Auxiliaries. Additionally, all other Fleet units, including submarines, mine-countermeasure vessels, specialist amphibious shipping and survey vessels may be required to support Carrier Operations depending upon the specific nature of the operation, the role of the carrier and the operating environment.

  Jaguar Squadrons
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when each of the two Royal Air Force Jaguar offensive support squadrons and the Jaguar reconnaissance squadron will be disbanded. [41317]
  252
  Dr. Reid
  Under current plans, the first Jaguar squadron will disband in April 2005, the second in March 2006 and the third in October 2008. The Strategic Defence Review has examined all aspects of the structure of the Armed Forces, including the Fast Jet fleet. Proposals on the SDR have been submitted to the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The Cabinet will now decide collectively on the outcome of the review. Publication of the SDR White Paper will follow as soon as decisions have been made.

  Defence Diversification
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the consultation period on the Government's Green Paper on defence diversification ends. [41318]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson).

  Territorial Army
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Territorial Army infantry. [41319]

  Dr. Reid
  The Strategic Defence Review has examined all aspects of our Armed Forces, including the Territorial Army and its Infantry Battalions. We have not yet taken any final decisions and it would be wrong for me to speculate as to what they might be.

  What I can say is that we clearly need a Territorial Army that is relevant to today's strategic environment, structured for all the roles that we can plausibly foresee. Our aim is to achieve a capable and useable Territorial Army, one that is modern, fit and ready for the service of a modern Britain.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received on the future of the Territorial Army centres. [41301]

  Dr. Reid
  My Department has received a number of representations concerning the future of many Territorial Army units and the centres they occupy.

  New Deal
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution his Department is making to the Government's new deal initiative. [41320]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Jenkins).

  Iraq
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his strategy for military deployment in the middle east to ensure compliance with United Nations resolutions relating to Iraq. [41321]

  Mr. George Robertson
  UK forces remain deployed in the Gulf to help ensure that Saddam Hussein complies with all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions. We would wish to see a pattern of Iraqi
  253
  compliance with relevant UNSCRs over a period of time before considering whether to change our military capability in the region.

  Land Mines
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to dispose of the United Kingdom's stocks of anti-personnel land mines. [41322]

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to dispose of the United Kingdom's stocks of anti-personnel land mines. [41326]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Plans have been drawn up to destroy all of the Army's operational stocks of anti-personnel land mines by 1 January 2000, which is well ahead of the timetable laid down by the Ottawa Convention. We are still working on arrangements for the destruction of the HB876 anti-personnel submunition of the RAF's JP233 Airfield denial weapon, but I am confident that this, too, will be achieved well before the Ottawa Convention deadline.

  European Defence Industry
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress towards restructuring of the European defence industry. [41324]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Government are keen to play their part in maintaining the impetus on this important initiative. To this end, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence met his counterparts from France, Germany, Italy and Spain on 20 April in order to discuss their common interest in restructuring the European defence industry. A joint statement was issued, in which ministers agreed to take action in five key areas: security of supply; export procedures; research and development funding; security of information and personnel clearances; and intellectual property rights. A letter of intent spelling out the objectives and principles for handling these issues and the timetable for the tasks involved is planned to be approved in June 1998.

  Equal Treatment
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the equal treatment of men and women serving in the armed forces. [41325]

  Dr. Reid
  The Armed Forces are committed, within the limits of the law, to being an equal opportunities employer, and to ensuring that progression through the Services is based solely on merit and ability. Men and women are recruited, interviewed and trained using the same procedures, and no special or preferential treatment is given to anyone who wishes to join the Armed Forces.

  We are determined to recruit the brightest and the best to the Armed Forces, irrespective of gender, ethnic origin or religious beliefs. We have increased opportunities for
  254
  women in the Army and have commissioned a fundamental review of the remaining areas where women are excluded on combat effectiveness grounds.

  Future Large Aircraft
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Her Majesty's Government will order the FLA troop and tank-carrying aircraft made by British firms. [41327]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Request for Proposals has been issued to Airbus, Turkish Aerospace Industries, Alenia and FLABEL on a provisional basis pending the formation of Airbus Military Company. We are still discussing with our partners when Requests for Proposals will be issued to other potential suppliers. A procurement decision will be made in the light of the conclusions of the Strategic Defence Review and of the responses to the Request for Proposals. FLA, as currently envisaged, will not be able to carry Main Battle Tanks.

  Armoured Fighting Vehicle Training
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his progress in finding alternative uses for(a) the Royal Navy facilities being released by the move of HMS Osprey and (b) the facilities at Bovington made available by the civilianisation of armoured fighting vehicle training. [41328]

  Dr. Reid
  At present, no alternative defence uses for the site at HMS Osprey have been identified. The Army Training and Recruiting Agency is looking at the site in the context of a study into options for rationalisation of the Adjutant General's Corps Training Group, which currently occupies a number of sites in the South. The results of the study will be published at the end of June. The awards of the facilities management contract at the Royal Armoured Corps Centre at Bovington and Lulworth has not resulted in the release of any specific facilities.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy in respect of members, or former members, of the reserve forces suffering from Gulf war syndrome. [41304]

  Dr. Reid
  Since coming into office, the Government have taken a wide range of initiatives to address the health concerns of Gulf veterans. These include work on issues of particular concern to those veterans who were mobilised from the reserves to serve during the conflict.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of his Department's plutonium holdings. [41323]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces on 13 March 1998,Official Report, column 432.

  Departmental Research
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what percentage of applications from women, in relation to his Department's research budget, were successful for(a) project grants, (b) programme grants, (c) special grants intended for new investigators, (d) studentships and (e) fellowships, in 1997 and each of the two previous years; [40880]

  (2) what percentage of applications, in relation to his Department's research budget, were from women, for (a) project grants, (b) programme grants, (c) special grants intended for new investigators, (d) studentships and (e) fellowships, in 1997 and each of the two previous years. [40881]

  Mr. Spellar
  Funding from the Defence research budget in respect of project grants and programme grants is specified not by individual names but by research packages and technology groups. New researchers may apply for funding under the Joint Grants Scheme, under which the relevant Research Council and MOD may each make up to a 50% contribution to research proposals with potential Defence application. Information on grants provided is not available in the form requested, as applicants are not required to give information about their sex. Studentships in engineering, both pre-university and for sponsorship until University finals, are funded from a central MOD budget and not from the Defence research budget. Historic figures are not kept but, of those currently sponsored by MOD to read engineering, 6.8% are women. A system of Research fellowships is being introduced in the current financial year. The process is at an early stage and information on the percentage of applications from women is not yet available.

  Sierra Leone
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when British aid was first delivered to the towns of(a) Bo, (b) Kenema and (c) Makeni in Sierra Leone by HMS Cornwall. [41938]

  Mr. George Robertson
  British aid was first delivered by HMS Cornwall to Bo on 2 March, Kenema on 3 March and Makeni on 7 March.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the ship's programme for HMS Cornwall which include her visit to Sierra Leone in March. [41880]

  Date

  Rank

  Role

  October 1995-March 1996

  Lt. Col.

  British Military Liaison Officer (BMLO), providing advice to the British High Commissioner and to Sierra Leone Armed forces on restructuring and training

  March 1996-October 1996

  Lt. Col.

  BMLO

  22–26 September 1996

  1 × Lt. Col.

  To advise the Republic of Sierra Leone Military Forces on civil-military relations

  October 1996-April 1997

  Lt. Col.

  BMLO

  24 November-1 December 1996

  1 × Lt. Cdr RN 1 × Lt. RN

  Advice on structure, capability and operating procedures of Navy

  23 March-7 June 1997

  1 × Capt. 1 × WO2

  Advice on basic military skills. (WO2 withdrawn on medical grounds on 16 May 1997)

  256
  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: The information on HMS Cornwall's programme of port visits since leaving the UK on 16 February is as follows:

  Date

  18–19 February 1998

  Routine port visit to Gibraltar to refuel.

  25 February 1998

  Arrived Conakry, Guinea.

  27 February 1998

  Sailed Conakry.

  1 March 1998

  Arrived Freetown, Sierra Leone.

  During the period 1 to 20 March, Cornwall left Freetown on a number of occasions as follows:

  Date

  3–5 March 1998

  Moved further south along the coast to position closer to Bo and Kenema and to replenish fresh water.

  7–9 March 1998

  Off the coast of Sierra Leone to make fresh water and for ship's company R and R.

  11–12 March 1998

  Overnight off the coast of Sierra Leone to make fresh water.

  13–14 March 1998

  Off the coast of Sierra Leone for ship's company R and R.

  15–16 March 1998

  Off the coast of Sierra Leone to replenish water stocks.

  20 March 1998

  Sailed Freetown.

  3–6 April 1998

  Agadir.

  8–19 April 1998

  Tenerife.

  20–22 April 1998

  Nouadhibou, Mauritania.

  24–27 April 1998

  Conakry, Guinea.

  1–5 May 1998

  Douala, Cameroon.

  7–11 May 1998

  Owendo, Gabon.

  14–18 May 1998

  Luanda, Angola.

  The remainder of Cornwall's programme currently includes visits to Namibia, South Africa, Ascension Island, and Ghana. There are also plans for her to pay a return visit to Freetown. Cornwall returns to the UK in August.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those British military personnel who have served in Sierra Leone since 1 January 1996 indicating their(a) name, rank and post held, (b) dates of service and (c) tasks undertaken. [41819]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: The details of British military personnel who have served in Sierra Leone since 1 January 1996 are as follows:
  257
  I am considering whether to release the names of those concerned, having regard to their current appointments and the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  In addition, Lt. Col. Hicks deployed to Conakry, Guinea, on 15 February prior to moving to Sierra Leone from 5–17 March 1998, as a military liaison officer in support of the British High Commissioner. He also visited Sierra Leone from 28 April-8 May 1998. Col. Gale who was the Defence Adviser in Accra, Ghana with non-resident accreditation (NRA) to Freetown between 1 January 1996 and February 1998, is currently serving in Sierra Leone as the Military Adviser to the United Nations Secretary General's Special Envoy. Lt. Col. Glover succeeded Col. Gale as Defence Adviser in Accra, with NRA to Freetown in February 1998; he visited Sierra Leone from 17–20 March 1998.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when HMS Cornwall received orders to proceed to Sierra Leone. [42098]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: HMS Cornwall was instructed on 27 February 1998 to enter Freetown on 1 March.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the latitude and longitude of HMS Cornwall at 0400 on 28 February. [41878]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: On 28 February at 0400, HMS Cornwall was at the position 08–53.2N8 latitude and 013–47.SW3 longitude.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the ship's log of HMS Cornwall between 1 January and 1 April. [41879]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: The logs requested are being collected in the UK and I will write to the hon. Member about the possible release of copies as soon as I am able.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates between 2 May 1997 and 4 May 1998 his Private Office received submissions or briefing notes on the situation in Sierra Leone. [42084]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: A large number of submissions and briefing notes which contained reference to the situation in Sierra Leone were received in my private office throughout the period in question.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on what date the Minister for the Armed Forces was first consulted about making available his Department's resources, equipment, communications facilities, military bases and service and civilian personnel in support of Sandline International's involvement in restoring the Government of Sierra Leone; [41844]

  (2) on what date he was first consulted about making available his Department's equipment, communications facilities, military bases and service and civilian personnel in support of Sandline International's involvement in restoring the Government of Sierra Leone. [41843]
  258
  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: Neither my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces nor I was consulted about any such proposal.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on what day(a) his officials or (b) his Private Office first gave him papers relating to potential operations by Sandline or others in Sierra Leone; and on what date he acknowledged them; [41958]

  (2) on what day the Defence Intelligence Organisation first passed him details of potential operations by Sandline and others in Sierra Leone. [41959]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: As far as I have been able to ascertain, the first report which my office received of Sandline's involvement in Sierra Leone was circulated on 11 March, referring to allegations of Sandline training the Kamajor. There was no mention in this report of arms supplies or a breach of the arms embargo. Potential operations and activities of others, primarily ECOMOG forces, were referred to in a number of reports circulated within the Department, including to Ministers' Offices, dating back to May 1997.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the aircraft and helicopters maintained, serviced and repaired by Royal Navy personnel based aboard HMS Cornwall since 1 January 1996 indicating(a) the type of aircraft or helicopter, (b) the owner of the aircraft or helicopter, (c) the dates when the work was carried out, (d) the location where the work was carried out and (e) the nature of the work done. [41818]

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what technical assistance has been given by British military personnel on board HMS Cornwall or on land in Sierra Leone, Guinea or Liberia to Sandline International since 1 January. [41877]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: The information back to 1996 is not readily available. However, HMS Cornwall has reported that, in March 1998, the ship's crew gave assistance on two occasions to an HIP MI 17 helicopter operated by Sandline in support of the ECOMOG Operations. On 6 March, the ECOMOG helicopter, carrying their Task Force Commander, landed at a heliport alongside HMS Cornwall after a bird strike. HMS Cornwall staff spent 2 hours repairing the aircraft. On 13 March the same helicopter sought and received minor assistance at the same heliport.

  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the inquiry announced by the Foreign Secretary on 6 May will cover the role of Ministers and civil servants in his Department. [41858]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: Yes, where relevant.

  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the role of HMS Cornwall in the waters off Sierra Leone in February and March. [41861]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: Following the ousting of the military junta by ECOMOG forces, HMS Cornwall was deployed to Sierra Leone to provide immediate humanitarian assistance to

  259
  the people of Sierra Leone, to support our diplomatic efforts there, and to assist in the return of the British High Commissioner.

  Sir George Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what role was played by British armed services in the recent overthrow of the military junta in Sierra Leone and the restoration to power of President Kabbah; [41860]

  (2) when officials in his Department were informed of the role of the UK armed services in the recent overthrow of the military junta and the restoration to power of President Kabbah in Sierra Leone; [41859]

  (3) when Ministers were informed of the role of UK armed services in the recent overthrow of the military junta and the restoration to power of President Kabbah in Sierra Leone. [41857]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The UK armed services did not have such a role.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what specific departmental resources, equipment, communication facilities, military bases and service and civilian personnel supported Sandline International's involvement in restoring the Government of Sierra Leone; [41842]

  (2) on what date the Chief of the Air Staff, the Assistant Chief of the Air Staff and their outer offices were first informed about the involvement of his Department's personnel and military assets in support of Sandline International in restoring the Government of Sierra Leone; [41836]

  (3) on what date the Chief of the Naval Staff, the Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff and their outer offices were first informed about the involvement of his Department's personnel and military assets in support of Sandline International in restoring the Government of Sierra Leone; [41838]

  (4) on what date the Permanent Secretary and his outer office staff were first informed about the involvement of his Department's personnel and military assets in support of Sandline International in restoring the Government of Sierra Leone; [41840]

  (5) on what date the Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff (Operations and Security) and his outer office were first informed about the involvement of his Department's personnel and military assets in support of Sandline International in restoring the Government of Sierra Leone; [41835]

  (6) on what date the Chief of the General Staff, the Assistant Chief of General Staff and their outer offices were first informed about the involvement of his Department's personnel and military assets in support of Sandline International in restoring the Government of Sierra Leone; [41837]

  (7) on what date the Chief of Defence Intelligence and his staff were first informed about the involvement of his Department's personnel and military assets in support of Sandline International in restoring the Government of Sierra Leone; [41839]
  260
  (8) on what date the Chief of the Defence Staff and his outer office were first informed about the involvement and his Department's personnel of military assets in support of Sandline International in restoring the Government of Sierra Leone. [41841]

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what day and at what level his Department first discussed with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office potential operations by Sandline or others in Sierra Leone. [41960]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made clear his intention, following the Customs investigation, to ask someone from outside the Foreign Office or Diplomatic Service to conduct a full investigation into events surrounding this case. The report of that investigation will be published.

  Guardsmen Fisher and Wright
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions the Minister for the Armed Forces had at his recent meeting with representatives of the Scots Guards Association on the effect of the case of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright on the morale of the regiment. [41227]

  Dr. Reid
  I had a worthwhile exchange of views at my meeting on 13 May with representatives of the Scots Guards Association. The effect of the case of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright on the morale of the Regiment was not raised, although the issue of morale was raised in more general terms.

  Military Law
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for changes to the present system of military law and courts martial. [41813]

  Dr. Reid
  The court-martial system was reformed by a series of measures included in the Armed Forces Act 1996. These reforms were wide ranging and were designed to reinforce, the independence of the court-martial, principally by reducing the apparent influence of the chain of command, whilst preserving its necessary involvement.

  We are satisfied that these recent changes to the court-martial system will ensure its continuing effectiveness into the next millennium. However, we are aware that we cannot afford to be complacent, so the system is kept under constant review to ensure it remains efficient procedurally as well as substantively. To this end, we are currently investigating ways of preventing backlogs within the system.

  Resettlement Courses
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will extend(a) the size of the grant and (b) the length of time allowed for the individual refund scheme for military personnel to attend approved resettlement courses. [41867]

  Dr. Reid
  The Individual Refund Scheme (IRS) permits all serving members of the Armed Forces to reclaim a proportion of the cost of fees paid to civilian
  261
  bodies for certain personal development courses and examinations. The Individual Resettlement Training Costs (IRTC) grant is a separate allowance payable to personnel with five years or more Service, in their final year, to help meet the costs of resettlement training courses. As part of the Strategic Defence Review, we are examining possible enhancement of the provision of education for Servicemen and Servicewomen.

  Foxes
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many foxes were taken in each of the last three years on his Department's land(a) by hunts, (b) by shoots and (c) by vermin controllers. [41869]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 25 November 1997,Official Report, column 499.

  Army Engineers
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Army's engineer resources. [42870]

  Dr. Reid
  The consultation process on the conclusions of the Engineer Logistics Review has now ended. The review recommended that the Engineer Resources functions carried out at Long Marston should be disaggregated to new service providers and not transfer to Chilwell, as previously announced. A number of representations were received from the trades unions, local councils, individual employees and hon. Members. Having considered these representations very carefully, I am satisfied that no issues have arisen which would call into question the study's recommendations. I intend, therefore, to proceed to implement disaggregation with the objective of ceasing operations at the Long Marston Depot by December 1999.

  Hunting
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when the agreement was signed between him and the Masters of Foxhounds Association establishing the terms and conditions whereby the Association and recognised hunts may have access to his Department's land for the purpose of fox hunting; [41886]

  (2) if under his proposals to harmonise the issuing of all hunting licences across his Department's estate, his policy on hunting practices and conditions laid down in previous licences will be changed; [42150]

  (3) if licence applications to hunt with hounds on his Department's land in the 1998–99 season will be determined before the beginning of August. [42151]

  Mr. Spellar
  The new standardised licence is currently being drawn up by my officials in the Defence Estate Organisation. The Master of the Foxhounds Association will be consulted as part of the finalisation process which is planned to be complete by the beginning of August 1998. The licence will contain amended terms and conditions and will reflect those changes in hunting practices which were introduced on the Defence Estate during the last season.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procurement contracts have been placed since May 1997 by the armed services for trucks and other heavy goods vehicles. [42575]

  Mr. Spellar
  Since May 1997, 20 contracts have been placed by the armed services for 163 trucks and other heavy goods vehicles, which are defined as any logistic vehicle with a capacity over four tonnes. These details are:

  Quantity

  Vehicle type

  2

  Tractor unit 60 tonne 6x4

  15

  Truck cargo 4 tonne 4x4

  16

  Commercial trucks 16 tonne

  6

  Commercial trucks 16 tonne

  1

  Six yard skip handling

  1

  Rough terrain crane

  20

  Truck mounted runway sweeper

  1

  Tractor unit with crane

  1

  Truck mounted servicing platform

  41

  Tractor unit semi-trailer

  4

  Tractor unit semi-trailer

  4

  Truck van postal

  1

  Volvo FL1O tractor unit

  7

  Truck fire fighting

  1

  38 metre servicing platform

  1

  Truck van laboratory

  5

  Truck various

  14

  Airportable fuel dispense truck

  11

  A/C potable water/toilet servicing truck

  11

  De-ionised water tanker

  Training
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many man training days per year are spent on training on private land; and what would be the cost to his Department if charges were raised at the current rate of £1.50 per man day. [41885]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The three Services spend some 900,000 man training days per year on private land in the United Kingdom.

  If charges were raised for this training, at the current rate of £1.50 per man per day, the cost for a year would be approximately £1.35 million.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Party Political Meetings
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what factors underlay the decision of the Prime Minister to address the Party of European Socialists at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 7 April; [40750]

  (2) if he will set out the rules concerning the holding of party political meetings in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. [40751]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  When available, the historical rooms in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are on occasion used by outside organisations (usually with an
  263
  international dimension) for meetings or receptions, and subject to payment of a fee: there must be no cost to public funds.

  The only occasion since the General Election when these premises have been used for a party occasion was a meeting of the Party of European Socialists in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 7 April. This meeting was attended by eight European Prime Ministers, and represented a valuable opportunity to set out the Government's approach on employability and economic reform in advance of the Cardiff Summit. The meeting was held at no additional cost to public funds.

  Ambassadors for British Business
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of Ambassadors for British Business sit on Government committees. [42055]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I will write to the hon. Member with these details, and copies will be placed in the libraries of the House.

  EU Legislation
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) European Council and (b) European Commission (i) directives, (ii) regulations and (iii) decisions there were in 1997. [41956]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  According to information from the Commission Annual Report for 1997, in 1997 the Council, either alone or acting jointly with European Parliament, enacted 34 Directives, 209 Regulations and 164 Decisions. The Commission enacted 35 Directives, 760 Regulations and 635 Decisions. A lot of these were implementing measures enacted under secondary legislation powers.

  These figures exclude instruments not published in the Official Journal and routine management instruments valid for a limited period.

  The Report also notes that, in the same period, more than 700 Commission instruments, and over 350 Council or Council and EP instruments, either expired or were repealed.

  Edgar Fernandes
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what liaison took place between the British consulate and the Turkish authorities on the disappearance of Edgar Fernandes; what subsequent liaison has taken place; and at what level. [42104]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The British Consulate General in Istanbul formally requested the Head Prosecutor in Istanbul to investigate urgently the disappearance of Edgar Fernandes. The Consul had meetings with the Deputy Chief of Police and the Head of Interpol about the matter. The Vice Consul accompanied a member of the Fernandes family to the Prosecutor's office following confirmation of Edgar Fernandes's death.
  264
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to the Egyptian authorities to further the investigation into Edgar Fernandes's death. [42107]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Our Embassy in Cairo had asked the Egyptian authorities for a photograph of an Egyptian national suspected of being involved in Edgar Fernandes's death to assist in police investigations. The Egyptian national has been detained by the police in Malta. The Turkish authorities are investigating the death of Mr. Fernandes in Turkey.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department is taking to recover Edgar Fernandes's passport. [42106]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The British Consulate-General in Istanbul was informed by the Turkish authorities on 5 May that they had a record of Edgar Fernandes's passport leaving Turkey at the Bulgarian border on 20 April. Further checks by the British Embassy in Sofia on 6 May showed that a person using that passport entered Bulgaria by train from Turkey on 20 April and left by foot at Kulhata on the Greek border on 21 April.

  Unfortunately, the Greek authorities do not keep records of EU passport holders entering/departing Greece. Interpol UK are currently following this matter up with the Greek authorities.

  Japan
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Association of British Civilian Internees in respect of their treatment by Japanese forces during the Second World War; what recent discussions he has had on these matters with his Japanese counterparts; and if he will make a statement. [42071]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made during the adjournment debate on 29 April 1998,Official Report, columns 284–87.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will call on the Government of Indonesia to show restraint when dealing with unarmed student demonstrators. [42458]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have done so on a number of occasions.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has received from Mr. Martin Cadman in response to the Adjournment Debate of 29 April 1998 on Lockerbie. [42393]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs received a letter from Mr. Cadman on 14 May. It will be studied carefully and a reply will be issued shortly.

  Defence Exports
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has
  265
  taken to ensure that defence exports promoted by his Department are not used to repress internal dissent in the purchasing countries. [41307]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The most effective way of ensuring that defence exports are not used for internal repression including the repression of internal dissent is to carry out a thorough assessment of this risk when considering whether to authorise an export. This includes consideration of the human rights record of the recipient country and of the specific end-user, including its use of similar equipment, and the likelihood of diversion from the stated end-use or end-user. The export licensing criteria specify that exports will not be authorised if there is a clearly identifiable risk that the goods concerned might be used for internal repression.

HEALTH

  Children's Rights
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if legislation is planned to develop those children's rights provided for by the Children Act 1989. [24336]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have no plans to legislate for the development of any children's rights provided for by the Children Act 1989. Development is a continuing process, often achieved by the dissemination of good practice and policies between local authorities and other organisations providing services to children.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration his Department is giving to the establishment of a children's commissioner for the United Kingdom. [27637]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have no plans to establish an office of Children's Rights Commissioner. During 1998 the Government will be preparing the Second United Kingdom Report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child in accordance with the requirements of Article 44 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989. We will take into account possible advantages of such an Office and seek progress in other countries where such an Office has been established.

  Hospital Closures (Cornwall and Scilly)
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 5 May 1998,Official Report, column 354, what factors will determine the timing of the announcement of his decision on the hospital closure programme proposed by Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority. [41943]

  Mr. Milburn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce his decision when he has given full and proper consideration to the proposals put forward by Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority.

  Bogus Doctors
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many bogus doctors have been discovered(a) in private practices, (b) working as general practitioners in the NHS and (c) as hospital doctors in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [42069]
  266
  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is not collected centrally. The General Medical Council (GMC) is responsible for maintaining the register of medical practitioners in order to distinguish the qualified from the unqualified medical practitioner.

  Before doctors can practise anywhere in the United Kingdom, they must have obtained registration with the GMC. In each case the GMC requires originals of the diplomas and certificates confirming the applicant's qualifications and detailed documentation concerning experience.

  The GMC keep their registration procedure under constant review to ensure that they are as secure as possible against fraud. As a further safeguard, the Department has issued guidance (PM(87)7, EL(92)53 and EL(92)84) reminding employing authorities that appointment procedures must ensure that candidates are properly registered with the GMC.

  The GMC operates a 24 hour automated telephone inquiry service which can be accessed by authorities wishing to check a doctor's credentials. Additionally, an operator service is available during working hours for people wishing to make more detailed inquiries.

  Chemotherapy (Wigs)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to provide wigs free of charge to outpatients who lose hair through chemotherapy treatment. [42260]

  Mr. Boateng
  We are currently looking into the subject of such charges as part of the wider comprehensive review of health services costs and charges.

  Currently, a wig may be provided as part of National Health Service treatment if it is considered to be clinically necessary. As with the supply of any medication, patients will qualify for free wigs if they are hospital in-patients. Schedule 12 of the National Health Service Act 1977 states that
  "no charge shall be made to a patient who is for the time being resident in hospital".

  Out-patients cannot be said to be resident in hospital, and so are not entitled to the same automatic exemption from charges as in-patients.

  Out-patients and day patients may qualify for full or partial exemption from charges on income grounds. If patients are in receipt of Disability Working Allowance, Family Credit, Income Support or Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, they will be entitled to wigs free of charge. Additionally, people not in the groups who are automatically exempt may claim help with health costs through the NHS Low Income Scheme.

  Waiting Lists (Cheshire)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of patients in the area covered by the Cheshire Health Authority who have been waiting for operations for over a year; and what the figure was on 1 May 1997. [42159]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information on the numbers of patients awaiting admission to hospital, whether it be for surgery or for some other form of treatment, and how long they
  267
  had been waiting is published quarterly and shows the position at the end of the quarter. Information for 1 May 1997 is not therefore available. On 31 March 1997 414 patients resident in the areas covered by North and South Cheshire Health Authorities had been waiting more than a year for admission to hospital on either an ordinary or day case basis. The latest information currently available is for 31 December 1997 and this shows 1,328 patients waiting more than a year for admission.

  Health Insurance
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of insurance as a way for individuals to pay for long-term care. [42064]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have established a Royal Commission on the funding of long-term care for the elderly. The Commission has been asked to recommend how the cost of care should be shared between public funds and the individual, and will no doubt be looking at the role of insurance in this.

  Anti-acne Drug
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports he has received of adverse reactions following the use of the anti-acne drug Roaccutane/ Accutane; and if he will make a statement. [42061]

  Ms Jowell
  In England, there have been more than 11,000 prescriptions for Roaccutane since 1987, the first year for which data are available. During this period, the Medicines Control Agency/Committee on Safety of Medicines have received a total of 625 reports covering 1,025 suspected adverse reactions associated with Roaccutane treatment in the United Kingdom. These reports cover a wide range of effects: the most frequently reported include skin and subcutaneous tissue reactions, musculoskeletal disorders and gastrointestinal disorders.

  Roaccutane (oral isotretinoin) is available only on prescription for the treatment of severe acne which has failed to respond to antibiotics. It is recommended for use under the supervision of a consultant dermatologist. The product information for doctors and patients includes information on its adverse effects.

  Hip Replacement
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that inducements may not be offered to surgeons in order to encourage them to use specific hip replacement prostheses. [42063]

  Mr. Boateng
  Guidance on standards of business conduct for National Health Service staff is set out in circular HSG(93)5, copies of which are available in the Library. NHS trusts are responsible for ensuring that staff are aware of their responsibilities in this area.

  Ashworth Hospital
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the discovery of prescribed drugs collected by Ian Brady at Ashworth Hospital and the purposes for which they were collected; [42605]
  268
  (2) what assessment he has made of the current prescribing of drugs and checks on patients taking medication at Ashworth Hospital; [42606]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of procedures for the checking of items (a) coming in and (b) leaving Ashworth Hospital; [42607]

  (4) what action he has taken regarding recent security breaches at Ashworth Hospital. [42604]

  Mr. Boateng
  The matters referred to are, in the first instance, the responsibility of the management of Ashworth Hospital Authority. The North West Regional Office of the National Health Service Executive (NWRO) monitors Ashworth Hospital Authority's performance of its responsibilities, and the High Security Psychiatric Services Commissioning Board (HSPSCB), which is also part of the NHS Executive, has a service agreement with Ashworth Hospital Authority relating to the type and level of services which the hospital is expected to provide.

  Ashworth Hospital Authority introduced a revised security procedures manual in December 1997. The authority has arrangements in place for an ongoing audit of the manner in which the security procedures manual is being implemented across the hospital. Both the NWRO and the HSPSCB include, as part of their monitoring role, a review of the security arrangements in place at the hospital and the audit findings. Further changes to the security arrangements will be introduced if necessary.

  The security procedures manual covers the checking of items coming into and leaving the hospital. This includes searches of packages and the escorting of visitors to and from the premises.

  Arrangements are in place for patients to be observed while taking their medication, and an audit of drug prescribing is currently under way.

  Any breach of security is investigated by the hospital, and more serious breaches are considered by the NWRO and the HSPSCB as part of their monitoring role.

  Ashworth Hospital has informed the NWRO that a single tablet was found during a search of Mr. Brady's room in April this year. This is an internal matter, which hospital managers are best placed to deal with.

  NHS Executive Regional Office
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to establish the NHS Executive Regional Office for London; and if he will make a statement. [42671]

  Mr. Dobson
  In my statement on 3 February 1998,Official Report, column 843, I accepted the recommendations in Sir Leslie Turnberg's report on London's Health Services including the proposal that a single National Health Service Executive Regional Office for London should be a longer-term aim in order to ensure effective planning across London. I have now decided that it would be right to move more quickly on this front and I intend to establish such an Office from 1 April 1999. In the meantime, I expect the existing North and South Thames Regional Offices to continue to work closely with each other to ensure coherent strategic planning across London.
  269
  The decision to establish a single Regional Office for London necessarily affects the boundaries of other existing NHS Executive Regional Offices in the South of England and I intend to reorganise their boundaries to match more closely the boundaries of the Government Offices for the Regions. The following arrangements will be established from 1 April 1999.
  A London Regional Office which will be coterminous with the proposed Greater London Authority.
  A South East Regional Office which would cover Health Authorities in Kent, Surrey, Sussex (which are currently covered by South Thames Regional Office), Hampshire and the Isle of Wight (which are currently covered by the South and West Regional Office) Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Northamptonshire (which are currently covered by the Anglia and Oxford Regional Office).
  An Eastern Regional Office covering Health Authorities in Norfolk, Suffolk, Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire (which are currently covered by the Anglia and Oxford Regional Office) and Essex and Hertfordshire (which are currently covered by North Thames Regional Office).
  A South West Regional Office which will exclude Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.

  In addition I intend to restructure the Department's Social Care Regional Offices so that from 1 April 1999 they are coterminous with the boundaries of the NHS Executive Regional Offices as follows:
  The Northern Social Care Region will match the North West and Northern and Yorkshire NHS Executive Regional Offices.
  The Central Social Care Region will match the West Midlands, Trent and Eastern NHS Executive Regional Offices.
  The Southern Social Care Region will match the South West and South East NHS Executive Regional Offices.
  The London Social Care Region will match the London NHS Executive Regional Office.

  A map showing the new NHS Executive Regional Office structure has been placed in the Library.

  The Regional Chairmen for the new NHS Executive Regional Offices will be:
  London: Ian Mills
  South East: Sir William Wells
  Eastern: Rosie Varley
  South West: Janet Trotter.

  Their appointments will run until 31 October 1999, the date on which their original appointments were due to expire.

  Sheppey Community Hospital
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the PFI for the new hospital on the Isle of Sheppey; and what contingency plans his Department has made in the event of failure of the PFI. [41919]

  Mr. Milburn
  We recognise the service need for improved hospital facilities at Sheppey. Thames Gateway National Health Service Trust, West Kent Health Authority and South Thames NHS Executive Regional Office are currently working hard to ensure a successful private finance initiative (PFI) scheme. Like all PFI schemes, to be approved the final agreed PFI solution must demonstrate it is affordable to the NHS and best value for money.
  270
  Should the decision be taken not to proceed with the PH option then all the parties above will work together to find an alternative solution.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors led the North Kent Health Trust to purchase a new greenfield site for the intended Sheppey Community Hospital prior to determination of the PFI. [41921]

  Mr. Milburn
  In the outline business case for this scheme the trust examined the option of developing on their current site, but this was discounted as it would have involved using a cemetery (now disused) which is on the site. Local consultation indicated that there would be considerable opposition to building across the cemetery and this could delay any start on site by a significant period. Additionally, there would have been high costs involved with the removal of remains to an alternative site. These were the reasons for purchasing the new greenfield site.

  A greenfield site was identified as the preferred option in the outline business case long before the trust started testing for the private finance initiative scheme.

  Sittingbourne Memorial Hospital
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors led to the construction of two new wards in the Sittingbourne Memorial Hospital in 1996–97; what funding was secured to staff and equip them; and when they will be staffed and equipped. [41920]

  Mr. Milburn
  The two new wards (for rehabilitation and general practitioner services) were constructed at the same time as the rest of the new community hospital at Sittingbourne. However, the costs of providing the full range of services at the new hospital had to be revised upwards. Since April 1997 West Kent Health Authority has funded outpatients, minor injuries and psychiatric day services at Sittingbourne hospital. West Kent Health Authority and Thames Gateway National Health Service Trust are aiming to open the two wards for rehabilitation and GP services by the end of this financial year.

  Stroke Units
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that there is nationally available access to specialised stroke units. [34099]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 16 March 1998]: In terms of hospital care, it is well established that rehabilitation after a stroke is best provided by properly organised multi-disciplinary teams, and we have endorsed this message in one of our Effective Health Care Bulletins.

  It is currently the responsibility of local commissioners to assess the health care needs of their population and to commission services appropriately.

  The Clinical Standards Advisory Group is currently undertaking a study on clinical effectiveness, using stroke as a marker condition, and has recently commissioned a survey of stroke services in a representative sample of National Health Service trusts. Its report is expected to be published later this year.
  271
  The NHS White Paper, The New NHS—Modern and Dependable, sets out a clear vision of the kind of NHS in which access to services, equity of care and the needs of all patients, including those with long term illness, are paramount.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the financing of the Food Standards Agency. [41585]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government intend to consult with interested parties on detailed proposals for a scheme of charges that would pass a greater proportion of the costs of food safety away from the taxpayer on to the food industry. These proposals are being drawn up in the light

  Funding body

  Research body

  Title

  Start date

  End date

  Price band

  MAFF/DH/HSE

  Institute of Occupational Medicine

  Epidemiological study to detect well defined chronic effects in humans of dipping sheep with OP products

  November 1995

  April 1999

  A

  MAFF

  Medical School, University of Newcastle upon Tyne

  Study of the long-term electrophysiological effects of sheep-dip OPs in the mouse nervous system

  January 1997

  March 1999

  C

  MAFF

  CBD Porton Down

  Dose effect profiles for OP sheep dips on brain electrical activity and sensitive behaviour indices in non-human primates

  Expected shortly

  3 years to complete

  B

  MAFF

  Covance

  Bioavailability of OP residues in fruit

  December 1997

  March 1999

  D

  MAFF

  Institute of Food Research, Reading

  The impact of informational content and presentational context on perceptions of specific food risks

  April 1997

  March 2000

  C

  MAFF

  Institute of Food Research, Reading

  Impact of media reporting of risk on public perceptions of OPs

  February 1998

  June 1998

  E

  MAFF

  Covance Laboratories Ltd.

  Bioavailability of OP pesticide residues in fruit and vegetables

  December 1997

  March 1999

  D

  MAFF

  Soil Survey and Land Research Centre

  Role of soil and crop management practices in determining the variability of OP residues in carrots

  May 1997

  April 1998

  E

  MAFF

  Central Science Laboratory

  Analysis of individual carrot roots for pesticide residues

  October 1997

  March 1998

  E

  ILGRA

  AEA Technology

  Risk communication benchmark study (includes OP case study)

  January 1997

  March 1998

  D

  HSE

  Institute of Occupational Health

  Investigation of chronic neurophysiological and neuropsychological effects of exposure to OP sheep dips

  —

  1995

  C

  272
  of the comments submitted during public consultation on the White Paper, The Food Standards Agency: A Force for Change (CM 3830).

  Organophosphates
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 8 April 1998,Official Report, columns 233–34, on organo-phosphates, if he will list the organisations which received funding in the past five years and indicate which studies were co-funded by (a) education institutions, (b) charitable institutions and (c) private sector companies. [41388]

  Mr. Rooker
  Details of the research and development of direct relevance to organophosphorus compounds and funded by the Government are given in the table. The price bands are as follows:Band A: £500,00 or more
  Band B: £300,000–£499,999
  Band C: £100,000–£299,999
  Band D: £50,000–£99,999
  Band E: up to £50,000.
  273

  Funding body

  Research body

  Title

  Start date

  End date

  Price band

  HSE

  Health and Safety Laboratories

  Neuropsychological study of orchard workers exposed to OP pesticides

  September 1996

  September 1998

  C

  HSE

  Internal

  Feasibility of using the National Proficiency Tests Council's database of holders of Certificates of Competence for Agricultural Pesticides for related epidemiology

  —

  June 1998

  0

  HSE

  Health and Safety Laboratories

  Non-cholinergic effects of OP exposure

  October 1995

  August 1997

  C

  HSE

  Health and Safety Laboratories

  Chlorphyrifos volunteer study

  July 1995

  December 1996

  D

  HSE

  Health and Safety Laboratories

  Handling of sheep dip concentrates

  July 1997

  November 1998

  E

  HSE

  Health and Safety Laboratories

  Changes over time in the level of inhibition of red blood cell acetylcholinesterase activity after OP exposure

  October 1996

  July 1997

  E

  HSE

  Health and Safety Laboratories

  Immunochemical method for monitoring the specific activity of plasma cholinesterase

  June 1997

  December 1997

  E

  HSE

  Health and Safety Laboratories

  An in-vitro investigation of the relative inhibitory effects of OPs and carbamates towards pseudocholinesterase in human blood

  August 1997

  February 1998

  E

  DETR

  Water Research Centre

  Proposed Environmental Quality Standards for azinphos-methyl in water

  1987

  January 1991

  1—

  DETR

  Water Research Centre

  Proposed Environmental Quality Standards for fenitrothion in water

  1987

  January 1991

  1—

  DETR

  Water Research Centre

  Proposed Environmental Quality Standards for dichlorvos in water

  1987

  February 1991

  1—

  DETR

  Water Research Centre

  Proposed Environmental Quality Standards for malathion in water

  1987

  February 1991

  1—

  DETR

  Water Research Centre

  Proposed Environmental Quality Standards for dimethoate and omethoate in water

  1991

  February 1994

  1—

  DETR

  Water Research Centre

  Proposed Environmental Quality Standards for triazophos in water

  1991

  December 1994

  1—

  DETR

  Water Research Centre

  Proposed Environmental Quality Standards for demetons in water

  1991

  September 1995

  1—

  MOD/DERA

  University of Birmingham

  The effects of anticholinesterases on the cellular mechanisms controlling the levels of acetylcholinesterase

  May 1997

  May 1999

  C

  MOD/DERA

  University of Birmingharr

  Neuropathology of anticholinesterases

  October 1997

  September 1998

  E

  1 Proposed EQSs prepared as part of a larger project, price band B.

  274 275
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many reports his Department has received of adverse effects from using organophosphate pesticides in each of the last three years. [41382]

  Mr. Rooker
  In the three years to March 1998, the Pesticides Safety Directorate has considered three cases of alleged adverse effects relating to use of organophosphate pesticides. In the case of Phorate, data indicating that residues in carrots could erode safety margins led to the suspension of approval for use of Phorate products on carrots and parsnips. Of the other two cases, one related to a small increase in the amount of impurity present in a product after storage, and the other to alleged crop damage. Neither of these resulted in regulatory action.

  In addition, in the three years to March 1997, a total of 36 incidents of alleged ill health (involving 78 people) have been assessed by the Pesticides Incidents Appraisal Panel of the Health and Safety Executive where at least one of the active ingredients used was classed as an organophosphate. For 16 of these (involving 46 people), the ill health was assessed as confirmed or likely to be linked to pesticide exposure. The panel assesses cases that have been brought to its attention following investigation by the Health and Safety Executive or a Local Authority.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what controls his Department exercises to regulate the export of animals for intended use in experiments. [42077]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: Anyone exporting animals, including those exported for experimentation purposes, must comply with all statutory animal health and welfare rules applicable to the species and, in the case of exports to third countries, the animal health requirements of the importing country. We are shortly to begin discussions with the Home Office about possible criteria for further controls enabling us to take into account the treatment of the animals in the country of destination before we issue official non-statutory health certification.

  Animal Smuggling
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his letter, 113574, of 23 April, what information has been obtained about anti-smuggling devices that can detect the heart-beat of an animal concealed inside a vehicle. [41120]

  Mr. Rooker
  The use of a device to detect the heartbeat of a person or animal that is concealed in a vehicle is being investigated by the Home Office in conjunction with the Prison and Immigration Services. I will write again to my hon. Friend when my Department has further information.

  Consumer Information
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for ensuring that information is available to the consumer about the origin of food at the point of sale. [42160]
  276
  Mr. Rooker
  Generally, the place of origin of any food must be given if omitting it could mislead the purchaser about the true place of origin of that food. The Department has issued guidance on these rules which makes clear that, where such indications are used to describe processed foods, this must not mislead the consumer about the origin of the individual ingredients of the product.

  More specifically, EC rules require certain fresh fruits and vegetables to be marked with the country of origin at all points of sale. In October last year, we launched the Beef Labelling Scheme, which provides for the accurate labelling of beef. With effect from 1 July, any beef labelled with country of origin information must have been derived from animals born, reared and slaughtered in that country. It is envisaged that national origin labelling of beef will become compulsory by the year 2000.

  Central Science Laboratory
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for the Central Science Laboratory staff at(a) Torry, (b) Slough, (c) Harpenden and (d) Worplesdon, the total number of (i) mobile and (ii) non-mobile staff, (1) made compulsory redundant, (2) redeployed to MAFF or MAFF agencies, (3) who were found employment elsewhere and (4) who took early retirement. [41668]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 12 May 1998]: The information requested concerning those Central Science Laboratory (CSL) staff not transferring to York from the Torry, Slough, Harpenden and Worplesdon sites is as follows:

  Staff

  Torry

  Slough

  Harpenden

  Worplesdon

  Redundant

  Mobile

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Non-mobile

  24

  34

  30

  9

  Redeployed in MAFF

  Mobile

  0

  3

  2

  2

  Non-mobile

  1

  8

  1

  2

  Resignations

  Mobile

  116

  3

  8

  0

  Non-mobile

  114

  4

  3

  1

  Age/early retirement

  Mobile

  10

  23

  8

  7

  Non-mobile

  3

  20

  4

  1

  1 These staff transferred to the Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen University and the Scottish Office Marine Laboratory.

  Part-time staff in mobile grades are not subject to mobility requirements and are therefore treated as non-mobiles.

  Without reference to individual personnel files, which would incur disproportionate cost, it is not possible to distinguish those staff who resigned to take up employment elsewhere from those who resigned in the normal course of events.

  The age profile of the staff complement at Slough, Harpenden and Worplesdon reflects a major expansion in the early 1950s. A significant number of staff were

  277
  approaching retirement age at the time that the various sites were due to close and this is reflected in the number of age and early retirements.

  Whilst the information provided is accurate, a certain amount of caution must be exercised in the interpretation as each individual member of staff's case is different and was dealt with by CSL on a confidential basis.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 30 April 1998,Official Report, column 248, how many

  CSL sites

  Scientists

  Non scientists

  Mobiles

  Non mobiles

  CSL Slough

  71

  27

  90

  8

  CSL Harpenden

  60

  6

  63

  3

  CSL Worplesdon

  17

  0

  16

  1

  CSL Torry

  7

  3

  8

  2

  CSL Norwich

  5

  1

  4

  2

  CSL elsewhere

  22

  1

  20

  3

  Not previously employed by CSL

  128

  86

  87

  127

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many staff were employed by the Central Science Laboratory at Torry in January 1995; and how many of those individuals were still employed by the CSL at York in January 1998 broken down(a) into (i) scientists and (ii) non-scientists and (b) into (1) mobile and (2) non-mobile grades. [41669]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 12 May 1998]: The information requested on the Central Science Laboratory staff previously employed at Tony and those who continue to be employed at CSL York is as follows:

  January 1995

  January 1998

  Total staff

  108

  10

  of which:

  Scientists

  67

  7

  Non-scientists

  41

  3

  Mobiles

  45

  8

  Non-mobiles

  63

  2

  On closure of the Torry laboratory, funding for work of particular relevance to Scotland was transferred to the Scottish Office and work programmes and associated staff were transferred to the Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen University and the Scottish Office Marine Laboratory.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department will make available to the University of East Anglia the necessary financial information about the operation of the Norwich Laboratory of the Central Science Laboratory to enable it to prepare properly costed proposals for a management buy-out of the laboratory. [42081]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: No.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the job titles of the 30 non fee-earning scientists employed by the Central Science Laboratory at York and Norwich, indicating which two are based at Norwich. [42082]
  278
  (a) scientific staff, (b) non-scientific staff, (c) mobile grade staff and (d) non-mobile grade staff employed by the Central Science Laboratory at York in January 1998 were employed in January 1995 by (i) CSL Slough, (ii) CSL Harpenden, (iii) CSL Worplesdon, (iv) CSL Tony, (v) CSL Norwich, (vi) CSL elsewhere and (vii) not the CSL. [41664]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 12 May 1998]: The information requested concerning those Central Science Laboratory staff employed in January 1998 at York that were based at various CSL sites or not employed by CSL in January 1995, is as follows:

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: Job titles for the various non-fee earning scientists based at the Central Science Laboratory at York and Norwich are as follows:
  Chief Executive
  Research Director (Agriculture and Environment)
  Research Director (Food)
  Commercial Director
  Head of Conservation Environment Protection Group
  Head of Infestation Risk Evaluation Group
  Head of Pest Management Strategies Group
  Head of Plant Health Group
  Head of Pesticides Group
  Head of Microbiology Group
  Head of Information Services Group
  Training Officer
  Health and Safety Officer
  Systems Administration
  Data Logging
  Business Development Team (6 posts)
  Information Centre (2 posts)
  Group Scientific Support (4 posts)
  Quality Assurance Unit (3 posts).

  The Research Director (Food) and one member of the Business Development Team are based at Norwich.

  In addition, of those non fee-earning scientists based at York, 11 have responsibilities for the provision of support or management at the Norwich laboratory.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what conclusions his Department has reached following the recommendations in its memorandum of February 1997 about the possible scope for placing other additional work at Sand Hutton, York; [42079]
  279
  (2) what steps his Department has taken to implement the recommendation in its memorandum of February 1997 that additional MAFF-funded work which could be moved to Sand Hutton, York, should be identified; and if he will list such work which could be moved. [42078]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: A number of options for placing additional work at the Central Science Laboratory's York site have been considered, including work currently done elsewhere in MAFF. No other MAFF work, with the exception of the work currently carried out at CSL's Norwich site, has been identified which could be transferred to York economically and without creating problems for other parts of the Department. As regards non-MAFF work, a Commercial Director has been appointed to the CSL Board to develop and establish new business.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 5 May 1998,Official Report, column 301, if he will set out the steps which his Department or the Central Science Laboratory would take to resettle Norwich-based non-mobile staff by (a) relocation and (b) securing employment elsewhere in the event that a decision is made to close the Norwich laboratory. [42109]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: In the event of a decision to close the Norwich laboratory, non-mobile staff would normally be given the opportunity to relocate to York. Every effort would be made to assist those non-mobile staff unable to relocate to identify and secure suitable employment elsewhere in the public sector, for example in other Government departments and local authorities, or in the private sector.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made of whether there would be unoccupied laboratory and office space if the Norwich Laboratory of the Central Science Laboratory was relocated to York. [42080]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him on 3 March 1998, Official Report, column 596.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 30 April 1998,Official Report, column 247, on what date his Department decided not to proceed with the tendering exercise to identify consultants to advise on how best to achieve a secure financial future for the Central Science Laboratory; and by whom the decision was made. [42110]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: The Prior Options review of the Central Science Laboratory (CSL) concluded that there was no obvious solution to securing a sound financial future for the Agency. The key was to introduce additional revenue. A number of actions were put in hand, including a tendering exercise to identify consultants to advise on the issue and the creation of a new post at Board level to develop new business. When officials reviewed progress in May 1997, they concluded that, since the principal requirement was to increase the utilisation of the Sand Hutton site, the most appropriate course was to proceed with the appointment of a Commercial Director but not with the appointment of external consultants.
  280
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 5 May 1998,Official Report, column 301, for what reasons 16 of the non-mobile staff at the Norwich laboratory of the CSL are not entitled to redundancy payments in the event that the Norwich laboratory is closed. [42371]

  Mr. Rooker
  The staff in question are not entitled to redundancy payments as they are employed by the Central Science Laboratory on Fixed Term contracts, and it is envisaged that they would complete these contracts in the event that the Norwich site were to be closed.

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 30 April 1998,Official Report, column 247, what the financial implications are for his Department of the High Table versus Horst case, in the event that mobile staff of the Central Science Laboratory in Norwich refused to relocate to York. [42373]

  Mr. Rooker
  Further to my reply given on 30 April 1998,Official Report, column 247, I can confirm that the High Table versus Horst case holds no financial implications for the Department or the Central Science Laboratory.

  Agenda 2000
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of United Kingdom farms which will be ineligible for CAP support under the Agenda 2000 proposals; and if he will estimate the equivalent number in each other EU member state. [41358]

  Mr. Rooker
  Any farmer who, at the time of application, fulfils the eligibility criteria for support set down in the regulations proposed by the Commission, or in any future detailed rules necessary for the implementation of those regulations, would be entitled to the appropriate CAP support payment.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to improve access for people with disabilities at further and higher education establishments. [41093]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 7 May 1998]: Under the new higher education funding measures for 1998/99, Disabled Students' Allowances will no longer be means tested for disabled full time students. Access funds in both further and higher education have increased significantly. In further education, the funding mechanism provides for additional support for disabled students according to need.

  Employment Service (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money he has allocated to staffing in the Portsmouth District Employment Service to cover the implementation and future costs of(a) the New Deal and (b) the jobseeker's allowance. [41934]
  281
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 18 May 1998:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply direct to your question concerning how much money has been allocated to staffing in the Portsmouth District of the Employment Service to cover the implementation and future costs of (a) the New Deal and (b) the Jobseeker's Allowance. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Funding for the New Deal essentially follows the client with entitlement to funding for staffing, staff expenses and programme costs being based on the actual numbers entering the different stages of the programme. However, assumptions have been made as to the likely uptake of New Deal places and the resulting entitlement to funds. The Portsmouth District is covered by two delivery units for New Deal. For the Isle of Wight unit an allocation of £123,200 has been identified for 1998/9 and for the remainder, known as Portsmouth/South East Hampshire, an allocation of £315,700 has been identified for the year. These figures include small amounts for expenditure, outside of salary costs, to cover directly related expenses, such as staff travel costs.
  For its other activities, the Portsmouth District of the Employment Service has been allocated £3.27m for 1998/9 salary costs, based on an allocation of 203.1 staff units. This has been calculated by a formula which relates staffing to expected business volumes. Within this total, 129.3 staff units relate to the Jobseeker's Allowance.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will assess the risk to employees' health from occupational stress within the Portsmouth District Employment Service. [41935]

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

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 18 May 1998:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply direct to your question which asks whether we will assess the risk to employees' health from occupational stress within the Portsmouth District of the Employment Service. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  It may be helpful if I explain that we have developed our own guidance to staff and managers on dealing with stress which is set out in a document entitled 'The ES and You; A Guide for Managers'. This is based on the Health and Safety Executive's own good practice recommendations, and is being followed in Portsmouth and other Employment Service Districts. In summary, we have followed the HSE's recommendations that:
  Managers have guidance which enables them to understand the issues and manage them appropriately. We also have a clear policy stating that the Employment Service will not tolerate harassment or bullying in any form, and systems for dealing with it including a 'Hotline' telephone service.
  Individuals have clear roles, responsibilities and objectives;
  Sickness absence is monitored regularly and staff attitudes are periodically surveyed—our most recent Staff Attitude Survey in fact shows a reduction in the number of staff saying they feel under uncomfortable pressure at work;
  282
  We have access to professional Occupational Health Service (OHSA Ltd) to advise on individual cases;
  All staff have individual access to an Employee Assistance Service. Where appropriate managers can suggest, but not insist, that staff seek help through this service.
  Should it become apparent that particular members of staff are suffering from stress, there are a range of measures available to deal with such problems. These include reviewing objectives, changing duties and providing additional training or support. As well as general monitoring of staff absence by managers as a routine part of their job, and action taken in individual cases to ease an individual's return to work, the Portsmouth District has recently worked with the Employment Service's Regional Psychologist to identify the causes of stress at Cosham Jobcentre.
  I hope this is helpful.

  New Deal (Young Unemployed)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the planned cost of(a) the subsidised employment option, (b) the full-time education and training option, (c) the voluntary sector option and (d) the environmental task force option of the New Deal for the Young Unemployed per placement for the duration of each option; and if he will make a statement. [41392]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 13 May 1998]: Within the New Deal for 18–24 year olds, our planning assumptions are that the average cost of Employment Option places will be just over £2,000; and the average cost of a place in each of the other 3 options, including New Deal allowances, will be about £4,000.

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he intends to implement part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and if he will make a statement. [41953]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  We shall move to implement the remaining rights in Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act as soon as practicable. An announcement detailing our timetable for implementation will be made in due course.

  Special Education
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will rank all local education authorities in terms of the percentage of their potential schools budget under section 122 statements spent on special education provision including special units. [42041]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]: The following table gives the amounts of SEN funding held centrally by LEAs shown as a ranking for England for 1997–98. The figures are derived from the budget statements produced by the local authorities and as such represent the estimated spend for the financial year in question. Many LEAs delegate some or most of their funding for SEN to schools. The table provides only a partial picture of total funding on SEN, and LEAs' spending centrally will be affected by their decisions on

  283
  what is delegated. Information on spending on SEN by schools from their delegated budgets is not collected centrally.

  Extract from section 122 budget statements (England) 1997–98

  LEA name

  PSB (000s)(a)

  All SEN(non-delegated)funding(000s)(b)

  Column (b) as percentage of column (a) (c)

  Cambridgeshire

  158,375.0

  10,986.0

  6.94

  Cornwall

  140,232.0

  9,105.0

  6.49

  Bolton

  83,402.5

  5,316.0

  6.37

  Calderdale

  42,622.1

  2,563.1

  6.01

  Bromley

  43,700.0

  2,573.0

  5.89

  Barnsley

  63,111.0

  3,596.0

  5.70

  Barnet

  76,932.6

  4,314.3

  5.61

  Bradford

  150,074.0

  8,224.0

  5.48

  Derby City

  53,312.0

  2,728.0

  5.12

  Lancashire

  426,027.0

  20,966.0

  4.92

  Lincolnshire

  135,364.0

  6,652.0

  4.91

  Somerset

  134,228.0

  6,510.0

  4.85

  Derbyshire

  175,795.0

  8,502.0

  4.84

  Doncaster

  103,673.0

  4,950.0

  4.77

  Ealing

  73,666.8

  3,512.5

  4.77

  Merton

  49,621.7

  2,355.6

  4.75

  Kent

  346,365.9

  16,262.9

  4.70

  Barking/Dagenham

  63,669.0

  2,951.0

  4.63

  Leicester City

  99,464.0

  4,532.0

  4.56

  Lambeth

  55,392.0

  2,523.0

  4.55

  Camden

  57,899.0

  2,575.0

  4.45

  Isle of Wight

  38,910.6

  1,711.2

  4.40

  Newham

  96,673

  4,222.0

  4.37

  Harrow

  64,869.0

  2,785.0

  4.29

  Durham

  156,152.0

  6,701.0

  4.29

  Gateshead

  63,662.0

  2,709.0

  4.26

  Wakefield

  96,809.0

  4,088.0

  4.22

  Stockport

  80,608.7

  3,379.2

  4.19

  Swindon

  42,057.0

  1,748.0

  4.16

  Wandsworth

  51,327.0

  2,127.0

  4.14

  Hereford/Worcester

  186,570.0

  7,700.0

  4.13

  Brighton and Hove

  61,444.0

  2,535.0

  4.13

  Richmond

  43,863.5

  1,808.7

  4.12

  Darlington

  28,928.0

  1,172.0

  4.05

  Haringey

  79,022.0

  3,196.0

  4.04

  Essex

  283,166.0

  11,379.0

  4.02

  Warwickshire

  132,274.5

  5,144.9

  3.89

  Gloucestershire

  96,216.0

  3,712.0

  3.86

  Wiltshire

  83,113.0

  3,150.0

  3.79

  Tower Hamlets

  91,487.7

  3,451.6

  3.77

  South Gloucestershire

  79,015.0

  2,893.0

  3.66

  Enfield

  86,417.0

  3,157.0

  3.65

  Kirklees

  118,668.3

  4,305.7

  3.63

  Sheffield

  135,507.0

  4,866.0

  3.59

  Leicestershire

  178,708.0

  6,311.0

  3.53

  Hertfordshire

  277,511.0

  9,788.0

  3.53

  Devon

  282,327.0

  9,928.0

  3.52

  Bournemouth

  29,625.3

  1,035.0

  3.49

  Trafford

  53,313.0

  1,855.0

  3.48

  North Somerset

  56,706.0

  1,959.0

  3.45

  Poole

  25,269.0

  856.9

  3.39

  Redcar and Cleveland

  50,415.0

  1,693.0

  3.36

  Croydon

  77,674.0

  2,593.0

  3.34

  South Tyneside

  48,820.0

  1,606.0

  3.29

  Havering

  67,518.2

  2,205.4

  3.27

  Northumberland

  96,268.0

  3,134.0

  3.26

  North Tyneside

  59,721.0

  1,930.0

  3.23

  St. Helens

  60,050.0

  1,921.7

  3.20

  York

  47,914.0

  1,530.0

  3.19

  Surrey

  221,698.0

  7,018.0

  3.17

  Kingston

  30,867.0

  969.0

  3.14

  Bath and NE Somerset

  49,667.0

  1,537.0

  3.09

  North Yorkshire

  173,467.0

  5,340.0

  3.08

  Salford

  71,892.0

  2,210.0

  3.07

  Milton Keynes

  52,296.0

  1,595.0

  3.05

  Nottinghamshire

  307,514.0

  9,286.0

  3.02

  284

  Extract from section 122 budget statements (England) 1997–98

  LEA name

  PSB (000s) (a)

  All SEN (non-delegated) funding (000s) (b)

  Column (b) as percentage of column (a) (c)

  Middlesbrough

  49,824.0

  1,469.0

  2.95

  West Sussex

  212,697.0

  6,243.0

  2.94

  Westminster

  47,285.7

  1,386.4

  2.93

  Sefton

  97,588.9

  2,781.7

  2.85

  Norfolk

  192,569.0

  5,432.0

  2.82

  Walsall

  78,957.9

  2,191.0

  2.77

  Rutland

  4,583.0

  127.0

  2.77

  Cheshire

  314,695.0

  8,607.0

  2.74

  Oxfordshire

  160,389.0

  4,356.0

  2.72

  North Lincolnshire

  50,739.0

  1,369.0

  2.70

  Tameside

  62,913.0

  1,673.0

  2.66

  Dorset

  93,090.0

  2,462.7

  2.65

  Kensington and Chelsea

  27,425.0

  720.0

  2.63

  Rotherham

  86,756.4

  2,223.4

  2.56

  Cumbria

  115,518.0

  2,950.0

  2.55

  Hartlepool

  30,213.0

  764.0

  2.53

  Bexley

  64,088.0

  1,612.0

  2.52

  Sandwell

  101,336.0

  2,532.0

  2.50

  Hull

  83,879.0

  2,071.0

  2.47

  Solihull

  68,856.1

  1,699.4

  2.47

  Wirral

  100,853.0

  2,484.0

  2.46

  Newcastle

  84,057.6

  2,067.3

  2.46

  Southwark

  70,462.0

  1,726.0

  2.45

  East Riding

  98,964.0

  2,416.0

  2.44

  Rochdale

  59,103.0

  1,439.0

  2.43

  Birmingham

  356,109.0

  8,611.0

  2.42

  Coventry

  108,300.0

  2,618.0

  2.42

  Stoke-on-Trent

  71,002.0

  1,707.0

  2.40

  Sunderland

  96,686.0

  2,266.0

  2.34

  East Sussex

  133,969.0

  3,009.0

  2.25

  North East Lincolnshire

  56,236.0

  1,245.0

  2.21

  Staffordshire

  230,216.1

  4,981.5

  2.16

  Stockton on Tees

  63,182.0

  1,338.0

  2.12

  Oldham

  84,206.0

  1,758.0

  2.09

  Liverpool

  150,988.6

  2,919.7

  1.93

  Buckinghamshire

  126,080.0

  2,429.0

  1.93

  Suffolk

  200,483.4

  3,814.7

  1.90

  Hackney

  67,214.5

  1,264.1

  1.88

  Bristol

  112,419.8

  2,070.7

  1.84

  Wolverhampton

  77,955.4

  1,384.1

  1.78

  Shropshire

  113,449.0

  1,999.0

  1.76

  Luton

  51,034.0

  881.0

  1.73

  Islington

  60,655.4

  1,041.5

  1.72

  Hounslow

  76,140.0

  1,104.0

  1.45

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  40,177.7

  569.0

  1.42

  Sutton

  39,845.2

  456.9

  1.15

  Northamptonshire

  165,140.3

  1,834.2

  1.11

  Wigan

  103,673.0

  1,139.0

  1.10

  Dudley

  82,937.0

  875.0

  1.06

  Berkshire

  200,668.0

  2,002.0

  1.00

  Hampshire

  320,474.0

  3,166.0

  0.99

  Portsmouth

  49,949.0

  467.0

  0.93

  Leeds

  226,303.5

  1,959.5

  0.87

  Knowsley

  58,105.0

  477.3

  0.82

  Manchester

  145,167.0

  1,187.0

  0.82

  Bedfordshire

  107,198.0

  829.0

  0.77

  Bury

  52,799.0

  399.0

  0.76

  Southampton

  61,501.4

  393.1

  0.64

  Hillingdon

  44,863.0

  276.0

  0.62

  Lewisham

  84,416.6

  490.4

  0.58

  Brent

  49,652.0

  189.0

  0.38

  Greenwich

  87,744.1

  225.9

  0.26

  Redbridge

  80,900.0

  136.0

  0.17

  Corporation of London

  724.0

  0.0

  0.00

  Waltham Forest

  72,296.0

  0.0

  0.00

  Isles of Scilly

  883.0

  0.0

  0.00

  285
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of segregated special education on community care policies. [41923]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We do not have information which implies a link between type of educational provision and subsequent need for community care. We are considering how best to collect information about the experiences, once they have left school, of young people with special educational needs, with the aim of helping schools and colleges prepare young people for adult life more effectively.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact there would be on national collaborative partnerships between colleges and training providers of allowing further education colleges to provide only for local communities. [41924]

  Dr. Howells
  No such assessment has been made.

  Derby University
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what date he proposes to make an announcement on the proposed merger of Derby University and High Peak College. [42289]

  Dr. Howells
  We expect to make an announcement shortly.

  Teacher Vacancies
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what date he intends to publish the next teacher vacancy figures. [42312]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We expect to publish the figures on Friday 22 May.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current ratio of New Deal for lone parents advisers to lone parents participating in the scheme; and what ratio is envisaged when the pilot becomes a nationwide scheme. [40214]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Up to 31 March 1998, a total of 4,637 lone parents had agreed to participate in the New Deal for Lone Parents in the eight prototype areas; and during this period 72 advisers were available to work with them. The ratio of advisers to lone parents in the nationwide programme will of course depend on the rate at which lone parents participate in the service. However, the Government are drawing up resourcing plans for the New Deal for Lone Parents using assumptions based on the participation rate to date. Therefore, the ratio of advisers to lone parents in the nationwide service will be at least as good as it has been up until April 1998.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of all lone parents who have received an initial letter under the New Deal for lone 286
  parents' pilots have moved from income support into paid employment; if she will provide similar figures for (a) lone parents with mortgages, (b) lone parents in rented accommodation and (c) lone parents who are non-householders; and if she will make a statement on the role of housing tenure in determining the likelihood of moving off welfare and into work. [40213]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The management data which are routinely collected on the New Deal for Lone Parents do not identify the housing status of lone parents.

  A wide range of factors affect the likelihood of any individual lone parent moving off Income Support and into work. The Personal Adviser approach is designed to offer tailored help and advice which will take account of each individual's particular circumstances, including housing status where relevant.

  Up until 31 March 1998, 1,530 lone parents had obtained work following participation in the New Deal for Lone Parents, of whom 1,114 left Income Support. A further 201 had been able to increase their hours of work, of whom 169 left Income Support.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of lone parents would have to find work under the New Deal for Lone Parents for the scheme to be cost neutral. [40822]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The percentage of lone parents finding work is only one of a number of factors which affect the potential savings arising from the New Deal for Lone Parents, including the earnings of lone parents going back to work, how long lone parents remain in work, and substitution and displacement effects.

  A full evaluation on the short and longer term effects of the New Deal for Lone Parents will be published in Autumn 1999; this will take account of a number of factors including observed earnings and duration of work.

  Child Benefit
  Ms Hewitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) under what circumstances child benefit is payable to a father in respect of a child for whom he has a residence order; [41143]

  (2) in how many cases child benefit was paid to both parents in respect of children subject to a shared residence order in 1997–98; [41146]

  (3) what provision is made to ensure that child benefit is payable to both parents in cases where a child is the subject of a shared residence order under the Children Act 1989. [41145]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information requested is not available.

  Entitlement to Child Benefit depends on a person having responsibility for a child because the child lives with them or they contribute to the cost of providing for the child. In cases where the child lives alternatively with each parent, both parents could qualify but only one of them can be entitled for the same child in the same week.
  287
  Where competing claims are received in respect of the same child, legislation provides for priority of entitlement. Where the care of a child is shared equally between two parents who are not residing together they may jointly elect which of them shall receive the benefit. In the absence of an election the Secretary of State may decide which of them shall be entitled, taking a number of factors into account.

  The existence of a residence order is not a requirement for entitlement to Child Benefit. It is an important factor in reaching a Secretary of State decision about entitlement, but others such as the actual time the child spends living with either parent, and the extent of expenditure incurred by each parent are also considered.

  Ms Hewitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security under what circumstances child benefit is payable to an adult other than the mother of the child for whom the benefit is paid. [41151]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  There are a variety of circumstances, usually involving the mother's absence, where Child Benefit might be paid to an adult other than the mother of the child. This could be for a temporary period, or permanently.

  If the parents of a child separate, benefit will normally be paid to the parent with whom the child lives. If both of them share the care of the child equally they may jointly elect which of them is to receive the Child Benefit. In default of such an election the Secretary of State may, in her discretion, decide which of them shall be entitled.

  Ms Hewitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases in 1997–98 child benefit was paid to the father. [41144]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not available in the format requested as it is responsibility for a child rather than parenthood which give entitlement to Child Benefit.

  The number of Child Benefit awards to male claimants were an estimated 273,000 as at April 1998. This represents just under 4 per cent. of the total number of awards in payment at that time.

  Unclaimed Benefits
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action her Department is taking to increase the take up of unclaimed social security benefits. [41592]

  Mr. Denham
  We would encourage everyone who thinks they may be entitled to benefit to make a claim, wherever they live in Britain. However, we know there are particular barriers which stop pensioners taking up their Income Support and that is why we are focusing on this group.

  We are committed to examining to the ways of delivering more automatic help to the poorest pensioners, and have already started to honour this commitment.

  As a first step, we have started research to establish the reasons why pensioners do not claim their Income Support entitlement, and the most effective ways of getting help to them. Since April, we have been running nine local pilot projects costing £15 million to test the
  288
  best way of getting help to the estimated 1 million pensioners who are currently entitled to Income Support but do not claim it.

  Disability Benefits Forum
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to establish a body to work alongside Government in accordance with the principles of consultation with disabled people outlined in the green paper, "A New Contract for Welfare"; if a significant part of that body will be drawn from among disabled people; and what timescale she proposes. [41357]

  Mr. Denham
  We are currently in the process of setting up a Disability Benefits Forum to discuss the reform of benefits for people who are long-term sick or who are disabled. The majority of members of the Forum will be representatives of organisations of or for disabled people. We will announce further details as soon as possible.

  Benefit Savings
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will publish for each Great Britain local authority, a breakdown, for each of the last five years, of weekly benefit savings for(a) thresholds, (b) claimed savings, (c) amount of additional subsidy claimed and (d) amount of subsidy penalty applied. [41652]

  Mr. Field
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what analysis her Department has made of the long-term effect of Economic and Monetary Union on the integration of the social security schemes of participants. [41955]

  Mr. Field
  No such analysis has been conducted. Member States will continue to be responsible for the financing and design of national social security schemes.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimate she has made of the overall cost of the winter fuel payment scheme in 1998; [41856]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the overall cost of winter fuel payments made in error but not repaid to date. [41852]

  Mr. Denham
  Winter Fuel payments are one of a number of initiatives the Government have taken to help vulnerable people, especially the elderly, keep warm in the winter. A total of £400 million has been committed for two years (1997/98 and 1998/99), to help pensioners with fuel bills to pay. This is the first time any Government have provided automatic help to over 7 million pensioner households with fuel bills to pay, living in the United Kingdom, who receive a Retirement Pension or one of a number of other qualifying benefits.
  289
  The making of this year's payments has been an enormous and unprecedented exercise. In order to establish all eligible pensioners, correctly identify pensioner households, and determine the amount each should receive, it was necessary to correlate data in around 15 million computer records, involving 15 qualifying benefits, across nine computer systems. Overall, almost ten million pensioners, in over seven million households, have received a payment.

  The administration of winter fuel payments is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Nick Gibb, dated 14 May 1998:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary questions about the winter fuel payments scheme.
  The making of Winter Fuel Payments to almost ten million eligible pensioners, in over seven million households, before the end of March 1998, has been a challenging task for the Benefits Agency (BA). This was achieved whilst maintaining normal benefit business.
  Around one and a half million of the poorest pensioners, those receiving Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, received their payment of £50 during January. Almost eight and a half million other eligible pensioners, for example those in receipt of state Retirement Pension, were issued with a payment of £20 or £10. The issue of these payments was completed by 24 March 1998.
  Around £200 million was paid to help pensioners with their fuel bills last winter. The total administrative cost is expected to be around £20 million.
  We are aware of 649 eligible pensioners who received two £50 payments. This includes 211 who erroneously received two payments due to being in receipt of both Income Support and income-based Jobseeker's Allowance for at least one day in the qualifying week. In accordance with legislation, only one payment should have been made. Also, due to a computer operator error, 40,801 invalid girocheques were sent out with an incorrect date of issue. The error was quickly identified and all the invalid payments were replaced within 72 hours. The letter which accompanied the replacement payment apologised for the error and advised the recipient to destroy the invalid girocheque or if they had encashed it, to return the replacement to the nearest Benefits Agency office. It appears that in 438 instances both the invalid and replacement girocheque were cashed.
  In addition we are aware that 9,357 £50 payments have been made to customers who were not entitled to them. This means that 10,006 incorrect payments, valued at £500,300, were made in error. This represents 0.7% of the total number of £50 payments made. No information is presently available on the other eligible pensioners who received either a £10 or £20 payment.
  Action is being taken in each individual case to consider whether recovery action is appropriate. We will write to individuals who were overpaid informing them of the position and inviting repayment. Until this exercise is complete, we will not know how much has been repaid.
  I hope that this clarifies the position.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she plans to undertake the reassessment of Mr. Trevor J. Collier's war pension disability assessment, made in 1959, of 20 per cent., which he requested in 1996. [42465]

  Mr. Denham
  The review of Mr. Collier's War Pension assessment, requested by him in March 1996, was concluded on 18 September 1996. For reasons of 290
  confidentiality the Acting Chief Executive of the War Pensions Agency, Steve Johnson, will write to the hon. Member separately.

  Actors
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many actors received non-means-tested jobseeker's allowance in 1997–98; and how much was paid to actors in terms of non-means-tested jobseeker's allowance in 1997–98. [42577]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will calculate the net difference in the amount that actors as a group pay in class 1 national insurance contributions and the amount that they claim and receive in terms of non-means tested benefits. [42576]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 30 March regarding a constituent, Ref. 5/3644/30. [42264]

  Mr. Denham
  A reply was sent to my hon. Friend on Monday 18 May 1998.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Official Cars
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will list the type or specification of vehicles allocated to(a) Secretaries of State, (b) Ministers of State and (c) Under-Secretaries of State for their official duties; and if he will list any exceptions; [27112]

  (2) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), 16 February 1998, Official Report, column 486, if he will list the Ministers who have the use of an official car in a category other than that to which they would normally be entitled. [31663]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  For the models of cars from which Ministers can choose and those which are currently used by Ministers, I refer the right hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), 16 February 1998,Official Report, column 486. I understand that the only Ministers who currently have the use of cars in a different category are the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, the Minister without Portfolio, the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning, the Minister for the Armed Forces, the Minister for Defence Procurement and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence. These exceptions are either on the grounds of security or where the Ministers concerned have the use of cars provided for Ministers in the previous Administration, and to replace them would not be an efficient use of public resources.

  Parliamentary Answers
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he plans to reply to the question tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst on 24 February, on official cars (31663). [42402]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I have answered this question today.

TREASURY

  Highly Indebted Poor Countries
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list by country the value of outstanding debts on loans(a) made by and (b) guaranteed by the British Government to highly indebted poor countries. [42042]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: (a) All development assistance to Highly Indebted Poor Countries has been in the form of grants for many years, and the vast majority of old aid loans, to an amount of £1.2 billion, have been forgiven. At 1 May 1998, the only outstanding debts on UK aid loans to HIPCs are shown in the table:

  Country

  Amount (£)

  Cameroon

  67,000

  Liberia

  78,000

  Nigeria

  4,900,000

  (b) At end 1997, the outstanding debts on loans guaranteed by the Government through ECGD, to the 41 countries identified under the HIPC initiative, were as follows:

  £ million

  Country

  Debt owned to ECGD

  Angola

  91

  Benin

  3

  Bolivia

  18

  Burkina Faso

  1

  Burundi

  0

  Cameroon

  62

  C.A.R.

  1

  Chad

  0

  Congo-Brazzaville

  123

  Cote d'Ivoire

  31

  DR Congo (ex Zaire)

  129

  Equatorial Guinea

  0

  Ethiopia

  12

  Ghana

  4

  Guinea

  5

  Guinea Bissau

  0

  Guyana

  44

  Honduras

  0.5

  Kenya

  44

  Lao PDR

  0

  Liberia

  15

  Madagascar

  27

  Mali

  4

  Mauritania

  7

  Mozambique

  86

  Myanmar

  25

  Nicaragua

  1

  Niger

  11

  Nigeria

  3,100

  292

  £ million

  Country

  Debt owned to ECGD

  Rwanda

  0

  Sao Tome et Principe

  0

  Senegal

  3

  Sierra Leone

  4

  Somalia

  28

  Sudan

  405

  Tanzania

  126

  Togo

  14

  Uganda

  14

  Vietnam

  10

  Yemen

  6

  Zambia

  234

  Taxation
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what are his latest estimates of the average weekly payments for the tax year(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99 for (i) NICs, (ii) income tax, (iii) VAT, (iv) indirect taxes excluding VAT and (v) council tax for a married couple with the male earning and the female not earning with two children, on total family earnings of (1) 75 per cent., (2) 100 per cent. and (3) 150 per cent. of average gross male full-time earnings, excluding any 1997 Budget measures whose revenue effect does not occur until at least the tax year 1999–2000; [41975]

  (2) what are his latest estimates of the average weekly payments for the tax year (a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99 for (i) NICs, (ii) income tax, (iii) VAT, (iv) indirect taxes excluding VAT and (v) council tax for a married couple with the male earning and the female not earning with no children, on total family earnings of (1) 75 per cent., (2) 100 per cent. and (3) 150 per cent. of average gross male full-time earnings excluding any 1997 Budget measures whose revenue effect does not occur until at least the tax year 1999–2000; [41977]

  (3) what are his latest estimates of the average weekly payments for the tax years (a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99 for (a) NICs, (b) income tax, (c) VAT, (d) indirect taxes excluding VAT and (e) council tax for a single person on (i) 75 per cent., (ii) 100 per cent. and (iii) 150 per cent. of average gross male full-time earnings, excluding any 1997 Budget measures whose revenue effect does not occur until at least the tax year 1999–2000. [41973]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: The available information, which shows tax and NIC payments at multiples of median male full-time earnings, is given in the table. Changes already announced, which will take effect in 1999, will offer significant help to families, reducing the burden of tax and NICs for a family with two children on median earnings. A one earner couple with 2 children with half median male earnings (£187.25 per week) will gain around £20 a week from the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit. No family with children with earnings less than £220 per week will pay income tax. Child benefit for the eldest child will be increased by £2.50, the largest real increase since 1978. And all employees earning more than the Lower Earnings Limit will gain £1.28 a week from the abolition of the NICs entry fee.
  293
  Calculations of indirect taxes were dealt with in my answer to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) of 5 May 1998, Official Report, columns 331–34.

  Income Tax and National Insurance at multiples of median full-time male earnings

  Applied percentages

  75

  100

  150

  1997–98

  Single

  Gross Income

  268.80

  358.40

  537.60

  Income Tax

  41.57

  62.18

  103.39

  NICs

  21.92

  30.88

  41.54

  Percentage of earnings

  Income Tax

  15.5

  17.3

  19.2

  NICs

  8.2

  8.6

  7.7

  Married no children

  Gross Income

  268.80

  358.40

  537.60

  Income Tax

  36.29

  56.90

  98.11

  NICs

  21.92

  30.88

  41.54

  Percentage of earnings

  Income Tax

  13.5

  15.9

  18.3

  NICs

  8.2

  8.6

  7.7

  Married with 2 children

  Gross Income

  268.80

  358.40

  537.60

  Income Tax

  16.24

  36.85

  78.06

  NICs

  21.92

  30.88

  41.54

  Percentage of earnings

  Income Tax

  6.0

  10.3

  14.5

  NICs

  8.2

  8.6

  7.7

  1998–99

  Single

  Gross Income

  280.88

  374.50

  561.75

  Income Tax

  43.57

  65.10

  108.17

  NICs

  22.97

  32.33

  43.38

  Percentage of earnings

  Income Tax

  15.5

  17.4

  19.3

  NICs

  8.2

  8.6

  7.7

  Married no children

  Gross Income

  280.88

  374.50

  561.75

  Income Tax

  38.08

  59.62

  102.69

  NICs

  22.97

  32.33

  43.38

  Percentage of earnings

  Income Tax

  13.6

  15.9

  18.3

  NICs

  8.2

  8.6

  7.7

  Married with 2 children

  Gross Income

  280.88

  374.50

  561.75

  Income Tax

  17.33

  38.87

  81.94

  NICs

  22.97

  32.33

  43.38

  Percentage of earnings

  Income Tax

  6.2

  10.4

  14.6

  NICs

  8.2

  8.6

  7.7

  Notes:

  1. Income tax payments are calculated on the basis that the households receive no tax reliefs other than the standard allowances and have income only from employment. All earners are assumed to pay Class 1 national insurance contributions at the contracted-in rate.

  2. Earnings are taken to be the median gross weekly earnings of all full-time male employees on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. (Median earnings are more representative of the population as a whole than mean) The level of earnings in 1998–99 is based on a stylised assumption in line with the actual outturn for the year to January 1998.

  3. In line with the convention in the Tax Benefit Reference Manual, Child Benefit is treated as a negative Income Tax.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what are his latest estimates of the average weekly payments for the tax year 1996–97 for(a) NICs, (b) income
  294
  tax, (c) VAT, (d) indirect taxes excluding VAT and (e) council tax, for a single person on (i) 75 per cent.,
  (ii) 100 per cent. and (iii) 150 per cent. of average gross male full-time earnings; [41972]

  (2) what are his latest estimates of the average weekly payments for the tax year 1996–97 for (a) NICs, (b) income tax, (c) VAT, (d) indirect taxes excluding VAT and (e) council tax for a married couple with the male earning and the female not earning with no children, on total family earnings of (1) 75 per cent., (2) 100 per cent. and (3) 150 per cent. of average gross male full-time earnings; [41976]

  (3) what are his latest estimates of the average weekly payments for the tax year 1996–97 for (a) NICs, (b) income tax, (c) VAT, (d) indirect taxes excluding VAT, (e) council tax for a married couple with the male earning and the female not earning with two children on total family earnings of (i) 75 per cent., (ii) 100 per cent. And (iii) 150 per cent. of average gross male full-time earnings. [41974]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: The available information, which shows tax and NICs payments at multiples of median male full-time earnings, is given in the table:

  Income Tax and National Insurance at multiples of median full-time male earnings

  Applied percentages

  75

  100

  150

  Single

  Gross Income

  256.73

  342.30

  513.45

  Income Tax

  42.24

  61.78

  102.85

  NICs

  20.79

  29.35

  40.62

  Percentage of earnings

  Income Tax

  16.1

  18.0

  20.0

  NICs

  8.1

  8.6

  7.9

  Married no children

  Gross Income

  256.73

  342.30

  513.45

  Income Tax

  36.07

  56.61

  97.69

  NICs

  20.79

  29.35

  40.62

  Percentage of earnings

  Income Tax

  14.1

  16.5

  19.0

  NICs

  8.1

  8.6

  7.9

  Married with 2 children

  Gross Income

  256.73

  342.30

  513.45

  Income Tax with CB

  16.47

  37.01

  78.09

  NICs

  20.79

  29.35

  40.62

  Percentage of earnings

  Income Tax

  6.4

  10.8

  15.2

  NICs

  8.1

  8.6

  7.9

  Notes:

  1. Income tax payments are calculated on the basis that the households receive no tax reliefs other than the standard allowances and have income only from employment. All earners are assumed to pay Class 1 national insurance contributions at the contracted-in rate.

  2. Earnings are taken to be the median gross weekly earnings of all full-time male employees on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. (Median earnings are more representative of the population as a whole than mean). The level of earnings in 1998–99 is based on a stylised assumption in line with the actual outturn for the year to January 1998.

  3. In line with the convention in the Tax Benefit Reference Manual, Child Benefit is treated as a negative Income Tax.

  Windfall Tax
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will recalculate Table 1.2 of the FSBR with figures for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 to include the windfall tax and associated spending. [39854]

  Mr. Darling
  Estimates of the expected receipts from the windfall tax are given in Table B9 and estimates of the associated spending are given in Table B11 of the March 1998 Financial Statement and Budget Report (FSBR). Table 1.2 can be recalculated to include the windfall tax and associated spending by adding the windfall tax receipts net of associated spending to the figures presented.

  Piper Alarms
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the levying of VAT on Piper alarms; and if he will assess the advantages of exempting such alarms from VAT. [41932]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Piper alarms (and similar alarm systems which enable people with disabilities to alert specified people or control centres that they are in distress) are already fully relieved from VAT when bought by disabled people and charities which serve their needs.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many HM Customs and Excise personnel were employed(a) in countering smuggling of alcohol and tobacco products and (b) in total, on (i) 31 December 1996, (ii) 31 December 1997 and (iii) the most recent date for which figures are available. [41871]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Countering alcohol and tobacco smuggling is a part of the duties of all the Department's front line anti-smuggling staff, who are deployed to deal with a wide range of import prohibitions and restrictions; in this they are backed up by specialist intelligence and investigation staff. The only staff who deal exclusively with excise smuggling are Excise Verification Officers, whose responsibility is to counter smuggling from the Single Market. Their numbers were as follows:At 31 December 1996: 285
  At 31 December 1997 330
  At 1 April 1998: 330.

  The total number of staff employed by Customs was as follows:
  At 31 December 1996: 23,571
  At 31 December 1997: 23,475
  At 1 May 1998: 23,450.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

Art Market: VAT and Droit de Suite
Lord Pearson of Rannochasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the debate on 10th December 1997 and the Written Answer by Lord Simon of Highbury on 8th April (WA 147), whether they believe that they can successfully argue against the European Union's proposed imposition of increased VAT and droit de suite tax on the British international art market.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the noble Lord raises two issues: VAT, and droit de suite. Regarding VAT, the European Commission is committed to re-examining this year the impact of the seventh Value Added Tax Directive on the competitiveness of the Community art market compared with third countries' art markets. The conclusions are due to be reported to the Council of Ministers by the end of the year. The United Kingdom will be actively involved in that review to ensure that the special position of the British art market will be properly represented.
Negotiations on the Commission's proposal to harmonise droit de suite still have some way to go. We shall continue to focus on the need to maintain and improve the international competitiveness of the Community art market in relation to third country markets. The proposal is subject to qualified majority voting. We are actively seeking the support of other member states to defeat it.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that rather less than confident reply. Bearing in mind that we are considering a hugely important British industry, it does not give one a lot of faith in the Government's new charm offensive in Brussels.
First, can the Minister confirm that our problems in this case, as in so many others, are caused by our powerlessness to stand up to the qualified majority voting system of the European single market, which does not respect our unique global economic interests?
Secondly, can the Minister confirm that the European Commission has so far refused to produce a cost-benefit analysis of these crazy and destructive plans?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I can confirm that the Commission has not yet produced a cost-benefit analysis.
As regards qualified majority voting, in order to block the proposal in the Council of Ministers, we would need 26 out of a total of 87 votes. We have 10. The
1272
Netherlands and Ireland, which are also opposed to the proposal, have eight votes between them. That leaves a shortfall of eight. Should the Council adopt a common position, another possibility would be for the European Parliament to reject that position by an absolute majority.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the European Foundation and, if I understood my noble friend correctly, the Government have got it wrong about droit de suite? Droit de suite is an excellent institution. It has developed well. It benefits the artist, not the fat cats. That may be one reason why the fat cat dealers oppose it. However, so far as concerns the artist it is working well in several civilised European countries, and even in California.
Under those circumstances, will the Government reconsider their attitude to droit de suite? The previous Labour Government intended to introduce it, and, but for my premature departure as Arts Minister, it would have been introduced 10 years ago or more.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I shall not ask my noble friend to list what he calls the civilised countries. However, the Government seek to help artists in other ways. Funds are distributed by the Arts Council. We set up the lottery funded Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. The Government are committed to encouraging links between business and the arts. The national heritage pairing scheme is a strong force in forging such links. We encourage a wide range of imaginative and valuable partnerships between the private sector and the arts. The Government think that that is of far more value than droit de suite.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, in contrast to the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Jenkins, is my noble friend aware that droit de suite will result in many art sales being diverted from London, not to Paris but to Geneva or New York, with the consequent loss of millions of pounds in revenue and thousands of jobs not only in this country but in the Community as a whole?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government are aware of the points made by my noble friend. That is why we seek to have the rules changed.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, have the Government succeeded in linking the review of the seventh VAT directive with a droit de suite impact study? Will they agree, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said, that, unless that is done, further sales will be it driven out of the UK to the US and Switzerland?
Lord Haskel: Yes, my Lords, the Government have tried to carry out a study as to what the effect would be. A study by the Department of Trade and Industry indicated that, if all works eligible for the right were transferred abroad, British dealers and auctioneers would lose fees of up to £68 million per annum. And up to 5,000 jobs could be affected. That is a worst-case

1273
scenario. On the other hand, if only non-EU originated trade were lost, the losses would amount to some £17 million and 1,300 jobs.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the figures he has just given appear rather modest compared with the advice that I have received; namely, that 10,000 businesses may well be involved, and a possible 40,000 jobs which attract (if I may put it this way) high-class art visitors to this country? Will my noble friend explain how it is that we are continually informed that the European Union has no jurisdiction over British taxes, yet we find the Union trying to impose VAT?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, droit de suite is not a tax. While VAT is a tax, it is a question of harmonising VAT throughout Europe. I am afraid that my noble friend's figures bear no relationship to those in the study carried out by the Department of Trade and Industry which I gave in reply to a previous question.

Museums and Galleries: Admission Charges
2.45 p.m.
The Earl of Clancartyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will allow funding to be made available to those national museums and galleries which charge admission to their core collections in order to ensure that they and all national museums have free entry to their core collections at all times.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is a matter for the trustees of each institution to decide whether to charge for admission to their collections. Assistance is being provided for both those national museums and galleries which charge for admission and those that do not. The Heritage Lottery Fund has increased its museums and galleries access fund to £7 million, which is available for all museums and galleries across the UK, and those national museums and galleries which charge for admission may apply to this fund. Additionally, a £2 million challenge fund has been created which will maintain free admission during 1998–99 at the National Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery, the Tate Gallery and the Wallace Collection, and £1 million is being held in reserve for the British Museum to maintain free admission pending the outcome of our departmental spending review. This includes a fundamental review of the whole museums and galleries sector. The review will conclude shortly and an announcement will be made in the summer.
The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he admit that, with two national museums—the Walker Art Gallery and the National Museums of Scotland—introducing charges in the past 12 months, and as yet none made free, the Government's overall record so far on this matter is not
1274
good? Will the Minister give the House some idea of the criteria by which funds were awarded in the Budget to non-charging, but not to charging, museums? Does the Minister recognise that, generally speaking, those museums that charge would opt to lift the charges were they to be provided with funds to enable them to do so?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid that I did not hear the name of the first museum to which the noble Earl referred. Regarding the National Museums of Scotland, comparable funds are allocated to Scotland under the Barnett formula. I am safe in saying that because my noble friend is not present.
In response to the noble Earl's second question, the Heritage Lottery Fund is finalising its guidance for the access fund. However, it is likely to support such projects as temporary and touring exhibitions; audience development, including events or marketing aimed at groups which do not visit currently; transport to museums; and mobile museums. Whether or not they receive additional money from the access fund, museum trustees still have to make their own decisions about charging.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, where do cathedrals sit in the picture as regards admission charges? I believe that some cathedrals do charge admission where there is what might be called a national collection. Would it be possible to have a millennium project involving free admission to all cathedrals?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. I hesitate to tread in the delicate area of the relationship between Church and state. I think I am safe in saying that it would be possible for churches and cathedrals to make applications under millennium funding.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the 1998 UK Visitor Attraction Survey, published today, indicates that over a five-year period attendance at cultural attractions for which there was a charge fell by over 1.1 per cent. and attendance at non-charging attractions rose by 4.1 per cent? In view of those statistics, which I believe to be accurate, will the Minister and his department revise the Answer that he gave to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have no reason to disbelieve the figures quoted by the noble Earl, although he is ahead of me in knowing what has been published today. I do not think that those modest differences would justify revision of my Answer. We have preserved free access to a considerable number of museums and galleries and are providing extra funding to those which charge.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that charging for admission and receiving government funding should be regarded as alternatives and museums should be able to choose one or the other?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend's proposition would break the basis of my previous answers. It is for the trustees to make their own decisions. It is, of course, for the Government to make such contribution to museums and galleries as is possible within spending limits.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I note what the Minister says about preserving access to some collections. Does he not admit that, when in opposition, Labour promised to preserve free access to all national collections but that since it has been in government it has reneged on that promise by setting up a spending review dealing with general matters of access, in addition to free access, and by making ad hoc grants to particular collections through raiding National Lottery money, all because it realised that it had rashly made a promise which it could not fulfil?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no, I do not agree that that is what we said before the election. We said that access would be a cornerstone of our cultural policy and that young people, unemployed people and pensioners should not be unable to enjoy our national treasures. But we thought then, and we think now, that access is a good deal more than admission charges, important though they are.
Lord McNally: My Lords, when Ministers decide on allocation of public money to museums, is any thought given to rationalisation of the pattern of museums in this country to prevent overspending on administration and other charges?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. This is one of the subjects of our departmental spending review, to which I referred, the results of which will be announced in the summer. We are thinking more in terms of rationalisation of collections, by agreement with the trustees concerned, but if the noble Lord has any more radical thoughts I am sure that we would listen to them.
Lord Annan: My Lords, following on the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, I hope that there would be no attempt, for example, to stop King's College, Cambridge, charging for admission to the chapel. The roof of the chapel, which is leaded, is melting after four centuries of sunshine and will have to be replaced, at enormous cost. I very much hope that there will be no kind of interference, as the money is needed very badly.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I refused to be tempted into the delicate area of relationships between Church and state; even more I refuse to be tempted into the delicate area of the relationship between state and not only the University of Cambridge but individual colleges of the University of Cambridge—or indeed into issues of global warming, to which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, appears to be alluding. No, my Lords, we have no power, nor is it our intention, to intervene.

UK Business: Mentoring Services
2.54 p.m.
Lord Randall of St. Budeauxasked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to encourage the development of mentoring services for new small businesses.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government believe that mentoring can play a useful part in improving the competitiveness of UK business. Together with the DTI and private sector support, mentoring and small and medium enterprise group networking is being piloted through Business Links in the form of the Business Bridge programme. Mentoring also takes place in business clubs and other networks, and early indications are that the impact of Business Bridge on small and medium size enterprises is encouraging. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank those experienced businessmen who give their time so generously to these schemes.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does he not agree that experience from the Prince's Trust and other organisations shows enormous benefits to small businesses in terms of both their productivity and their survival? Does he not agree that the Government should get moving and go beyond pilot schemes and encourage the establishment of universal mentoring services in the United Kingdom? In providing such services, should the Government not give serious consideration to exploiting the large pool of experience to he found in business people?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point at the end of his question, and I think he makes it in an appropriate place. There is already a good deal of local mentoring activity within the business support community involving retired people working with fledgling businesses. Yes, the Prince's Youth Business Trust uses a wide range of local people to act as business advisers, or mentors, many of whom are retired. There are, as well, business angels, whom one could perhaps describe as mentors with money. They are often retired business people. I see the Government's role as helping to facilitate such good practice rather than setting up a new national scheme, which might adversely affect the flexibility or focus of existing local activity.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a national mentoring service exists within the Prince's Youth Business Trust? That is why the PYBT is so successful. Mentors and advisers have been established for the past 11 years. Every time the Prince's Youth Business Trust launches a new business, that business has an adviser or a mentor attached to it. That is why 65 per cent. of the businesses that have beer, launched are still trading after more than three years. Soon the PYBT will be linked to the Government under the New Deal and all that experience will be available to the Government.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comment. I agree with him entirely. A depressingly high percentage of small businesses fail to survive for more than three years, but, as my noble friend said, the percentage of businesses operating under the Prince's Youth Business Trust which survive for more than three years is considerably higher.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what advice the Government would give to these mentoring services, organisations or retired business people to help them to advise the many small family businesses in this country, particularly in the retail area, which have built their success on the help of the family and which now, because the Government are refusing to exempt spouses, families and so on, from the national minimum wage will face bankruptcy rather than having the support and success they have had in the past?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Baroness. I believe that the national minimum wage will help small businesses, including small family businesses. I believe they will find that the introduction of the national minimum wage will bring their operations on to a more businesslike basis.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, as a trustee of the Prince's Youth Business Trust, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Randall, and Lord Mason, for mentioning the PYBT. It may be of interest to the House to know that these businesses are set up for an average of £2,500, which is infinitely less than the cost of keeping a person on the unemployment register.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government are well aware of the success of the Prince's Youth Business Trust in establishing businesses on a very small amount of money. We congratulate the trust on its work.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I thought I heard the noble Lord say that he thought the national minimum wage would help small businesses. Will he be kind enough to shed a little light on that and say how he thinks it will happen?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I had in mind the fact that in many cases small businesses do not invest in new machinery and new technology because they can pay people much lower wages. If employers pay a better wage, investment in the company is often increased and the prosperity of the business increases.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the Minister elucidate on that response? Does he mean that the higher the level of the minimum wage, the more efficient small businesses will become?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I mean that if the minimum wage is at a reasonable level, firms will be encouraged to invest.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that if an employer has to pay more in wages, he will shed labour and go for new technology, thus being able to operate with fewer employees?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am afraid that that is the way of business today. Increased productivity often means more investment and fewer people.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, with the introduction of the national minimum wage, employers who at the moment provide no training for employees will in future do so? That will make the employees more effective and thereby improve the prosperity of the company.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for making that point. I entirely agree with him. He is absolutely right.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can the Minister say, in plain English, what is the meaning of "mentoring services"? If he does not know, how can he answer any of these questions?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the meaning of "mentoring services" is clear. The idea is that experienced men and women will help small or new businesses to overcome the errors that they themselves made in their earlier experience.

Art Treasures: Retention in UK
3.1 p.m.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mareasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will help to retain exceptional art treasures in this country when national or regional museums or galleries are unable to raise enough funds to match 75 per cent. grants from the heritage lottery fund.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, all applications to the heritage lottery fund require an element of partnership funding to demonstrate support for and commitment to the project. Were the Government to provide that funding, it would undermine the demonstration of that commitment. It would also undermine the existing arm's length relationship between the Government and lottery distributors and would risk breaching the principle of additionality.
The lottery has helped towards the purchase of many works of art and the Government help to keep art treasures in the UK through their funding for national and regional museums and galleries, the export control system and concessionary tax schemes.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, will he agree that there should be exceptions while our nation is going through a period of such glory with its artists and sculptors? Last week we lost Lucian Freud's masterpiece because the Tate Gallery could not, in the time required, put the money together. Will the Government reconsider exceptional circumstances?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the heritage lottery fund set up rules for itself. One of those rules is that it will not normally consider works of art created in the past 20 years. As the noble Lord will know, the

1279
Lucian Freud "Large Interior, W11" was painted in 1979. In fact, no approach was made to the heritage lottery fund. As a rule, it does not intervene in the sale of works of art in New York, which is where the Freud picture was sold.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Sherborne Missal, which has been on extended loan to the British Library, has now been offered in lieu of inheritance tax? Will the Government ensure that what is probably the most important medieval manuscript in the country is retained?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I too saw the article in The Times last week in relation to the Sherborne Missal and wondered at the illustration shown. I am glad to be able to tell my noble friend that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport agreed to accept the Missal in lieu of inheritance tax on the estate of the late Duke of Northumberland. Arrangements for transfer to the British Library are in hand.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, will the Minister agree that a general problem with the heritage lottery fund is that good causes are increasingly chasing the funds from a finite number of charities and commercial firms in order to meet the threshold of 25 per cent.? Is not there a case for lowering that 25 per cent. threshold to 15 per cent., or even to 10 per cent., which is currently the target for smaller projects? Even then, as we see with the Handel House Museum, good causes experience great difficulty in raising the money.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I appreciate the difficulty, though I should point out that the threshold set by other distributors of lottery funds for matching funding is actually higher than the 25 per cent. set by the heritage lottery fund. It is the responsibility of the lottery fund itself to establish its threshold. We would be under considerable criticism, not least from the Opposition Front Bench, if we sought to intervene.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I completely accept the case for matching funding, but am still puzzled by what the Minister said. Is it not the case that the conditions for matching funding have been relaxed in other areas? Should not we aim for some consistency over the whole field? Otherwise, we may give some people a sense of being unfairly treated.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the requirement for matching funding is not unfair treatment. If there has been any relaxation in other areas, it is nevertheless the case that the heritage lottery fund has a lower threshold for matching funding than some other distributors. It is not a question of unfairness; it is a question of maintaining the demonstration of commitment for support for a project, which is the basis for requiring matching funding. Indeed, that was established by the previous government.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, has the noble Lord's department earmarked those works of art of exceptional
1280
value to the nation which it does not wish to see leave this country? If so, will the Minister ensure that the list is brought up to date annually?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not aware of any such list and I believe it would be impossible to compile one.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, with nearly £4 billion outstanding which has not been given out so far on this matched funding scheme of the National Lottery Distribution Fund, cannot exceptions be made where a loan is given for exceptional treasures which can be repaid at a later date?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord and I have been in correspondence on this matter. It is not the case that £4 billion has not been distributed due to lack of matching funding. The £4 billion to which the noble Lord refers is that amount of money, much of which is committed to future projects, which has not been drawn down. We discourage applicants from drawing down the money until they need it.
Lord Annan: My Lords, in response to the noble Earl's question, is the Minister aware that, certainly in the case of the National Gallery, there is a desiderata list?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am delighted to hear it. I did not suggest that it was not possible to compile individual lists. I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, whether there was a list for the whole country. I expressed doubt as to whether it was possible to compile such a list or bring it up to date.

Business of the House: Tax Credits (Initial Expenditure) Bill
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Thursday 21st May to enable the Tax Credits (Initial Expenditure) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.—(Lord Richard.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Bill
3.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to HL Bill 55 as first printed for the Lords.]
LORDS AMENDMENT
64 After Clause 50, insert the following new clause—
CLASS 1 CONTRIBUTIONS
(".—(1) For subsection (1) of section 5 of the Contributions and Benefits Act (earnings limits for Class 1 contributions) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
"(1) For the purposes of this Act there shall for every tax year be—

(a) a lower earnings limit (for primary Class 1 contributions);

(b) an upper earnings limit (for primary Class 1 contributions); and

(c) an earnings threshold (for secondary Class 1 contributions).

(1A) For the tax year 1999–2000, the lower earnings limit (for primary Class 1 contributions) shall be £81.
(1B) For the tax year 2000–2001 and each subsequent tax year, the limits and threshold referred to in subsection (1) above shall be specified for that year by regulations which, in the case of those limits, shall be made in accordance with subsections (2) and (3) below."
(2) For subsection (1) of section 6 of that Act (liability for Class 1 contributions) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(1) Where in any tax week earnings are paid to or for the benefit of an earner over the age of 16 in respect of any one employment of his which is employed earner's employment—

(a) a primary Class 1 contribution shall be payable in accordance with this section and section 8 below if the amount paid exceeds the current lower earnings limit (or the prescribed equivalent in the case of earners paid otherwise than weekly); and

(b) a secondary Class 1 contribution shall be payable in accordance with this section and section 9 below if the amount paid exceeds the current earnings threshold (or the prescribed equivalent in the case of earners paid otherwise than weekly)."

(3) For subsections (1) and (2) of section 8 of that Act (calculation of primary Class 1 contributions) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
"(1) Where a primary Class 1 contribution is payable, the amount of that contribution shall he the primary percentage of so much of the earner's earnings paid in the tax week, in respect of the employment in question, as—

(a) exceeds the current lower earnings limit (or the prescribed equivalent); and

(b) does not exceed the current upper earnings limit (or the prescribed equivalent);

but this subsection is subject to regulations under section 6(5) above and sections 116 to 120 below and to section 41 of the Pensions Act (reduced rates of Class 1 contributions for earners in contracted-out employment).
(2) For the purposes of this Act the primary percentage shall be 10 per cent; but the percentage is subject to alteration under sections 143 and 145 of the Administration Act."
(4) For section 9 of that Act there shall be substituted the following section—
"Calculation of secondary Class 1 contributions.
9.—(1) Where a secondary Class 1 contribution is payable, the amount of that contribution shall he the secondary percentage of so much of the earnings paid in the
1282
tax week, in respect of the employment in question, as exceeds the current earnings threshold (or the prescribed equivalent).
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, the secondary percentage shall be 12.2 per cent; but the percentage is subject to alteration under sections 143 and 145 of the Administration Act.
(3) Subsection (1) above is subject to regulations under section 6(5) above and sections 116 to 120 below and to section 41 of the Pensions Act.").
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendments—
64A Line 4, leave out ("subsections") and insert ("subsection").
64B Leave out lines 12 to 15 and insert ("and those limits and that threshold shall be the amounts—").
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 64A to Lords Amendment No. 64. In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 64B.
These amendments remedy the damage caused by the introduction to Government Amendment No. 64 of changes put forward by noble Lords opposite at Third Reading—changes that I condemned as ill judged, irresponsible and imprudent and that I urged the House to reject. Noble Lords opposite sought to introduce into the Bill a change that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said he will make at a later date. But the way they sought to do so would have had extremely damaging effects. They would have removed access to certain contributory benefits for up to 1 million low paid workers, four-fifths of them women. They would have cut future SERPS occupational and personal pensions for millions of others and would have reduced national insurance contribution revenue by approaching £1.5 billion a year without any consideration of whether the financial circumstances were right.
It is not, and never has been, the Government's intention to make this change to the lower earnings limits in April 1999. The Chancellor never said that it was. As he explained, he would not implement the change until accompanying measures were in place to ensure that people did not lose access to contributory benefits as a result. That is why, as I explained to your Lordships at the time, despite the noble Lord's amendment, the Government would not and did not introduce the measure into the Bill.
The other place has now had the debate—at some length—so unnecessarily wished upon them by noble Lords opposite. The result is the amendments before us today, amendments which clearly and unequivocally reject the changes proposed by noble Lords opposite and repair the damage that those changes would otherwise have done to the Government's carefully considered package of proposals for restructuring the national insurance system.
The Government's proposals have been widely welcomed. They will help to make work pay. If the new structure was in place today, each and every employee paying national insurance would pay £1.28 a week less. Our proposals will also encourage employers to create jobs for people moving from welfare into work and they

1283
will simplify the administration of the scheme for business. The overall effect will be to improve work incentives and make it more attractive to employ those moving from welfare into work. The Government will build further upon these measures in future reforms, but only when the time is right and when the benefit implications have been properly addressed.
Amendments Nos. 64A and 64B clearly show that the other place believes that the Government's approach to the reform of the national insurance system is the right one. The noble Lord opposite said at the time that his prime concern was to allow the other place the debate which it has now had. As a result, I urge the House to support the Government's reforms by agreeing to Amendments Nos. 64A and 64B.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 64A to Lords Amendment No. 64.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the noble Baroness said a moment ago that your Lordships had unnecessarily wished upon the Commons the amendments we are now considering. It is often said that the purpose of this noble Chamber is to be a revising Chamber. However, what we did in our amendment was not to ask the Commons to think again but to give it an opportunity for the first time to consider the important issues raised in our debates. It is surely entirely appropriate, even more so than asking the Commons to think again, that your Lordships should have sought to do that. I reject wholeheartedly the noble Baroness's charge that this was in any way irresponsible.
It is, of course, the case, as the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, that the sums of money are considerable. I shall return to that in a moment. The fact is that we asked the other place to look at measures which were widely thought, particularly in the media in reports of Budget day, to have been part of the Budget. Therefore, I regret the fact that the other place was not prepared to accept the amendment which your Lordships put before it; or, indeed, if the other place did not like the exact terms, to amend the amendment.
To some extent, this whole issue turns on timing. I do not wish to weary the House again—we debated the matter at some length at Third Reading—about the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has behaved. It is now clearly on the record that he went before the Treasury Select Committee and in terms said that he had said something in his Budget speech which only a superficial examination demonstrates he did not say. I regret that. It would have been more appropriate simply for him to have apologised and to have explained why the misunderstanding arose. It is widely thought that he used the words he did in the Budget speech to create the impression that he was going to give concessions which he is not at the moment prepared to do. To be absolutely frank, I cannot conceive of any of the Members of your Lordships' House who have previously been Chancellor of the Exchequer behaving in the way in which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer behaved in front of the Treasury Select Committee. However, I leave the matter there and turn to the issues of substance raised by the noble Baroness.
1284
Timing is, in a sense, the essential part of this issue, which is why we put forward an amendment referring specifically to 1999–2000. If, as appears to be the case, the Chancellor does not propose to go ahead with his original proposal—indeed, he has gone so far now as to have it voted down in the Commons so he himself did not appear to defend it—it would have been perfectly appropriate for the Government to have put down an amendment to the amendment saying that they did not like the dates and that they would change them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He stated that the Chancellor was not going ahead with his original proposal. I have to say, and it has been said dozens of times, that the Chancellor never made that as an original proposal. The noble Lord should not attribute to the Chancellor words which were not given.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I may have misunderstood what the noble Baroness has just said. If she is saying that the Government are not at any stage proposing to go ahead with what the Chancellor said in his Budget speech, that would be an interesting statement. However, at all events, it would have been perfectly appropriate for the Government to have changed the dates. The Government did not change the dates and they are not now proposing to accept the amendments in the form in which they were originally tabled.
Why are they not prepared to put dates on what the Chancellor felt appropriate to put forward in his Budget speech? My purpose today is to get an answer from the noble Baroness in that regard. If the Chancellor thought it appropriate to go ahead and mention this—it was very much a central part of the press coverage which he received—it is not inappropriate for us to ask to have a date put upon it. The reality is that we have not had a date put upon it.
The Red Book did not contain the £1.5 billion figure which one would expect. The purpose of the Red Book is to set out the Government's plans for the economy for the following four or five years. Yet we have something here which the Chancellor put in his Budget speech but we have no idea whether it will happen in those five years or at a time beyond the next election. If economists and others are to judge correctly what the Government's position is, the expenditure should be set out in the appropriate place. But that has not happened. We are therefore forced to the conclusion that it will happen in the next Parliament. I hope very much that that will not be the situation. One cannot have a sum of 1.5 billion knocking around in the forecast for the next four or five years without people having some idea in which year this will take place.
The noble Baroness said that we ought to say where we will find the money. Alas, that is not the task of those on this side of the House. If we were on the other side of the House, it would be our task. However, the Chancellor has floated this idea—we are now told that it was no more than an aspiration—without saying where he will find the money in the following years. That has not turned up. We are not clear about the reason for the delay.

1285
I should say in passing that we reject the argument put forward by the noble Baroness both at Third Reading and again today that our amendment would have the effect which she set out on 1 million low-paid people and so on. The Government themselves made clear that when these proposals are implemented they intend that every employee in the country who has had an income of between £64 and £81 a week will have his position protected. What we are not clear about is the reason for the delay.
There seem to be two obvious reasons. First, the Chancellor does not know where he will get the money from. If that is the case it is appropriate to put that in the Red Book. The second reason is that the Government have not yet thought how to protect the position of those with incomes of between £64 and £81 a week. As the Chancellor took the trouble to mention this specifically in his Budget speech, we are entitled to ask the Minister to give the options for protecting people in this particular group. The impression created at the moment—it is difficult to draw any other conclusion—is that the Government do not have the remotest idea of how to carry out what the Chancellor said in the second part of the controversial paragraph which has now been quoted so often both in your Lordships' House and in the other place.
This is an ideal opportunity for the noble Baroness to clarify the position and to say whether this matter will be delayed until we have the Green Paper on pensions reform. This has become a very movable feast. When these proposals were first put forward after the election we were told that the Green Paper would be published in the early part of this year and then in the middle of the year. The noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong, but we understand from press reports and leaks, that it will not be until the latter part of the year—perhaps the final quarter—that we shall get the Green Paper on pensions reform. Can she now say when we shall get it and specifically whether the Chancellor's proposals for protecting those earning between £64 and £81 will be included in the Green Paper? If that is not the case, are we to get the news before that or some time yet further in the future?
It is helpful to have this debate this afternoon. We want to move the matter forward. It is an important matter. Therefore, first, when are we now likely to get the proposals which the Chancellor foreshadowed—it was no more than that, although it did not seem that way at the time? Secondly, can the Minister say what the options are for protecting those in the income groups to which I have referred? Finally, can she say when we are likely 'o have the Green Paper? The amendment was entirely appropriate and in no way irresponsible. Indeed, believe we would have been failing in our duty if we had not given the other place the opportunity on a specific amendment to debate this very important issue.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, was severely critical of the method by which the Government introduced the extremely important changes to national insurance contributions. Those changes were introduced at Report stage in this
1286
House after the Bill had completed all its stages in the other place. We on these Benches entirely agree with those criticisms. It is not right that matters of such importance should be introduced at Report stage in this House on a Commons Bill, especially when that Bill relates to the raising of money.
At Report and Third Reading I made that view clear on behalf of my party. Therefore, I take the view that the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, was a useful peg on which to hang a debate at Third Reading. However, I take the view that it was quite wrong to press it to a vote. As the Minister pointed out extremely powerfully in her speech at Third Reading, it will cut Government revenue by £1.5 billion, which is not an appropriate action for this House to take. Even more importantly, the amendment as it stands would deprive those with incomes between £64 and £81 a week of the right to contributory benefits.
The alleged justification for this amendment was the Chancellor of the Exchequer's undertaking in the Budget to raise the threshold for employee contributions, but that is not really sufficient to justify it. I have re-read the Budget speech and press releases which accompanied it. It certainly seems to me that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was ambiguous as to whether those changes were to be introduced in 1999. It is justifiable to criticise the Chancellor on that ground. What he said confused people, if only for a short period of time. But it certainly does not go beyond ambiguity to anything in the nature of an undertaking. It is clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer never said that he would raise the lower earnings limit for the single person's allowance in 1999.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, gave rise to a very lengthy debate in the other place: it took some three and a half hours. I have skimmed through it and I must say that I am left with a feeling of some pleasure at not having had to listen to it. The noble Lord's amendment has served its purpose by leading to a full and intelligent debate in this House and to what can only be described as an interminable one in the other place. I believe that it is now time that that amendment is put to sleep and that the Government's amendment be accepted by this House, with the amendments proposed by the Government.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his contribution. Perhaps I may comment very briefly on some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, before inviting the House to accept the amendments made by the other place.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, made the point that the amendment served its purpose by giving the Commons the opportunity to debate at some considerable length issues associated with national insurance and LEL which would otherwise be denied to us had this amendment not been passed by this House. That is not true. A range of national insurance amendments went from this House to the other place, but whether they should have gone to that place first is a different issue. There was plenty of opportunity for the other place to discuss national insurance at as great a length and with such degree of

1287
detail or tedium as it chose to bring to bear. The notion that somehow this House was obliged to offer that hook to the other place was not true at the time and it was not true in the event. It is still a spurious argument for the noble Lord to advance.
Nor is it true that the media thought that, arising from the Chancellor's Budget Statement, the lower earnings limit was going to be introduced in just 11 months' time. The Chancellor never said that at the time. He said that from April 1999 the 2 per cent. entry fee contributions paid by employees on the portion of their earnings up to LEL would be abolished which would lead to the figure of £1.28. The Times the next day said that Gordon Brown had told MPs that his reform of national insurance would put an extra £66 in the pocket of all employees or £1.28 a week, as did the Daily Telegraph. In other words, the Chancellor's own words and those reported by two national newspapers made it very clear that they understood that the Chancellor was addressing the issue of the 2 per cent. entry fee and not the wider issue of the lower earnings limit, knowing perfectly well that that required a whole set of other changes which were not explored in that Budget. There should not have been any of the misunderstanding that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, appears to have suffered.
Equally, it was clear that the Chancellor was not giving a date when the raising of the lower earnings limit would be introduced. He never intended it to be April 1999. It has not yet been determined when it will be introduced, but only when we believe that the situation is right. It is therefore obvious that there will not be an indication in the Red Book as to the financial consequences flowing from the change because the timing of that has still to be determined.
For the noble Lord to criticise the Chancellor for making a commitment that he did not make and for then not having it in the Red Book, presuming that the commitment had been made, is to criticise him in a back to front way. The Chancellor has a settled intention to raise the lower earnings limit when he believes that the arrangements for contributory benefits are fully in place and that the £1.5 billion implication for the national insurance fund will be met. When he has done that and he is sure that the circumstances are correct, he will introduce that change and not before. Surely, that is the prudent way to behave. As a result, I believe this amendment was irresponsible—
Lord Higgins: My Lords, as regards the amendment, the question was whether the other place had an opportunity to vote on these issues. In a general sense they could have debated it a little but not voted. As regards the Red Book situation, that covers the next four years. If it going to happen in that time, clearly this measure should be included in the calculations, otherwise no one has any idea what the forecast means. Looking at the Red Book now, the only inference is that it is not going to happen in the next few years.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I suggest that the noble Lord is wrong on both counts. As regards the first, a number of amendments went from this House on national insurance. The other place can debate any issue that it wishes to raise which is relevant to national insurance and by amending our amendments had they chosen to do so. It is not true that it required the noble Lord's amendment in order to discuss this issue. It was not true in this House and nor was it true for the other place. It is not true now that the matter has come back to us again. On three occasions it has not been true so it is unlikely to be true now.
The second point that the noble Lord made was that it was not in the Red Book and therefore there is some assumption that it will not happen in the next four to five years. The noble Lord does not need me to tell him, because he has much greater expertise on this than I would profess to have, that the Red Book outlines a rolling programme. Each and every year there is a new Red Book.
Were the Chancellor to have indicated a date when the financial consequences would have to be addressed he would have already made up his mind about when the changes were to be introduced. If he had not made up his mind he could not possibly indicate in the Red Book the date at which the financial consequences would be experienced by the public finances. When he determines that they will be introduced, that will be reflected in the Red Book for that year, with its rolling programme for the next four years. That is standard procedure and the noble Lord knows it perfectly well. You cannot include in the Red Book the fact that X will happen if you have not decided when X will happen. If you have not decided when X will happen, you cannot put it into the Red Book as a proposal on which all relevant government departments must operate. The noble Lord knows that perfectly well. He is yet again producing a red herring for the House that I would hope the House is not misguided enough to follow.
He finally made a point of asking when the pensions review would take place. We expect to see a pensions Green Paper later this year. At that point, some of these issues will be discussed, although not necessarily the lower earnings limit.
I hope that with that assurance on pensions, the House will be minded to accept the amendments put forward by the other place. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 64B to Lords Amendment No. 64.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 64B to Lords Amendment No. 64.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
166 Schedule 6, page 80, line 8, at end insert—
(".For subsections (1) and (1A) of section 41 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (reduced rates of Class 1 contributions) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
"(1) Subsections (1A) to (1C) apply where—

(a) the earnings paid to or for the benefit of an earner in any tax week are in respect of an employment which is contracted-out employment at the time of the payment, and

(b) the earner's service in the employment is service which qualifies him for a pension provided by a salary related contracted-out scheme;

and in subsections (1A) and (1B) "the relevant part", in relation to those earnings, means so much of those earnings as exceeds the current lower earnings limit but not the current upper earnings limit for that week (or the prescribed equivalents if the earner is paid otherwise than weekly).
(1A) The amount of the primary Class 1 contribution in respect of the relevant part of those earnings ("amount A") shall be reduced by an amount equal to 1.6 per cent of that part.
(1B) The amount of any secondary Class 1 contribution in respect of the earnings ("amount B") shall be reduced by an amount equal to 3 per cent of the relevant part of those earnings ("amount C").
(1C) Where amount C exceeds amount B, the excess shall be set off against the amount which the secondary contributor is liable to pay (under paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992) in respect of amount A."
. For subsections (1) and (2) of section 42A of that Act (reduced rates of Class 1 contributions, and rebates) there shall be substituted the following subsections—
"(1) Subsections (2) to (3) apply where—

(a) the earnings paid to or for the benefit of an earner in any tax week are in respect of an employment which is contracted-out employment at the time of the payment, and

(b) the earner's service in the employment is service which qualifies him for a pension provided by a money purchase contracted-out scheme;

and in subsections (2) and (2A) "the relevant part", in relation to those earnings, means so much of those earnings as exceeds the current lower earnings limit but not the current upper earnings limit for that week (or the prescribed equivalents if the earner is paid otherwise than weekly).
(2) The amount of the primary Class 1 contribution in respect of the relevant part of those earnings ("amount A") shall be reduced by an amount equal to the appropriate flat-rate percentage of that part.
(2A) The amount of any secondary Class 1 contribution in respect of the earnings ("amount B") shall be reduced by an amount equal to the appropriate flat-rate percentage of the relevant part of those earnings ("amount C").
(2B) Where amount C exceeds amount B, the excess shall be set off against the amount which the secondary contributor is liable to pay (under paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992) in respect of amount A."").
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
166A Line 2, leave out from beginning to ("(reduced") in line 3 and insert—
(". In subsection (2) of section 8 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (meaning of "minimum payment" etc.), for the words "section 42A(2)" there shall be substituted the words "section 42A".
. For subsections (1) and (1A) of section 41 of that Act").
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 166A to Lords Amendment No. 166.
I shall be extremely brief. This amendment is consequential to the changes made by Lords Amendment No. 166 to Section 42A of the Pension Schemes Act 1993. It clarifies the definition of minimum payment in Section 8(2) of that Act. I commend the acceptance of the amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 166A to Lords Amendment No. 166.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Regional Development Agencies Bill
3.32 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Just over a year ago, this Government were elected with a clear mandate to take forward a large number of substantial and far-reaching reforms, including many which will revitalise the way we run our country and its institutions. The electorate agreed with us that it was time to take a fresh look at the way government business is done and at how we involve people in that business and to put matters on a footing more appropriate to the 21st century.
In Scotland and in Wales we have, as promised in our manifesto, embarked upon devolution of powers to a Scottish parliament and a Welsh assembly, responding to demands from the Scottish and Welsh people. In London we are proceeding with our plans for a Greater London assembly and mayor, following the "Yes" vote secured in the London referendum. And in the English regions we are taking a first important step towards decentralising decision taking.
The needs and the interests of England's regions have for many years been neglected, particularly during the 18 years of the previous administration. I should, however, acknowledge one positive step. The previous government established the government offices for the regions, so bringing together for the first time four departments of state in a single regional office. In Opposition we very much welcomed that development. It was a relatively small step towards better organisation of government representation at the regional level, but it has provided us with a foundation on which to build when in government.
Generally, the English regions have not in recent years commanded the attention they so obviously deserve. This Bill is intended as a first step to redressing that balance and giving people in the regions the opportunity to influence their own future in a way that has not previously been possible.
This Bill will provide for regional development agencies (RDAs) to be established in each region of England. Its primary purpose is to give our regions the

1291
opportunity to bridge the economic deficit which has afflicted them for far too long. RDAs will provide the mechanism to ensure that efforts in the regions to boost skills, promote business excellence and attract new investment will be delivered in a co-ordinated and effective manner, with all interested parties working to agreed and common goals. The Bill fulfils a manifesto commitment which promised that each region would have a development agency of its own to match those that have worked so successfully in Scotland and in Wales since the mid-1970s.
The economic case for RDAs is overwhelming. Most of our regions are performing well below the European average. Indeed, the most recently published statistics from Eurostat—the European Commission's statistical agency—for 1995 show a decline in GDP per capita in every region in England since 1993 compared to the European average. There is now only one region in the whole of the UK which is performing above the EU average. By contrast, in Italy six out of 11 do so; in Germany 11 out of 16.
Much work has already been done in our regions—by local authorities, regional partners and the government offices—to improve regional performance. The problem is that there are often too many disparate organisations delivering economic development in the regions. That leads to confusion, fruitless competition and sometimes duplication of effort. Where people are following a common agenda, this has often been more by good luck than by good judgment. The Government's objective with this Bill is to put in place a framework which builds on the partnership and co-operation which already exist but gives them a clear direction developed through consensus. That is the added value that RDAs will bring.
One striking feature of the past 12 months has been the degree of enthusiasm our proposals have met with in the regions. Our consultation paper, for example, received over 1,500 responses. Throughout England people see in RDAs a real opportunity to improve the fortunes of their regions and recognise the advantages RDAs will bring. The whole process has created its own momentum for regional co-operation and regional partnership, even in regions where traditionally there has been no strong identity. I saw this myself at first-hand when I joined the Eastern region's local government conference earlier this year in Chelmsford which started the process of establishing a voluntary chamber for the Eastern region.
Turning to the Bill itself, the Government's White Paper Building Partnerships for Prosperity published last December set out our proposed agenda for RDAs. The Bill will give them the powers they need to deliver that agenda.
The Government recognise that different regions have different needs. The Bill therefore contains a framework of enabling powers which will allow each RDA to develop its own approach to its unique and individual regional problems and needs.
Clause 1 of the Bill provides for the establishment of an RDA in each of England's nine regions. The areas of the RDAs will correspond to those of the government
1292
offices for the regions. The administrative boundaries of the government office areas are well established for economic purposes, and we think it makes sense to base the RDAs on them. We decided early on, for reasons of economy of scale, that the north-west would be best served by one RDA.
I know that boundaries have been an issue of concern for some Members of the House. But I am absolutely certain that my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister was right to decide at the outset that we should not be diverted from the main task in hand by disputes endlessly about boundaries. That would serve only to fuel disagreement and rivalries within regions. Our objective is to get people to work together and sometimes they will need to work together, across regional boundaries as well as within them so as to make our regions and our country more competitive.
Clause 2 of the Bill deals with the constitution of RDAs. It provides for between eight and 15 members to be appointed to the boards of the agencies. The Government envisage appointing 12 members to each board. We are looking for high calibre candidates with experience relevant to the RDAs' purposes to serve on boards which will be business-led and which will reflect the broadest possible range of regional interests. In making appointments, we do not propose to stick rigidly to a set composition of sectoral interests on the board; board members will not act as delegates. We are looking for candidates who can bring a range of experience to the board, including with experience and expertise from local government, further and higher education, trade unions and the voluntary sector. As many of your Lordships will be aware, we have made a firm undertaking that at least one member of each RDA board outside London will be someone with rural knowledge and expertise. We have sought nominations from all interested parties in preparing for making these appointments.
Clause 4 sets out the five key purposes of the RDAs: furthering economic development and regeneration; promoting business efficiency, investment and competitiveness; promoting employment; promoting the development and application of skills; and promoting sustainable development. Clause 4 also provides, for the avoidance of doubt, that the purposes of RDAs apply as much in relation to the rural parts of their area as to the non-rural parts.
Clause 5 enables RDAs, with certain restrictions, to do anything which they consider expedient to their purposes.
The Government intend that the functions of RDAs should be wide-ranging. We want RDAs to have a degree of influence and authority in their regions which will enable them to make a real difference to regional economies and regional competitiveness.
The White Paper Building Partnerships for Prosperity set out in detail the functions we propose for RDAs. It is, as I shall briefly outline, a challenging and influential package: RDAs will be responsible, for example, for the development of a strategic framework for the provision of skills training. We want RDAs, working with TECs and other regional partners, to

1293
ensure that the workforce has the capability to meet the needs of business in the regions. To reinforce this, they will play a part in scrutinising the work of TECs and Business Links with a view to advising government how to improve their performance.
Regional development agencies will be responsible for co-ordinating inward investment in their regions. Government funding for inward investment work will in future be channelled through RDAs. They will advise Ministers on regional selective assistance applications.
Regional development agencies will also become the major bodies responsible for regeneration in the regions. They will inherit the regeneration role of English Partnerships, which has, under the skilful chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Worcester, secured a wide and well deserved reputation for innovative and successful regeneration work, and this will provide RDAs with a firm foundation on which to build. They will also inherit the rural regeneration work of the Rural Development Commission, which I know already is highly valued in our rural areas.
Under Clause 6, which enables Ministers to delegate functions to RDAs, RDAs will be given responsibility for administering the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund.
By bringing together within a single body the separate regeneration programmes of the RDC, English Partnerships and the government offices for the regions, RDAs will be able to provide a better co-ordinated approach to meeting the needs of their regions. They will continue to work with local partnerships, as their predecessor organisations have done.
Clause 7 requires RDAs to formulate and keep under review a regional strategy in relation to their purposes and to have regard to the strategy in exercising their functions. For the first time there will be, in each region, a body responsible for setting a strategic framework for economic decision-taking at the regional level. The strategy will be the first, and most important, task for RDAs.
Much of the remainder of the Bill establishes the legislative framework for governing the activities of RDAs, replicating for the most part the statutory powers and duties of the Urban Regeneration Agency—that is, English Partnerships—in order that RDAs can take on the regeneration role of EP. There are, in addition, provisions for transferring property, rights and liabilities to the regional development agencies in connection with the functions they are to inherit; for example, from EP and from the RDC and the government offices.
Regional development agencies are to be set up in the form of the conventional non-departmental public bodies. They will for the most part be financed from public funds and, in the absence at present of a legitimate, directly elected regional tier of government, they will be accountable to Ministers and to Parliament for their actions in the normal way. But it is important, as we take this first step towards greater regional autonomy, that we make proper provision for RDAs to be responsive to views from within their regions. We have, therefore, made provision in the Bill for scrutiny
1294
by regional interests of the work of RDAs. The Bill, in Clauses 8 and 18, provides a mechanism for building on the informal structures that local authorities and their regional partners have already taken, or are taking, steps to set up.
Clause 8 enables the Secretary of States to designate a regional chamber as the focus for regional consultation about the work of an RDA; and Clause 18 allows him to direct RDAs to give an account of themselves to regional chambers. Chambers will therefore have a substantial role to play in the work of RDAs and in ensuring that their work reflects the needs and views of the whole region. We are delighted that local authorities in the regions are actively participating in developing chambers.
This is perhaps an appropriate moment to mention a concern that was raised by a number of noble Lords in the context of the Statement on our White Paper last December—that is, the question of planning powers for RDAs. Noble Lords may be aware that the Government, responding to concerns expressed, in particular by local government, announced at the Report stage of the Bill in another place that we would not proceed with our proposal to give RDAs reserve planning powers. It was suggested that these powers were inconsistent with the partnership approach which is at the heart of RDAs. On reflection, the Government agreed with this.
There are one or two specific matters on which I should like to spend a few moments, since I know concerns have been expressed about them. The first is sustainability and the role of the RDAs in achieving it. I have spoken at some length about the need for our regions to be competitive and for the regional partners to improve the economic prospects of their region through attracting more inward investment, through improving business performance and through economic and social regeneration. But we intend that this will be done in a sustainable way.
The Bill provides for sustainable development to be at the heart of the regional development agencies' work. Indeed, we are striking out on a new pathway in this Bill because, for the first time, the purposes of a development agency will require the agency to treat economic, social and environmental considerations with equal regard. An RDA will be required—for example, when it is acting to further the economic development and regeneration of its area—to do so in a way which contributes to the achievement of sustainable development in the United Kingdom.
This is not, I must stress, an optional extra. The effect of the Bill is to require sustainable development to be a factor in all the decisions an RDA makes. The RDAs will promote jobs, growth and competitiveness in our regions—that is their raison d'être—but they must do so in a way which is compatible with safeguarding the environment, and with social progress.
The guidance we intend to give the agencies will be important in making it very clear what we expect of RDAs in this respect. It will be vital that RDAs are clear about how they should go about fulfilling their sustainable development purpose. The Bill provides for us to issue guidance on how they might do this.

1295
I also want to say a few words about the impact of the Bill on rural areas. The Government believe firmly in opportunity, fairness and prosperity for all, whether they live in the city or the countryside. Rural areas are a key part of the national economy where many people live and work. Our countryside must be both living and working, and we are committed to addressing its own range of problems as much as those of anywhere else.
Regional development agencies will be region-wide bodies, with extensive responsibilities for the development and regeneration of their regions and for promoting the economic well-being of their regions. This means the whole region. They will add value precisely because they will be required to take a coherent and integrated approach to the needs of their regions. This, in the Government's view, can only bring benefits to rural areas and will avoid the risk of rural interests being marginalised in any way.
There are, of course, often very different pressures on our rural areas from those on our urban areas. Indeed, different rural areas face very different pressures. We have said that the guidance we give to RDAs will deal specifically with rural needs and the determination of priorities for rural areas. Government support for rural areas will continue to be reflected in the RDAs' funding. As I have already mentioned, at least one member of each RDA board will be someone with rural knowledge and expertise.
Although RDAs will take over the rural regeneration programmes of the RDC, the Government are committed to retaining a national body for expertise, advice and information on rural matters. On 27th March my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced the merger of the Countryside Commission and the Rural Development Commission to form a new champion for rural England and its countryside. It is intended that this merger will be effected under powers in Part II of this Bill. The new body is expected to begin operation in April 1999. Taken together, our proposals for RDAs and a new countryside body will ensure that we understand the particular needs of rural areas, while addressing them within the overall framework for a region as a whole.
I should also like to say a brief word about London. The Government's proposal for a new London development agency was announced in the White Paper on London government. The LDA will have broadly the same powers and functions as the other RDAs. The people of London have voted an overwhelming "Yes" to having their own mayor and assembly. The LDA will be directly accountable to the mayor and will implement the mayor's economic development and regeneration strategy for the capital. As an arm of the Greater London Authority, the LDA will not be established until the mayor and assembly are in place. The LDA's board will be business-led, as with the other RDAs, but it will be appointed by the mayor. In addition, government funds for regeneration, the promotion of inward investment, English partnerships and tourism will be channelled through the mayor.
This Bill has not captured the overwhelming attention of the editors and sub-editors of our national dailies. This is not surprising. Perhaps it is a reflection of the
1296
neglect of regional interests to which I referred earlier. But I can assure your Lordships that it is a very different story in the regions themselves, where this first but significant step in our regional agenda has been widely and enthusiastically welcomed. Anyone who visits the regions and meets those who have regional interests at heart will know that people welcome the opportunity to shape their own future which RDAs and this Bill will give them. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Hayman.)
3.50 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her usual clear explanation of the Bill and its provisions. She will understand that, while we on these Benches share her enthusiasm for prosperity in the regions, we do not necessarily share her enthusiasm for the methods outlined in the Bill to try to achieve it. Our concerns are about whether there is a need for this additional layer of bureaucracy, the effect on local government, the power of the Secretary of State, the rural dimension and how the proposals fit with the Government's intention towards the regions and their proposals for regional government.
Had the Government not climbed down over the planning powers which were originally to be given to regional development agencies, we should have been concentrating on those. Suffice it to say that the withdrawal is welcome, although the fact that an administration committed to open government, the extension and strengthening of local government and the rolling back of the "tide of quangos"—the Prime Minister's words, not mine—should have contemplated giving wide planning powers to centrally appointed, non-elected and locally unaccountable bodies is, to say the least, extraordinary.
Therefore, while we shall not be voting against the Bill, there are nevertheless significant matters of detail upon which it is legitimate for this House to express a view. Is there a need for this additional bureaucracy? A number of questions must be answered. First, will the existence of these bodies attract more investment into England? What is it that leads Ministers to believe that these structures, with the accompanying staffing and administrative costs, will do better at attracting investment into England than in the past?
The Government try to have it both ways. On the one hand, as the Minister has said this afternoon, it says that the measures are necessary because of the state of the regions and their economy. On the other hand, the Government say in the White Paper:
"The cumulative value of foreign direct investment … into the UK has risen from $28 billion in 1975 to over $344 billion in 1996. The UK receives the largest share of [foreign direct investment] in the European Union, including about 40 per cent. of US and Japanese overseas investment.
"In manufacturing [foreign direct investment], accounts for 18 per cent. of employment, 32 per cent. of capital expenditure and 40 per cent. of UK exports. Over the last decade, FDI has not only created over 600,000 jobs but has helped to develop and modernise the industrial base".

1297
The question must be asked: will not the proliferation of agencies lead to different and competing voices being heard for England? If competition is no bad thing, then why not leave it to the existing local authorities either individually or by ensuring that they have the means to work together to continue the excellent work that many of them are doing irrespective of their political complexion?
If the regions proposed had a clear identity obvious to the people of England—never mind the foreign investor—I would be less worried as it would then be possible for each region to speak with a united voice in the same way as to a great extent it is possible to speak with one voice for Scotland or Wales. As it is, there will be inevitable confusion for foreign investors as they are faced with competing demands for their business from different parts of what to them is the same country. What protection will the Government provide against an auction of benefits between the regions? If the answer is that this is one of the many aspects which is to remain in the hands of the Secretary of State, why set up the structures in the first place?
The Government represent this Bill as a decentralising measure but, while the agencies may be based in the regions, accountability is to be to the Secretary of State and, through him, to Parliament. He is able to control all aspects of the RDA including from the beginning the central selection of the membership. It is not good enough to answer this by the requirements to consult. The RDAs will be central government bodies created, appointed, guided, reporting to and funded by central government grant and consent. From where will the necessary funds come? How much is to be taken from existing programmes and how much from local government under the pretext that certain matters are now being dealt with regionally?
Local government of all political colours has made enormous efforts in the field of economic development. Partnership deals have been struck, new investment has been attracted and regeneration has taken place. What is local government's reward for this? It is to see the primary responsibility taken away and given to a government-appointed quango operating at least in some cases over an area to which some authorities will feel no loyalty. I have no confidence in government denials that this will not be the case. Among the primary objectives of the RDAs are the furtherance of economic development, employment and business investment.
If there is to be a regional view about all this, then clearly the plans for some parts of the region are to be preferred to the plans of another part. The objectives for the area may not be compatible with individual authorities' own plans. Ministers may well believe that this is right but they should not pretend that the proposal does not impinge on local government. It will be said that the RDA is to work in partnership with the local authorities in its area but the decisions will rest with the appointed regional development agency responsible to the Secretary of State. But it is true that all the objectives of the RDAs are matters of legitimate concern to local government.
1298
The rural dimension to which the Minister has referred—or rather the lack of a clear recognition of it in the Bill—is of great importance. Although it is referred to in the White Paper, the Bill needs to be strengthened to protect the rural dimension. The decision to scrap the Rural Development Commission has already caused a great deal of concern. The RDC has a proven track record in rural affairs and the decision to remove most of its functions and hand them over to the new RDAs, which will be largely urban-based, adds to the crisis of confidence in rural England. We shall want to pursue a number of these matters in Committee including a guarantee on the face of the Bill of rural representation on the RDA boards and an explicit responsibility for RDAs to promote the interests of rural areas.
The Labour Party manifesto said:
"The Conservatives have created a tier of regional government in England through quangoes and government regional offices. Meanwhile local authorities have come together to create a more co-ordinated regional voice. Labour will build upon these developments through the establishment of regional chambers to co-ordinate transport planning, economic development, bids for European funding and land use planning".
Later, in the same section it reads:
"In time we will introduce legislation to allow the people, region by region, to decide in a referendum whether they want directly elected regional government".
The Government are certainly building on the quango and regional office with this Bill. The agencies will be major organisations, answerable to the Secretary of State, with very considerable powers, including the compulsory acquisition of land. In another place, it was suggested that that should not be the subject of criticism because they merely replicated the powers given to the ultimately-to-be-abolished English Partnerships. But its role was limited in scope compared with RDA's which will together cover the whole of England and therefore be capable of exercising those functions over the whole of the country in the area of every local authority.
We should look at the scope of the RDAs as published in the White Paper, a list which is rather more extensive than in the party's manifesto—leadership in developing regional economic strategies, social, physical and economic regeneration, regeneration of rural areas (a reference in the White Paper, not on the face of the Bill), taking a leading role on European Union structural funds, co-ordinating inward investment, providing advice to Ministers on regional selective assistance support, reclamation and preparation of sites facilitating investments, marketing, technology transfer promotion and improvement of the skills of the region. But interestingly enough, the TECs are not to come within the scope of the control of the RDAs. Added as a footnote to the list in the White Paper it states:
"RDAs will also contribute to policies and programmes on Transport; Land use; The environment and sustainable development; Further and Higher education; Crime prevention; Public health; Housing; Tourism; and Culture and sports infrastructure projects".
If I were a local government leader, I should not understand why the Secretary of State's White Paper, Local Democracy and Community Leadership, bothers to have a chapter on councils leading their communities,

1299
given that in virtually every field of local endeavour, they will be second-guessed by the regional quango which will often be based miles from their community.
I return to that part of the manifesto which spoke of regional chambers and regional government. Your Lordships will know that my party does not favour the division of England into separate regions. But this afternoon we are not discussing my party's policy. We are discussing a major government proposal to establish powerful regional bodies, centrally controlled, exercising important functions, and we are entitled to ask how that proposal fits with other government commitments in their manifesto.
If we do not ask that question, we are enabling the Government to proceed with significant changes to the way in which the regions are governed without being told the whole story. Do the Government believe that the regions, as set out in the schedule, represent the true regions of England? Do they have popular acceptance? The truth is surely that they are based, with one exception—and that is an amalgamation of two government office areas—on the arbitrary boundaries of the Government's own regional offices. It was legitimate to establish those boundaries for the operation of the government offices, but it is not legitimate when trying to create a region which has a genuine community of interest across its whole area. Surely before proceeding, steps should have been taken to try to establish—and I have no doubt it would be difficult—what areas enjoyed a broad consensus that they belonged together.
Certainly if the Government believe that regional identities comparable with those to be found in other parts of the European Union, will spring from the areas specified in the schedule, I fear that they are seriously mistaken. I have no doubt that some of those issues will he raised in Committee, just as they were in another place.
The White Paper speaks of the establishment of voluntary chambers and requires the RDA to "take account of" those views. Presumably at some time in the future, the Government, unless they have changed their mind, will envisage those structures being transferred into statutory chambers and ultimately, regional assemblies.
It is fair to examine the place of local democracy in relation to those proposals. The White Paper expects to draw members of RDAs from a broad range of interests including business, local authorities, the voluntary sector and wider business and employee perspectives. It also speaks of regional chambers being created to provide a regional voice which includes, as well as local councillors, all regional stakeholders. Would a regional assembly retain those unelected elements? If the RDA becomes accountable to an elected assembly, I presume that there would be no role left for the regional chamber. Where, then, is the voice of local government to be heard?
At present, however, not all the areas have voluntary chambers and certainly, when the White Paper was published, where they did exist, they did not necessarily coincide with the proposed regions. Perhaps the Minister will advise the House as to the up-to-date position.
However, it indicates that to start that process without first deciding what are the right areas for the regions is the wrong way to proceed. The Secretary of State has among
1300
his considerable armoury of powers the right to change areas. I fear that a great deal of initial energy may be spent by some parties seeking to make changes at an early stage. That is inevitable and, I submit, right since communities must feel included and joined with their natural neighbours, otherwise, within the area of an RDA, there is a great danger of divisiveness and alienation, and possible accusations of unfair treatment will abound.
As for the proposal for elected assemblies, the timetable, if it still exists, seems to be somewhat uncertain. But if it does exist, there seems to be a danger that by this Bill, which will establish the RDAs, which will presumably become accountable first to chambers and then to any assembly which is created, the areas of the regions will have been pre-empted.
The Financial Times this morning reported that:
"Ministers intend to recall the Commons regional affairs committee. It could be renamed the English grand committee and may, over time, acquire limited law-making powers.
The committee will be the exclusive preserve of English MPs … The recall of the committee will take place in the next session of parliament, and its first meetings are expected to focus on the planned regional development agencies for England … The cabinet is divided on whether to pursue Labour's commitment to elected assemblies in the English regions. Those who oppose assemblies because there is limited demand for them believe that the regional affairs committee could be an effective alternative".
If that is what is being said, reported and spun out of government offices, the House should be told what is the position when we are debating this important Bill on the establishment of those powerful bodies.
Lastly, the RDA for London is to be a special case. It is to be created by this Bill, but, according to the White Paper on London, the RDA will be appointed by and answerable to the mayor of London. I ask the Minister, as I have before, whether that means that the Greater London Authority is to be the regional assembly for London or whether that is something which comes later. The Bill does not appear to deal with the London position. The White Paper speaks of transitional arrangements. There are none in this Bill. If I have missed them, I apologise. But it appears that we shall be setting up the London agency through this Bill and then need to amend the proposals in relation to it when we have the legislation on the mayor and authority for London.
There are reflected in the responses, which the Government claim to be overwhelmingly in support of their proposals, a number of reservations and comments of concern. Those concerns, the apparent inconsistencies, the unanswered questions and, indeed, the important points of principle are matters which we need to expose, discuss and, if necessary, amend in Committee.
4.8 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, in thanking the Minister for her introduction. That is not the full extent to which I support what he says, and I hope that my tone, as well as my words, will be rather more supportive.
The Liberal Democrats broadly welcome the Bill. We welcome it in part because of the centralisation which we have seen over the past two decades, particularly in

1301
the 1980s. I have seen that referred to as the fragmentation of the public realm arising from privatisation, the establishment of arm's length agencies and "marketisation"—a terrible word—of public services. Those things are not necessarily bad but they have highlighted the need to improve management at regional level. We also welcome the Bill because, quite simply, we have been losing out in a Europe which organises many of its affairs regionally. We welcome the holistic approach to regional affairs. The jargon term may make this sound no more than a matter of fashion, but there is much criticism of every government when they fail to use the imagination necessary to cross departmental boundaries.
Whether, in practice, the RDAs will meet the tests of devolution and decentralisation, and of common sense breaking through bureaucratic structures, remains to be seen. We would have wished them to have had greater responsibility; for example, for the work of the TECs and Business Links. We are disappointed that the Bill represents only a small step on the road to regional government. The degree of decentralisation may not be as great as has been claimed for the agencies. I use the term "decentralisation" deliberately because I want—indeed, as all of us on these Benches want—to see decentralisation, devolution from central government, not detracting from local government.
I recall how the government offices for the regions were packaged as some form of regional government when they were introduced by the previous government. They were not. Even though we welcomed them, we welcomed them for what they were. They were not a form of regional government. In that period, we were concerned about the remaining central control. I must confess to a degree of concern that central control, or at any rate the scope for central control, can be read into very much of this Bill.
Local government is all too familiar with financial regimes which involve government grants, the Secretary of State's approval of borrowing, with low aggregate limits, and the Secretary of State's determination of financial duties. All these appear in the Bill. That is perhaps fair enough. The RDAs are to be the creatures of central government. As they are not directly democratically accountable, I accept that there is a logic to that type of control. But that control is there and must been seen to be there, as well as being accepted as such.
The other side of the coin is the scope for—perhaps the need for given the retention of central powers—secondary legislation and directions. Again, that is perhaps fair enough, if it is not the RDAs or the regional chambers which are democratically accountable and responsible. However, that degree of central control—the scope for further legislation and directions—reminds us of their true constitutional position. That is pointed up especially in the geographical areas which will make up the RDAs. Both the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and the Minister referred to them.
The anomalies of the government-designated regions, and in some cases their lack of regional identity, have been much discussed. I do not necessarily argue that the boundaries of the regions should be revised now. I well
1302
understand the point that the Minister made; namely, that to concentrate on the boundaries would probably destroy any prospect of establishing the agencies for some considerable time. However, any review can only tinker at the margins. It appears that the boundaries can be revised, but not the number of regions. I wonder whether it should need primary legislation to alter the number of RDAs. If there is a review of the regions, then the numbers must be an issue as well as the fine detail of where the boundaries begin and end. It is possible that the European elections, which will be based on the same regions, will give us an opportunity to see whether they truly represent communities. In my view, especially in the south-east, they do not.
I have mentioned some of the financial constraints on RDAs. In some ways their powers are very wide but in others they are very much constrained. For example, unless I have misread the provision, it is beyond my powers of comprehension to understand why the agencies can only report on what the Secretary of State directs them to report on. Coming from a local government background, I must confess to an envy of each agency's ability to do anything which it considers to be "expedient for its purposes". In other words, it will be the agency's view not, I am happy to say, that of the Secretary of State; nor, more interestingly, an objective view. Nevertheless, I look forward with interest to the probability of conflict between the RDAs and the Secretary of State. The latter may consider that the actions of the RDAs are threatening his position. He may say that what they want to do is not "expedient". In any event, it will be their decision. Indeed, this will be a battle worth observing.
I am puzzled by what the Government anticipate. The RDAs can do what they believe to be "expedient" but, specifically, they cannot provide housing. I admit to a certain amount of confusion in that respect. We all know the links between employment—an objective of the Bill and of the agencies—and affordable housing. To exclude this topic, as the Bill does, is a matter that we may like to revisit.
I particularly welcome the Government's acceptance that to have given planning powers to the RDAs would have been quite inappropriate. However, I still wonder whether the regional planning frameworks will be robust enough to deal with the demands which will come from, the RDAs. On Report in another place, the Minister, rightly in my view, spoke of regional planning guidance and the RDAs' strategies being compatible and consistent. She said that the strategies of the RDAs will have to have due regard to regional planning guidance. However, she went on to say that neither would predominate. But surely there is a hierarchy. Is it not the case that regional planning guidance should be informed by, and take account of, the objectives of the RDAs and then do the job of reconciling the competing interests?
One of those interests is sustainability. It is no surprise to me that both previous speakers referred to it. Indeed, I am sure that that will be a topic which features in much of this afternoon's debate. I admit to being baffled by the wording in the Bill which requires each

1303
RDA to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development,
"where it is relevant to its area to do so".
The Minister said that sustainability will be at the heart of the work of the RDAs and that it is not an optional extra. But that is not what the Bill suggests, or at any rate what it suggests to me. I do not know what possessed the Government to put in that limit or to believe that sustainability would ever not be relevant. Similarly, I do not understand why they think it right to retain that limit against the barrage of attack that we have witnessed. Perhaps the difference is in the interpretation of what is meant by the term "sustainable development". Do the Government envisage that sustainable development is somehow a separate category of development? I would prefer to be assured that all that the RDAs do will be sustainable. By that I mean that it will be sustainable environmentally and socially and that it will not necessarily involve "development" as that word is often understood.
References to rural areas also make me wonder whether the Government are perhaps protesting a little too much. Surely it is axiomatic that the RDAs' purposes apply to rural, as to urban and as to suburban, areas; and, indeed, as the Minister said, to the very varied rural areas. I understand that the politics of the day may have led to an attempt to reassure in this slightly odd fashion. I also understand why a number of rurally focused organisations have concentrated on this clause. To include it almost suggests that what is stated may not be entirely what is meant. I think that, logically, rural areas should not have been referred to because rural concerns are so fundamental. To say that there will be an application to rural areas suggests there may have been doubt that the RDAs would address rural concerns.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I follow the tenor of her argument. However, when that doubt has been expressed—as it was when the establishment of the RDAs was announced—it is sometimes necessary to rebut it. I agree it is axiomatic that RDAs must look after the needs of all parts of their regions.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I understand that point. I am perhaps making a philosophical point which concerns more than just this Bill. One wants to see the wording in legislation stand the test of time and not constitute too much of a knee-jerk reaction to current concerns. Further, in addition to rural concerns there are urban concerns. These constitute two sides of the same issue. I have never believed that it is practicable to deal with rural issues without at the same time attending to urban issues and vice-versa.
I think I have made clear my concern that the references to rural matters and to sustainable development are perhaps—it is harsh to say this—understandably regarded as a bit of window dressing. If they were truly thought to be central to the Bill, they would not have had to be superimposed. However, the Government will not win with their words but with their deeds. We shall see how the RDAs perform. No doubt these points will be
1304
addressed in amendments at later stages of the Bill, together with a number of technical matters relating to property, rights of way and other matters.
One technical but important area concerns the way in which RDAs and regional chambers interrelate and how each operates. Matters of accountability and openness were raised by my honourable friends in another place. On the Hunt Bill I raised similar concerns. I was pleased then that officials referred to forthcoming legislation on freedom of information, even though it had not been enacted. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, was much involved with that matter. I hope that freedom of information, openness of meetings and other such matters will be referred to, as they were on that ill-fated Private Member's Bill. I also look forward to gaining a better understanding—perhaps by means of a probing amendment—of how the performance of the RDAs will be assessed. Is the Audit Commission to have a role? Are they to meet performance indicators? What will be published? We would welcome further information on those points.
The Minister referred to London. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, I, too, think that we must expect some further legislation on London. London is a region within the first schedule to the Bill. There will be a Bill in the autumn to deal with London which will immediately amend this legislation. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that will be the case.
I have another question to ask on behalf of my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. He wonders what the Government have learnt from the experience of the economic planning councils which were established more than 30 years ago. They were formed at about the same stage in the Wilson government as this Government have now reached. I am sure we shall he told that much was learnt and has been incorporated in this measure.
I have mentioned a number of concerns. We hope that in practice these agencies will be truly representative of their time and will reconcile the competing interests of sustainability, development, environmental concerns and social concerns with their important task of economic promotion and regeneration. We wish them well.
4.24 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I must first declare an interest as a chartered surveyor and landowner. I am president of the Sussex Association of Local Councils. I have put my name forward for membership of the board of the south east regional development agency. I commented in response to the White Paper. However, my views are fundamentally my own. I welcome the Bill.
When I wrote to the Minister in December last, one of the points I raised concerned accountability. This followed previous points I had raised on such matters as national park authority membership. In the Minister's kind response, for which I am grateful, I was given what I shall describe as part of the answer that I was looking for. But neither accountability of the RDA via the Minister nor an obligation towards a regional chamber—I am not quite sure of its composition—seem anything other than a rather indirect approach to the matter. However, I realise

1305
that that tends to be the way things are done these days. My late father's favourite Swahili term—"desturi bwana" or "standard practice, sir"—comes immediately to mind.
The measure has fuelled much comment from local authorities who could perhaps be forgiven for wanting to see their local democratic base represented in force both at agency and regional chamber levels. There has also been comment from rural interests who fear their position will not be adequately represented as they are inherently in a demographic minority. Representation and accountability inevitably colour the deployment of resources whether one likes it or not. Although I take some comfort from Clause 4(2) which deals with the rural and non-rural balance, commitment to the RDAs' work will to some extent depend on how it is perceived that they maintain that balance. I feel that further guidance ought to be given. A guarantee of one rural RDA seat in each region—if that results in one seat alone—may not be terribly helpful. I am always concerned about guarantees of that kind.
If rural and non-rural areas are to be treated equitably—as indeed they must—for RDA purposes, it will nonetheless be a matter of practicality as to how that works out depending on the prevailing pressures in the region concerned. I foresee difficulties as regards attracting that difficult-to-achieve mix of impartial expertise among the membership that covers urban, rural and indeed suburban facets mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. That will be a hard mix of disciplines to achieve in an integrated way. But if the mix is not right, the choice of priorities—whether urban, suburban or rural—will not command confidence outside the RDAs even if there is unanimity within them. How is that expertise to knit and to co-operate with the normal diversity of opinion common in local politics? Certain local authorities aspire to some of the economic functions—indeed some carry them out—to be exercised in future by the RDAs. That issue must be addressed.
However, I welcome the clear remit for economic development and the intention to forge partnerships across the urban/rural spectrum. I shall say more about development later. I have crossed out the word "divide" in favour of "spectrum" which I feel is more neutral. I have long thought that there are too many administrative bodies, particularly as regards countryside matters. At the risk of offending some, I hope that there will be a further rendering down of functions performed by a number of different agencies.
For too long local authorities, in terms of their development plans, have implicitly or explicitly maintained that economic factors are not primarily their responsibility. I hope that we now have a clear indication that these economic factors will have to be relevant to planning in the future. If not, I have concerns that local planning authorities will go on claiming that it is none of their business because there is a new, distinct and formal structure for dealing with it as opposed to a rather diffused approach previously. Rural planning guidance and planning policy guidance, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will need to be looked at in that context, and I say that not for the same reasons as those of the noble Baroness when she raised the point. Development is an unfortunate word.
1306
It denotes building work and substantial physical change. When dealing with rural matters that is by no means what is always wanted. It is, I believe, behind some of the non-development-in-rural-areas mentality that has grown up, but sustainability and Agenda 21 considerations, already referred to, involve reliance on equity at home as well as abroad and, critically, on social and economic as well as environmentally sustainable practices. Deprivation never gave a good economic out-turn, or indeed a good environmental out-turn.
I am not sure that I understand how regional chambers are being brought into being; nor what the RDAs' relationship with them should be in practice, particularly in the light of possible hard decisions having to be made. The chamber, we learn, will be composed of those who have "an interest" in the work of the RDA. It is obviously a very wide definition of potentially qualifying persons, possibly too wide. However, on the whole, I think that the Bill and the proposals to create RDAs should be welcomed. I am concerned that another template of administration may not always fit neatly over current practicalities and it would be disastrous if alienation from economic development initiatives pursued by some very able local authorities in the past was to take place.
I feel passionately that an alternative rural economic strategy is needed beyond what I can only describe as the pious hope of the CAP: more of that later in our last debate today. I will not dwell on that subject now. However, it is all the more important when dealing with severely less favoured rural areas, where environmental policies hold sway, that there is increasingly a severe economic deficit in what supports land use management. If genuine efficiency is to be gained by the new RDAs I would welcome and encourage the Bill and the agencies it sets up. I do not mind what shape or size that efficiency comes in or whether indeed it comes in a uniform-sized package.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made a point which struck a chord with me. Economic issues do not stop at the city gates; nor indeed, it should be said, at the village shop. We are inevitably all in this together. If the rural development agencies successfully address that point without having the divisions, or fostering the divisions, of the past it will be a major step forward, and if there is created a long-term strategy in the place of short termism then I give the Bill three cheers.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, there can be few Bills which have had such a widespread welcome as this one. To receive support from the CBI, from the Country Landowners' Association, the Local Government Association, trade unions and other bodies, while perhaps not unique, is certainly unusual and the Government are to be congratulated on introducing such a valuable and, if I may say so, comprehensive measure.
I was not sure when the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, spoke for his party, whether the Conservative Party agrees in principle with the regional development agencies. It would be nice to know. The noble Lord did say that while he agreed with the objectives he would

1307
have something to say about the methods of achieving those objectives. Perhaps it is revealing that at this stage we do not have a real clarification of his party's position—
Lord Bowness: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? I do not want to take up the time of the House, but our position is quite clear. Of course we support the objective of regional prosperity, but we do not believe that the structures in this Bill are an appropriate way of achieving it. We believe its proposals to be centrally controlled, centrally focused and damaging to local government.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, when the noble Lord says "the methods" is he or his party in favour of a regional development agency? He has not clarified that point. Perhaps I could press him.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, my party is not in favour of the regional development agencies as set out in this Bill. No doubt we could bring forward all kinds of policies, were we sitting on that side of the House, to enhance regional development; but the issue is what is before the House today.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am grateful for that clarification. I have particular pleasure in welcoming it because the Northern Group of Labour MPs, of which I have been an active member since I entered another place, has advocated a northern regional development agency for a number of years. Here we are at long last with a document in front of us—an actual document, which is a Bill setting out the objectives and how to achieve them, which some of us in the north have been shouting about (I do mean shouting) for a considerable time.
However, we must realise that this is only a start. There are no RDAs and so there will be much to learn. The Minister of State recognised that in saying that development of the agencies will evolve—that is the word he used—and I certainly support that view. Of course there are some bodies from which inevitably we can and should learn lessons; indeed my noble friend on the Front Bench mentioned that in passing. There is, not least, the very successful Northern Development Company, which is unique to the country. It consists of representatives of employers, businessmen, trade unions and local government, and is a highly successful partnership. It has been very effective in the four or five years since it was established.
Lessons can and should be learned from the urban development corporations and the new town corporations. Perhaps I might be permitted to say that when I was in another place I had quite a finger in the pie in helping the development of a new town in my constituency and, more recently, I have been deputy chairman of an urban development corporation and remain there until next month. I am very sad that that is soon to come to an end. All of us who have been members of those bodies have learned from the very valuable experience which we have gained over a number of years.
1308
In this respect the Government proposals in giving the functions of English Partnerships and the Rural Development Commission to the RDAs is wise and sensible, I believe. There has long been the need to integrate urban and rural policies and this Bill provides for the first time the opportunity to achieve that objective. I am very interested to hear that those matters—the integration of urban and rural policies—have already been mentioned several times although we have only had four or five speakers so far.
It is important to realise that RDAs are not only about inward investment, crucial though that is. The northern region, if I can quote it again, has a success story to tell. Some of the nation's biggest and best companies have come to the region, although we must not let that success disguise the fact that hundreds of smaller firms have established themselves and brought thousands of jobs to the north. That must continue, and the RDAs are better placed to do it than were the previous bodies, however successful they have been. My point in mentioning the matter is that the improvement and regeneration of a region's indigenous industry and commerce are at least as important. Much can be done, and RDAs provide the machinery for it.
A crucial part of the internal drive within a region must come from its education and training provision. The whole range of education must make its contribution: further education; adult education; universities; and training and enterprise councils—although some of us feel that an examination of TECs is overdue. Co-ordination between all the branches of education is essential, and RDAs can be a catalyst for promoting it.
As has been mentioned, there will need to be clarification in a number of areas. I give two examples. The first is tourism. In some regions it can be crucial to their well-being. The regional tourist boards will remain but their role in relation to the RDA will have to be spelt out clearly, not least to avoid possible duplication and bureaucracy.
The second example is ad hoc proposals—it is my own phrase. I choose the warmly welcomed decision of the Government to undertake the rehabilitation of the former coalmining areas. I assume that where there are former coalmining areas in RDA areas, the RDAs will make some contribution in that vital work. However, as I have said previously in this House, I hope that the finance to be provided will be ring-fenced. There is obviously a danger that the resources, or part of them, will be subsumed in the larger budget of the RDA. In those circumstances, the finance may lose its effectiveness.
I have given two examples of matters which involve RDAs. But the co-ordination of such areas of activity is fundamental to the work and success of RDAs. That is one of the RDA's principles. It is virtually certain that there will be conflicts involving regional planning and economic development. We are all pleased to see the Government proving once again to be flexible in dealing with regional planning matters. I suggest to the Minister that the resolution of those conflicts is a matter of urgency if the RDAs are to begin effectively.

1309
Even more important may be the move towards a regional chamber which, as noble Lords know, is a consultative body for the agency. Such consultation will ensure that account is taken not only of different regions but of different local circumstances within a region; it will provide the distinctive nature of RDAs.
I hope that there will be no hesitation in pressing on from the assemblies to elected regional councils where they are shown to be wanted. I stress that because Members of the Opposition are opposed in principle to them. The Labour Government have to make it absolutely clear that that is their objective: that that will be done wherever there is a demand for it. The evidence is there for such a change in the north, the south west and the north west. There will be opposition from the Conservative Party, but I fail to see why it should disagree when the change is to be made gradually and only with the consent of the people in the region. It is a two-stage method.
The financing of the RDAs is of great importance. As time goes on, it may be necessary to change the system. I hope that the block financial allocations made to the Scottish and Welsh development agencies will apply to the English RDAs. There has been criticism for a long time, not least from the northern region, of the advantages that they have given to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I need hardly say—my noble friend touched on it—that clarification on the distribution of European funds will have to be undertaken as soon as possible.
Before I conclude, I have to make one critical point. The Government are aware of it; it has been made already by some of us in the northern region. I refer to the proposal to make one RDA for the north west which includes Merseyside. That means that Cumbria will not be part of the northern region. I and my northern Labour colleagues are at a loss to know why the Government take that view. While I hesitate to say that it is complete, there is overwhelming support that Cumbria should remain in the northern region. The regional view must surely be paramount in such a decision. I hope that the Government will think again about the proposal. Cumbria has been part of the English standard planning region known as the northern region for the past 25 years—all the time that I have been concerned with regional matters. The new north west region has almost 8 million people. In great contrast, the exclusion of Cumbria from the northern region results in a population figure of just over 2 million. That does not conform with Ministers' statements that the average size of a region should be about 5 million. That calls for an explanation from the Government. I look forward to hearing my noble friend's comments.
Although not of major importance, there was an interesting occurrence recently. The BBC decided to change its well-known regional programme called "Look North" to exclude Cumbria. There were massive protests. They were so strong that the BBC changed its mind about the proposal. That is strong evidence! The concept of a northern region without Cumbria has never
1310
crossed the mind of northerners, nor perhaps some southerners. The Government must produce some hard evidence for such a change.
I see two principles at the heart of the Bill: first, integration; and, equally important, decentralisation. I believe that the politics and economics of the modern world require both those principles if we are to improve society. I strongly support the Bill.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, first, I apologise to the House for being unable to stay until the Minister winds up the debate. I particularly apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, because I may not be able to listen to the whole of his speech. Tomorrow I lead a delegation of 16 companies to an exhibition in Budapest in Hungary. I almost said Cumbria. The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, reminded me of Cumbria; I shall return to that subject in a moment. I have to fly out this evening. I hope that the House will forgive me.
The Bill is in two parts. First, it seeks to establish a development agency in all the regions of Britain with the purpose of driving forward the economies, creating more economic opportunities and developing growth. Secondly, it seeks to give wide powers to the Secretary of State to mould those agencies as he thinks fit. I support the concept of establishing regional development agencies, and welcome an organisation in each region focused upon the economic needs of the region and the need for growth. Perhaps I may use this opportunity to suggest some issues of which the Secretary of State might take heed in order to help him mould those organisations so that they are most effective in creating their objectives.
My experience and knowledge are based on my activities in the north of England. I support some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, on the importance of the north of England economy. I have always seen Cumbria as part of the north-west, and have no objections to the Government's proposals. Since I shall refer to my experience in the north-west, I ought to declare some interests. I am chairman of NIMTECH, an organisation focused on developing the economy through the use of technology; chairman of Campus Ventures, an incubation unit for high-tech companies based at Manchester University; and president of the Federation of Economic Development Authorities. FEDA has 100 members of authorities throughout the UK, and is on the whole in favour of the Bill. I am also president of the Cheshire Economic Partnership, to which I shall refer later.
I have always believed that the key issue in achieving all the environmental factors referred to and supplying the right facilities for everybody is economic growth. Jobs, the development of businesses and the creation of wealth are the key elements in achieving anything. This type of organisation brings focus, especially in a region such as the north-west of England—where, as in other regions, there are very varied bodies which sometimes do not work together; their approach to such issues is often disorganised and the timing is different.

1311
Therefore, I hope that this organisation will provide, as a top priority, a co-ordinated approach to the need for growth throughout the region. Co-ordination is needed in urban and rural policy; the areas have to be seen as one economic entity. The concept of a separate approach to rural areas which seeks to preserve the activities of rural communities is not the key. The key issue in rural communities is the establishment of their economic viability and economic variability, the ability to widen their opportunities and at the same time understand the equal needs of those who want to use rural areas and have the facilities and services that are available in urban areas. The key in creating understanding between rural and urban areas is rural development. It will be an important issue in the future, and I shall refer to it again.
Technology is another key matter which needs to be grasped by any regional development agency. There needs to be far more proactive agreement between the requirements of business and what is provided by universities and technology centres. The gap is still too wide. There is a fear on the part of the small businessman of the intellectual power of the universities, and a complete lack of understanding on the part of many academics of what the businessman needs in order to develop his business and the pressures that he is often under. The establishment of a regional body, particularly in relation to the north-west, provides the means for a better understanding between the needs of business and what universities can provide. We can establish in universities the incubation units that have been of such great benefit at Manchester University. From a very small beginning, businesses can be nurtured through the stages of crisis which they continually hit until they become major, secure organisations. That is a role that we can certainly play.
Later today, this House will debate the report of the EC Committee on Agenda 2000 and how it affects the environment and rural development. In future years we shall see a continuing decline in agriculture as an economic driving force in rural areas. It will remain important, but less so. We have to develop policies for the creation of alternative and viable business units within rural areas to employ those no longer involved in agriculture. During the course of our deliberations in Sub-Committee D, an interesting issue arose in relation to the situation in Germany, where there is a long tradition of part-time farmers having other paid jobs when they are not engaged in farming activities. As agencies develop over the coming years, and as we have closer contact with the policies of Europe, particularly in relation to theses changes, we shall see projects and proposals for programmes—rather like the Objective 1 and Objective 2 programmes made use of in urban areas—to assist the movement in rural areas from present types of economic activity to new and revised types of activity. I see the rural development agencies as the key in creating effective policies to make the best use of money and, most importantly, to create other economic opportunities in rural areas.
I wish to refer briefly to sub-regional groups. In Cheshire, we have established the Cheshire Economic Partnership. That group is in balance with what has happened in Lancashire, Manchester, Merseyside and
1312
Cumbria. I hope that during our debates on the Bill a better understanding will emerge as to how the Government see the sub-regional groups playing a part in the development of regional policy. They can, and need to, play an important part.
There has been comment on the planning powers of regional development agencies, and the fact that the Government have changed their mind on the degree of planning power that they are to be given. I was very attracted by the original proposals. I have never been happy with existing planning arrangements; they are definitely in favour of minorities and rarely to the benefit of the majority. I hope that the new arrangements will at least bring planning on a regional basis for the main projects for growth, jobs and opportunity and the creation of inward investment, which seem impossible when planning is reduced to a small entity where everybody is against any proposal. You cannot, in the future of a country, a society or community, give more and more to those who want it, unless growth is achieved and is accepted.
I hope that the RDA will become an enabling body, using other organisations for delivery. In that regard I do not understand the need for acquisitions. I do not see why the RDA has to own property or do things. It needs to make sure that other people are encouraged and enabled to do things. That is the best way to use its resources within its region, and to use those bodies which most effectively deliver what the RDA requires.
I have already referred to the use of EU funding. Clearly, that will be a key element. The EU funding that we have received in Greater Manchester and Merseyside has been of enormous benefit. However, I am aware, as are many people in the north-west—as no doubt are the Government—of the enormous difficulty in achieving a uniform approach to how that money should be spent, with the inevitable battles between all the factions that want to draw a portion of it. Again, I hope that the RDA can be much more effective in ensuring that funding is used for its prime purposes and directed far more efficiently than it has been in the past.
I referred to the need for incubation units, and I emphasise that need again. One of the great successes in the United States has been the ability to encourage the setting up of new companies and to treat failure, rather than with contempt, as a means of gaining experience.
If we are to continue to move our economies forward and give people the same level of growth into the next century as they have had in this one, we must continue to see the development of new businesses which will be highly important in creating the kind of products to enable us to compete in the world. One of the main requirements to make all this possible is to have the resources at the right stage to put into companies to make them move forward. I should like to see within a north-west RDA the encouragement of a financial fund to make moneys available on a venture capital basis to small companies. There are many very successful venture capital companies throughout Britain, but they have tended in recent years to look for the easy options, the very large investments, and possibly, like banks, to

1313
give their money to those who can manage without it. I look for a fund which can be more sympathetic and understanding to the needs of small, start-up businesses, particularly in the high-tech areas which will be so important. We need to encourage the development of new ideas and innovative enthusiasms and look not backward to how things were but forward to how wonderful things will be in the future. I see these agencies as bodies that can help us to do that.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend the Minister for the fact that I was not present to hear her opening speech, having been unavoidably detained on personal matters.
I am not very interested in the organisation of RDAs; I am more interested in the net result of our efforts to deal with the problems not just of the regions but of this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and other Members of the House have moved me from my original decision to spend only three minutes speaking in this debate by reminding me of things that have happened in the past.
If I were a Frenchman, I would be able to use a French phrase, but I will say, "Never mind French phrases, I have heard it all before". Twenty years ago I made a speech in this Chamber about whether we would be successful in Europe. I said that, unless we did something about our own country and its economic affairs and began to use all the nation's resources, we would not do very well in Europe. I said that on that day the Financial Times carried a story that it was about to start printing in Frankfurt. No one thought at that stage that there was a threat to the Bank of England's position at the centre of European affairs. But where is it now? Is it not true that the centre of our financial affairs is in Frankfurt? Why is that? I have said before, and will continue to say until I am no longer in this Chamber, that if we look at the national picture we see the highly congested belt in the south east which appears to provide a dam to any developments.
I should like to go back to the time when we did have regional development areas and an organisation. That was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in the context of the leader of her party the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. We had regional economic planning councils, which produced strategies. There is a difference between the regional economic planning councils and the kind of regional development agency proposed in the Bill. The least one can say is that the Bill does not provide a strengthening of the democratic element in our society. My own feelings must be expressed. I am extremely disappointed that the Bill does not go further in strengthening that democratic element. I know we have been promised that in the future things will get better and that there will be a new organisation of a more democratic nature. I am sorry, I have been too long in politics to take the promise of jam tomorrow; I want it now.
The difference between the RDAs proposed in the Bill and the old economic planning councils is that the economic planning councils were part of the Department
1314
of Economic Affairs, a department established by a government in the teeth of hostility from the Treasury, which wanted to abide by the old rules and which ultimately won the battle to abolish the DEA. That is the fundamental lesson to learn from what is happening to our regions. If one looks at the strategy of those economic planning councils, one sees in them an essence for the re-establishment of unity in our economic affairs. The Opposition Front Bench spokesman said that the Opposition was opposed to the idea of divisiveness on a regional basis. I agree with him; we should not divide the nation on a regional basis. But the nation will divide itself on a regional basis, whether we like it or not. One has only to look at how people are attracted to the south-east.
The North West Economic Planning Council drew up a strategy, which was notified to the DEA in the usual way. The government of the day took note of it, and that is all they did. They drew attention to the necessity of preserving the rural areas and concentrating industrial development in the Mersey belt. I am not talking here just of Liverpool; the Mersey belt started at the River Mersey by Liverpool and went through two towns and into Manchester. The strategy was that that was where development should take place and that proper consideration should be given to the preservation of the rural hinterland on both sides of the belt—a very valuable hinterland in the case of Cheshire.
There was a strategy on transport. The North West Economic Planning Council said that it was wrong, for two reasons, to concentrate our international airport facilities in the south-east. First, it debarred people in the north from taking part in the development of that international traffic and, secondly, it was loading the south-east with inescapable burdens. Nobody took any notice. Let us look at what has happened. For three years people have been battling to demonstrate that there should not be a fifth terminal at Heathrow. Yet there is a possibility at Stansted. We said that, if there were to be a third international airport, it should not be in the south-east but should be further north, perhaps near Birmingham. On balance, the planning council thought that the development should take place at Stansted. Are we happy with what is now going to happen in London? There is no doubt in my mind that, even with a Labour Government, we shall have that fifth terminal at Heathrow.
Let us take another strategy. This is an ironic example. We thought that there should be decentralisation of central government activity. We were not the only planning council or local authority to say that we needed decentralisation of government activity from the south-east and to spread it throughout the country where it could operate efficiently on the basis of modern technology. To give an example, we had a conference with the DEA. We decided to circularise all the businesses in the north-west. The DEA would produce a leaflet and we would produce a leaflet in Manchester. Our leaflet went out in three days; it took the DEA two weeks to publish the same leaflet.
The business of concentrating all the civil servants in the south-east is stupid. Has it changed? Let me give another example. One of the major problems facing

1315
Members of this House is getting here. It is a terrible journey sometimes. If we come by car, we must not come before nine o'clock.
And what has happened in this very spot? There used to be a car park at the end of Vauxhall Bridge; a nice little wide open space. Then a new phrase crept into our language: "business-led people operate themselves". It was decided to build a new building on the end of Vauxhall Bridge. I went to a seminar given by London Transport and my question to the planners was: "Do you know anything about this building they are going to erect on the car park at the end of Vauxhall Bridge?". They answered, "No. What is that?". I said, "I thought that if you were responsible for the transport undertakings in London, you would know what it is. It is going to affect you because you will have to move people in and out of the building".
The planners knew nothing about it. It is a place that could have been used for business other than generating jobs. Let me give a tip to the new Government. They should look at how MI6 came to be at Vauxhall Bridge Road. As I read it, that site was developed in a purely speculative fashion. The slump occurred and it could not be let. Then, miraculously, MI6—that secret organisation about which nobody is supposed to know—started to adorn the building with Christmas trees to let everybody know what it was.
That is not the important point. The important point is that, if the Government and the Audit Commission look at the situation carefully, they will find that it cost more to alter that building and make it fit for the government department than it cost to buy it. It would have been much better to have gone out of London, but the situation is controlled by the south-east mafia.
That brings me to my closing peroration (as it is called in the best circles); that is, what is the fundamental question at which we should be looking? We have heard a great deal about regional planning bodies and what they should and should not do. I am sure that we received an excellent explanation of the Bill—I shall read it with interest—with all the details given by the Minister. Again, I apologise for not being present to hear it. All that was discussed, but at the end of the day we must decide what we want to do with our regions. We must look at them as part and parcel of our economic, social and national life. It is important that we look at them in the context of the nation.
Let me give one further small example. When will we know the outcome of the development in London Docklands, Canary Wharf and the extension of the tube which robbed other parts of the underground of much needed improvement? When will we learn the real lesson of the cost of those developments? When will we learn the real lesson of Liverpool's Docklands? If we compare the two, they will stand as a condemnation of the way that the people responsible—I do not care whether they are Labour or Conservative and, in the real sense, they are probably civil servants—conducted the whole scheme.
The whole thing is ironic when we see the damage, the congestion and the bad standards of living that exist in London and the south-east and consider the effect in
1316
Europe. God knows what will happen because we are not going into Europe and the pressures will get worse. They will not be borne in the south-east; they will be borne in the north. It is the north that will suffer the most and we must ask ourselves what we should do.
A man named Heseltine came to Liverpool. He thought he would not have anything to do with economics. But there were riots in Liverpool—I often wonder why those riots are not still ongoing. We have pockets of unemployment where 50 per cent. of the people do not have jobs; they have nothing to do. The economic planning council decided that we should concentrate on Liverpool's unemployment position at the cost of elsewhere. That was agreed. The government said that they would send 3,500 civil servants to the north-west—3,000 to Liverpool Docklands and 500 to Blackpool. We all thought it was a wonderful idea.
We then removed the economic planning councils. I do not know how that came about. It was the end of a battle between the Treasury and the Department of Economic Affairs. The man who announced it was proud to call himself "Mr. Liverpool". If those 3,000 civil servants had been put inside Docklands before the riots, the riots would never have occurred. However, the riots did occur and Mr. Heseltine took the matter away and later boasted about the fact that it was he who established Liverpool Docklands, after Liverpool City Council had been fighting for the establishment of an organisation to look at that development. They knew what was coming in relation to unemployment because of the international trade moving away from Liverpool. It was resisted in the south, and it was ironic that the man who did it was the man who caused the riots to take place in Liverpool in the first place.
5.18 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, while it is always a pleasure to listen to the eloquence of those from the north, some noble Lords may agree that they have had their say in this matter for the time being. I should like to bring a west-country business perspective to our debate on the Bill this afternoon and some Members may draw similar conclusions from the areas that they know best.
In the west country, South West Enterprise Limited, known as SWEL—a private sector, joint venture whose purpose is to capitalise economic development—agrees with many aspects of the Bill. SWEL combines the local interests of the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business, the Chambers of Commerce, the National Farmers' Union and the CBI. It has the single purpose of helping a business to help itself in turning around the economy of Devon and Cornwall. I must declare an interest in that I am a director of South West Enterprise Limited, and proud to be so.
Since 1992 the business community in Devon and Cornwall has energetically supported the creation of a development agency to lead and co-ordinate a turn-around in the economy of the west country. Understandably, in Devon and Cornwall, we would have preferred to have our own agency, but then probably so

1317
would every other part of England. If the Government, in creating nine RDAs in England, are saying that they are seeking nine bodies rather than 19 or 20 which will report and be accountable to the Government, that makes good management sense.
As with the other five counties, business in Devon and Cornwall will play its role in the development of the south-west region. Unfortunately, however, under the Government's present proposals, I consider it improbable that much of the business community will be able to play as strong a role as it should from the outset, when the RDAs are formed in April of next year, despite the RDAs being business led. I shall, if I may, explain why.
Business Links, of which I am sure your Lordships are well aware, is a national brand assuring the quality of business services which are delivered locally. It is managed nationally by the DTI and guided locally by business-led boards. Business Links, which was created by Michael Heseltine under the previous government, plays a vital and increasing role in the development of businesses, especially small and medium businesses, known as SMEs. Business Links forms the only body which currently has potentially almost daily contact with all the SMEs. It is my contention that, if the Government were to include Business Links, ab initio, within the RDAs, they would then meet the functional requirements and the geographic coverage needed for sustainable economic development. I am fairly surprised that not more prominence was given to Business Links during the passage of the Bill through another place.
First, I shall tackle the functional view. An examination of international best practice has shown that sustainable economic and community development requires the development of the indigenous business community alongside the other core functions of regional development. Regeneration and inward investment must be co-ordinated with the development of small and medium enterprises and their investment in the community. As Ministers will know, inward investment presents many media opportunities, from the first announcement, through the turf cutting and the foundation stone laying, to the opening ceremony with multinational business figures. It is both exciting and enticing.
However, the evidence is that more jobs, and more sustainable businesses, are created through the development of a region's indigenous businesses than through inward investment. For example, Cornwall, being peripheral to European markets, has not been successful in attracting much inward investment, and there the regeneration of the local economy is urgently required. However, recent employment figures have shown that, if the loss of employment due to the demise of tin mining and the demise of china clay is taken out of the data, there was a net gain in new jobs created in Cornwall last year. These new jobs are coming from small and medium enterprises in Cornwall—in industry, commerce and tourism. They are perhaps the new shoots of prosperity emerging amid the fallen boughs of Cornwall's industrial past.
1318
The "In Pursuit of Excellence" project, whose work has been endorsed by this Government and by the previous government, has drawn attention to the high quality of many local businesses and the great potential which exists in Cornwall. IPE, as it is known, is a very well supported partnership between the public and the private sectors and, crucially, it has successfully engaged the business community in the development of its own future. It is imperative that the development of these businesses, their growth and the investment in them, be closely associated with the RDA's regeneration and inward investment activities.
This is true, I suggest, not only of Cornwall but of all business communities, both rural and urban, in every English region. It is not just a matter of business; it is also a matter of social inclusion. Small businesses are an integral part of the local community. Community regeneration requires civic pride and pride requires self-sufficiency. Business development is easier in urban areas than in rural areas, and the south west is predominantly rural. Regeneration, inward investment and business development must be closely co-ordinated in rural areas if we are to overcome the decline of rural communities and protect the landscape which is the basis of our tourism and agriculture industries. As the Minister said, our countryside must be both living and working.
However, there is more to regional development than addressing the problems of economic blackspots, whether they are visible in Camborne, Plymouth or Bristol, or hidden in rural areas. In business it is often said that, "You are only as good as your last sale". The strong need to be supported as much as the weak strengthened, albeit in different ways. Under the current proposals, the RDAs, when they are launched in April next year, will be focused much more on overcoming economic weakness and much less on promoting economic strength. But improving competitiveness is as much about sustaining today's winners as training tomorrow's. After all, small and medium enterprises currently account for nearly 50 per cent. of employment outside the public sector and for around 38 per cent. of the United Kingdom's gross national product, and SMEs are expected to be the main source of future economic growth.
I now turn to the geographic view. The parts of a region outside its blackspot areas may see little value for them from an RDA. This is particularly so in the south-west region, which is the largest region in terms of land area and coastline. The distance from Land's End to the Gloucestershire border is the same as the distance from Gloucestershire to the Scottish border; and the distance from Bristol to London is the same as the distance from Plymouth to Bristol. The south west is the most diverse of the English regions and it has the greatest economic disparities of any English region. Although, on a range of 24 economic indicators, the south west ranks between third and fourth among the 12 UK regions, in Swindon the economy is overheating while in Cornwall it is emerging from a period of permafrost, economically speaking. Economically, it is also fairly chilly in Poole and in the Forest of Dean.

1319
Scenically and climatically, the south west is a wonderful place to visit and we have some superb businesses.
The functions currently to be included in the south west RDA are primarily focused on the relatively much weaker far south west of the region. As a result, Swindon in particular, but also parts of Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, Somerset and Dorset, seem to expect little benefit from the creation of an RDA. If Business Links became part of the RDAs from the outset, the RDAs would be truly regional.
The Government have admitted that the Bill allows for Business Links to be included in the RDAs at a later date, if it were appropriate, without recourse to primary legislation. The Government's present policy is that the RDAs will provide the strategic context for the services offered by Business Links at the local level, and that Business Links will wish to draw upon the priorities identified in these strategies as they develop their detailed services. In contrast, I believe that the RDAs will need to be operationally, as well as strategically, involved in running Business Links from the beginning.
The Government have an opportunity they should not miss. If Business Links were to be included as part of the RDAs from their formation, the RDAs would immediately be able to offer the portfolio of development services needed to overcome economic weakness and, at the same time, promote economic strength. They would be able to promote regional cohesion and economic convergence by virtue of their activities covering, in some form, all parts of their region, rural and urban. They would be able to engage the region's business community in its own development and investment in the region.
The national chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses has said,
"that the value added to our members' businesses by Business Links will be enhanced by the inclusion of Business Links within the responsibilities of the RDAs. Logically, therefore, the sooner this occurs, the better".
Indeed, I should make it clear that the Federation of Small Businesses would wish to go further and include the training and enterprise councils ab initio as well.
The FSB's national chairman and I are calling for nothing which the Government have not already accepted, other than the timing for the inclusion of Business Links. The regional Business Links' budgets are relatively small. Incidentally, in the south-west region the total Business Links budget of £8.5 million was equivalent to around 10 per cent. of the funds spent on regeneration and the promotion of inward investment in 1996–97. Further, it may also be easier to include Business Links within the RDAs now rather than later. If Business Links were to be included after April 1999, the internal and external relationship of the established RDAs may need to be reconfigured to accommodate them and there would probably be cost penalties and delays to programmes during the period of assimilation.
1320
The National Head of Policy of the Forum of Private Businesses said that,
"leaving the RDAs to run with only a strategic remit for Business Links, risks confusion in the minds of many small businesses. Private business needs to be assured that the services of Business Links are properly co-ordinated with the other main instruments of economic development".
I have an open mind as to whether the Government support my proposal for all the English regions or adopt it for the south-west region alone, given its special characteristics. The thrust of my case is that my proposal should be adopted for all nine English regions and for the tenth in London in due course. But if the Government are resistant to that, I suggest that the south-west region be used as an ab initio pilot for this proposal.
I am sorry but I may be unable to be here for the Minister's summing up. As regards what the Minister says in response, I may seek leave to table an amendment to the Bill in Committee. In conclusion, the success of the RDAs and the degree to which they achieve the Government's purposes, will depend to a large extent on the degree to which they are able to engage their business communities in achieving the objectives of the RDAs from the very outset. I submit that this can be achieved only along the lines that I have suggested.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to intervene in this debate after the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston. I believe that the noble Earl pointed, absolutely rightly, to the fact that if the scheme is to succeed and if this Bill is to be a step along the right lines, it is probably seen best as an encourager of what can be done in the regions themselves. From what the noble Earl said about the south-west and from my knowledge of all the links of my party in that area, I know how much can and is being done there.
The noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, put his finger on a large number of very valid points.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, he always does!
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, maybe the noble Lord always does, but this was a very conspicuous occasion. I remember in the 1960s arguing in the Liberal Party of those days about the necessity for regional authorities in a climate which did not then encourage them very much, particularly with my then colleague, Lord Evans of Claughton, who was, I believe, a sparring partner of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, for some considerable time.
In those days we believed, and I still believe, that we ought to have regional government which is known for its accountability, democracy and openness; that we have democratic regional assemblies with tax-raising powers. That is a very important aim. The Government pay considerable lip service to these aims. But I have a cynicism, drawn from long experience of governments of all kinds and through sitting in your Lordships' House with different people on the Government Front Bench, as to whether anything which should be democratic, open

1321
and accountable will come from the rather nice intentions which are suggested by the Government Front Bench. My noble friend Lady Hamwee is rather more trusting than I am in these matters. She probably has a nicer temperament than I have. She believes that these things may well happen. I hope that they will.
I am speaking on this Bill for two reasons. One is to see that the needs of rural areas are not swamped and, secondly, to make certain that the whole question of sustainable development is also firmly endorsed on the face of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, dealt principally with that last issue. She dealt with the rural areas in a way with which I am not entirely sympathetic. I do not believe in an urban, powerful and centralised capitalistic state that rural areas will be looked after, whatever the intention, unless it is spelt out on the face of legislation. Therefore, I would like to see that happen.
Rural areas have their own special needs. They have special requirements. The firms operating in them are often small; employment is fragile at times and seasonal. Transport is a very great problem for people living in rural areas, and the cost of housing must be considered. The social life of rural areas has become fairly low grade. We have often discussed these matters and we shall be discussing them again this evening when we come to the common agricultural policy. As this Bill goes through we must make certain that it does not just produce a regional machinery for attracting investment from outside, but regional machinery which taps the loyalty of local people and local enterprises and produces a step towards the kind of regional government that we on these Benches certainly wish to see in the near future.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, I have taken part in many debates on the well-being of the north-east of England, principally in the other place. The north-east is now listed as one of the proposed nine areas to be included among those having a regional development agency. I wish to concentrate on the need or otherwise for this Bill in the north-east. Debates on the northern region were fairly regular occurrences in another place due to the enormous requirement for reconstruction because of the post-war decline of our basic industry—coal, steel and shipbuilding.
I recall the very last debate in the other place in which I took part. I stated that we had known in the post-war period 17½ years of Labour Government and precisely the same number of Conservative years.
I now come to a point which answers a request made by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, who, unfortunately, is not in his place. I said in that speech that in my opinion both major parties in their period of office had done their utmost to support the redevelopment of regions like the north-east. That is so true. The methods may have varied, but our aim was the same. Both major parties wished to bring back economic well-being to a region which knew enormous difficulties just after the war.
For instance, I remember when Labour won in 1964. The Minister with responsibility for the regions was the enormously energetic late Lord George-Brown. He said
1322
in a speech at the beginning of his period of office that we had not thought "big enough", as he put it, with regard to development in the region. He contended that we were wrong to have established development districts to which we encouraged new industry. The entire region became a development district at that time. We went back later—but not much later—to local districts. The point I wish to make is that it was the desire of all concerned in both parties to get the right answers.
Regionally, we have had a series of bodies which have known government encouragement and support. The first I was associated with was the North East Development Association. That was a smaller body than those we have known since. In its membership it had leading industrialists, businessmen, trade unionists and regional MPs. Then we had, a little later, the North East Development Council which was more broadly based and involved local government. That body knew for a long period the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara.
For the past 11 years we have had the Northern Development Company, which the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, mentioned. All three of these bodies have done a great deal to revitalise the region. And we are now, it seems, to have a regional development agency.
I should like to refer to Clause 4 of the Bill before us which states the purposes of the new agency: to further economic development and regeneration; to promote business efficiency and investment; to promote employment; and to promote skills. So what is new? We have had these aims for years. The bodies which we have had, with both parties' encouragement, have achieved an enormous amount. The region has been transformed. New industry has been established and places like Sunderland and Consett are thriving today.
In mentioning Consett I should like to refer to the Derwent Development Agency as being one body whose future I am somewhat concerned about under the proposal of this Bill. Consett steelworks were closed down in September 1980. At that time we had very high regional unemployment, much higher than the 7.4 per cent. that we have today. I was asked by a colleague in another place a simple question, "Can you see unemployment in the north-east of England?" I answered him by saying, "Not really, not in the centre of Newcastle. You just can't see it". But I visited Consett in the Christmas Recess following the closure of the steelworks. My goodness, unemployment was very visible then. The empty steelworks were still there and rusting. There were able-bodied people standing on street corners. But, thanks in no small measure to the Derwent Development Association, which I visited soon after my private visit, Consett is transformed. A year later I visited the Consett number one development area and saw there, in very new factories, ex-steelworkers and ex-miners practising new skills—a very good illustration of the adaptability of our northern workforce.

1323
Today Consett has unemployed people numbering 1,028. In other words, it has almost full employment. I mention this on the debate on this Bill because the Derwent Development Agency did such a good job. But what will happen to it?
On regeneration, we have one of the best road networks in this country, again thanks to the efforts of both major parties in the period of their office. Because of the Tyne and Wear Development Corporation, 30 miles of derelict land on the banks of the Tyne and Wear have been renewed and revitalised and are a much more pleasant sight than they used to be. So what is now to happen with regard to the Tyne and Wear Development Agency? Actually, it closed down at the end of March.
But my main question is this. Do we need this new agency? It has been suggested that there is enormous support for it in the north-east of England. Certainly there is some. There is general support for a type of new agency. There has been considerable concern expressed as well in the region. The Local Government Association fears that the new body,
"an appointed quango, will take powers away from democratically elected local authorities".
The regional newspaper The Journal, in a leader, feared the creation of a Whitehall controlled quango which may be responsible to a locally elected and representative body at some vague time in the future.
The chief executive of Newcastle City Council has expressed concern on accountability, as has the North Durham Labour Party. The CBI fears that in some places the Bill appears to preclude development which may be desirable. The city council of Sunderland has said:
"The City Council of Sunderland would like to point out, that when in opposition, the Labour Party attacked the democratic deficit proposed by the creation of quangos at regional and local levels, which were not accountable to local democratically elected local authorities".
The Institute of Directors was very much to the point, saying that the new body would be another layer which risks bringing more confusion, more bureaucracy and more expense. So I can assure your Lordships that there is opposition to this new body in its present proposed form in the north-east of England.
There is, of course, for the north-east a heavy potential competitiveness just over the border because of the proposed new Scottish parliament. In another speech in another place in a debate on devolution, with which I still disagree, I expressed my views on the unfair advantage that a Scottish parliament with civil servants and lobby correspondents would have in attracting new industry. That concern is still there, but the north-east has known enormous success in attracting new industry.
Despite our disadvantages, geographical and otherwise, it has known success in recent years which other development areas might well have as an aim. I should like to pay particular tribute, as did the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, to the Northern Development Company which according to a recent
1324
survey has succeeded in the 11 years of its existence in creating 520 investment projects, 75,000 new jobs and £9 billion of capital investment in the region.
Finally, my suggestion is simply this. The proposed regional agencies can be justified only if they can add to existing arrangements for regional attractiveness and management. Much depends on the relationship which they establish with other bodies and local government and the speed with which they become democratically accountable.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest in that I put my name forward to serve on the board of the north-west region.
This Bill plans to create nine new development agencies in the English regions. They will be business-led but will include all regional interests to integrate social and physical regeneration and economic development. The development agencies will form a vital part of the process of decentralisation—moving the planning process nearer to the people—and co-ordination of government programmes in transport, tourism, regeneration and social inclusion.
The regional development agencies will have five core areas of responsibility: economic development and regeneration; competitiveness, business support and investment; skills; employment; and sustainable development. Sustainability is a little like "motherhood and apple pie". We all sign up to it but it is a complete turn off for the private sector. There needs perhaps to be a clearer definition, by which we mean reconciling social, economic and environmental factors. The RDAs will need an achievable strategy and framework, building on existing regional competitiveness, thus bringing greater coherence to the work of regional bodies. There is no purpose in any large-scale re-engineering, nor in reinventing the wheel. The RDAs have to build on what is already there, thus providing continuity.
Each RDA will have as a core function the social, physical and economic regeneration of its area to gain maximum benefits and to spread the benefits of economic development and investment. They will take on the regional regeneration work of English Partnerships and the Rural Development Commission, which will bring about their budgets, including the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund, and take a leading role in securing European Union structural funds.
Regional development agencies must address at an early stage the economic development and regeneration of rural areas. That is especially important, as Agenda 2000 and the reform of the common agricultural policy will challenge agriculture to respond to competitive pressures and to the transfer of resources from support to investment in rural enterprises.
Tensions between rural and urban areas must be addressed early, allaying the distrust about the intentions of the RDAs, with specific structures to reflect rural needs and to halt economic decline.

1325
Instrumental to regional regeneration will be improvements to the skills base linked to the community, not just to specific companies. There also needs to be a skills audit, assessing the contribution of the training and enterprise councils in achieving regional objectives. The TECs and Business Links were not included as part of the RDAs' functions, but perhaps in Committee we can examine whether TECs can be brought into the process to determine the skills requirements of each region and the best ways of providing those skills. Priorities include dealing with skills shortages.
Each RDA will play a major role in facilitating investment, involving projects as part of the public-private partnerships and bridging the gap between cost and value. They will take a leadership role in inward investments of strategic significance, in the marketing of a region as a business location in conjunction with the Invest in Britain Bureau and other regional partners, and in promoting technology, including maximising the benefits of the work of educational institutions.
Each RDA must face up to the challenge of strategic long-term regeneration through funding plans of five to 10-years' duration to replace the short-term focus of annual budget funding. However, this must be coupled to short-term milestones where the emphasis is on outcomes, not on outputs.
It is entirely sensible to co-ordinate regional economic and regeneration activity in association with established regional structures, local partners and government offices. However, there is anxiety within the rural sector that RDAs will become urban-oriented and discriminate against rural communities. The fact that MAFF has different boundaries from those of the government offices necessarily means that communication between them will not be as effective, efficient or influential as it could be and that that will result in a less powerful rural voice and a smaller share of resources. Perhaps in Committee we can examine whether it is sufficient to have one rural representative on a board of 12 and whether there should be a minimum of two.
Furthermore, financial resources may move from MAFF to the RDAs if, under CAP reforms, subsidy expenditure decreases in favour of enhancing environmental schemes. Will the budget of £200 million be enough to achieve all that is envisaged when each region of MAFF runs on a budget of almost half that figure? What is the extent or availability of any new income? To what extent will funding be affected by changes in EU structural funds under Agenda 2000 proposals? At present, aid is available to rural areas under Objectives 5a and 5b, with urban areas coming under Objective 2. Under the Agenda 2000 proposals, a new single measure (a new Objective 2) will encompass both urban and rural aid. Each RDA must ensure that rural issues will have sufficient prominence and that the integration of town and country is embraced through an equitable balance of funding.
1326
It is also sound that each RDA is promoted as an independent organisation setting regional priorities. However, we must examine the control mechanisms in detail and whether accountability is adequate. The RDAs must consult widely and must seek to work effectively with regional chambers.
I look forward to the opportunities presented by this Bill. The establishment of regional development agencies creates a unique opportunity for a new, sustainable future for the regions through integrating development. Policies on transport, tourism, education, employment, housing and community development can now be brought together into a coherent framework for the next millennium. I commend the Bill to the House.
5.55 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, like many of your Lordships, my roots have been in local and regional government. At one time, I served concurrently on a county council, a district council and a parish council. I was a glutton for local government. My family said that I was an addict. I simply loved it. Then I got distracted into the NHS.
When I was invited to join the last government, I was appointed first as Minister responsible for the task force in Plymouth and later as the sponsor Minister for Plymouth, with a much wider remit. It felt like going home. I really enjoyed working closely with the city council, the development agencies, the private sector and, above all, with the local communities.
Many of your Lordships will know the city of Plymouth even better than I do, and especially the part that it played in the Second World War. It is a remarkable city. Visiting the war memorial, I read name after name of the men and women who gave their lives for me and my generation, and I found it deeply humbling. The names covered not only those who had served in the Armed Forces, but civilians also. I was told that the city had been so heavily bombed and that the bombing had generated so much heat that gold and silver melted in the jewellers' shops and molten metal ran out from under their doors into the city's streets. The people of Plymouth showed their courage and their defiance, and they danced night after night on Plymouth Hoe.
With its naval and army bases, the city's destiny has always been closely linked with defence. Successive governments have been by far the largest employers, so although we must all rejoice in the peace dividend, it has been anything other than a dividend from the point of view of the city's employment prospects. The task force was set up to address some of those problems, to help to regenerate the city, to improve skills and to instill confidence in the most deprived wards in the city.
I mention that in the context of this Bill because it was the first time that I had witnessed, at first hand, effective central government investment producing results to a very tight timescale. The task force had a life of only five years, with a clear exit strategy, so nobody could become dependent on it. It had £1 million to spend every year, over five years. Its activities were

1327
targeted on the most deprived wards. Its accountability was to me, and since I was a very junior Minister, I was accountable to a Minister of State at the DoE.
The task force had a very clear action plan, agreed by Ministers, and closely monitored. It had a small staff—of fewer than half a dozen at its peak. It had no baggage in terms of bureaucracy—no committees, no sub-committees and no working groups. It had no in-built delays to satisfy a complex bureaucratic structure. So, it was flexible and accountable but, above all, it was fleet of foot. It achieved some remarkable things in terms of job creation, reductions in the crime level, and enhancing self-esteem in individuals and confidence in previously run-down and miserable estates. It was a lesson to me—because I had always worked through a labyrinth of committees in both local government and the health service.
Knowing now a little about regeneration and the challenges of inward investment, I have serious misgivings about this Bill. Like my noble friends Lord Bowness and Lord Elliott of Morpeth, I worry about introducing another layer of bureaucracy into what must be an entrepreneurial area which, by its very nature, requires the freedom to act quickly and decisively and to be fleet of foot.
However, I am a realist and, despite my misgivings and those of other organisations as well as many of your Lordships, I have no doubt that the Bill will be passed—and by a large majority in another place. As a revising Chamber, we have a responsibility to try to make it as workable as possible. I therefore ask the Government that, when setting up RDAs, they promote the concept and philosophy of a holding company. Like a holding company, RDAs should ensure that they get a return on the public investment made, but that does not mean they cannot have a light touch, freeing-up and delegating to their subsidiaries. If businesses are to benefit from European money or inward investment they have to be able to reach decisions quickly and have enough authority to act. Potential investors are not prepared to hang around so that an RDA, and in future possibly a regional assembly, can comply with a self-indulgent and lengthy bureaucratic system.
The second point I draw out from my experience with the task force is that economic regeneration does not depend solely on financial investment, or even investment in education, retraining and employment skills, but it does require "social" investment. A community that takes a pride in itself is much more likely to produce entrepreneurs and high quality employees. I hope the RDAs will understand and promote some of these softer, quality of life issues which have a direct bearing on regional prosperity. As my noble friend Lord Arran has said, community regeneration requires civic pride, and prosperity is not just a matter of business—it is also a matter of social inclusion. My noble friend also drew attention to the need for RDAs to be involved not in the detail of running businesses but in co-ordinating the development of new businesses, especially small or medium-sized ones. I agree with him on this. At the invitation of South West Enterprise Limited he and I led a trade mission from Devon and Cornwall to the southern states of the
1328
USA. Our purpose was to promote west country exports, but we also took the opportunity to study the inward investment and regeneration initiatives taken by the two highly successful southern states that we visited. At the time I was the sponsor Minister for Plymouth and it seemed appropriate to visit Charleston where the naval base was contracting and faced the same issues as Plymouth.
Two aspects of that visit left a lasting impression on me: first, the enormous size of the mosquitoes; and, secondly, the tightly focused programmes to develop indigenous businesses to regenerate the local economy. In South Carolina not only was it patently obvious that business development was closely co-ordinated with regeneration and inward investment, but that the development of local businesses was seen as the key to success. The point was reinforced when we visited the state of Georgia and met senior politicians, businessmen and women and those responsible for economic development. The state of Georgia is similar to the south-west region of England, in that its economy is very strong in the north, especially in Atlanta. In the south it is rural and faces the same challenges of structural adjustment as in our south west. The big difference is their success in economic development. We wanted to find out why.
First, there was no doubt or ambivalence that economic development was top of the state's agenda—way above any other programme. Despite the huge investment and energy put into hosting the Olympic Games, which sadly we missed—they had finished a few months before we arrived—the state was not distracted from its mission. As in South Carolina, its mission was to develop home-grown businesses and to co-ordinate their development with inward investment and regeneration at state and county levels. In our travels throughout Georgia we identified one other strong theme, and one that should be of great interest to the Minister and her colleagues in government: the concept of total community development. This phrase haunted us wherever we went. These three words were like a creed and encapsulated an inclusive approach to the creation of competitive businesses, competitive people and competitive communities. It was the clear basis for achieving sustainable development both locally and regionally. As the noble Lord, Lord Dormond of Easington, has said, businesses, especially small ones, are an integral part of every local community. If the RDAs in England are to be able to improve the competitiveness of their regions they must encompass and nurture the development of these small enterprises, not just within cities but also in rural areas. They must have power to co-ordinate business development with regeneration and inward investment, and that cannot be achieved through a purely strategic role.
Small businesses cannot afford the luxury of long-term strategies. Their horizons are much shorter than those of development agencies or larger businesses. If RDAs are to be responsive in co-ordinating activities, they will need some degree of operational oversight, but they will also need fast communications and detailed intelligence as to what is happening locally.

1329
As my noble friend Lord Arran has said, Business Links is the Government's service that supports the development of commercial enterprise on the ground. It has almost daily contact with potentially the vast majority of businesses. I agree with him that within this Bill there is an opportunity to strengthen its activities and to make them more effective by co-ordinating them regionally through RDAs.
The chief executive of the Cornwall Chamber of Commerce and Industry has said:
"Bearing in mind our County's economic performance and its urgent need to improve this situation, it is vital that the business development functions of what is, after all, the Government's chosen delivery arm, should be brought within the RDA's control at the earliest possible time, that is to say from the outset".
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors' national policy officer has said:
"The RDAs should take the lead in co-ordinating the integration of bidding processes, timescales and decision making, and in brokering contracts with mainstream government budgets to prioritise areas of local need. We therefore support the proposals that Business Links should become part of the RDAs from the Agencies' formation in April 1999 rather than later, as the Government have indicated should happen. We would also see the wisdom, if this proposal was not accepted on a national basis, for a pilot to be considered, possibly in the South West region."
Learning from my experiences as the sponsor Minister for Plymouth and my appreciation of the relationship between Plymouth and the rest of the south-west region, including working very closely with the government office for the south west, I agree with both of these knowledgeable men.
It is suggested by some organisations that the training and enterprise councils should also be included from the outset. I believe that there is much merit in that. I am not sure whether I heard the Minister say that Business Links would be co-ordinated in some way and monitored by RDAs. I see the Minister nodding. I hope that that is the case. Although I know that Business Links can vary enormously in scope and delivery, it has huge strengths.
Finally, when RDAs are formed they will be expected to draw upon international best practice. I suggest that if they are to be successful their very formation will need to take account of the practice and experience of other countries, perhaps particularly the USA. I very much look forward to the Committee stage of the Bill when, with other noble Lords, I shall have the opportunity to explore some of the issues that have been raised this afternoon.
6.10 p.m.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, these are exciting times in which we live. We shall perhaps look back at the next few months as a period in which there has been a number of bold decentralising measures reshaping government in this country. More and more processes and more and more funding streams are settling at regional level. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, talked about the new Objective 2 but there are many examples of both policies and funding streams.
1330
Regional development agencies and the associated regional chambers are part of that process and they offer major opportunities to promote prosperity in the regions. But it must be sustainable prosperity achieved through sustainable development which takes account not only of economic objectives but of environmental and social objectives too.
I welcome very much the fact that the Minister made special mention of sustainable development in her introduction because it is no secret that there has been a lot of arm-wrestling in another place over the exact terms of the sustainable development purposes of the regional development agencies in the Bill. The White Paper, Building Partnerships for Prosperity, very much stressed that RDAs should have sustainable development at the heart of their programmes. However, I should be unwise to say anything other than that the Bill itself is still rather vague on that issue.
I do not wish to argue here today about the exact terms of the sustainable development purposes. It is rather like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. However, the fact that many people have been arguing about it at length is because it is an important issue for RDAs.
Perhaps I may digress. Over the past three or four years, on numerous occasions we have seen that kind of skirmishing over the terms of a sustainable development duty for various statutory bodies. We have seen it in the Environment Act with the setting up of the Environment Agency, we saw it in a minor way during the progress of the lottery Bill and we have seen it again as regards the Government of Wales Bill. Therefore, there is a lesson that we need a standard definition of the sustainable development role of public bodies which have an impact on the environment and on sustainability so that we can simply drop that into successive pieces of legislation and cease to spend large amounts of time on rearguing the case on every Bill.
The Minister also mentioned the importance of the right kind of members of RDAs and gave assurances about specific rural interests. Although RDAs are clearly very important to sustainable development, no environmental expertise has been specified. I should welcome the Minister's assurances on how she can make sure that RDAs have access to sufficient environment expertise to ensure that the environmental objectives of the sustainable development purpose can be fulfilled.
I welcome very much the provision in the Bill on government guidance to the agencies and a commitment from the Government at previous stages of the Bill to giving guidance on how RDAs will interpret and implement the sustainable development purpose in practice. The guidance must have a number of parameters to it in sustainability terms. It must ensure that RDAs take account of national environmental and sustainable development priorities, including whatever emerges from the national sustainable development strategy and the requirements of the current UK biodiversity action plan.
The guidance should ensure that the RDAs adopt environmental appraisals of strategies, policies and programmes. I do not believe that it is too much to ask

1331
for a simple requirement that RDAs should have a basic tenet of not funding activities which damage major environmental assets, including important wildlife habitats.
The Government's intention to decentralise decision-making is very welcome, but it means that we are seeing a plethora of different bodies and strategies at regional level with the potential for strategies not quite to match with each other or, indeed, to come into conflict. Two issues need to be brought forward in that regard. First, we need to see overarching sustainable development strategies for the regions, perhaps prepared by regional chambers in association with RDAs and government offices for the regions and other regional stakeholders, not least local authorities. Such an overarching strategy is not unique. It has already been presaged in the White Paper on London. RDAs could then prepare their regional economic strategies within the parameters of the sustainability strategy. I believe that a mention on the face of the Bill of the relationship of sustainable development strategies and regional economic strategies would be welcome.
Secondly, regional economic strategies must be set firmly within the context of general planning guidance. We have heard of the disquiet that there was about the planning role of the RDAs. The role of regional planning guidance will be very important. Indeed, the Minister has stated already that regional economic strategies and planning guidance must be compatible and consistent. Perhaps I may press the Minister on how the Government will issue strong guidance to ensure that regional economic strategies are not only consistent with but also help to deliver regional planning guidance. The whole process of preparation of regional planning guidance also needs to be strengthened and regional planning conferences adequately resourced to play a strong part in that. I welcome parallel proposals on regional planning which are currently out for consultation.
There is one further point which needs to be made in the light of some of the arm-wrestling which has taken place in relation to the sustainable development duty of the RDAs. The discussions sometimes seemed to imply that economic development is an alternative to the environment; that you can have one but not both. I believe firmly that RDAs must pursue both for three reasons.
First, natural environmental assets are often the greatest assets possessed by remoter regions and, in particular, remoter rural regions. Sustainable exploitation of those assets and sustainable development of those assets are often the only way in which to create viable, sustainable jobs in areas where it is incredibly difficult otherwise to create jobs. The noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, talked about the decline in agriculture employment that we shall see. We must find innovative ways of creating alternative employment in rural areas. The environment is a great job generator. Conservation alone accounts for 10,000 jobs in this country and for every direct conservation management job there are another five in infrastructure, green tourism and the industries which support such activities.
1332
Secondly, environment industries are a growing part of the economic sector. We have done insufficient in this country to promote the growth of environment industries. I hope that RDAs will play a strong role in ensuring that we are world leaders, through our regions, in the promotion of environmental technologies.
Thirdly, the environment, the quality of the environment and the quality of life are incredibly important in terms of attracting inward investment. It is at our peril that we ignore the environmental aspects of attraction for investment, particularly foreign investment.
I believe that we are seeing a vital reshaping of the way in which this country is managed. RDAs have an immense potential, provided that the regional development that they promote is sustainable regional development. I ask the Minister to indicate the practical measures that are to be put in place to ensure that that happens.
6.17 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, our debate this afternoon deals with a most important constitutional issue. Like a number of noble Lords, I shall make only a very short intervention. I confess that I am not totally convinced by some of the arguments which have been put forward today to support the creation of regional development agencies. However, I acknowledge, as did my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, that with the majority which the Government command in another place, their creation is inevitable.
Therefore, I suggest that we should strive to ensure that the country gains the greatest benefit from this initiative. One important task for the regional development agencies to tackle is the provision of adequate training for our workforces. It is my belief that the regional development agencies must take into account regional strategic training needs in a national context.
A good example of that is demonstrated by the existing practices in Scotland and Wales. By taking a strategic regional overview, the training needs of Wales and Scotland have been enhanced very considerably in the past 10 years or so. In that context, I should like to raise the important issue of the current system of funding for vocational education and training in this country. Here, I believe that the RDAs have a vital role to play within the overall national guidelines.
We all recognise that national budgets are tight, but what I am suggesting is that the Government and RDAs give consideration to a new approach to the distribution of current resources, to reflect both the differential costs of vocational education and training and, also, national priorities in terms of increased support for the wealth-creating sectors.
Perhaps I may offer your Lordships an example of how that might work in practice. The training of young people in engineering is one of the most expensive to deliver. Research figures given to me by the Engineering and Marine Training Authority indicate that it costs a minimum of £27,000 to educate and train an engineer to National Vocational Qualification Level 3

1333
through a modern apprenticeship, compared with an average of £8,000 for a business administration candidate educated to the same level.
A difficulty lies in the different approaches of the various training and enterprise councils. Although some TECs are able to fund engineering at a higher level than other sectors, many do not. The result is that there is a very large financial burden on engineering employers and training providers, to the detriment of recruitment of young people into engineering. The lack of any national, or regional strategy means that the amount of funding that is spent on engineering training is dependent on the attitude of the local TEC.
I hope that the Minister might consider placing a responsibility upon the new regional development agencies so that, in the provision of engineering training, their regional strategies also take account of national needs. Indeed, there may even be a case for asking the new RDAs to identify priority sectors to meet both regional and national economic needs. Training and enterprise councils should be targeted to achieve a minimum level of training in the priority areas, which should be funded at higher levels. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Arran mentioned that fact in his speech.
I have one final point to make and here I must declare an interest as a trustee of the Understanding Industry charity, a responsibility which I share with a number of other noble Lords from all sides of our House. We try to promote the cause of industry nationally. How much easier the job would be if we could break it down into "bite size chunks" of a reasonable, but manageable size and devolve our activities into a defined regional infrastructure.
I know that the issues which arise in Hampshire, where I live, are very different from the issues that I see when I frequently visit, say, Cornwall or Glasgow. From this variety lies the logic for a sensible creation of RDAs. But let us ensure that true national issues continue to be considered at a national level, and that this legislation gives due weight to the importance of preserving our United Kingdom.
Let us have regional development agencies to maximize and harmonize local issues, but never let us forget that we gain great strength by standing together as a nation.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I should like to express my very warm welcome for the Bill. I have heard almost every speech that has been made this afternoon. However, I believe that the opening speaker from the Opposition damned the concept with faint praise and was very selective in his memory of what had gone before. I plead my credentials in the following way. I was leader of a London borough. I am now the Vice-President of the Local Government Association, as well as being president of a body called the United Kingdom Co-operative Council, which appears in the register of interests under Category 3.
I can go back to the time of metropolitan councils, one of which was the GLC. However, there were six others. They all did a great job. The big difference
1334
between our concept of such work and that of the Opposition was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Dormand; namely, democracy. I do not for a moment deride any of the efforts that have been made. I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, with a great deal of affection, as I am wearing my Newcastle United tie. I should point out to the House that the marks on it are stains; but they are tear stains. I see that my noble friend the Minister is chuckling with great care. Indeed, I can see red and white stripes all over the place.
I should now like to set the scene. This Government have been in office for literally one year, while the previous government had 18 years in office. We should pay tribute to the Government, the Ministers, the manifesto and the mood for the view that, whatever has been done well, it could be done better. They may be right or they may be wrong. We shall see the result in practice.
The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, poured cold water on the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Dormand who said that there was a welcome for the Bill in the north-east. The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, said that he was not so sure about that and quoted sources for that view. I believe that we shall have either mild enthusiasm or no enthusiasm at all, until the whole concept starts to work. I am absolutely confident that there is a place for the concept of RDAs.
We know that in every region there are many of what I call "good people" and "good bodies". Some of them are professional while others work on a voluntary basis. They all have the same aim at heart: they want to see the economy of their region lifted. I listened most carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said, in what I thought was a most helpful speech. She accepted the fact that, because of parliamentary arithmetic, this must happen. The noble Baroness made a plea for the RDAs to be aware, among other things, of the social dimension; in other words, their social responsibilities. Indeed, I very much warm to that view.
The Government have done a remarkable job in putting the Bill before us in their first parliamentary year. We always say, in many other contexts, that it is much better to get it right than to get it done quickly. If there is a criticism it is the fact that we need to be exceedingly careful about a number of loose ends which have appeared. When my noble friend the Minister replies, I shall be interested to know how there will be a synthesising between the various bodies with responsibility in a region. If the answer is that the RDA will in effect impose what we might call a "Whitehall view" on the region, that will not work at all.
There must be sufficient flexibility and opportunity for all those concerned to get together and iron out the difficulties. If the chairman and the members of the RDA are merely seen to be the voice of Whitehall in the regions, the whole concept will not work. The RDA must be a genuine, regional institution and authority, rather than the other way round. That may not be what the Government have in mind. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will assure me that the Government are more concerned to create a concept of regionalism than simply taking Whitehall into nine other parts of the country. We have a strategy here that we can develop.

1335
As non-departmental public bodies RDAs must, in the absence of regional assemblies, be ultimately accountable to Parliament and Ministers. How soon will we achieve the reality of democracy in the regions? The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, spoke warmly of her time as a local councillor. She wanted to be involved in the community and in politics. My background is no different. There are thousands of people who have experience which can be harnessed in the new bodies. Clearly the right mix will not arise overnight as a result of an edict from Whitehall; it must evolve.
I hope that we shall not create a climate in which there is a power battle between the chambers and the RDAs. We do not wish to see a battle in each region between what one might term the "old hands"; namely, the councillors and the chambers of trade, and the new bodies. We want to see a genuine partnership. I hope the Minister can tell us a little more about the four councillor representatives. As I understand it, a councillor who ceases to be a member of a council on retirement or through losing his seat can continue to be a member of an RDA. Someone may cease to be a councillor after two-and-a-half years' service. I believe that person should then resign from an RDA. Some have argued that such a requirement would not be appropriate as RDA board members are not delegates. However, I believe there is a slackness in this regard which the Government would be sensible to consider.
Reference has been made to the clash between urban and rural interests. On 1st May, the political complexion of the country changed. Millions of people live in the countryside and work in the town. Millions of people live in the town and work in the countryside. The division which has undoubtedly existed between town and country is disappearing. The RDAs must accept that one cannot ignore any element in the community. One cannot favour those who live in towns as that would disadvantage those who live in the countryside, and vice versa. I believe that RDAs will ensure that both those who live in towns and those who live in the countryside get a fair crack of the whip. I refer to greenfield and brownfield sites. The best way to preserve undeveloped sites is to ensure that derelict and unused sites are reclaimed and put back into productive use. That is not a new concept. The sparsity of rural populations can create as many problems as the density of urban populations. However, over the past 10 years those who live in the countryside have suffered deprivation, for example in terms of a lack of public transport, the closure of shops and the absence of a dentist. I live in Loughton in Essex and from my window I can see Epping Forest. Therefore, I consider that I live in the countryside. The interests of town dwellers and of countryside dwellers are the same.
I mentioned my interest in the co-operative movement. That movement looks forward to the regeneration of the economy in many areas where co-operative societies have flourished. The philosophy of the co-operative movement is participation and democracy. The movement also recognises that the Bill is designed to decentralise power and authority from the centre to the regions. The movement considers that will be a good thing if it works. Reference has been made to
1336
quangos. They have been spoken of in a derisory manner as an additional layer of bureaucracy. However, there were more quangos at the end of the previous government's term of office than at the beginning of it. That just proves that, "It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it".
Many co-operative societies are employee owned. I should like to see the concept of common ownership being established and encouraged. I believe in finding local solutions to local problems. The co-operative society is economically fairly strong, but in a democratic sense it is weaker than has previously been the case. The co-operative movement proposes that RDAs should be provided with ring-fenced funds for co-operative development. We believe that the experience of the co-operative movement will be valuable to RDAs. I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will tell their ministerial colleagues that the concept we are discussing is well understood and has been well received, but that it will not be endorsed until it has been put into practice. I hope that when it is put into practice we shall be pleased with the result.
6.38 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, like others of my noble friends who have spoken today I. too, am concerned that we are having yet more bureaucracy thrust upon us. Despite the calming words of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, I believe that bureaucracy will undoubtedly flow from this Bill. However, like my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, I hope that I take a pragmatic view; namely, that if we must have this Bill at least let us make the bureaucracy work as effectively and as equitably as possible.
The success of the RDAs will of course depend on how much value they can add to existing arrangements and spending. But I am concerned about the operation of RDAs with regard to the needs of rural interests. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that I do not intend to go overboard, as he put it, on this matter. I would just like the Bill to dip its toes into the water—fresh water of course—of the rural areas.
I believe it is vital that the creation of RDAs should not lead to the marginalisation of rural areas in decision making on economic support, housing, transport and services. I feel that there is a very real danger that, as a result of this Bill, the particular needs of rural areas could be unappreciated and could go unmet.
Earlier today my noble friend Lord Wade of Chorlton referred to the fact that we would at some late hour tonight be discussing the European Select Committee Report on Agenda 2000— The transition to competition: measures for rural development and the rural environment. That report demonstrates graphically the danger that Agenda 2000 itself may fail to deal with rural development and rural policy as an integrated policy. It could prove to be a significant disappointment in the development of the rural economy of EU member states into the next century. At present it represents a failure to understand how the rural economy and rural society work. I believe it is vital that we do not make the same mistake in the development of RDAs.

1337
The White Paper makes several references to rural communities and their problems. During the passage of this Bill through another place, the Government made soothing comments about their devotion to the countryside and its prosperity but I believe they gave little, if any, proof of the reality of that. Now is their opportunity in this Chamber to show understanding and real commitment. In another place my honourable friend Peter Luff asked the Government:
"If we make positive suggestions for improving the rural dimension of the regional development agencies, will the Minister consider them sympathetically?".
The Minister replied:
"The answer is obviously yes."—[Official Report, Commons, 14/1/98; col. 374.]
It may have been the obvious answer, but any evidence that the Government responded to my honourable friend's concerns by amending the Bill to respond to rural worries is far from obvious when one looks through the minutes of the Standing Committee of another place.
Several omissions in the Bill must be rectified if the interests of rural communities and businesses are to be fully protected. The White Paper states that the RDA boards will have 12 members, although the Bill provides for a minimum of eight and a maximum of 15. The White Paper also says:
"each RDA board w ill include at least one member who can contribute a strong rural perspective".
That could be considered quite an extraordinary insight into the Government's attitude towards the countryside. Twenty per cent. of the population lives there; 80 per cent. of the land area is rural; but so far we are told that just one member will represent the rural interest. As my noble friend Lord Bowness said earlier, what is even more extraordinary is that at present on the face of the Bill there is no guarantee that one of the members will be appointed from among those who can contribute to a strong rural perspective. That is a serious omission which I sincerely hope the Government will agree to put right during the passage of the Bill through this House. It is important that the Bill should guarantee rural representation on the RDA boards. Not all of those who live in rural areas are dependent upon their self-sustaining economic viability. Some of course do travel into the urban areas to work. The boards need to include those who do depend upon the sustainability of the rural areas.
I note that the response to the consultation paper by the Consortium of Rural TECs stated:
"There are concerns that the Regional Development Agency model may increase the focus on inner cities and fail to address the needs of the communities in rural areas."
There are widespread fears that the RDAs will be urban-based bodies and will focus upon urban issues. Earlier, a noble Lord from the Government Benches stated the fact that the Country Landowners' Association welcomed this Bill. In large measure it did, but it also pointed out the dangers inherent in the Bill of neglecting rural interests. I appreciate that the noble Baroness the Minister stated earlier that the board
1338
members are not to be delegates. I understand that. The Government have argued that members should represent every part of their area, as indeed Members of Parliament are expected to do in another place. I would hope that board members would take that approach, but I feel that rural areas would benefit from the appointment of at least one member to champion their cause and to ensure that their interests are properly taken into account.
That is not the only omission from the Bill with regard to the rural interest. The White Paper gave the RDAs an explicit remit to promote the interests of rural areas, and a similar provision is surely needed in the Bill itself. I would also argue that rural representation within the regional chamber is vital (as in the case with boards) if the interests of rural areas are to be protected, and the Bill should guarantee such representation.
As the Minister said earlier, in March the Government announced that they would merge the Countryside Commission and the Rural Development Commission. If the Government do pursue this approach, the national research and advisory functions of the RDC will be of great importance. The RDC has been the only organisation providing detailed national information on what is going on in rural areas. Without that research and advice, national government and RDAs will not be in a position to make informed decisions on issues that affect rural areas. The Bill makes it possible for the Government to preserve these services, but at present it does not guarantee their future. I would hope that the Government would agree to the Bill being amended to provide an assurance that these services are continued on a national basis and are not allowed to become fragmented.
It is vital that the RDAs prove themselves to be committed to an integrated policy in rural areas, and one which truly understands and represents the needs of those who live and work in those areas. At present I believe there are a number of defects in the Bill which should be remedied, to make sure that the RDAs are as responsive to the needs of rural areas as to urban areas. I look forward to the opportunity to introduce those remedies at Committee stage.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I thank your Lordships for allowing me to make a short contribution to this debate. As one of a small group who met to form a body which later became the Northern Development Company (which I understand at some stage will be subsumed by a regional development agency) I would simply like to point out where, in my experience, a future regional development agency will need to give consideration. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, we have the experience of the Northern Planning Council in the north-east of England. We have had other bodies, as has been pointed out by other speakers, but we set out in the north to formulate a sharp but small executive body which could act as a one-stop shop, bringing together all the elements which were necessary to attract inward investment to the region. This took place in the early 1980s, before the establishment of the Northern Development Company.

1339
The background to these discussions was such that they were held in a predominantly Labour area during the time of the Conservative government. Although these circumstances meant that all the participants had pressure put on them to come up with a compromise, there was a genuine desire by all the elements to find a solution which would give the region a greater opportunity to sell itself to potential investors. The region at that time, as my noble friend Lord Dormand explained, included Cumbria, which of course is not included in the boundaries of the northern region RDA.
At the outset, I sat on the embryonic body as chairman of the Northern Regional TUC. At this stage, I did not have its agreement, although it was aware that I was pursuing an objective to create a regional industrial executive. However, I must add that it was the first organisation to endorse this document and had it not been for its positive stance at that time the Northern Development Company would not have come about. All political parties in the region were against such a regional body being formed. If the Northern Development Company had not been formed the region would clearly have been the loser. Although the Northern Development Company achieved excellent results in the field of inward investment, as some noble Lords have said, its success could have been greater if its strategy had been more widely embracing and its resources greater.
The Northern Development Company, like the regional development agencies, at its outset had to subsume some of the existing regional bodies. Although individuals were fairly treated, the takeovers had to be aggressively resolved. Because there had been common agreement on the composition of the NDC and the involvement of strong regional patriotism, those issues were easily resolved.
My message to the Minister, therefore, drawn from my long experience of dealing with all elements of the northern region, is this. Ensure that representation is fairly selected to reflect both sides of industry. It does not surprise me that some politicians oppose the Bill. They opposed the Northern Development Company at the outset. We have got rid of tribalism in the north. Make it a partnership of people, and it will work. I can assure this House that those involved in inward investment in the north welcome the Bill.
6.51 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, during this interesting debate, a large number of technical questions have been asked. There has been reference to the relationship between the regional development agencies and the regional chambers; and to the danger of downgrading rural needs among the RDAs' other priorities. There has also been discussion on the sustainability issue. I propose to speak on those four main points.
On technical matters, my noble friend Lady Hamwee raised the important issue of public information and public access to meetings of the RDA. I am sure that Ministers are fully aware that in another place our friends put down amendments on that issue.
1340
As regards regional boundaries, I hardly dare mention the south east after the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, about the south-east mafia. However, I agree with everything said on the unsuitability of some of the regions. I find it difficult to understand the consistency of interest. All of us are interested in what happens in London, but that does not amount to creating a region out of those counties. I suspect that discussions on regional boundaries in that part of England will continue for some time.
I refer to the relationship of the new RDAs with existing local authorities, the role those authorities have played in promoting economic well being, and how and when the TECs and Business Links will be absorbed by the RDAs. From these Benches we agree with those who said that the TECs and Business Links should become part of the RDAs from their inception. I support noble Lords on all sides of the House who asked for further information on these and a large number of technical issues. In particular I seek an answer to my noble friend's point about freedom of information and public access. An excellent example of government flexibility in that respect is their modifications to the hunt Bill. We look forward to a response of that kind in relation to this Bill.
I am aware that there are at least two strands of thought on the relationship between the RDAs and regional chambers. One is that the regional chambers should not restrict the dynamic impetus of business. I believe that that comes from a well known quarrel, of which I have had experience in the past, between "business" and "planners". Among some business people, there is a conception that planners take a deliberate delight in preventing them from doing what they wish to do. I believe that that impression is misplaced, but in recent years local authorities have begun to take a more sympathetic, holistic (to use the word of my noble friend) attitude as to how business may be allowed to flourish within their communities.
The chambers bring together a wide range of interests within the regional community. They should not be treated simply as sounding boards for whatever the regional development agencies wish to do. The Minister said that the regional development agencies and the regional development chambers were set up in the absence of an elected regional tier. My noble friend Lord Beaumont intervened to say that we had looked forward for some time to a moment when we would have real regional government. He shared some of the cynicism of the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, that this initiative will lead to that desired end. He believed that the attitude of my noble friend Lady Hamwee to the Bill was more accepting—the fruit, he maintained, of a nicer personality. It cannot be wise for me to intervene in such a discussion. However, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, asked a pertinent question about whether the RDAs were to be the voice of national government at regional level, or the voice of the region. That is one of the most important questions that has to be answered in the course of this debate.
The Minister sought to head off criticism about the potential downgrading of rural issues within the priorities of the regional development agencies.

1341
Criticism has been vocal in another place and outside Parliament too. As noble Lords know, many of your Lordships have considerable rural interests and are always vocal on this matter. The noble Baroness made a number of suggestions indicating that we need not worry about these matters. In responding to the Minister, my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, in effect, "Methinks the lady doth protest too much". However she made a valid point which I support. It is that urban and rural issues are two sides of one coin. For example, if London does not work as a capital city, if it is not a pleasant place in which to live and work, if the smog is so bad that one needs a bandage over one's mouth when leaving the Chamber in the evening, the remainder of the south east will be unable to function. It will be overwhelmed by those in London spreading outwards in order to escape intolerable conditions in the centre of London. Those matters very much form two sides to the same coin.
Sustainability is a difficult issue. It was given impetus by the unfortunate wording of the subsection dealing with the fifth purpose of the RDA; namely, to contribute to sustainable development,
"where it is relevant to their area to do so".
There cannot be an area in the entire country in which sustainability is not a relevant aspiration. All those who have said that sustainability should be an overarching issue within which the RDAs conduct their business have the right end of this particular stick. In responding, perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, will be able to reassure the House on that point. If not, the matter will continue to spin itself out during our debates in Committee.
I have briefly expressed some of the concerns raised by my honourable friends and others. That is inevitable at Second Reading, when Members of this House are seeking clarification on government intentions. I hope that clarification will be forthcoming. However, on these Benches we generally welcome this initiative—in clear distinction from the official Opposition, who said that they did not support RDAs as a solution to regional difficulties; at least, that is what I understood the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, to say in answer to an intervention.
Intriguingly, the noble Lord added that if his party were in power they would no doubt be able to propose alternative solutions. I am bound to ask why, if that is the case, his party were not able to turn to this problem during 18 years in government. We offer a general, though not entirely uncritical, welcome to the Bill.
7.2 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, if the road to hell is paved with good intentions, then this present Bill must be regarded as the legislative equivalent of the M.25. The good intentions are of introducing economic advantages to England. I make no apology for referring to "England", and not treating it as though it were some minor constituent of the United Kingdom. I do not say that out of any sense of chauvinism or feelings of xenophobia in relation to the other three countries. On the contrary, I am proud to be a citizen of the United Kingdom, along with the citizens of all four countries.
1342
In Scotland, Wales and shortly in Northern Ireland, residents have been allowed a referendum on the future of their country. The English have not. Never mind the general election and Labour's much-vaunted manifesto. They promised to,
"establish one stop regional development agencies to co-ordinate regional development".
But even among all the fine print—microscopic print in fact—and all the ambiguous phrases, the Labour Party did not say, "We will divide England into nine regions". Yet those are the words with which Clause 1 begins.
Even under Julius Caesar, all Gaul was divided into only three parts, as many of us who struggled with Latin at school will recall. Germany, a far bigger country than England, has only 16 regions, compared with the 12 that are proposed for the United Kingdom. That includes one, Bremen, with a population of 700,000—less than the population of Leeds. So why nine regions? Why not eight, 10, or even 12 compatible regions, not the hodgepodge of disparate areas with which we are presented in Schedule 1?
In fairness to the Government—and the Minister will know that I always want to be fair to the Government—I realise and accept, as the Minister did, that in order to avoid delay in their legislative programme they have used existing regional boundaries rather than go through the procedure of a Boundary Commission inquiry, public inquiries and so on which would be needed to create new ones. But boundaries that are appropriate for whatever administrative reasons the Schedule 1 boundaries were created—Government statistics, book-keeping and other bureaucratic purposes, and the new form of election of MEPs—have absolutely no relevance to economic and industrial affairs. Why are the Home Counties north and south not treated as separate regions? Their economies certainly demand it. Instead, look at the proposed south-east region into which they are lumped—
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She confuses me slightly. Is she suggesting that there was absolutely no logic to the boundaries set up for the government offices by her own government? Those are precisely the boundaries that we have used. These are not some administrative, bureaucratic construct; they are the boundaries considered sensible by the previous government for economic development and bringing together the four government departments within the regions.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I was suggesting that the boundaries created previously were created for reasons different from those behind this Bill.
Let us look at the proposed south-east region into which they are lumped. What possible commercial affinity do the regional interests of Southampton and Oxford, for example, have in common? Even the Deputy Prime Minister, in his White Paper, Building Partnerships for the Future, admits that this proposed region is what he euphemistically described as "especially diverse". The local Members of Parliament—my honourable friend the Members for

1343
Faversham and mid-Kent, and the Member for Tonbridge and Malling, with all his expertise as a former Minister for the Regions, described this particular region as "absurd". Even the right honourable Member for Bishop Auckland was unhappy with what the Government proposed for his area.
But this Bill is supposed to be about creating a new, modern dynamic industrial structure. What excuse is there for the arbitrary putting together of the rural parts of Cambridgeshire and the industrial parts of Southend and Essex? As the honourable Member for North Devon said during the Second Reading debate in the other place, relying on his considerable local knowledge,
"to suggest that the south-west is a coherent region stretching from Penzance up to Gloucester and across to Christchurch is absolute nonsense.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/1/98; col. 397.]
It is the Government's aim to establish regional chambers,
"in time to introduce legislation to allow the people, region by region, to decide by referendum whether they want directly elected regional government".
In other words, the Government are planning on the Balkanisation of the country. We on this side of the House would like to be assured that they are not plotting to establish by the back door a fait accompli as to the boundaries of those regions.
It is premature to ask what would happen if in the referendums some of those regions voted "yes" and others voted "no". What is required from the Minister is an unequivocal assurance that the proposed regional development agencies' boundaries will not be used as a precedent for any future regional assemblies of which we have been forewarned in the Government's manifesto. The Minister's answer about giving that assurance may affect what we do at the next stage of the Bill.
I have another reason for asking for such assurance. Clause 25 gives the Secretary of State a blank cheque to alter the boundaries, admittedly after consultations with interested parties. But the Secretary of State is not bound by those consultations. Clause 25(5) states that the Secretary of State "may" cause a local inquiry to be held over any proposed boundary changes. I suspect that we "may" have an improvement to suggest in connection with that very word "may".
Returning to other current issues in the Bill, let me remind your Lordships of its many shortcomings. First and foremost is the establishment of the nine mighty unelected quangos, with no democratic accountability to the localities they are supposed to serve, merely to the Minister—and that from the party which in its manifesto attacked the previous government over "unaccountable quangos". The Prime Minister, when in Opposition, said,
"We need to roll back the tide of quangos and to have a revival of proper democratic local government".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/2/97; col. 1076.]
Well, the Prime Minister seems to be having the same trouble as King Canute in rolling back the tide; and I shall have something to say soon about his weird ideas about reviving proper democratic local government.
1344
I referred to "mighty" quangos. Let us look at some of the powers that the Bill proposes they should have. Under Clause 5 an agency may do anything it considers expedient for its purposes—another blank cheque. Who else is given limitless powers like that? Can the agencies order the diversion of a road or a river? Can they order a business which competes with one of their projects for customers or labour to move? We hope that the Minister will give us an adequate explanation of this extraordinary provision in the legislative notes, well before Committee stage.
Agencies can also, with permission of the Secretary of State, grant loans and sell their land for less than it is worth, presumably to subsidise potential investors or form or take shares in companies. They can make compulsory purchase orders to acquire land. The Secretary of State can take land away from public authorities—ratepayers' property, that is—and from other public bodies with limited compensation and give it to the regional development agencies.
Under Clause 21, regional development agencies can issue a warrant demanding entry on anyone's land to survey it or value it and to make bore holes and take soil samples. Anyone who obstructs this invasion of his land can be taken before the magistrates and fined. There is no messing about with civil injunctions in what is essentially a civil matter.
Under Clause 24 a regional development agency can order the local authority to connect any private streets it owns—presumably estate roads in some industrial development—to the highway.
There were even more wide, sweeping proposals which would have turned the regional development agencies into their own judge, jury and executioner by appointing them to be the local planning authority and highway authority in respect of their own property. Fortunately, after strong protests by my honourable friends and others in the other place, the Government withdrew these proposals, which are no longer in the Bill.
Secondly—and I am sorry that I have only just reached secondly—there is absolutely no evidence that these new, powerful quangos will do any better than the existing arrangements for attracting both domestic and inward investment. On the contrary, I believe that by making these nine regions compete with each other, presumably with the aid of discretionary grants and loans and government guarantees under Clauses 10 to 13, they may very well detract from the effectiveness of other regions. "Come to region A, because we are far better than region B": that message—the cry of "stinking fish"—may permanently damage the credibility of region B with other investors.
Perhaps it is appropriate that here I declare an interest—or, rather, a former interest. When I was in business I built a factory in Newport with the aid of a grant from the Welsh Development Agency and subsequently provided work for 11 direct employees, three extra postmen and a number of people in two local factories supplying me with components. The point is that I did not go to Newport because of the availability of a grant; I discovered the existence of grants after

1345
I had selected my site. Talking of the Welsh Development Authority, why does Wales need only one authority while England is to have nine? North and south Wales are distinct areas with different characteristics. Many of the inhabitants of north Wales do not even regard English as their first language. Would the Government have dared to try to chop Scotland into several parts? Not so long as the Scottish National Party was breathing down their necks!
The White Paper which preceded the Bill was in turn preceded by a so-called consultation. A more perfunctory one it would be difficult to imagine. The consultation document was a mere four pages long. The circulation seems to have been somewhat limited as only 1,500 responses were received, mostly from organisations, not individuals. Of the replies received, there were many from local councils, even Labour councils, protesting about the lack of democratic accountability of regional development agencies, especially vis-à-vis the local authorities in their area. In fact, although the Government in their White Paper selectively quoted about 57 endorsements of their proposals, they carefully omitted the very large number that came from organisations which either opposed the Government's plans or which had serious reservations about them. These included a number of Labour controlled councils, the Local Government Association, the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. These latter two organisations are concerned that the Government's plans do not require the regional development agencies to place sufficient weight on environmental concerns.
I think it right to say that this problem is aggravated by the geographical format of the regions, which produces a cocktail of urban and rural areas where there are conflicting needs and conflicting concerns. One has only to look at the situation in Germany, in the heaviest populated region of North Rhine-Westphalia. This includes the industrial cities of Essen, Cologne, Dortmund, Düsseldorf and Duisburg, but is otherwise made up of rural areas. Between the two there is constant conflict.
There is a genuine fear that, when considering such conflicts of interests, the regional development agencies will put the needs and wishes of rural communities in second place. Many noble Lords have commented on that this evening. This is because there is a preponderance of influence in favour of the interests of commerce and industry, which is only to be expected given the nature of the brief of the agencies. Clause 4(2) states:
"A regional development agency's purposes apply as much in relation to the rural parts of its area as in relation to the non-rural parts."
Considering the carte blanche contained in Clause 5(1) enabling a regional development agency to do anything it thinks expedient, what is to stop Clause 4(2) being interpreted as a licence to turn vast areas of countryside into a desert of concrete and hideous industrial buildings? We would particularly appreciate the Minister's comments on this point.
1346
It is of no less concern that the Government are breaking up English Partnerships, which has been highly successful in attracting inward investment to England and which, as a national organisation, has a team of top calibre staff. It is difficult to understand how fragmenting that team will be of benefit. It points out the folly of the Government in trying to deal with a national objective by parcelling it out amongst nine parochial quangos.
The fact is that the principle objective of this Bill is not the promotion of commerce. The hidden agenda is for it to be a launch pad for its plans to remove power from Westminster and to place it in the hands of these proposed new regional assemblies. The Government have made no secret of their objectives. Apart from what they said in their manifesto, the Minister for the Regions said in an interview with the Scotsman on 1st December that the process was "evolutionary" and that the next stage after RDAs and indirectly elected regional chambers was to give them more powers. He even hinted that the future regional assemblies would be given tax-raising and law-making powers.
I suggest that the Government should try to keep their eye on the ball. The ostensible purpose of these regional development agencies is the promotion of commercial interests. It is not to serve as the thin end of the wedge, or as a Trojan horse, whichever metaphor your Lordships prefer, for the grandiose plans to revolutionise—and I use that word advisedly—a whole tried and tested constitution.
The Local Government Association in its briefing paper, which many of your Lordships will have seen, complains that it is far from clear how the functions of the regional development agencies will sit alongside the functions of the local authorities in their area. In fact, it is abundantly clear that they will only be required to consult, and not necessarily to take the slightest bit of notice of the views expressed in such consultation. Such is the disregard of the Government for the views that the democratically elected local councils may have on the operations of their nominated quangos that, if any of the token councillors who are placed on them loses his seat, he is not required to resign or to forfeit his place, but can remain there, supposedly to represent the views of the local authority of which he is no longer a member.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She mentioned a criticism which the Local Government Association had made. It was not so much a criticism as a suggestion. The Local Government Association strongly supports regional development agencies. A number of us, including some on these Benches today during this debate, have made suggestions as to how the Bill can be improved. That is the normal parliamentary process. I am sure that the Government will take notice of what has been said on both sides. But I feel that the noble Baroness has given the impression that the Local Government Association is opposed to the Bill. It is quite the contrary.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I had no desire to give that impression. I mentioned the

1347
57 endorsements quoted in the White Paper; the Local Government Association is included in that 57. I was trying to point out that it is among those which commented, in the way that the noble Lord has commented, to the effect that there are other things which, in its opinion, could improve the Bill. That was the point I was making. The point I made about local councillors losing their seats was made also by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton.
When this obvious farcical position was pointed out in the other place, the Government vigorously resisted making the obvious and reasonable change and used their voting steamroller to defeat the amendment—so much for the Prime Minister's lip service for,
"the revival of proper democratic local government",
to which I referred earlier.
It is relevant to note that, when the White Paper was published, the first result was the resignation in protest by the admirable chairman of the Rural Development Commission. The Government are entitled and will indeed have their Bill as a result of our self-denying ordinance regarding matters contained in the Labour manifesto. But we believe that it is a bad Bill with many defects that we shall attempt to illuminate in later stages. We hope that that is clear because the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, was not sure of what my noble friend's attitude was. That is the position of Her Majesty's Opposition.
We hope, but without much expectation, that the Government will not close their ears and collective mind to logical proposals to ensure that their project can he carried out without devastating problems to the economy and the environment—problems caused by the new layer of bureaucracy that they are setting up, whose separate parts will not only compete with each other, but will also be fertile ground for conflict with the democratically elected councils within their bailiwicks.
7.20 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to close this debate on the Regional Development Agencies Bill. As my noble friend said in her opening remarks, it is not a Bill that captured many national headlines. But as many of your Lordships will know—particularly those whose principal residence is outside London—the regional media reflected the great interests among regional people in the establishment of regional development agencies. Speaking as an advocate over many years of greater regional autonomy, from my home region of the north-west, I believe that we may come to recognise this Bill as the measure which first gave our regions the opportunity they have long sought to influence their own affairs.
I am pleased too that so many noble Lords welcomed the Bill. Many of those who have spoken have a rich experience of regional affairs and of working to improve regional prospects. This Government have shown that we recognise and appreciate the work that has been done in our regions by organisations such as the North of England Assembly and, in my own region, the North West Partnership. The purpose of this Bill is to build on
1348
that work, to develop further the regional partnership approach and to give the work of all those in our regions which strive to better regional performance a new focus and direction.
RDAs will be influential new bodies charged with formulating a strategic framework for economic decision-taking in the regions. They will have the powers and the authority to make a real difference to regional performance. For the first time there will be, in each of our regions, an organisation strong enough, and sufficiently broadly based, to make a real mark on regional economies and to give direction to regional and national programmes.
The RDAs first and most important task, as my noble friend said, will be to produce and implement regional economic strategies—strategies which reflect national and regional priorities and (I stress the importance of this in response to questions raised by many noble Lords) express the views and interests of the regional partners, including local authorities. The strategies will cover economic development, social and physical regeneration, competitiveness and innovation. Skills training and employability must also be at the heart of regional strategies. The strategies will be developed in a context that safeguards the environment and promotes sustainable development.
Many noble Lords spoke with support for the principle of the need to ensure that our regions develop, meeting the needs and potential of those regions. Frankly, I fail to see how the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, could claim that, for the purposes of regional development with the functions proposed in the Bill, it is illogical, irrational or unreasonable for this Government to adopt the view that the boundaries created—not to be fixed in stone for all time—by the previous government, including the Department of the Environment, the Department of Transport, the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Trade and Industry, were appropriate for the early stages and the building of our regional development agencies project.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. While she is dealing with this point, can she tell us how she sees the establishment of regional chambers? Is she saying that it will be at a sufficiently early stage to use the government office boundaries for those assemblies when they come?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I shall come to the question of chambers later in my response, if the noble Lord will allow me to do so.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will deal with the question of boundaries now; it is important.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the experience so far is that the boundaries of the regions which formed regional chambers have been coterminous, with one exception. I wish to refer to that exception later because it is quite complex; it relates to

1349
the perception, about which people have made assertions, as to where people living in Cumbria believe they live. I was not clear whether noble Lords were speaking of those who live in Barrow, which those of us who live in Lancashire know is really part of old Lancashire, or those who live in the north of Cumbria. If the noble Lord will forgive me, therefore, I shall come back to that point later.
The strategies will be developed in a context that safeguards the environment and protects sustainable development. This Bill, in some detail, puts flesh on the bones of the policy that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, seemed to make sound like something produced in a furtive document which we had hidden away and which has come as a great shock to Members of the Conservative Opposition. In fact the document was the Labour Party manifesto. It was widely available. The British public read it and were aware of our proposals.
We are committed to more accountable regional government in England but believe that much can be done within the present democratic structure to build up the voice of the regions. It was difficult to tell from comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, whether he was in favour of a fully fledged, fully accountable, agreed by the Conservative Party, regional form of government in the UK or whether he was opposed to it root and branch.
We were pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, set the tone for the sort of constructive co-operation on developing this tier of democracy that we welcome. I welcome the fact that my noble friend Lord Burlison referred to the fine record of the Northern Development Company and the support it is giving in principle to going ahead with regional development agencies.
I hope that as a result of this debate and listening to debates during the passage of the Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, will develop some confidence. It is the experience of those in regions where regional chambers have been together and working for some time that people develop a sense of cohesion and an ability to work together. As my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington pointed out, there is widespread support, ranging from the CBI to the trade unions, to local authorities for this project.
We recognise that this is an evolutionary process. We must make certain that the development takes with it the wishes of the people. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, speaking for the Conservatives, criticised us because we were not going far enough in having directly elected regional assemblies for the north-west and he was then critical of the very notion of the need to have them. We believe that this first step, through the creation of the development agencies which will be linked to voluntary regional chambers, will provide a focus for regional consultation and scrutiny.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, raised the spectre, which I thought the Conservative Party might have dropped by now, of additional taxation
1350
creeping in by the back-door. I can assure her that nowhere in the Bill is there any plan to increase taxation.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, what a pity!
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord says it is a pity that there is no such plan. I suspect that on the Government Benches we have got it right if we are being criticised from both directions at the same time.
We will not be more specific. We will assess the position over time. It is wrong to pre-empt the stage and rate of change towards the assessment of the demand for regional assemblies. As my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington said, the very first stage is extremely important. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, followed by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, had doubts about our commitment. Anyone looking at the record of this Government in terms of their commitment to a sound and fundamental change and democratisation and decentralisation of the United Kingdom could not fail to believe that we intend to move ahead. However, in terms of the English regions, it is important that we take people and organisations with us.
A whole range of important issues were raised in the debate. I was asked why we have started from here in terms of the boundaries. Those of us who are committed to the concept of the development of regional strategies in England are only too well aware of the siren voices of those who would lure us onto the rocks by saying, "Only when we can agree exactly where the boundaries between north-west and north or south-west, south and south-east can be drawn may we then go ahead". We in the Government are not fooled by that argument. We know it is a recipe for inaction. Therefore, we believe it is important to move ahead, using, as I have said before, those boundaries which were agreed by the previous government for many, though not all, of the functions that the RDAs will carry out.
The issue with regard to Cumbria is one which I understand has been accepted for the moment by those living in Cumbria. I understand that the voluntary and well-established north-west region assembly was chaired by someone from Cumbria at the time the consultation took place. We have not committed ourselves to using these boundaries for regional assemblies in the future. We communicated our intentions to the regional partners and asked them to put aside differences and get on with making RDAs a success. I am pleased to say that most people in both the north-west and north-east have accepted the Government's decision to move ahead on a voluntary basis.
Perhaps I may move on to the role and make-up of the RDAs. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Morpeth, with particular reference to the Consett experience, raised the issue of inward investment. They posed the questions: is the UK already so successful that we do not need RDAs; and why not leave it up to the local authorities or existing organisations? One has only to talk to many, many

1351
people in industry who speak of potential inward investors receiving well worked out single packages from Scotland and Wales to realise that these packages cannot be met by the English regions. There is a whole range of issues which need to be sorted out. The need to have a co-ordinated approach draws together people in the regions from both sides of industry in support of moving ahead with RDAs.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I have personal experience of Tyne-Tees German inward investment. I was sent a letter of compliment for all the information that was provided and its particularly fine support package.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, apologise to the noble Viscount if I implied that there has never been an ability by organisations to overcome the problems involved. However, I think that those involved in industry would agree that it is far easier to bring together all the partners and to have a strategic approach with a larger unit. That is the scale of the particular project to which the noble Viscount refers. It is one on which all those concerned must be complimented. I know myself from experience in the north-west that it is important to bring people together to plan for the future in a structured way.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, referred to the level of funding. RDAs will be given a substantial budget in order to help them meet their objectives. The final budgets will not be decided until later in the year, but expenditure this year on the programmes which RDAs will inherit will be in excess of £800 million, with a further £1 billion of finance attracted through joint ventures with the private sector. This package of finance will ensure that RDAs are key players in the development of their regions.
With regard to the regional split, in the first instance, government funding for RDAs will be split between the regions principally to meet existing commitments. In future years we will take account of the needs and size of the region and the performance of the RDA when setting budgets. Progress is being made in all regions towards the establishment of regional chambers. The first chamber was launched in Yorkshire and Humberside in March by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister.
I was asked about the article in the Financial Times today. The Standing Orders of another place provide for a standing committee on regional affairs. The committee has not met since the 1970s and I am not aware of any plan to reconvene it.
The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, asked about the bodies currently involved in economic development. Other noble Lords raised the matter of the functions of the new RDAs and the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, raised the issue of London. The Bill does not distinguish London from elsewhere because we do not want to prejudge the plans we have for the greater London authority. But we have in mind that forthcoming legislation for the greater London authority will make whatever provision is
1352
needed—perhaps by amending the Bill—to set up a development agency accountable to the London authority.
I was asked why there is no mention of housing in the Bill. RDAs will not be housing bodies but will be able to facilitate the provision of housing by others. English Partnerships estimates that in 1996ߝ97 it facilitated the provision of 5,200 housing units. RDAs will continue the work done by English Partnerships as well as taking on the Rural Development Commission's rural regeneration programme. It will also be responsible for administering the SRB Challenge Fund which includes housing.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, asked whether there would be any top-slicing of funding from local government. There will be none whatsoever. RDAs will receive their funding from central government programmes.
The question of the performance of RDAs was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. They will be required to report their performance against targets set by the Government as part of the corporate planning process. The NAO will audit RDAs and will be able to conduct value-for-money studies as well.
Several noble Lords asked about rural membership. It is difficult to ascertain whether any reply could gain universal support. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, wanted to know why we were spelling out the need to have at least one member with a rural background. My noble friend Lord Grantchester asked whether there should be more than one member. Other noble Lords were concerned that this aspect may be left out.
In our White Paper Building Partnerships for Prosperity, we said that each RDA board outside London would include at least one member who can contribute a strong rural perspective. The information provided to potential candidates made clear that members will be drawn from a range of regional interests, including rural interests. RDAs must be inclusive and therefore all the complementary elements—rural-urban, employer-employee, large and small—must be brought together. RDAs need to be innovative and imaginative. They must recognise that small companies need help to grow. The co-operative movement is growing in a large way in both rural and urban areas.
The RDAs' rural duty, in terms of their functions, will apply equally strongly. To have required them to have particular regard to the needs of rural areas would have meant that they would have done so at the expense of other areas and would be drawn out. If we are not careful, our intention can appear to favour one area more than another. We assume that the importance of the large and small, the rural and the urban, will be complementary, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, said.
Noble Lords referred in passing to our record. As regards rural areas, an extra £50 million for rural transport was announced in the Budget. A further £1.4 million was made available for public transport in rural areas. Rural schools are to be given greater protection. In housing there will be more flexibility for

1353
local authorities and also in rural areas. Further as regards rural areas, my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 27th March that the RDC and the Countryside Commission were to merge—neither is being scrapped, as the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, suggested. We see that as an important basis for going ahead.
Several other points were raised and I shall answer them quickly. My noble friend Lord Graham asked about councillors resigning. They will not be required to resign immediately on losing their seats. They will be appointed for a range of qualities, including their experience as councillors, and not as representatives of the authority. The record for the economic planning councils was good. In 1979 the Conservative Government decided to wind them down. I must gently correct my noble friend Lord Sefton in that they were neither directly accountable democratically, nor were they as small as in the present proposals.
Regional people should decide their own affairs. Regional planning councils were a good thing in that sense, but we want to move on. There is a framework within the Bill for guidance for the work of the RDAs. That allows the Secretary of State to issue guidance and directions to the RDAs in relation to the development of their strategies and the exercise of their functions.
During the passage of this Bill I hope to able to discuss in particular freedom and access to information and how that will be dealt with. The question of sustainable development was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I can reassure your Lordships that the Bill is drafted to ensure that an RDA takes full account of the needs of sustainable development at all times. It will be incumbent on it to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, mentioned the valuable contribution of the environment industry. That underpins the importance of having wide discussion and consultation on guidance with those organisations that have a role to play.
Many other points were raised, many of which will also be mentioned in future debates. Transport, planning and delivery for the RDAs are important elements of regional competitiveness. Although RDAs will have no specific transport delivery role, they will want to influence the planning services. That was a point dealt with by my noble friend Lord Sefton.
The power to raise private capital was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wade of Chorlton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. In particular, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, stated the importance of helping small companies, of seedcorn investment and of development for the future.
There are other points which need to be covered. I am conscious of the fact that I have spoken for a long time. In summary, the Government will be establishing with this Bill nine new development agencies which will put our regions and the country generally into a better position to maximise our economic performance. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, my noble friend Lord Dormand
1354
of Easington and the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, raised points on higher and further education and the importance of the interface at regional level, including the close collaboration proposed between RDAs and the Further Education Funding Council and its regional committees. These are an important and integral part of the scheme.
The Government are committed to promoting policies which pursue jobs, growth and competitiveness, but in a way that is compatible with safeguarding the environment and with social progress. These were important points raised by my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. The Bill ensures that RDAs will similarly take a broad view of their economic remit. As we have made clear, they will be required to have regard to the needs of all their regions, including sub-regional, local, rural and urban areas, in fulfilling their statutory purposes. They will be required in all they do to consider the need for sustainable development. We want the RDAs to make their full contribution to the Government's aim of achieving sustainable growth and bringing to an end the economic deficit faced by our regions for so long.
The Government's proposals for RDAs in this Bill have been widely welcomed in all our regions. They form an integral part of the Government's objective of decentralising decision-making and creating a Britain better equipped to deal with the challenges of the global market. They are the backdrop for our vision of a more consensual partnership approach to regional working as a means to achieving a sustainable, prosperous future for all our regions. It gives me great pleasure to commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill
7.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The aim of the Bill is to make the policing of Northern Ireland more efficient, more effective, more accountable, and, as a result, more acceptable, thereby commanding increased confidence across the whole community.
The proposals in the Bill are drawn from two main sources. In April 1996 the Labour Party published a consultation document on the future of policing in Northern Ireland. That paper, in turn, drew on recent experience of police reforms in Great Britain.
The other source is Dr. Maurice Hayes' comprehensive report on the police complaints system in Northern Ireland.
Since the Bill was first introduced in the other place in December there have been two significant developments which have a bearing on the future of the Bill. These are the lengthy consideration and amendment of the Bill in the other place, and the conclusion of the Good Friday Agreement between the

1355
British and Irish Governments, and political parties representing the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland.
The first of these has fine-tuned the Bill so that as well as achieving its main aims it also takes account of the views expressed by a wide range of individuals and groups. At Third Reading in the other place it attracted wide-ranging support.
In this context I should also mention the police authority, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Independent Commission for Police Complaints which have all made valuable contributions to the Bill during its progress through the other place.
I should now like to say something about the Good Friday Agreement. This Bill is passing through the House at a particularly historic time for Northern Ireland. We have the referendum on Friday and, if the Good Friday Agreement is endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland, one of the results will be the setting up of an independent commission on policing.
Many of the key features of this Bill are identified in the principles set out in the agreement and in the terms of reference for the independent commission. The commission will be considering these essential ingredients of sound, effective and widely supported policing arrangements for Northern Ireland.
The question, then, is what is the relationship between the Bill and the establishment of the independent commission? The answer is that this Bill is a paving provision. It is a building block on which other improvements to policing can be made.
The independent commission will, no doubt, look at some of the areas identified in this legislation, as they are areas covered in its terms of reference. I am sure, however, that when it does it will take account of the debates we have had in this House and those that have happened in another place.
In particular, I hope that they will take account of the positive comments made about the Bill at its Third Reading and Report stage in another place.
Before I move on to describe exactly what it is the Bill does, and at a time that Northern Ireland is contemplating more peaceful, more positive times than those it has enjoyed in the past, I should like to pay tribute to those who have formed the shield which protected the people of Northern Ireland from the scourge of terrorism. I refer, of course, to the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and those who work alongside them, in safeguarding the community and upholding the rule of law.
Over the past 29 years, 301 officers have lost their lives as a result of terrorist attack; and many thousands more have been injured. All officers, and their families, have had to live with the constant danger of terrorism.
I should like to mention especially the families and dependants of those who have died; and those officers who survived terrorist attack but whose injuries are such that they will have to live with severe disabilities for the rest of their lives. We have not forgotten their sacrifice.
1356
Indeed, the Secretary of State will be meeting members of the Disabled Police Officers Association next week, and will be listening to their concerns.
We should remember that the threat of violence, which led to so much physical suffering and emotional trauma in the past, has not yet gone away. The RUC, in providing a community police service for all the people of Northern Ireland, continues to face unique and all too often dangerous circumstances as its officers go about their daily duties.
Despite this, they continue to uphold the rule of law and safeguard the lives and the property of all the people of Northern Ireland. I believe that this Bill's proposals will aid them in that task.
I should also ask noble Lords to remember the service provided to the people of Northern Ireland by the members and staff of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. They have stood shoulder to shoulder with the RUC in the fight against terrorism, and have also had to operate under the shadow of threat and attack. The Government and the community in Northern Ireland are indebted to them as well.
I should also like to mention the past and present members of the Independent Commission for Police Complaints, and the staff of the commission, who have played an important part in the accountability framework for the police, again in difficult circumstances.
I have mentioned the Good Friday Agreement and the policing commission; perhaps I could say something about the Government's overall strategy for policing, particularly at a time when there is such uncertainty in people's minds.
Certain things can be taken as read. There is no question of disbanding the RUC. I quote the Prime Minister in an interview on 18th April,
"We want to get to the stage where the RUC—the Police Service in Northern Ireland—can be a police service that has the consent of both parts of the community doing the job of a normal police service".
Nor is there any question of allowing anyone who has been involved in paramilitary activity to police Northern Ireland.
Change will come, of course. We need only look at Great Britain to see this where, for example, many of the police planning and efficiency arrangements contained in the Bill are already in place. These arrangements have clearly improved the community/police partnerships within policing in Great Britain.
I know that changes such as these will be welcomed by the RUC. As the Chief Constable said recently,
"If we reach a point where the threat of violence faced by my officers and faced by the public is dramatically reduced, people will see a dramatic change in the way we go about our business. We stand ready for change to see us as more representative of all our communities".
I should now like to move on to the proposals themselves. In essence, the Bill has four main strands. First, it clarifies the relative responsibilities of the chief

1357
constable, the police authority, and the Secretary of State in the governance of policing in Northern Ireland, otherwise known as the tripartite structure.
Secondly, it introduces measures to enable the wholly independent investigation of complaints against the police in Northern Ireland, by establishing the office of the police ombudsman for Northern Ireland.
Thirdly, the Bill introduces a range of measures intended to make the RUC and the police authority more accountable. Fourthly, the Bill consolidates existing Northern Ireland policing legislation, with the exception of the police and criminal evidence provisions.
Turning to the detail of the legislation, the Bill introduces to Northern Ireland police planning and objective setting mechanisms, similar to those introduced to England and Wales in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. They will allow the Secretary of State and the police authority to set the priorities for policing in Northern Ireland on an annual basis, while safeguarding the chief constable's operational independence.
The chief constable will draft a policing plan reflecting these priorities. That plan will be approved and published by the police authority. Within six months of the end of the year for which the plan was written, the police authority will provide a public assessment in its annual report of the chief constable's performance in carrying out the plan.
The police planning and objective setting provisions have already been brought into effect in Northern Ireland on a non-statutory basis. The plan for 1998ߝ99 was issued by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland at the end of March. The matters dealt with in that plan are important, and it is necessary to ensure they are tackled efficiently and effectively if we are to secure our goal of making life better for everyone in Northern Ireland by reducing the disruption, distress and fear crime brings to the lives of ordinary people.
The Police Authority for Northern Ireland will receive the funds for policing from the Secretary of State and will have the power to determine how those funds are allocated as part of the overall policing strategy. The authority will then delegate the day-to-day management of all the resources needed to deliver the policing service to the people of Northern Ireland to the chief constable, who is empowered to act on its behalf. That includes the civilian staff who work in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
One of the innovations of the Bill is to introduce a new term, the "Northern Ireland Police Service", to describe all those, police constables, support staff, and traffic wardens, who will come under the authority of the chief constable as a result of the provisions of the Bill.
I should also note that the title of the Royal Ulster Constabulary will remain. It will continue to describe the police force, the body of constables who form an essential part, but only a part, of the overall organisation needed to supply a policing service to the community in Northern Ireland.
1358
The police authority will hold the chief constable to account for the delivery of the policing service, and for his stewardship of resources. These proposals will bring policing in Northern Ireland into line with policing arrangements in the rest of the United Kingdom, with clearly defined and logically structured responsibilities and lines of accountability.
The creation of the office of police ombudsman is another important feature of the Bill. It is one which I am particularly delighted to see as, when a Member in another place, I introduced a Private Member's Bill which sought to introduce an independent system for investigating police complaints in England and Wales. Perhaps I should add that that measure did not become law at the time. It does not surprise me that we have now reached the stage where legislation is being introduced in Northern Ireland, and I believe it will be a model system which the Home Secretary will be looking at to see how it operates.
The provisions in the part of the Bill, Part VII, dealing with police complaints, reflect the recommendations by Dr. Maurice Hayes in a report into the police complaints system in Northern Ireland. This report received widespread support in Northern Ireland and, having looked at the report of the debate on Third Reading in another place, it is clear that there was unanimous support for the proposals there. They are extremely important.
Dr. Hayes concluded:
"The overwhelming message I got from nearly all sides and from all political parties was the need for the investigation to be independent and to be seen to be independent. While there were systematic failings in the present arrangements they lacked credibility because of lack of independence, because it was the Chief Constable who decided what was a complaint, because there was no power of initiative, and because the complaints were investigated by police and others".
I found this particularly interesting given my view 20 years ago and, indeed, the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in 1981 in his report (Cmnd. 8421) into the Brixton disorders. He said:
"My own view is that if public confidence in the complaints procedure is to be achieved any solution falling short of a system of independent investigation available for all complaints (other than the frivolous) which are not withdrawn, is unlikely to be successful".
Almost two decades later, this Bill gives effect to his recommendations.
The key point stressed by Maurice Hayes and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, was independence. Another key point stressed in Dr. Hayes' report is that while public confidence is paramount, it should not be gained at the expense of police confidence. I believe that our proposals will enjoy the confidence of the police and the community.
The Bill's provisions include the establishment, as I have said, of the police ombudsman. This person will be appointed for a period of seven years, or until the age of 70, whichever is the shorter period. Crucially, he or she will have control of the process, deciding what a complaint is, how it is to be investigated and by whom. Unlike at present, the ombudsman will be able to call himself or herself in to investigate cases.

1359
There will be a requirement that the ombudsman should conduct investigations into the most serious cases. In addition, he or she may investigate any other case. What this means is that the ombudsman will be able to conduct not only disciplinary investigations, but also criminal ones. Obviously, his staff will need to have appropriate powers to do this, and the Bill provides for these.
The staff of the body will be drawn from different areas. The Government believe that, initially at least, there will be a small number of police officers on temporary service drawn from forces across the United Kingdom. These officers will be selected by the ombudsman and will be under his or her direction and control. There will also be other "civilian" staff and these will include the current staff of the ICPC, as well as others recruited by the ombudsman. The office clearly needs to be adequately resourced. The Government do not want to see the body's effectiveness hampered by a lack of resources.
I see these provisions as establishing an office which will undoubtedly engender public confidence in the police complaints system, while also, and importantly, providing reassurance to the vast majority of dedicated, hard-working police officers that their work for the community will not be undone by malicious allegations or innuendo. Where a complaint is made, they will have the advantage of being examined not by the police, with the attendant problem of a lack of independence and public trust in the system, but by the ombudsman who by his or her very nature will be independent.
As I have said, these proposals have attracted widespread support, they have been improved in another place, and I hope that this House will support them.
The Bill also changes the declaration of office made by RUC constables to a form broadly similar to that used to affirm constables in office in Scotland. That is in line with a series of other changes in recent years to oaths or declarations of office throughout the criminal justice system in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland. Outdated and overly complex language has been eliminated and clear, simple wording used. The new declaration states:
"I hereby do solemnly and sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of constable."
This is clear, simple wording.
The role of the police in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, is not to uphold one political view or another. It is impartially and effectively to protect life and property, to preserve order, to prevent crime, and to bring offenders to justice. That is to what the declaration of office commits RUC officers. They are also aims to which all right-thinking people ascribe.
The Bill also gives the Secretary of State the power to issue codes of practice to the police authority relating to the discharge of its functions. The purpose of that power is to enable the Secretary of State to ensure that the authority follows best practice on openness, community consultation and financial oversight.
The Bill also gives the Secretary of State power to issue guidance to the police in Northern Ireland, enabling her to issue circulars detailing best practice to
1360
the RUC, just as the Home Secretary issues such circulars to police forces in England and Wales. That will make relationships between the Secretary of State and the police authority and the RUC more tangible and transparent.
One of the main underlying purposes of the Bill is to improve links between the police and local communities. As part of that, the Government want to ensure that district councils in Northern Ireland are better informed about policing arrangements there. The Bill therefore makes provision for district councils to ask questions of the police authority, and requires the authority to send one or more members to a meeting of the district council to answer such questions, provided suitable notice is given. I am sure that that important step will be welcomed by all who serve on district councils and by the wider community.
As I have already said, the provisions in this Bill are the building blocks on which other sensible improvements can be made if found to be necessary in the future.
I can advise your Lordships that, subject to the House giving the Bill a Second Reading this evening, it will be the Government's intention to seek to have the Committee stage of the Bill considered in the Grand Committee in the Moses Room at an appropriate point in the future.
This Bill introduces sensible, moderate and timely measures which will enable the police service in Northern Ireland to evolve to face whatever challenges the future holds, including the threat of resurgent terrorism. The Bill will ensure safer communities, and better policing for everyone in Northern Ireland. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Dubs.)
8.8 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I welcome much in the Bill, particularly the provision for the complaints procedure which can only do good. However, the Bill comes before the House at a critical moment in the days immediately preceding the referendum and it provides both our own Government and the Irish Government with another opportunity to reassure, not Sinn Fein/IRA, but the ordinary law-abiding people of Northern Ireland by its presentation of the future envisaged by them for the RUC. This will be a touchstone for not only Unionist but moderate Catholic opinion.
The Bill is clearly intended to demonstrate the intention of the Government to meet the commitments set out in the section of the Belfast Agreement on Policing and Justice to,
"a new beginning in policing in Northern Ireland with a police service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole",
and,
"a new political dispensation which will recognise the full and equal legitimacy and work of the identities, centres of allegiance and ethos of all sections of the community as a whole, and which, in a peaceful environment, should he routinely unarmed".

1361
Mr. Ahern, commending the agreement to his government, said that the RUC would need to change and that it should be, as the agreement says,
"professional…accountable…and have public confidence".
He added that its "military trappings"—that slightly mystified me—"must be removed" and that,
"it must be removed…it must be unarmed as the Gardai is".
Many noble Lords in this House have pointed out in recent debates that it is no fault of the RUC that it has so few Catholic members, since the whole world knows that a Catholic has to be brave indeed to join, in the knowledge that his life and that of his family will be under perpetual threat from the IRA. I raise this again because I did not quite understand—now that the Minister has spoken I understand much better—why the Bill proposed in Clause 7 to consult the public widely on their views concerning policing, but in Clause 37 issued a statement of policing principles, including the express principle (in lines 23 and 24) that the policing of Northern Ireland should be conducted in an impartial manner. I could not understand why that was coming forward now.
Surely, the RUC has earned the respect of the public for its war against crime, drugs and so forth. I believe that even the paramilitaries of both persuasions who have murdered, bombed and maimed so many would admit that the RUC had done its duty at great risk to its members in bringing criminals from both sides to justice. This Bill implies in much of its language that only after consultation with the people will impartial policing be achieved. Why is this to be done now before the Patten Commission has examined the position and reported; or is the Bill a mechanism put in place so that it can be implemented when the commission has reported? How do we know what the commission will recommend?
I respect the wish of the Government to ensure that nothing should delay the implementation of the agreement if the referendum gives—as we must hope that it will in the absence of any alternative—the go-ahead to proceed with some positive and valuable plans. But I believe that the last thing that will reassure the many doubters, who already see yet further confidence-building measures being given to people whom they have good cause to fear and reject, making possible such scenes as the disgraceful triumphalism at the Sinn Fein/IRA celebration of the release of prisoners, is for the Government to appear to be prepared to politicise the force of law and order.
The Minister's explanation of the Bill has very much calmed my fears in that direction, but I am not sure that the people who are frightened will be calmed. I give one small example of how not to reassure the Northern Ireland majority. This is a matter that has already been referred to by the Minister. Schedule 2 to the Bill sets out a new form for the declaration or affirmation that
1362
newly-joined members of the police force will use. The notes on the Bill state:
"The new form of declaration is modern, clear and simple"—
it is—
"and does not contain any reference to the Sovereign or any reference to Her Majesty's subjects. This formulation goes some way to meeting nationalist concerns. At the same time, the fact that it is copied from another UK jurisdiction should soften the impact for Unionists".
That is exactly the kind of thin end of the wedge—the weasel words—which will be seen to be designed to propitiate Sinn Fein/IRA and which takes little account of the message sent to the people to whom the Crown still means, as it does to the forces and to the police, something deeply valued and above party. I believe that that issue is very important. The Minister rightly said that there must not be political allegiance, but the Crown is above that.
The Catholics who are in the RUC—there are some brave men and women who are members of that force—have had no difficulty with the existing form of declaration. The Government speak often of respecting other cultures. Why should that mean rejecting the majority view in favour of the brutal and aggressive paramilitary minority? The Queen has many loyal Catholic subjects who have never thought it incompatible with their religion to serve the Crown, whether in the forces or in the police. It is only Sinn Fein/IRA that has had a significant problem in that direction.
The RUC is likely to view this as a significant step, and the general public may very well share that view. Reasonable though most of this Bill is, this is a time when people feel threatened. This is one more issue on which the Government need to pay greater attention to the deeply frightened and angry majority and less to the militant minority. Without a majority of that majority there will be no effective agreement. Although I share the widely held view that an agreement that must be taken as one package but contains no binding and effective commitment to decommissioning is deeply flawed, nevertheless it must be given the chance to work.
The Government need to make it absolutely clear that the RUC is trusted and valued, as it now is; that HMG will not use this Bill to pre-empt the report of the commission which is to be set up under the agreement; and that consultation with the people means all the people and is not a codeword for asking the IRA to provide its own blueprint and its own thought police. I believe that there is scope for real and valuable co-operation with the Garda. I have great respect for very many of its recent actions. Perhaps in future we shall not see the Slab Murphys of the IRA able to defy it by stepping across the border into Northern Ireland, and vice-versa. Meanwhile, surely we must be seen to be taking every opportunity to support and take pride in the RUC as a magnificent force.
In the past year I have had the privilege to learn something about the difficult and heroic lives led by members of the RUC's Disabled Police Officers Association, many of whom have been maimed and mutilated and their lives and those of their families

1363
destroyed at a comparatively young age by the paramilitaries of both persuasions. I am particularly glad that the Government intend to provide some money to help them. I know that the Secretary of State is to see them. But they still receive threats even in that situation. These are the brave, dignified and loyal people to whom we should listen. They must not be given cause to believe that it was all in vain.
Sinn Fein/IRA has no problem with the agreement because it sees it as just another stage, this time political, in its struggle. It has achieved its object of acquiring political respectability, despite the fact that the IRA has made the extraordinary admission that members of Sinn Fein who are also members of the IRA may stand for election to the assembly. Everyone seems to be able to swallow that. It will suit it splendidly to find itself in a crippled assembly because of the possibility of a Unionist split. The Prime Minister has seen the danger and made a fresh commitment to decommissioning and related issues to reassure the majority, and that is good. However, it is difficult to see how, given the impossibility of unpacking and repacking the agreement, he can deliver. Just about the only certainty at present in the lives of many is the continuing power of the RUC and, if necessary, the Armed Forces to guarantee law and order. They need to have and be seen to have unequivocal support. The Crown is an important symbol of that because it provides their link with the UK, in which they need to continue to believe.
believe that the Bill has much to commend it. Now that the Minister has spoken I understand better than I did its genesis. But I still believe that this is the moment when the way it is handled will have almost disproportionate political importance.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness's clear insight into so many of our problems. I am sure that we all join in her generous tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I also warmly support the words of the Minister in his tribute to those who improved the Bill in another place. We owe a particular debt to those who served on the Committee stage of the Bill in another place—which was rather protracted—and should record our appreciation of the care taken by Ministers and Members of the Committee to correct many drafting errors. That is no reflection on the draftsmen, because at Northern Ireland and UK level they are working under very great pressure. That would normally be expected in the first Session of a new Parliament, but superimposed upon that mechanism has been the unexpected burden of many items of new legislation arising from what has been called the Northern Ireland peace process, which it is not. Rather, it is a political process which at most may improve the prospect of peace in Northern Ireland.
Ministers have been very prudent in resisting quite unnecessary structural changes in the Royal Ulster Constabulary when the level of terrorism constitutes grave concern. The IRA has bequeathed to its sub-contractors the capacity to launch attacks at any time and at any point of their choosing. Such
1364
perpetrators may pretend to be at variance with the main contractors—namely, the Provisional IRA—but their differences are really limited to the speed of the conveyor belt delivering concession after concession. The so-called sub-contractors want the belt speeded up; the main contractors realise that that may not be possible; but they are all agreed that at least it should be kept moving.
While the whole fiendish game is being played out, as the Minister said, lives will still be at risk and Her Majesty's Government's Ministers recognise that they have a continuing responsibility to protect the lives of the citizens. The life-preserving instruments in Northern Ireland are the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Army and we should not forget other forces of the Crown, in particular as I have a vested interest as a former member of the Royal Air Force. The Minister has conceded very wisely that now is certainly not the time to tamper with the efficiency of any of those forces.
Whatever the course of political events, there will be confusion and instability and it is essential that such anxieties be not increased by the unnecessary removal of familiar landmarks. That is a very important lesson which we should bear in mind.
During past months, we have had more than enough of confidence-wrecking measures. A lengthy pause in that operation would be beneficial to all. One is reassured by the Prime Minister who, in his revised list of disqualifications, included those who practised intimidation and targeting of persons in public life. In particular, I am thinking of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, their wives and their families. While such activities have not deflected policemen from doing their duty, it is something which would not be tolerated not only in any other part bf the United Kingdom but in any other part of the European Union, with the possible exception of "Mafia land".
As regards the propaganda campaign for change of title and replacement of cap badges, I must ask whether anyone really believes that the Republican sub-contractors who planted that huge bomb at the police station in the city of Armagh just a few days ago would have stayed their hand by reason of a change in headgear of the occupants of the station. The sad reality is that the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army will always suffer attacks because they are seen to be the upholders of freedom and democracy. Therefore, they are automatically the enemies of evildoers of all categories.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, and the Minister at this stage is a very arduous task. Their words will certainly be read with great interest and with a great sense of solace, to some degree, by many people in Northern Ireland tomorrow morning.
The Minister has gone into some detail in explaining this legislation to the House this evening. I am really heartened by the words and thoughts expressed so clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and the noble

1365
Lord, Lord Molyneaux. They have made the Bill, which is a massive piece of legislation, more easy to understand. It is a difficult piece of legislation to understand both in relation to its content and its application to the situation in Northern Ireland.
Perhaps I may turn to the issue of this House dealing with the legislation. It will be noted that in general terms of parliamentary legislation, the Bill is a formidable piece of legislative work to undertake. It has eight parts, 77 clauses, and six schedules. As has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, there was purposeful debate on the Bill in another place. Since its First Reading on 5th December and its Second Reading, there have been 15 sittings of the Commons Standing Committee. Therefore, there is a tremendous burden on us to deal with this legislation in the context of daily events which may influence certain decisions concerning the Bill.
It is interesting to note also that it was debated in the Northern Ireland forum during the month of March. It is interesting to observe how this Bill shaped up with the elected representatives there. On reading the debate this evening, they may change their views to some degree. However, there are deep-rooted attitudes which have been formed over the years by many in public life.
I cannot add to anything that has been said by the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Park, or the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, in the tributes which they paid to the RUC and to all those involved in the policing services. Those people have stood on the bridge and will continue to do so unless dramatic changes take place in the democratic process in Northern Ireland.
The Minister was right at this stage to refer to the impact which may arise from the appointment of Chris Patten to preside over the commission dealing with policing in Northern Ireland. There is bound to be an overlap and changes are bound to take place. I do not know how flexible we can make the legislation to deal with policing and the new commission which is to be established. It needs to be flexible so that it can adjust to the needs of the particular situation in Northern Ireland. Those needs must be met with certain standards. Standards of law and order must be maintained in Northern Ireland, including the way it is financed. The RUC has upheld those standards over the years by trying to make life there worthwhile and to bring hope and prosperity to the community.
The proposal to take this Bill in the Grand Committee is a worthwhile step forward. It will meet the needs of the changing circumstances which we shall probably meet as the weeks pass by during the passage of this legislation. As I say, I pay tribute to the RUC in Northern Ireland. That point has been well made by the Minister and there is nothing I can add to that. I am sure that it is the wish of this House that the Bill should go forward in a manner which will help the situation in Northern Ireland, and will help in particular those who must stand on the bridge on a day-to-day basis.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in this debate. I must apologise to your Lordships in that I shall be unable to stay until the end. I make this contribution as I have served on two occasions with my regiment in Belfast and in the country areas. Although it was many years ago, my memories and impressions are very vivid. I shall not refer to the technical aspects of the Bill, which I found most interesting as explained by the Minister, as I wish to concentrate on the Royal Ulster Constabulary and to make some wider and more general comments on policing in Northern Ireland, which is difficult to do anywhere outside the confines of this Bill.
Policing in Ulster is a joint matter between the RUC and the Army, with support from various intelligence agencies. I should like to make the point here that it is vital to continue to have a co-ordinator of intelligence drawn from either the RUC or the Army to disseminate intelligence in a timely manner so that it can be acted on with success. The Army is in support of the civil power and the success of these combined operations is due to the close working relations between the RUC and the Army, established and developed over many years, although there have been periods when this relationship has not been as close as it should have been. The policing of Northern Ireland is essentially a combined operation and the conditions of any forthcoming agreement must take that into account. The authority of the security forces must not be undermined, particularly during any transitional stage resulting from any political agreements.
There are concerns emanating from the present agreement, which will be voted on by the people of both Northern Ireland and Ireland on 22nd May. Without the necessary guarantees, some people in the north might not cast a "Yes" vote. It is of the greatest significance that Ireland has rescinded its territorial claim to Northern Ireland—a fact that should be recognised and clearly understood before people vote in the referendum. There are three major concerns, which have much commented upon in press reports and indeed some have been mentioned in your Lordships' House tonight. They are matters which will be the responsibility of the police. First, is the release of prisoners; secondly, the handing over of weapons; and, thirdly, the review of the RUC. All these three matters are of the utmost importance and I wish to stress that the timing of any review into the policing of Northern Ireland could be critical to the successful future operations of the RUC.
Without a fully functioning and efficient police force the monitoring of the release of prisoners and the handing in of weapons would be impossible to achieve. It is for this reason that no independent inquiry should be instigated into the future of the RUC until the release of prisoners has gone smoothly and according to plan; and weapons have been handed in. It is vital that the Prime Minister's four measures to clarify whether the term and the spirit of the agreement are being met and whether violence has been given up for good are put into legislation and placed before Parliament. He said that the first test was a clear commitment that there was an end to violence for good and that the so-called, "war" was finished, done with and gone. Secondly, the

1367
ceasefire had to be complete and unequivocal, and this condition included punishment beatings and the need for dismantling para-military organisations. Thirdly, there had to be full co-operation on the decommissioning of weapons and ammunition with the independent commission. Fourthly, no other groups were to be used deliberately as proxies for violence.
How can the police ensure that those conditions are monitored if, at the same time, an inquiry into their organisation, roles and responsibilities is to take place? Any inquiry will lower morale and affect the confidence of all ranks of the RUC at the very time when all their skills will be required to ensure the prescribed conditions are met if there is a "Yes" vote in the referendum next Friday. Now is not the time to carry out a review of the RUC.
The men and women of the RUC are quite rightly considered to be some of the bravest people in the world, displaying immeasurable courage and, on many occasions, acts of gallantry that go unreported. Their devotion to duty and loyalty to the Crown have been and remain at the highest levels. They have lived continuously for about 29 years in extreme danger and under threat throughout their lives, many of them living in the same places all the time. They have performed their duties in the face of the most difficult circumstances, upholding law and order, preventing Northern Ireland slipping into anarchy. Now is not the time for their morale to be dented but rather for the Secretary of State to be seen to be visiting police stations and Army locations very much more frequently than in the past, where her lack of interest in visiting the RUC and the Army has been noticed by the forces of law and order, and has rightly angered members of the security forces.
I started my comments with the fact that successful policing of Northern Ireland is a joint matter concerning the RUC and the Army. Until there is a police settlement, that will continue to be the case. It is vital that the morale of these two organisations is kept at the highest possible level and that their performance should be no less than excellent at all times. In this context, and without going into any great detail, I wish to bring briefly to your Lordships' attention the cases of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright. I do so because, as I have already said, the Army is part of the policing equation and without it the RUC would not have been able to manage. I believe that there has been a gross miscarriage of justice and that these two guardsmen should be released immediately.
There are many reasons to substantiate this claim, which has recently been submitted to the Ministry of Defence. I will not tire your Lordships tonight with the reasons for this, but perhaps two of the most striking are the facts that the other two soldiers in their patrol—namely, Sergeant Swift and Guardsman Williams—were not called to give evidence and that, on behalf of the prosecution, the RUC questioned Sergeant Swift in a hostile manner in a military barracks at Windsor shortly before the trial. I am led to believe that the Secretary of State has the discretionary power to release any prisoner at any time. In view of the circumstances prevailing in Northern Ireland today, and because it seems that there
1368
has been a miscarriage of justice, both these soldiers should be released forthwith. The imprisonment of those two soldiers has had, and is having, a most unnerving effect on soldiers carrying out policing and anti-terrorist duties in Northern Ireland.
In conclusion, I believe that there is a case for a review of the RUC during which the chief constable should address all the changes that he may wish to make. The review should be in two phases. Phase I could start once the result of the referendum is known and should establish the terms and conditions of reference; the official nomination of a chairman, members and secretariat support; the methodology to be adopted; and the systems for reporting and discussion. Phase 2 should consist of the actual inquiry, but, not before violence has ceased; weapons have been handed in; a smooth release of prisoners has taken place; and the guarantees given by the Prime Minister have been implemented.
8.38 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I must, first, apologise for not having put down my name on the speakers' list. I calculated that this debate would start between 6 and 6.30 p.m. and I knew that I had to be at a meeting elsewhere in the Palace of Westminster until 7 p.m. Most of the points that I wish to make can in fact be made in Committee, but I have three specific questions for the Minister. The first one may seem trivial and I suppose that it is. However, as it relates to the contents of the "Explanatory and Financial Memorandum" of the Bill and not to a clause or schedule, this is the only forum in which I can raise it. The explanatory memorandum states:
"The Bill will give effect in Northern Ireland to certain proposals for police reform…set out"—
not in a government White Paper or Green Paper but—
"in the Labour Party consultation paper".
I may be exceptionally unobservant, but that does seem to me to be a trifle unusual. As I said, it is not terribly important, but it would be interesting to hear the Minister's response on that point.
Secondly, and more importantly, I was delighted to hear the Minister say that the name of the RUC would not be changed—or, at least, that there are no present plans to change its name. Therefore, can the noble Lord assure the House that there is absolutely no substance in the prediction made by that respected elder statesman, Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien, while taking part in an "Any Questions?" programme in Belfast on Friday, which was repeated this Saturday lunchtime, to the effect that not immediately, but before very long, the word "Royal" would be dropped as a result of pressure from the pan-nationalist front?
My final point concerns the revised form of declaration which is rightly criticised in my view by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. Is the Minister in a position to tell us what form of declaration there is in the Irish Republic for those who join the Gardai? Is the form of declaration there phrased in such

1369
a way as to be wholly inoffensive to the tiny handful of Unionists left in the Republic? In other words, is sauce for the goose sauce for the gander?
8.40 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I apologise for not having added my name to the speakers' list as I did not think I would be in your Lordships' House today. I have two questions for the Minister. Did I hear, in what I believe was about the 15th minute of his speech, that the total number of members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who had met violent deaths as a result of the troubles was in the region of 300?
It may interest the Minister to know that one day when I was in Northern Ireland I had to write letters to the widows of the 199th and 200th members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. That was 14 years ago. At a rough calculation, over 30 years and 300 deaths, an average of 10 men and women have met violent deaths each year. Will the Minister let me know at some stage the total number of men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who have met violent deaths since the start of the so-called peace campaign of September 1994? The figure of 10 per year does not sound an awful lot, but in mathematical terms that would equate to about 300 to 400 members of the police force on the mainland murdered every year.
Clause 27 of the Bill is headed,
"Members of RUC engaged on other police service".
That appears to me to be rather an odd phrase. The explanatory and financial memorandum states that Clause 27,
"makes provision for members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary engaged on service outside the RUC".
That is perfectly clear to me. I believe that the terms of this clause may be taken from Scottish or English and Welsh police procedure. I hope that the Minister will confirm that, perhaps at a later date. Perhaps we can discuss this in Committee if I am allowed to participate in the Grand Committee. The phrase "other police service" is interesting. It makes me wonder what other activities are included in the phrase.
The Minister referred to the Royal Ulster Constabulary's duties. As he spoke a shiver went down my spine. I have heard those words used by paramilitaries on both sides of the community in terms of keeping order—as they term it—in their respective communities. They have used precisely the same words to justify their actions as the Minister used. As I said, that sent a shiver down my spine. However, we can discuss that in Committee. Above all, I hope the Minister will inform me how many members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary have been murdered or have met violent deaths between 1994 and today.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, it is impossible to refer to policing in Northern Ireland without acknowledging the extraordinary risks that have been run by members of the RUC, by their families and by other public servants who have supported their duties over many
1370
years. We often think of those who have died—the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has mentioned them—and of course their families. We think, too, of the many who have been disabled. Their situation has been drawn to your Lordships' attention.
It is almost impossible to overstate the strain and difficulty that have hung over members of the RUC, the RUC reserve and their families over the past 30 years. Indeed, it is only when things begin to improve and the strain starts to lift that many of them realise the great cloud that has hung over them. When they leave home in the morning they leave behind partners and families who wonder whether they will return in the evening. Members of the RUC have often been uncertain whether they would return or whether they would return to find their own families had fallen victim to paramilitary attacks. That is an extraordinary kind of service which is unequalled in almost any part of the democratic world, not only as regards its difficulty but also its prolonged nature. We cannot pay full enough tribute to those who have served in this way.
It is important to ask why these people have found themselves in that situation. It is because of the extraordinary responsibilities that the RUC has shouldered. The responsibility of most police services is to ensure good community policing and the maintenance of law and order within society. That is the responsibility of the RUC within Northern Ireland, but its responsibility goes far wider than that. From the very beginning it has been its responsibility to act in defence of the state. The very state itself has been under threat from the beginning. That is the nub of the problem for members of the RUC in terms of the size of their responsibility, and the nub of the problem for Nationalists joining the RUC.
It has been suggested that it is really only those who are extreme in their republicanism and violent in their operation who find it difficult to play a role in the RUC. I wish that was so. However difficult we may find it to acknowledge, it is precisely because the RUC has found itself in a political position in the maintenance of the state that a much greater difficulty has arisen. It is sometimes thought that the police could be improved in this way or that so as to obtain the confidence of the community as a whole. A Member in another place with whom I have considerable political disagreements pointed out recently that when the RUC has to deal with burglary, car theft, rape or all kinds of other issues, there is no lack of confidence as regards the propriety with which it deals with such a matter or the professionalism it brings to that. There is an appreciation right across the community that the RUC brings a degree of professionalism to the job which is second to none. However, the problem for Nationalists is their perception that the RUC exists to defend a state to which—at least until now—they have not been able to give allegiance. That is an awful burden which the RUC has borne on behalf of the community and which we must not forget.
I believe that there is an opportunity in the next few days and over the next few months—as this is not so much an event as a process—to bestow a legitimacy (through a referendum throughout the island of Ireland)

1371
to a political settlement which may begin to remove some of that burden from the RUC. It is not a burden which the RUC created for itself; it is a burden it has borne for the community. Allegiance could be given to a settlement which would enable matters to begin to change, but only if that settlement is supported widely throughout the community.
Those who have deep in their hearts a commitment to support the RUC must understand that one of the greatest things they can do to cancel the invidious position in which the RUC finds itself would be to ensure an agreed settlement throughout the island of Ireland. That would inform Irishmen North and South that the RUC does not exist to defend and maintain a state from which they are alienated. The RUC exists to ensure good rule of law and order for all sections of the community. I believe that is what a "Yes" vote would achieve for the RUC. I believe it is within the terms of a settlement that things can begin to change.
While I support many of the provisions of this Bill, it is rather extraordinary that it comes to your Lordships' House at this time—and indeed that it came to another place when it did, in December of last year. I say this, having said so at the time to the Minister with responsibilities in another place. At that time you will recall that we were right in the heart of negotiations about the future of Northern Ireland, and policing was to be one of the very central issues that we would have to address. Yet this Bill was already passing through the other place. When I raised the question, it was said to me by the Minister—I do not think I am breaching any confidence here—that now that we have a legal instrument going through the House, if it is the case that matters should arise in the context of the negotiations, they will of course be able to be brought in.
That seemed to be a not unreasonable proposition at the time but it has not turned out to be so, because in the agreement we were not able to come out with a series of agreed propositions of what could be done with policing. I have to say that, had such an outcome come about, it would have removed a good deal of the fear that is now in the community about issues of policing, prisoners and other matters. Instead, what we have is a proposition for a commission on policing. I do not suggest that the commission is an inappropriate vehicle. In particular it is good news that it may well be chaired by Chris Patten, a man of great distinction, who is held, I may say, in great respect and affection in Northern Ireland. I do not pour any cold water on that at all, but it does mean that this legal instrument now going through the House cannot itself contain any of the propositions which might be consequent on the settlement itself.
So we have a curious device going through, which makes some changes of a kind that could have been made at any time in the last dozen years or so. Indeed, many of the propositions here are propositions for which my colleagues have striven for quite some time. I refer to matters like an ombudsman; a completely independent process for dealing with complaints. I wonder, referring to that matter, whether I may ask the Minister to confirm that the ombudsman will himself be able to employ officers to proceed with investigations.
1372
One of the great difficulties with the police independent complaints commission was having to use officers operating within the RUC. That cast some kind of doubt on whether the officers could in fact operate in an entirely independent fashion. This is no reflection on the individual officers, but it simply concerns the fact that they were operating within the police, and continuing to do so.
It is not the case that all the propositions were inappropriate but simply that it is curious that they come at this particular juncture, when it can hardly be doubted that within a year or 18 months we shall find ourselves having to explore some further provisions. Of course, when these provisions are already in law the question will arise for many people in Northern Ireland: what more do you think should be done?
There are also some issues concerning the structure that is proposed. It is rightly said that this piece of legislation clarifies relationships between the components of the tripartite structure: the Secretary of State, the police authority and the chief constable. The current chief constable, I may just say to your Lordships, has performed sterling duties on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland as a whole and has played a remarkable role in carrying out his responsibilities as chief constable recently. However, it does seem to me that at best there has been a lack of clarity between the three elements of the tripartite structure at times in the past, and particularly under one previous chief constable, when the responsibilities and rule of the police authority appeared to be somewhat in doubt, certainly in the mind of that particular chief constable. I think it is helpful that that matter has been clarified.
However, I have to say that I really do not see the structure as being a very satisfactory one now. It seems to me that, if part of the problem for the police has been that they have been seen to be maintaining a political institution with which part of the community did not feel a kinship, the best way of dealing with such a situation is not just to have a political settlement but to ensure that the police are entirely accountable to all the people of Northern Ireland. And this could be done quite simply. We are talking about devolution. We are exploring the question of how many government departments there ought to be. If the Government were to put in place a department of justice which took responsibility for policing, prisons and all such matters, then it would be able to be accountable to all the people of Northern Ireland.
There would be a minister for justice. He would he scrutinised by an assembly committee of representatives of all the people of Northern Ireland. It is my belief that such a development could be of enormous value. I accept that it may be difficult to pursue this line immediately at this point, but I would like to ask the Minister, first of all, is it possible to construct a kind of "infant" department of justice, as it were, based on a minor expansion of the office of law reform, which could subsequently take on these other areas of responsibility without major change? Or at least can I have the Minister's assurance that, when the settlement Bill comes to us, it will be constructed in such a way that devolution of responsibility for policing and other

1373
matters will be something that can be done without further primary legislation? And can we have some clarification as to how that might be agreed to come about?
If, for example, a new assembly, voting by the cross-community procedures which are to be put in place were to agree that it wanted to take that responsibility, would that in itself be sufficient to persuade the Government that those matters should be devolved? This is important, because it is the way we could really get some accountability and some assurance for all the people of Northern Ireland that their affairs will be considered properly. I have to say that in some ways the conduct of matters of justice in the last couple of weeks, conduct primarily by those in positions of responsibility outside Northern Ireland but with an interest in Northern Ireland—and I say it plainly: the Governments in London and Dublin—has been profoundly unhelpful and would not have taken place if the responsibility had been that of politicians of almost any frame of mind within Northern Ireland. That is why this whole area of accountability in Northern Ireland is supremely important.
Then, a police authority would be something completely different. There would be the opportunity for, as it were, a regional police liaison committee, something which did not have on it appointees from the Secretary of State but rather representatives coming up from police liaison committees, so that one had a regional advisory body for Northern Ireland, advising an assembly with its roots in local government and advising a minister of justice with responsibility for policing.
I point all this out because it seems to me that we are putting in place here a structure which, if things go well, ought not to be in place in a couple of years' time. That poses to me the question: why are we going down this road if it is something that can only have a relatively short lifetime? I would emphasise that in no way do I want to see the operational independence of the RUC chief constable tampered with. That is absolutely crucially important, whatever structure may be established.
There are a number of other issues to which I would wish to advert. In particular, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister: when there is reference in paragraphs 8 and 27 to the opportunity for police officers to operate outside the Northern Ireland context and perhaps in an international context, would that be sufficient authority for police officers from the RUC to work with officers of the Garda Siochana in a joint body established by ministers of the north and south, or indeed by the British and Irish Governments? Would this be sufficient authority for that kind of work to be done? I believe that people of all types and descriptions north and south would be happy to see the RUC co-operating with the Garda Siochana on issues such as drug trafficking, terrorism and organised crime? I think we should leave open the opportunity for that to be done.
There is much more one could say about these matters, because policing has been such a central issue in Northern Ireland affairs and in Northern Ireland life. It is an extremely sensitive one. I hope that when we
1374
debate the legal outcome from the Patten Commission, if we may presciently describe it as such, it will be in a context where, because we do not have a terrorist campaign under way, it will be possible to have fewer police officers. Where it is possible for us to have adequate policing without the current number of police officers, can the Minister assure us that government money will be forthcoming in substantial amounts to ensure proper financial recompense for those who will be taking early retirement or otherwise will no longer need to continue in the RUC?
For those who are younger, and have the ability to take up other careers, can the Minister assure us that there will be proper retraining, and that investigations will be taken up in the remainder of the United Kingdom and other places? I refer, for example, to the Government of the United States, and others. I have recently been talking with the Tanaiste in Dublin about the possibility of using the PHARE project, fully paid for by the EU, for members of the RUC and the Garda Siochana to help to train police services in central and eastern Europe which badly need the level of professionalism, experience and skill of the RUC. Can the Minister assure us that the Government will go to great lengths to ensure that RUC officers who are no longer needed will still be valued, recognised, recompensed and their abilities and skills well used outside Northern Ireland when they are no longer needed inside Northern Ireland because matters have improved so much in the way that we wish to see?
9.1 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate. However, the Bill is about the management of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The first point that we should remember with due modesty here in Westminster is that we at both ends of this building have been in overall charge of the RUC for nearly 30 years. People sometimes speak as though Ulstermen, in particular Unionists, have been in charge of it. But Whitehall and Westminster have been putting in place the legislation, appointing the chief constables, deciding how much money it should have, and so on, for years. Some of those functions have been exercised through the police authority (PANI), but that was set up and appointed by the Government. They were doing so at one remove. Therefore any criticisms of the way in which it works now are criticisms of ourselves, of Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office, and are not so much criticisms of the Unionist community or anyone else in Northern Ireland. If the tripartite structure is unclear and needs reform, so be it, but it is Whitehall and Westminster which put it there in the first place.
The Bill's aim was described as making policing in Northern Ireland more efficient, more effective, more accountable and, as a result, more acceptable, increasing confidence across the whole community. We can all agree with the idea of improving efficiency and effectiveness. But, as has come out in the debate, acceptability is more complicated. In the Northern Ireland situation, it is difficult to make something more acceptable to one group of people without making it less acceptable to another. But it is also axiomatic that no

1375
police force which does its job is acceptable to everyone. Criminals and terrorists want a weak, inefficient, unacceptable police force. That is much the best for them. A police force which was acceptable to criminals and terrorists would be hopeless. It would be a disgrace and worse than useless in performing its function. So I believe that everything said about changes to the police by political representatives of terrorists should be treated with the utmost suspicion.
My next point is that acceptability is not the same as accountability to a political entity. Some police forces, including, for example, the Garda, are answerable to a much greater degree to politicians for their operations, the appointment of officers to a quite low level, and so on. That is not a good way to run a police service. It is well outside the British tradition of the operational independence of the chief constable, about which the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, spoke a moment ago.
The noble Lord also spoke of the possibility of the assembly, or a committee of the assembly, taking over responsibility. Even if everything goes as well as we all hope, I think that that should not be rushed. It is a long-term programme, not a quick one. But of course it does and will depend on the way the security situation develops over the next few months and years.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, criticised some decisions of recent days. If I have guessed correctly which they were, they were essentially operational decisions. They were not decisions which should have been taken politically but from an operational base. I think that they may have been taken politically, and that may have been part of the problem. But acceptability is about both symbols and mechanics. The Bill affects both. I shall come back to the mechanics—the complaints procedure, and so on—in a moment. Part of the nervousness about tinkering with the symbols is that, as the Minister stated, this is said to be the start of an ongoing process. That makes people nervous about the next thing that will be tinkered with in this way.
The Bill tinkers with the name of the police, introducing the concept of the Northern Ireland police service. That makes people nervous that the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary might be changed. The Minister was precise that the name will not be changed. I am grateful for that assurance. No other force has remained as steady and has improved its reputation under such appalling pressure from terrorist criminals, as we heard tonight from several noble Lords. The RUC has a proud record of service and an excellent reputation. It would be wrong to change the name when so many have died and been mangled and disabled in its service.
The Bill also changes the form of the oath and affirmation. That was presented by the Minister as a simplification of the wording: a modernisation to make it rather more straightforward. However, as we know, the changes crucially remove the passages about loyalty to the Crown. The idea that the present oath incorporating the notion of loyalty to the Crown somehow deters Catholics from joining is a mistake. The oath taken by a Member of Parliament when joining the other place does not stop many Catholics from
1376
Northern Ireland and indeed other parts of the United Kingdom becoming Members of Parliament. The same is true of this House. The present RUC oath was used in exactly the same form by the Royal Irish Constabulary, the gallant predecessors of the RUC. That force had a majority of Catholics. So I do not believe that the oath itself has deterred Catholics from joining.
Many may have been deterred, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, by unwillingness to support the idea of the present system of government of the Province. But the major reason deterring Catholics has been the targeting of Catholics by the IRA. I refer not only to the murders, though they are a part, but to the fact that they are effectively driven out of their communities. My noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth referred to that. I remember meeting an inspector from the RUC and speaking about this problem. He told me that he was a Catholic. If I recall the conversation correctly, he had been married for 17 years, and had never yet been able to visit his in-laws because they lived in a difficult area. His concern was not so much that by visiting his in-laws he might risk exposure himself, but that he would expose his in-laws if he were recognised as an inspector by somebody with whom he had had to deal. He also drew my attention to the difficulties of ordinary parish life. He could not take mass in the same church each week. He had to move about; otherwise he would have been greatly at risk of exposure. That is the sort of thing that deters Catholics from joining the force, not the oath. Incidentally, it is also a tremendous measure of the dedication of those who do join.
The reason why people shoot at members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is not that it is largely a Protestant force—in fact, Catholics in the force are targeted more than Protestants. After all, the Royal Irish Constabulary had a majority of Catholics and was attacked just as fiercely. It is that the RUC upholds the democratic right of the people of Northern Ireland to choose which state they wish to belong to and how they are governed. The RUC has defended democracy and the people of Northern Ireland against ferocious terrorism of all kinds. It has held the line for the Government and for the people against all comers—at times from both traditions. It is worth recalling that the clear-up and conviction rates of the RUC are higher for crimes committed by Loyalist terrorists than for crimes committed by Republican terrorists. Therefore the Government should be careful not to damage the symbols of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
The Minister recognised that, even if everything goes as well as we all hope, the RUC will still be needed—supported by the Army—with high morale and high efficiency. As the Minister said, the dangers have not gone away; nor are they likely to do so. The dangers are from political terrorism by those who do not accept the settlement and also from the financial rackets, which have a momentum of their own quite separate from the political momentum—which will tend to mean that the RUC has an important job to do over and above the job done by every other police force.

1377
Turning to some of the mechanics that are being changed, the post of ombudsman is being set up. I certainly accept and welcome the basic recommendations put forward by Dr. Maurice Hayes, which are translated into legislative form in the Bill. It is good to have the independent investigation provisions in particular.
There may be difficulties over the definition of a serious complaint and a less serious complaint. We can return to that matter in Committee. Clearly, the seriousness should be judged as objectively as possible and should be related to the substance of the complaint rather than the person making it. I am unhappy about the definition being left, as it is in part, to regulations.
The Bill also restructures the tripartite structure. I believe it is not unfair to characterise it—to cartoon it, as it were—by saying that it devalues the police authority and builds up the relative position of the Secretary of State and the chief constable. The whole point of PANI was to provide an independent link in the chain. Cutting it out or reducing its scope means that there is a more direct route from the Secretary of State to the chief constable, which leads to the dangers of more political control—or what might be thought to be more political control, which is just as damaging.
The brings me back to the point I made about acceptability and accountability to the Secretary of State being different things. I do not believe that greater accountability to the Secretary of State will make the RUC more acceptable to people. After all, individual Secretaries of State go up and down in the public estimation and are held in different degrees of estimation by different groups among the public. Nor do I believe that it is particularly desirable that politicians should be thought to be controlling the police. We shall have to look carefully at those provisions when we come to the Committee stage. Incidentally, I am content that that should be through the Moses Room procedure which was suggested by the Minister.
Overall I find the Bill acceptable; but, as has been pointed out, its timing is odd and I think likely to lead to misunderstanding and mistrust. The Minister of State said in another place at Second Reading, at col. 46 of Hansard, that, if necessary, the Bill would be used to implement appropriate parts of the agreement. I gather from the Minister's remarks that that is no longer envisaged and is not what we are expecting, but it shows the rather curious background which exists to this Bill at this particular time.
The Royal Ulster Constabulary is a most effective force, with a high reputation for courage and resilience. Every society owes a debt to its police force, but I find it difficult to envisage a society which owes so much to the dedication of its police force as does Northern Ireland. That does not mean that nothing should be changed, but we must always remember what an excellent force it is now and tread with great care.
9.16 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, perhaps I may say, first, how grateful I am for the many tributes that have been paid
1378
to the RUC throughout the debate, tributes richly deserved by a force to which we all—we here and the people of Northern Ireland most of all—owe an enormous debt.
A number of themes have run through the debate and I shall refer to them in dealing with the various questions that have been raised. One of the most important is the need to reassure ordinary people in Northern Ireland that they will be made safer through any changes that take place to the RUC, and to reassure the members of the RUC that they have nothing to fear from the changes that are contemplated in this legislation.
I am aware from the time that I served in the other place that there are frequent changes to policing—for example, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and many other measures. I do not think that they were seen by the police or the people in England and Wales as being a particular threat. I think they were seen as ways in which the police were responding to changes in society, ways of responding to the changing demands on the police, and so on. I should like to feel that changes to how the RUC operates or to the context in which it operates would also be seen in that way and not as posing a particular threat either to members of the RUC or to ordinary people who depend upon the RUC for their sense of safety in their homes and when they go about their work. I hope that the House will accept that changes may often be helpful and necessary, without being threatening,
I remember that in the early 1980s there was much criticism of the Metropolitan Police. I referred earlier to the work of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. There were two waves of rioting in Brixton and other places. There was a general feeling that all was not well. I should like to pay tribute to the Metropolitan Police for the way in which, as a force, it adapted rapidly to changes in order to cope with very difficult situations as regards inner-city policing. It became more sensitive to local communities and more effective. Looking back upon it, it was a period of change for the Metropolitan Police but it was change from which both the Metropolitan Police and the communities it policed benefited. I say that simply as background. But one of the main elements running through the debate was the need to reassure ordinary people, and changes need to be seen in that context.
Perhaps I can deal now with the many specific points raised by noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, referred to the fact that Protestants and Catholics all need good policing. Of course they do. The majority of people in both communities appreciate the work done by the RUC. However, it must be said that in some areas the RUC is less acceptable than in others. If we can achieve changes to make the RUC equally acceptable among both communities, that will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the RUC in dealing with crime.
I was told many years ago by the police for England and Wales that their success in clearing up crime depended on the level of co-operation that they received from local communities. One of the aims of this Bill is

1379
to enable the RUC to achieve a higher level of co-operation from ordinary people in some of the communities where there has not been quite that level of co-operation up until now.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, and the noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred to the change in the oath, as did other Members of your Lordships' House. The change in the declaration for the RUC was recommended by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland—the body responsible for putting forward the views of the community in Northern Ireland on policing. We have considered it carefully and believe that it represents a sensible change, clarifying what a police constable is undertaking when he or she takes up office.
I understand the sensitivities of those who would prefer not to see changes. But, as I said earlier, change is the essence of policing and, given that the Police Authority for Northern Ireland made the recommendation, it is proper that we should respond to it.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, also referred to that in the wider context of policing symbols and said that such changes would not stop Republican attacks. Of course not; nobody suggests that they will. But the Government are changing the oath and introducing the new term, Northern Ireland Police Service, in response to requests from many groups in Northern Ireland, including the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, whose members and staff have stood shoulder to shoulder with the RUC during years of terrorism.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, asked about the use of the term "impartial". The requirement as regards impartiality was put into the Bill during consideration in the other place. It was a request from a number of parties, including the body which represents the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. The noble Baroness also asked whether the Bill was a mechanism for implementing the agreement. The Bill is a paving measure. It makes modernisation of policing possible. The commission may recommend further changes and I should point out that the Bill conforms with the terms of reference for the policing commission set out in the Good Friday Agreement.
If I can make the link in response to other questions which were asked, we have a Good Friday Agreement from which stems the Commission on Policing. However, the Bill paves the way to make the conclusions of the Commission on Policing effective, otherwise we would have to wait even longer to have the Bill after the Commission on Policing set out its support. The two go well together.
The noble Baroness asked why we should press ahead now. The text of the Good Friday Agreement and the terms of reference for the independent commission were predicated in the passage of the Bill on its early implementation. It is regarded by the Government as a foundation order; as a paving provision. It puts into statute a number of structural changes which we expect the Commission on Policing will want to build. It shows that sensible, evolutionary change is possible and will produce real benefits within a finite timescale providing, essentially, assurance for the community as a whole.
1380
The need for this Bill is amply demonstrated. Had we waited until later, we would have been accused of not getting on with the job of making changes, many of which have been asked for in Northern Ireland and which are sensible.
The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, asked about Guardsmen Fisher and Wright. Perhaps I may say for the record that Mr. Justice Coghlin has indicated that the reserve judgment on the judicial review will be delivered on 22nd May, which is this Friday. It would not be appropriate for me to say any more on that at this stage.
The noble Lord also suggested that there should be no independent inquiry into the RUC until prisoner releases and decommissioning had been completed. But we are bound by the terms of the agreement to complete the Patten review within one year. The agreement specifically stipulates that the terms of reference of the policing commission include maintaining a police force capable of responding effectively to any terrorist threat. It will also, if I may quote the Chief Constable of the RUC,
"allow the RUC to counter the bombardment of propaganda levelled at us and will see the true value of what the men and women of the RUC have done and are doing and will continue to do".
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked about the Labour Party paper. I do not know whether it is unusual. However, we put on the record what the origins of the Bill were; namely, a Labour Party consultation paper and, indeed, the Hayes' proposals as regards the ombudsman. The changes to the governance of the police in Britain were made in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act. The Bill replicates that measure. So I think the Labour Party was right to say that this was a sensible measure to extend to Northern Ireland. I do not think there is any harm in the Labour Party actually admitting to the origins of a measure now that we are in government.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to a comment made during the "Any Questions?" programme, which I missed, at the weekend. It concerned the use of the word "Royal". The Government are aware of the sensitivity of this issue. However, it is something that the independent commission will no doubt want to consider. I think I had better leave it at that.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, asked what the declaration was for the police in the Republic. I am afraid I do not know. I shall see if I can find out and write to him. He also asked about the meaning of the phrase in Clause 27 "other police service". That allows members of the RUC to serve with the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which is a UK-wide service. It also allows them to serve on other bodies—the other bodies are listed in Clause 27—and it provides for the RUC to send members abroad—say, to Bosnia—to assist police forces and to provide RUC expertise worldwide. That is a wholly new provision and reflects the provisions of the Police Act 1996 that apply to England and Wales. That gives part of the answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, about the RUC being used in training police forces elsewhere. The RUC will now be able to do that as a result of the phrase incorporated in Clause 27.

1381
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, asked how many RUC officers had been killed in the course of duty since 1994. Since the Provisional IRA ceasefire in September 1994, I believe that five members of the RUC have died as a result of terrorist action. However, I hope the noble Lord will bear with me if I say that I will write to him if there is any difference between that figure and the truth if by any chance I have made a mistake.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, very aptly described the dilemma of policing in Northern Ireland that has been faced by the RUC for many years. I can do no more than say that he has put it better than I could. He raised a number of specific questions. He asked about the process or mechanism by which the Government might decide to devolve responsibility for security and justice to the assembly, as the initial proposals for the assembly are that responsibility for these matters will stay with the Secretary of State. It is not on the immediate agenda. It is an issue that we shall need to return to at a later stage.
The key points that I would like to note are that the issues are likely to be determined very much by the level of terrorist threat. As long as the security situation requires the active deployment of the Armed Forces in support of the RUC, underpinned by emergency legislation, then I anticipate that the matter will remain the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. But it is a matter that we shall want to return to as the circumstances permit. Obviously, the Secretary of State will be able to take the initiative in any changes suggesting a transfer of these responsibilities to the devolved assembly.
The noble Lord also asked about the possibility of establishing a department of justice. As I believe the noble Lord knows, the Good Friday Agreement provides the terms of reference for a review of the criminal justice system. They are put in the following terms:
"The structure and organisation of criminal justice functions that might be devolved to an assembly, including the possibility of establishing a department of justice while safeguarding the essential independence of many of the key functions in this area".
So the review of the criminal justice system would be able to engage in the issue of whether there might be a department of justice in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord also asked about the ombudsman's ability to employ police officers to conduct investigations. Clearly, in establishing a police ombudsman one has to start from somewhere. Initially there will be a need to find people who have the necessary investigative skills and experience. It seems to me that one need look no further than to the police force for the whole of the United Kingdom as providing some people for that purpose. However, the police ombudsman will also wish to recruit other people without a police background. Gradually, over time, I imagine that those other people will form a larger proportion of the investigative staff than the police ombudsman will have. As I have said, the staff could be police officers from any United Kingdom force or civilians such as lawyers and Customs and Excise staff who have investigative experience. They will all be
1382
firmly under the direction and control of the ombudsman. They will be responsible entirely to him or her.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, also asked about the timing of the Bill and that has already been referred to by other noble Lords. This Government introduced these changes—which, as the noble Lord said, are much needed—as soon as they could. I do not want to speak for former administrations, but modernising policing is important. I believe that paving the way for the policing commission will begin to introduce real benefits. It would have been wrong to deny to the people of Northern Ireland, for the time it will take to review, consider, draft and implement further changes resulting from the commission, the benefits contained in this Bill, especially given the widespread support for these provisions.
The noble Lord referred to the settlement Bill and whether certain measures could be included. I have heard what the noble Lord has said. I am sure that his comments about what it might contain will be brought to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Minister for Political Development in another place. I do not believe that it would be proper for me to make any further commitment here and now.
The noble Lord also asked whether the Bill will allow RUC officers to serve in the Garda Siochana. The provisions of Clauses 8 and 27 will allow that in appropriate circumstances and with the approval of the police authority and the Secretary of State. So it is a possibility that we envisage.
I wish to pay tribute to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Blease, about the police and I thank him for his support for the measure. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, said that there was a nervousness about change. I understand that. Of course, there is nervousness about that in the particular circumstances that are faced in Northern Ireland, but I hope that what I said earlier will reassure him that we see these changes as bringing the police up-to-date—I am not saying they are out of date and perhaps I should re-phrase that. I hope that what I said earlier will reassure him that the police can move forward as the changes in circumstances in Northern Ireland suggest and in the hope that there will be long-term peace in Northern Ireland enabling the police to adapt to that situation, given that for 30 years they have been the targets of several vicious terrorist organisations. So I hope that there will not be this nervousness of change. I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for the concept of an ombudsman to deal with complaints. I can give the noble Lord and the House the assurance that political control of the police is not what is intended and will not be the case.
We want to improve the links between the police and local communities in order that local communities have confidence in policing and in order that the RUC gets the maximum support in its work from local communities.
The Bill should be seen in the context of sweeping changes which are being made in policing thoughout the United Kingdom. The prosect is opening up for the

1383
police in Northern Ireland of finally being able to make the transition from a force geared and equipped for safeguarding the community from a vicious and long-running terrorist campaign, to a service which, like police forces throughout the rest of the United Kingdom, can concentrate on delivering ordinary policing to all parts of the community.
That is a great opportunity, and I believe these proposals will equip the RUC to exploit it to the full, prepare properly for the changes it will bring, and enable them to continue to deliver a police service of the highest standard to everyone in Northern Ireland.
That is something which will be to the benefit of the whole community in Northern Ireland. I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, before the Minister sits down I wonder whether I could recall to him that I sought some reassurances that the Government would make available the necessary and, I hope, generous resources, retraining and other measures which will be required if there is peace and if it is then possible to reduce the size of the RUC. I think there is a real nervousness that their value and their future may not be so high up the priority list as the requirements of some others.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am happy to do that. We certainly value the contribution the RUC have made. If it were possible because of peace to have a somewhat smaller RUC in Northern Ireland than we have had during the difficulties of the past 30 years, the Government would want to ensure that there are adequate redundancy provisions for those who might be declared redundant; that there are opportunities for retraining, and that we would use the RUC for training other police forces where that was also appropriate. I am happy to give that assurance.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.

New Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 1998
9.37 p.m.
Lord Dubsrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th May be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order is to be made under the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act, which passed through the other place and received Royal Assent last week. Of course the Act and this order under it are entirely dependent on the result of the referendum which will be held in Northern Ireland on 22nd May.
It is important that this order be passed before the referendum. The timetable agreed by the parties in Belfast on Good Friday is an extremely tight one. If the referendum is to be held on 22nd May, and the initial assembly elections on 25th June, we clearly need to have the legislative arrangements for these elections in place before the House rises for the Whitsun Recess.
1384
The basis for this order is Section 2(5) of the elections Act. This provides that the
"Secretary of State may by order make provision about the election or any matter relating to it".
Clause 6 makes it clear that the power to make this order shall be exercised by statutory instrument, using the affirmative resolution procedure.
There has inevitably been a very tight timetable for preparing this order. We have not been able to consult in as much detail as we might have liked. My honourable friend the Minister for Political Development has been able to discuss the elections with representatives of most of the Northern Ireland parties, and the order reflects quite a considerable number of the points they made to him. Many of the issues covered in the order were also discussed during the debates we had on the main Bill, and I have taken serious note of the points raised there too.
As noble Lords can see, the bulk of this order consists of applying existing electoral legislation for the assembly elections, with some modifications reflecting the particular circumstances of this election and of elections in Northern Ireland generally.
It might be helpful, however, if I run through some of the main features of the electoral legislation as it will apply to these elections. As provided for in the Belfast Agreement and the elections Act, the June elections will be by proportional representation (single transferable vote) with each of the 18 Westminster constituencies returning six Members. The order includes the usual provisions on how STV elections are to be conducted. The system is, of course, familiar to both politicians and electors in Northern Ireland.
The order provides that vacancies in the assembly be filled by substitution, however. This slightly differs from local authorities in Northern Ireland, where replacement is either by co-option or by-election. The way in which substitution will work is quite simple. At the same time as returning their consent to nomination, candidates at the election will be invited to submit to the chief electoral officer a list of up to six substitutes, in order of preference. In the event of a vacancy, the CEO will contact the names on this list in order of preference until one declares himself willing and able to take up the seat. In the event of none of the six being able, or if the original Member did not submit a list of substitutes, the vacancy will be filled through a by-election.
We have consulted widely on this issue, and have concluded that substitution is the fairest and most widely supported option. The Northern Ireland assembly will be returning members by STV, but if vacancies were filled through by-election, these seats would effectively be filled by a first-past-the-post contest. Smaller parties which won the fifth or sixth seat in a constituency would have little chance of winning it again in a by-election.
Given the stress in the agreement on the need for proportionality in elections to the assembly, and in decision-making within it, we feel this approach is the most appropriate, and have accordingly included provisions in Article 6 and 7 of the order, and made

1385
some necessary modifications to the election rules under Schedule 1 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.
Noble Lords will be well aware that the 25th June elections in Northern Ireland may be the most fiercely contested for many generations. Perhaps the strongest impression Ministers took away from the debates on the Act both here and in another place was the strong desire for firm action against electoral fraud. It is unfortunate that electoral fraud has a long tradition in Northern Ireland, but being a long-standing problem does not make it any more tolerable. Electoral fraud strikes at the very roots of democracy and of confidence in the democratic system, and the Government are determined to do all we can to eradicate it.
We have been looking for some time with the chief electoral officer and others at changes which can be introduced both in the legal framework and in practical arrangements to make his task easier. I would like to take this opportunity to express the Government's gratitude for the excellent work Mr. Bradley has done over the years. His decisions are sometimes criticised, but on the whole I think only my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has a more difficult job in Northern Ireland.
As with the referendum campaign, we have decided in the assembly elections to extend the period the chief electoral officer has to scrutinise absent voting applications from the usual 11 days to 14. There is obviously a difficult balance to be struck here between not putting unnecessary obstacles in the way of legitimate applicants and the need for time to examine and detect the undoubted examples of fraudulent applications.
In addition, the order also tightens up the procedures for applications for absent votes on medical grounds. It will now be necessary for all medical practitioners attesting such an application to have seen the applicant in connection with the illness or injury in question. I think this is an obviously sensible change. After all, if anyone is really unable to get to the poll on medical grounds, it stands to reason that they are likely to have visited their medical practitioner in connection with their ailment.
Two other amendments to usual provisions on elections may be of interest. On the issue of deposits, we have set the level at £150 per candidate. Although £500 is normal for parliamentary elections, this was felt to be rather steep in a multi-member campaign where many parties would be intending to put up a slate of candidates in a large number of constituencies.
We have also chosen not to apply Section 93 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 to these elections. As many noble Lords may know, this section lays an obligation on broadcasters to offer participation in any local item during a constituency election to all the candidates, and gives candidates the right to withdraw their consent from broadcasts.
After careful consideration, we do not think these provisions are appropriate in multi-member elections of the sort proposed here. We are likely to see 15 to
1386
20 candidates in many seats. Only one of those (if he or she chose to be obstructive) could effectively veto broadcast coverage of the campaign in that particular constituency. Even if that did not happen, I suspect that items on constituency contests would simply become unwieldy and make for dull listening and watching. None of this will detract from the duty which will remain on broadcasters, both from the BBC and the commercial sector, to present the campaign in a fair and even-handed manner. Nor should our decision here be seen as a precedent since the type of election for the Northern Ireland assembly has no clear parallels with those being envisaged elsewhere in the UK.
The New Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order is another piece in the jigsaw. Much more work will need to be done if the people of Northern Ireland ratify through the referendum the agreement reached by their political representatives. I believe that this order is both necessary and useful and I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th May be approved [33rd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Dubs.)
9.46 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I hesitate to raise any questions at this particular juncture, but it is clear that the result of the referendum is unlikely to ensure that those who are opposed to the settlement will set their concerns to one side and not indulge in a re-run of the referendum during the election campaign. In considering briefly the provisions of the order I should like to seek a response from the Minister on one or two items. On almost all of the issues that he has raised we are very satisfied and believe that the Government have done the right thing.
I am concerned largely with the question of substitution which is a new provision in elections in Northern Ireland. The proposition is that at nomination a candidate will put forward a list of up to six people. Given that there are considerable divisions in at least one major party, which are not entirely constant, it is entirely possible that a candidate may put forward a list of six but subsequently no longer approve of all of them, even though they are members of that candidate's own party. They may take a different line on something of considerable importance. Can the Minister clarify whether it will be possible subsequently for a candidate, presumably a successful one, to remove names from the list? I accept it is unlikely that names can be added to the list, but is it possible that names may be removed from the list because they no longer hold the same views as the elected member? The purpose of substitution is to maintain the balance found at the election. That balance may not be changed on party political grounds but other grounds.
The legislation is not entirely clear, but I assume that it is possible for an assembly member to resign, in which case a substitute will be appointed from the list. Can a candidate stand in more than one constituency and then resign if he is elected in more than one constituency, thus putting in the next one on the list?

1387
Although it may seem a curious and somewhat mischievous act on this side of the water, I assure your Lordships that if it is possible it may well become the practice on the other side of the water for a candidate, perhaps a well known one, to stand in a number of constituencies at the same time and then if elected in one to resign from the others, thus enabling candidates who are less well known to substitute for that well known name.
Perhaps the Minister can also clarify whether or not such a well known candidate can be put at the top of the list of substitutions in all constituencies? Would that fact be published in nomination or election papers?
I do not raise these points mischievously from my point of view, but I entirely concur with the Minister who said that this would be a highly contested election. Since substitution is a new measure, I feel it only right to raise these questions because they are not matters that have been explored with the noble Lord's honourable friend the Minister for Political Development.
9.50 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has made a very valid point because at the other end of the building it is possible for a candidate to stand in more than one constituency and to be elected in more than one constituency. As I understand it, when Parliament assembles after a general election, the Speaker challenges all the Members present to declare which constituency they wish to represent because they cannot represent more than one. Therefore, that is a valid point.
I apologise for intervening, but there are two matters which came to light over the weekend that I wish to raise this evening. I know that Ministers are determined to stamp out vote stealing. The Minister referred to electoral fraud. In that regard I have been asked whether prisoners released before polling day can be prevented from voting and thereby adding to the numbers voting illegally. They will not be on the electoral register if they have served a term of imprisonment, but the presses are already producing forged documents of identity to enable released prisoners and various terrorists on the run to swell the Sinn Fein poll in West Belfast, for example, as they did very effectively at the general election against the SDLP candidate and former Member, Dr. Hendron.
My second point is rather more worrying, because it looks as though there is already a flaw in the system for the referendum on Friday. Over the past three days, seven separate electors on a register of under 2,000 electors have received—and they have reported this to me—two polling cards each. It is safe to assume that there are probably far more on that register who did not report the situation to me. Given that the authorities are very efficient in depriving electors of their votes on mere technicalities—and I am dealing with one particularly difficult case at present—will the Minister take speedy action to ensure that the same diligence is observed by the Chief Electoral Officer in countering what appear to be his own errors?
9.52 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this brief debate. I shall deal first with the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. He is concerned about the principle of substitution through the single transferable vote system. It will not be possible subsequently to remove any names from the list of up to six of those who were put forward initially as substitutes. One of the difficulties is that we do not yet have a system of party registration. The Government are considering whether that is appropriate. If we had a system of party registration, the noble Lord's questions would be more easily answered because it would then take account of his concerns.
Yes, it is possible to stand in more than one constituency, as it is possible in relation to Westminster. However, I must say from my own experience that it is difficult enough to get elected in one constituency, never mind trying to be elected in more than one. But as the electoral rules stand, it is possible for an individual to stand in more than one constituency. Moreover, it is possible for an individual to be top of the list of substitutes in more than one constituency. That is the position.
However, that is a matter which the Government would wish to look at again in the light of the experience of this election. If necessary, we shall have to make changes for the longer term future. However, for this election, the position is as I have described it.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, asked two questions concerning the possibility of fraud in the elections. Anyone wishing to vote would, of course, have to be on the voting list. If prisoners are not on the register, they are unable to vote at present. Therefore, it would be difficult to envisage any prisoners who might be released before polling day being able to vote because they ought not to be on the register.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. They will not be attempting to vote in the normal way or to claim a vote. They will be provided with forged documents of identity. They will then go along and steal other people's votes as, for example, happened in West Belfast in times past.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the only answer to that is for all those concerned with the conduct of elections to be diligent and to stop such electoral fraud. I do not know that there is any other answer that I can give to the noble Lord. However, I can assure him that the electoral registration authorities, and those presiding over elections, are aware of the type of fraud which it is alleged has been committed and of which the noble Lord has given us examples. Indeed, everyone will be on the alert during the coming elections. As regards the example of voters who received two polling cards each, I can assure the noble Lord that I shall certainly draw the matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities to see whether quick action can be taken to prevent that becoming the basis for electoral fraud.

1389
I should like to thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate—
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, there is one aspect of the debate that I should like to pursue. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, seems to me to be extremely serious. I urge the Minister to look at the matter a little more swiftly than the timetable he envisaged; that is to say, waiting until after the elections. It seems to me that he should ensure that the matter is given urgent consideration to ascertain whether we need to modify these provisions in the order. I shall not attempt to detail them this evening, but we need to modify them so as to deal with the stated position.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that in the last century it was possible to stand for several constituencies for election to the other place. People did so and the voting took place on different days in different constituencies. Sometimes people were elected for two constituencies. Sometimes they were defeated in the first one but, nevertheless, were successful in taking up the seat for the second constituency. Memories are extremely long in Northern Ireland. It is quite possible that this device, which the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, suggested, has already occurred to some people and that it may be used. I believe that the Minister should reconsider this as a matter of urgency.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the reason for my saying that we would look at the matter if there was further legislation is that I have no powers to change the measure now before the House. Indeed, once we have the measure in place, that will determine the conduct of the election, assuming that the referendum comes out with a positive answer. We are talking about an election which is only a few weeks away. I do not think that it will be possible to contemplate changing the statutory basis for that election after the House has passed this measure. That is why I said that the Government would watch what happens in the election and that, if it was found necessary to make further changes for subsequent elections, we would do so when the legislative opportunity presented itself—presumably in the settlement Bill which will be coming along later in this Session.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, I crave the Minister's indulgence. I believe the Government would be well advised to look at the matter rather more urgently. Now that it is possible for Peers to stand for election, I can assure the Minister that, if the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, were to stand, not only would he have no trouble in getting elected, but, on his record in another place and bearing in mind the most extraordinary majorities that he piled up, he would also be able to take in a clutch of people all across Northern Ireland.
If the application were under the name of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, that would be one thing. However, if it were under the name of a number of other Northern Ireland politicians in another place, it might be an entirely different matter. Given the experience that
1390
we had in respect of the elections to the Northern Ireland Forum, I have to say that there will be little point in trying to work out what would happen in subsequent elections to an assembly; indeed, such a mistake could ensure that that was something one did not have to trouble oneself about. I hope that the Government will take the matter seriously, although I understand there are parliamentary problems in this regard.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, obviously we take seriously the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Alderdice and Lord Molyneaux. We are talking about an election where candidates will have to try to attract public support. If people are thought to be playing games with the voters of Northern Ireland—I suggest that in 1998 a candidate who stood for more than one constituency would be viewed as not taking the electorate seriously and as being contemptuous of the electorate—I would hope that the voters of Northern Ireland would give such people the short shrift they deserve. That may not be the case, but I would expect that to happen. We expect that people who stand for election intend to take their seats, and they can do so only in one constituency. As I said, I hope that the electorate will give short shrift to people who try to be silly about this.
It is my understanding that the Government would have no power to change the legislation regarding the election that is to take place at the end of June in the few weeks that remain. I hope that the House will approve the legislative basis for that election. The Government can consider only the administration that follows the election. We cannot change the legislative basis of the election. It would be wrong of me to pretend that I shall reconsider the matter, when that could not result in the kind of changes that the noble Lord wishes. I believe we should leave it to the good sense of the people of Northern Ireland, who will not allow themselves to be manipulated in this way. If the people of Northern Ireland show that determination, candidates will not stand in more than one constituency and the problem will not arise.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CAP Reform: ECC Report
10.1 p.m.
Lord Reayrose to move, That this House take note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on CAP Reform in Agenda 2000—The transition to competition: measures for rural development and the rural environment (18th Report, HL Paper 84).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as a farmer. Next I thank the other members of Sub-Committee D for their assiduous work in conducting our inquiry into rural policy in the light of Agenda 2000. The amount of reading provided was—as is so often the case—gargantuan, and they accomplished prodigies of assimilation in preparing a report which covers in effect several disciplines. I also express my gratitude to all those who provided us with the evidence,

1391
both written and oral, without which the inquiry could not have begun, and which was often outstanding. As usual, they all gave up valuable time without demur.
Finally, I thank the two men who worked harder on the report than any others: first, the redoubtable Professor John Marsh CBE, just retired from Reading University, with whom it is always such a pleasure to work, who has done so much to help Lords' committees over the years, and whose brilliant clarity of thought and expression, while sometimes soaring out of the reach of mortal committee members, nevertheless eventually enables us all to find within ourselves opinions we never knew we held. Secondly, at the opposite end of his career, I thank our clerk, Andrew Mackersie, fresh out of Oxford University, for whom this report was a baptism, gruelling but I hope instructive, into the conduct of inquiries and the writing of Lords' committee reports, and from which he happily emerged with, as far as I could tell, undiminished enthusiasm and resilience.
I am sorry that a report of such scope as this, touching as it does one of the most fundamental problems facing Europe, is not being taken as first business in your Lordships' House. Faced with the choice between an earlier time, but not until the autumn, and this evening's position, ahead of next week's Agricultural Ministers' Council, when "preliminary conclusions" are due to be reached on the Agenda 2000 proposals, it seemed on balance preferable to have the debate tonight. But this outcome is far from ideal, and undoubtedly deprives the House and a wider public of the considered views of some of those who have thought hardest and longest on the subject.
The main focus of this report is on the environmental and rural aspects of the European Commission's Agenda 2000 proposals, which were first introduced to the world in Brussels last July. Thin in themselves, they nevertheless seem to be a pointer to what was likely to become an increasingly important aspect of or adjunct to any further reforms of the CAP: environmental measures to provide a more acceptable method of making public funds available to farmers and other land managers in the countryside than are CAP payments today; and the focused development of the rural economy to provide a necessary counterweight to balance any loss of employment in, and withdrawal of capital from, farming which might come about as a result of further CAP reform.
In preparing our report, we did not look in any depth into Agenda 2000's central product-related proposals, which at the time were being considered by the Select Committee on Agriculture in another place. We welcome, however, those proposals as a development of the 1992 MocSharry reforms and a further step towards a more liberal market-orientated CAP. Nevertheless, we express our disappointment that they do not go further than they do. Their failure to prepare the Community's agriculture either for enlargement or for the next WTO round will only mean, in our view, that further reform will he required later, with all the turmoil and misdirected investment that this promises for years ahead.
1392
We were particularly dismayed that no end is discussed for quotas and no suggestion made that compensation payments should be either degressive or finite. We also record our objection to the Commission's proposals for modulation and for ceilings. The Commission's proposals for work-unit related modulation and for payment ceilings for individual farmers, apart from penalising this country's interests, also run counter to the spirit of encouraging efficiency, which after all purports to be the main guiding principle of the reforms.
The Government, however, have been reported in Agra Europe as having said that they "might be ready to consider an approach based on subsidiarity", which would allow member states to set their own ceilings. This, I must say, causes me some concern and I should be grateful if the Minister could say why this would make a policy of modulation any more acceptable.
It must be said that the Commission's thinking has progressed immeasurably in recent years. The Commission talks the language today of CAP reform, and where it fails disappointingly to propose reform this seems to be the result of a political calculation of what the Council is ready to hear rather than any lack of awareness of what in truth is required. The Council's reactions to the Commission's proposals must only encourage the Commission to feel how right they were not to be more adventurous. The modesty of the Commission's reform proposals does not leave much scope for any dramatic switch of expenditure from farm support to other objectives. The Commission's plan for compensation payments for their proposed cuts in price support will result in an increase of some 4 billion ecu in the CAP budget before any additional funds are made available for environmental or other rural purposes.
Doubts about the scale of funds that can be made available in the foreseeable future for environmental purposes have led some to argue for the attachment of environmental conditions to existing arable area and headage payments. There are arguments for and against cross-compliance, as such conditionality is known, and they are set out at length in paragraphs 80 and 81 of the report.
The committee was united in its opposition to cross-compliance for the long term but, for some, the needs of the environment were too urgent to wait for the eventual release of funds from other sources and they would like to see environmental conditions attached to existing farm payments as an interim approach. However, the Sub-Committee as a whole was very concerned that attaching environmental conditions to existing CAP payments would only serve to compound the difficulty of reforming the CAP in the longer term by lending the current subsidy regime a false legitimacy.
Much of the opinion section of our report is concerned with setting out what we consider to be the principles and objectives which should lie behind the funding of rural development and the environment. We argue, for example, that the eventual emergence of savings on commodity regimes is not by itself an argument for spending more on environmental policy. Such an outcome must depend on political decisions

1393
taken at the appropriate level within the Community. We argue that there should be a basic minimum regulatory framework of environmental rules applied uniformly throughout the Community to avoid the distortion of competition, and on top of that that public payments to secure environmental goods can be paid.
We argue that Community co-financing is justified by Community interest; and that its degree should reflect the degree of Community interest and not, as often today, some cohesion policy objective as a result of which the Community co-finances at a higher rate in a member state with lower average GNP per capita. We argue that care should be taken to ensure that, as far as possible, schemes with an environmental objective are fully decoupled from production and do not form covert production subsidies. In place of today's bewildering array of schemes, we welcome the Commission's and the Government's intention to offer a single menu with a simplified access to European Union funding.
We are in favour of the idea of developing a horizontal approach, which means schemes in principle accessible to all farms and other land managers as opposed to schemes which are geographically targeted. We therefore very much support the Government in their stated intention to develop the Countryside Stewardship scheme as their main incentive programme. It is horizontal in application. It also has considerable scope for expansion. It covers less than 1 per cent. of all agricultural land in this country, compared with 10 per cent. covered under the 22 existing ESAs, which are of course geographically targeted. It is popular, with a high uptake and a backlog of apparently worthwhile applications for which funding is currently not available.
We also ask that EC co-financing should be available under the scheme for capital as well as current expenditure. Restriction to current expenditure has limited the Community contribution to Countryside Stewardship to less that 10 per cent. of total funds expended under the scheme.
We draw attention to the unsatisfactory state of policy confusion that operates with respect to Less Favoured Areas. Here, to offset natural handicaps, additional headage payments are made available, in this country under the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances, which simply encourage the overgrazing of a highly prized environment. The Commission now wishes to introduce specific environmental objectives for farmers in these areas. We believe that the public wish to see a living countryside in these regions, which means the survival of agriculture, and Community policy must allow that. It should be the task of Community policy makers ahead of the next WTO round to devise a policy for such areas that is environmentally friendly and permits the survival of extensive farming. I agree with the Government that subsidies for such areas can never be wholly decoupled, but it must be doubtful to say the least whether such farmers impinge to a great degree on world markets. WTO should turn a blind eye to them.
When it comes to rural development, we appreciated the Commission's intention to concentrate structural spending on a smaller percentage of the population, to be reduced from 51 per cent. to between 35 and
1394
40 per cent., although we had a taste, in the tabloid reaction to the publication in March of the Commission's detailed implementing proposals, of how difficult it is to shift vested interests once they are established. Throughout the Community, press headlines in each member state concentrated on what that member state was likely to lose from the new proposals. The tendency of the Community subsidy regimes to establish powerful and vociferous clients whom it requires a giant effort of will ever to disappoint again in the future, is one of the more depressing recurrent features of the Community's agricultural and structural policies.
Of course experience in one part of the Community is often very different from that in another. In this country, our movement from the land took place in the 19th century. Our experience over the past three decades has been of a net immigration into the countryside, though that does not mean that rural areas, even in this country, are without problems and could not benefit from a well-targeted Community policy.
We have tried to put forward some constructive suggestions, mentioning tourism, local computer training courses, funding for travel to retraining courses, and the conversion of redundant post-war farm buildings for light industrial use as providing opportunities where progress might be made. On the last point in particular, we received compelling advice from Strutt & Parker, who provided us with outstandingly good evidence and in this instance recommended the Rural Development Commission, or what now survives of it, as an authority which could vet applications and stimulate planning bodies into a more sympathetic attitude.
Despite more liberal recent planning guidance such as is contained in PPG7, planning authorities are still widely viewed as being unnecessarily reluctant to grant planning permission in cases like this. The Government, incidentally, seemed to misunderstand us on this point. To the extent that we take up that suggestion, we emphatically are not proposing that a new agency should be established for the purpose, but that an existing agency should be considered for that responsibility.
We conclude by saying that any rural development policy should be temporary. I am glad to note that the Government agree with us on that point. While we welcome the intention of the Commission to give support for the rural economy instead of maintaining agricultural price support, nevertheless the test of the success of such policies is that eventually they should become unnecessary. It is the transition to a less agriculturally dependent rural economy that we have in mind to facilitate, not replacement of one dependency culture with another.
We were very much aware, while we conducted the inquiry, of the critical state in which British farming currently finds itself, largely as a result of the effect of the recent strength of sterling on subsidies calculated in ecus. However, it is to be hoped that that will not be a permanent phenomenon. Reform of the CAP remains essential, not least in order to give competitive agriculture, of which there is much in this country, unrestricted access to world markets.

1395
A greater emphasis on the environment, supported by the transfer of funds saved by the reform of the commodity regimes, can both mitigate the effects of the introduction of a more competitive agriculture, where that occurs, and also support the environment and those who manage it in those areas where the withdrawal of support would not leave a viable agriculture. Support for rural development, both on and off farm, can help provide alternative economic opportunities in rural areas as agriculture is restructured.
Those are the directions for agricultural policy in the future, and it is encouraging to see the Commission at least address them. I only hope that the Council as a whole will follow its lead and, in so doing, encourage the Commission to be more adventurous next time. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House take note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on CAP Reform in Agenda 2000—The transition to competition: measures for rural development and the rural environment (18th Report, HL Paper 84).—(Lord Reay.)
10.19 p.m.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as the chairman of English Nature. I also commend the noble Lord, Lord Reay, for his excellent chairmanship of a rather intellectually unruly bunch. I think it was probably the intellectual equivalent of herding squirrels; however, he brought us through to a conclusion. Perhaps I may also join the noble Lord in his thanks to Andrew Mackersie for supporting us in his first duty as committee clerk. I also thank the Government for a very prompt response, though there are elements of it that perhaps many of us would take issue with.
The one thing that there is no doubt about is that agricultural policy in Europe is broken. In fact, the folly of the CAP strains the loyalty to the European ideal, even of Europhiles like me. Perhaps I may give two examples. The hill livestock compensation arrangements, to which the noble Lord, Lord Reay, referred, have not only reduced the number of jobs in the uplands and increased the level of overgrazing and environmental damage, they have also resulted in many of our upland farmers living on a subsistence income, with their only real profit being represented by subsidy.
In the richer arable areas we see huge reductions in the wealth of biodiversity. There is probably something like a 60 per cent. reduction in some of our bird, arable plant and invertebrate populations. That number is only narrowly missed by the reduction in farm incomes over the past 18 months. There is a long-term decline in the number of jobs in the countryside related to agriculture. We are in a position now where, probably for the first time, all farmers are miserable. We usually get to the point where some farmers, but not all, are miserable. We are now in a position where all farmers are miserable.
This is a policy that cannot be sustained. The Commission's proposals, alas, signal the right direction but do not do enough to take us very far. The approach outlined in the report—that is, market prices for commodities, with no direct subsidy and with separate
1396
decoupled payments for social and environmental benefits—is supported, but the Commission's proposals do not go far enough in that direction. They continue to indicate large sums of compensation wherever there is any approach towards a more market-related price. As a result, little is released for the kind of rural development and agri-environment schemes which we would want to see as a fundamental part of agricultural reform. The Government's response to the report recognised that.
Some opportunities have now been outlined in the more detailed work that the Commission has put forward. The idea of national envelopes in some of the commodity regimes would allow national redirection to rural development and environmental schemes and might even, I would advocate, allow some funds for smoothing the path of the restructuring of the agricultural industry in those areas. But, alas, those national envelopes do not refer to the sheep regime, which is comparatively unreformed.
There is to be reform of the less favoured areas, with a stronger emphasis, as the noble Lord, Lord Reay, pointed out, on environmental objectives, but again the fact that the sheep regime is largely untackled means that we shall continue to have thousands of woolly "maggots" in the uplands destroying the upland environment by overgrazing.
There is one element that only just scraped into the proposals by a squeak. It was not there at one point and only sterling work by the Government managed to bring it through. I refer to the requirement that the rural development regulation will be applicable not just to farmers but to a wider rural community. I hope that in the forthcoming months the Government will seek to ensure that that should remain, because I believe it will again be severely under stress.
The Commission's proposals do not go very far. They do not release much for environmental and social benefit. We shall have to wait for that for the next round of reform, which inevitably the world trade round will require. But we cannot wait that long. This will not be quick. The political reality of a fast approach to a genuinely market-led agricultural industry in this country will be very slow. We know that Germany is not even willing to talk until after its elections. The vested interests in both southern states that have received large quantities of structural funding and in France and Germany, where the farming lobby is extremely powerful, will mean that change will take a very long time.
In the meantime, the kind of social and environmental decline that we are seeing in the countryside will continue unabated. I do not believe that we can continue to see that happen. At present, only 3 per cent. of the agricultural budget is spent on environmental schemes. I believe that if we are to see continued payments in the medium term, particularly compensatory payments that will not reduce as quickly as all of us would like, some minimum environmental conditions must be applied to those to try to stop the decline that we see occurring day by day.
I recognise that it is difficult for the Government, in the delicate tactics of Europe, to demonstrate their hand too early on this matter, but I urge that they should keep

1397
very much at the back of their mind, if not at the forefront of their words, the view that, as soon as the dust has died down around this particular negotiation, it should press for environmental conditions to be placed on all medium-term payments to farmers.
An alternative would be regulation and the Government, in their response, talked of environmental regulation. Indeed, I have heard many farmers declare support for environmental regulation as a basic minimum rather than seeing conditions applied to compensation payments which, a few years ago, I would not have believed I could experience. However, the reality of minimum environmental regulation is that it would have to be minimum. It can deal with issues like pollution and water use, but not with fine tuning and the encouragement that incentive payments give, particularly in the field of biodiversity.
I therefore urge the Government, in taking forward these delicate negotiations in the European Union, to look seriously at environmental conditions as a measure for the medium term until such time as we reach market conditions. A number of things can be done in the negotiations, particularly at home on a domestic basis, to improve matters for the environment and for the social regeneration of our rural areas. But time is running out for both of those factors in the face of this juggernaut of European agricultural policy.
10.26 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, first, I congratulate the committee, particularly the chairman, on the report. Naturally, because this is a complex subject, I do not agree with everything in the report, but it is thorough and goes over the ground extraordinarily well. One must agree with many of the conclusions.
The whole of the CAP has gone wrong. When the common agricultural policy was set up, it was set up with good objectives. There was a reasonable relationship between the Council and the Commission. Gradually, the Council destroyed the thinking of the Commission. Time and again in days gone by the Commission wanted to reduce prices in order to follow the market as well as guaranteeing a certain security. But the Council, led by France and Germany with large agricultural interests and a sympathetic attitude towards agriculture, went the opposite way. They put up prices and thereby raised all the stakes—the costs and everything else—with the result that an excellent policy, much needed at the time, has now been totally destroyed and people do not know what to do with it, including the Commission.
I doubt very much that the Commission will make a great deal of progress against Germany and France, which have such a close connection. Added to that is Austria, which has a problem with its small farms and tourist industry. It wants agricultural money to back that. It will be extraordinarily difficult. We have extraordinary policies, such as supporting the production of bad tobacco—all tobacco is bad, but the stuff that we are supporting is even worse. Money is being spent on that and we also have the ridiculous case of olive oil
1398
which is still ongoing. That is the subject of extraordinary deviations in relation to the purpose and direction in which the money goes.
I agree that we have a situation about which something must be done. The Commission produced a set of new objectives and they are right and proper. They are to increase competitiveness internally and externally in order to ensure that EU producers take full advantage of positive world market developments. Other objectives are improvements in food safety and food quality; the integration of environmental goals into the CAP; the creation of alternative job and income opportunities for farmers and their families; and the simplification of EU legislation. There is one that is not quoted in the report: ensuring a fair standard of living for the agricultural community and contributing to the stability of farm incomes. That is an important objective and one to which we really need to pay attention.
The noble Lord, Lord Reay, has already referred to the state of agriculture in this country. It is in a desperate state. Income has dropped by 45 per cent. and there is no question in my mind that a great many farmers will go out of business. They do not go bankrupt; they sell up and get out; but they get out with very little. The measures which have led to this are to a large extent the fault of the Government. They could not perhaps help the rise in the pound but they did not take as much advantage as they might of the funds available from the EC to alleviate the situation. If one bears in mind the fact that the high pound has made imports ridiculously cheap and that BSE has prohibited exports to our former customers, the situation has become really desperate for a large number of farmers.
People talk about competitiveness and the great opportunities that are available to farmers. However, as I have said in the House many times, in eastern Europe—in Hungary and Poland in particular—the standard of living is such that a man working in agriculture will be paid for four or five weeks with a tonne of barley, sold at the present price, whereas in this country it takes three tonnes of barley to pay a man for one week. That is not a competitive situation for the countryside.
We have to look at this business of total world competition. We had it in the 1920s and 1930s. This country had to compete with the prairies, with Australia and with the Argentine, and so there was a total break-down in agriculture. I doubt whether it did very much good. Primary producers' prices will fall in a free market to a degree which is not bearable for the good of the countryside or for the country as a whole. One needs some form of protection against the world's evils.
I agree that we have to become more competitive. There are many things that we can do. The farming community is paying close attention to marketing and the stock has been standardised so that people know exactly what they are buying. A great many of these things are happening now.
A lot of people are working very hard on making a living and doing a good job. I have a nextdoor neighbour with 50 acres of good land. He is making a living. He is doing that by diversification. He has turned part of

1399
his steading into loose boxes so that girls who have horses are able to stable them there and he receives an income from that. He grows turnips for marketing. He has an arrangement with a local man who has built up the market with the supermarkets. He has the proper standards. That brings my neighbour an income far above what he would get from growing normal crops on that portion of his farm. He has a flock of Suffolk Downs which are very good sheep. He sells a ram or two. On 50 acres he works like the devil and makes a living.
But not everyone can have Suffolk Downs or take in horses. Some people have to rely on the average crop of grain, potatoes or whatever it may be. Therefore, there have to be many part-time farmers in the country. If he has a good job to go to, the part-time farmer has a solution: he can enjoy his farm and make some money from it because his basic standard of living derives from elsewhere.
I have quoted examples on other occasions. The Highlands and Islands Development Corporation has shown what can be done. Today I received a paper from it which states that in the Western Isles 50 jobs will be created by the establishment of a tele service centre. I have no idea what that is, but if it provides 50 jobs in the Western Isles it is the sort of thing that needs to be encouraged.
People stress how important environmental payments are. They are important, but they cannot support the whole of agriculture. What does one do about the Fens? Does one give them environmental payments along with the uplands of Cumbria? Such payments cannot replace support of some sort for agriculture. Admittedly, I hope that the support will be only temporary, but it may not be all that temporary. Environmental payments are necessary, proper and well-directed expenditure but they cannot substitute for other forms of support.
It is interesting that the RSPB has produced a paper. Both it and the report say that some sort of order has to be introduced. The paper points out that in Scotland 5 million hectares are farmed. Of that figure £9.2 million go to environmental schemes. In England there are 9 million hectares and £60 million goes to England. In Wales there are 1,400 hectares and £16 million goes there. Farmers in the Argyll Islands ESA in Scotland can claim a maximum of £6,000 per annum whereas the average farmer in the Lake District ESA would claim around £14,000 per annum.
If all the farmers in the country could get that sort of money, it would not be bad and it would be a distinct help. But that would be impossible. We have to put environmental payments where they belong; they are excellent but are not a substitute for supporting agriculture. Agriculture can face fair competition in this country, but I have never known a period when one has had entirely fair competition. The European Union has been the perpetrator of more unfair competition than probably any other body.
This is an excellent report and I greatly enjoyed it. I agree with the paragraph on modulation, except that I am against it as it applies to the calculations of the Commission in what may come to this country. I am not
1400
against a form of modulation in this country in support of the smaller farmers, as long as it does not go to a ridiculous extent. I think it is a weakness of the report that it does not say that some form of protection is necessary for agriculture and the primary producer. I still think it is. But it is an excellent report. With that, I sit down.
10.40 p.m.
Lord Rathcavan: My Lords, as a member of Sub-Committee D I should like to thank our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Reay, for the fair and firm way in which he directed our deliberations. Our inquiries led to some cul-de-sacs, but I think it was remarkable that we reached more or less unanimous conclusions and that we have been able to identify some ways to move forward and to bring together the interests of farming and the rural environment.
I am pleased to note that in their official response the Government have, in large measure, agreed with our conclusions. Any conflicts of interest on the way forward are, on the whole, much more marked within the European Union itself.
At our meeting with Commissioner Fischler he gave us an insight into the difficulties of squaring this circle of CAP reform. It is unfortunate that these difficulties have prevented him from going further in the Agenda 2000 proposals, although our own Government have been a lot more supportive than most towards the goal of restructuring European agriculture to make it fully competitive in world markets.
There are still far too many obstacles which frustrate and delay this process. There is still no clear timetable or strategy for the removal of price support, quotas or compensation payments linked to production. There is still so much uncertainty which prevents farmers from identifying the scale and direction of adjustments and changes in policy that they may need to make in the next decade.
This uncertainty leads to false expectations and sometimes wrong investment. It is only when we can plan ahead more seriously and more securely that good decisions can be made about how to help the environment in the long term and how to create, and I quote from the Report,
"a vibrant and economically self-sustaining rural economy".
There is much about that in the Report, and I believe we have listed some important priorities.
I wish to speak in particular about the smaller or not so small family farms, upland and lowland, and what is for them, in this mood of uncertainty and in a period of reducing incomes because of the strength of sterling and of changing markets, a period of crisis. I speak with particular reference to the farmers of Northern Ireland, whom I know best. This generation of farmers may have had a somewhat sheltered life over the past few decades of guaranteed prices and price support, of quotas and financial premia on stock and some periods of profligate assistance from the CAP schemes.

1401
Now they face a crisis, not just financial as their bank balances go from black to red, but of great uncertainty about whether, or where, there is a future for the smaller or marginal farmer who because of climate, terrain or size can never be competitive at world prices.
It is normal in most businesses today to do strategic planning and to have a three-year rolling programme. I am sure that some of our highly competitive UK farmers do just that. But in the case of this other group of farmers they can hardly plan a one-year programme at the moment, and they are often not in a position even to make a cash-flow projection to support a loan from their bank. They face a period of survival and drastic change, and Government must help farmers to try to identify the new options and move into new territory.
I am greatly encouraged by the formal response of the Government, in which they clearly recognise the need to target and improve agri-environmental and rural development measures such as ES As and the countryside stewardship schemes. I hope that the new measures can be brought forward as quickly as possible.
I should have declared an interest in a hill farm in a less favoured area (LFA) in Northern Ireland, which lies partly in an environmentally sensitive area (ESA), in an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB), and partly zoned as an area of special scientific interest (ASSI), so I do not think that one can get more environmental than that! We found the ESA programme of enormous benefit and have been able to diversify into some tourism activity. It is just—only just—a viable business, but without ESA support it would be in the red. I wish that I could get rid of the sheep. I very much share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about sheep which destroy the uplands. I have seen them do that over several decades. If there was a way of reducing our sheep, we would grab it.
I was also involved in setting up a new scheme called Rural Cottage Holidays, which helps farmers to convert and operate redundant farm cottages and dwellings as holiday self-catering accommodation and trains them to do so. The scheme involves support from EU Leader programmes which, in my experience, have been of enormous help to remote communities. I am glad of the Government's continuing support for those programmes.
Our scheme also acted as a stimulus to show what was possible and that there was life apart from cows and sheep. I know of one farmer who stopped fanning, let his land and decided to make a business out of his holiday cottages. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, gave another example. In my experience of Northern Ireland, there is now a move towards part-time or half-time farmers. Markets which take place in the evenings or at weekends support that.
There is also a proposal somewhere in the Agenda 2000 pipeline for a scheme to encourage early retirement. Our report highlights the need to stimulate alternative economic opportunities to give aid to small-scale enterprises and to make available more education and training. In that context, I was interested
1402
to see the opening today at one of Northern Ireland's agricultural colleges of what is called an "incubation unit" to help farmers with new enterprises.
There can be a good future for the rural economy and for the marginal fanner. This report lists many ways in which we hope that the challenge can be met, if government can provide the support and direction. Time is short and everything in the EU seems to take an immense time to incubate, but as Agenda 2000 does incubate I hope that the Government will bring forward as fast as possible new measures to help the farming community, which is in crisis at the moment, to plan for a more stable future.
10.48 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, this debate covers a broad canvas and in view of the late hour I propose to touch on only one aspect of the report. Before doing so, I thank my noble friend Lord Reay for his considerate and effective chairmanship of our sub-committee and for helping us to reach a consensus on this timely report.
The proposals trailed by Agenda 2000 are intended to move the CAP towards reality. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out, there seems general agreement that the CAP is largely discredited, hugely expensive, inefficient, bureaucratic, environmentally damaging and, in many respects, even downright fraudulent. However, if there is general agreement on that, there is no agreement on what to do about it and on what the reform is to be, with European agriculture Ministers all too often hostage to political or social considerations.
However, given that EU member states have signed up both jointly and severally to the World Trade Organisation agreement, change there must be—and this will mean changes and challenges to the rural economy in general and to farm incomes in particular.
I declare an interest as a farmer and dedicated filler-in of IACS forms. One of the consequences of the proposals contained in Agenda 2000, about which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, spoke eloquently, is the strong likelihood that direct farm incomes will fall even further. Inevitably, this must have an impact on the time and effort that farmers are prepared to put into environmental improvements on their land unless more resources are made available to them. "Resources" is such a useful word; it is so much more impersonal and less grasping than "cold cash".
The Minister will recognise that farming is under the whip at the moment, with lower commodity prices across the board, lower IACS payments and more pain promised in future if the Commission's proposals are accepted in anything like their current form. Where will that leave the rural environment? As a farmer, I am maddened by the prominence given in the media to some of the views of the more extreme eco-loonies about the effect of farming on the countryside. According to those Jeremiahs, it is a disaster area—a lifeless arable wilderness drenched in pesticides, pondless, treeless and hedgeless, and the victim of greedy farmers keen to extract the last penny from the

1403
last half-acre of holding. Where do the people who make these reports come from? Where do they compile them—on the Hammersmith flyover?
As any noble Lord who has recently—for example, last weekend—spent any time in the country will know, the truth is very different. Farmers are not environmental vandals. It is largely their efforts and dedication to improving their particular patch that have made the British countryside a magnet to millions of people, whether they be holidaying, walking, riding, cycling or even parking their cars in lay-bys to read the Sunday papers. The landscape that we all enjoy in the country has not been created accidentally by farmers and landowners over generations. The question is whether this will continue when Agenda 2000 bites. On this point, I find the Government's response to the committee's report somewhat encouraging. Paragraph 10 states:
"The Government agree that, subject to public spending constraints"—
are those Conservative public spending constraints?—
"funding should be available to secure rural environmental goods which the market alone will not provide".
That must be the right approach given our WTO commitments, which mean that future agricultural support will have to be decoupled from production. Effectively, that means goodbye to acreage payments and also cross-compliance. Here, I differ from the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I believe that those are little more than support payments wearing a green jacket.
Paragraph 12 of the Government's response mentions some of the voluntary incentive schemes that they are currently operating. There is a suggestion that some of these will be amalgamated. I encourage the Minister to pursue this with his renowned energy and persuasiveness. One has only to glance down the list of agencies and organisations which are involved in almost any government environmental initiative to see that one needs fingers and toes to count them: English Nature, the Wildlife Trusts, English Heritage, the Environment Agency, the CLA, CPRE, NFU, the county councils, district councils, FWAG and RSPB, to name but 11. We need a toe or two.
I am supported in the request for simplification by several of those who gave evidence to the committee, notably the CPRE and the NFU witnesses. At the moment, there is a truly bewildering array of schemes on offer, many with overlapping objectives and duplicated and complex bureaucracies which make life unnecessarily difficult for the poor peasantry. We would prefer something much simpler. One example of the way that the Government might move forward, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Reay, is the Countryside Stewardship scheme. I believe that this is a model for the kind of environmental schemes that we will need in future—schemes that are clearly in the "green box" and are entirely decoupled from production subsidies, however well disguised.
The Countryside Stewardship scheme offers an a la carte menu of environmental good, the sort of things which most people would agree would enhance the landscape—tree and hedge planting, water features,
1404
stone wall restoration, stiles, grass margins to arable fields, and so on. But they are labour intensive and will detract from rather than add to the bottom line. They will not happen unless there is a cash incentive. The problem is that, as much as many farmers would like to participate in the Countryside Stewardship scheme, they are simply unable to do so. I speak as a disappointed applicant. Perhaps I did not have initials in front of my farm area as the farm of the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan has.
The Countryside Stewardship scheme is a victim of its own success. It is over-subscribed by 50 to 60 per cent. according to officials we interviewed from MAFF, while there is a paltry £5 million per year available for new schemes. Indeed, the financing of environmental programmes in the EU accounts for only 3 per cent. of total CAP expenditure. So much for the environment. But the very fact that the Countryside Stewardship scheme is over-subscribed is a testimony to its success and, incidentally, a testimony to the desire of farmers to do something for their own farm landscapes, for, as one of our witnesses reminded us, regulations never planted a hedge.
Perhaps I may add a few words of caution. The Countryside Stewardship scheme is financed by public money and, inevitably, the question of public access arises. As the Minister is aware, the opacity of the Government's intentions on access was one of the major concerns of many of the 0.5 million or so people who took part in the Countryside Rally on 1st March.
Of course, where public money is involved, so is the question of public access. But I merely wish to remind the Government, if they did not know it already, that access is an extremely sensitive subject and it would be a great pity if over-prescriptive access agreements were to be tied to Countryside Stewardship schemes in the future. You can always do more with volunteers than with conscripts.
I conclude by repeating my plea to the Minister to do all he can to press for a Countryside Stewardship scheme Mark II which would rationalise some of the present overlapping arrangements and which would be much better funded to allow for the expansion of the scheme, which is in great demand. Could the necessary resources not be found from savings on acreage payments to farmers which, if we are to believe the Commission, will have to be vastly reduced, if not eliminated, in the future? Were the Government to do that, they would be taking a positive step towards ensuring that our British landscape would be something which we should be proud to hand on to future generations.
10.57 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, the debate tonight is timely, as next week the meeting of EU Council of Agriculture Ministers presents the last opportunity for the UK Government to make any real progress in CAP reform during their presidency. I declare an interest as a dairy fanner in Cheshire. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Reay, for the excellent way in

1405
which he chaired the discussions and conducted the inquiry and, indeed, for the way in which he summed up the report this evening.
The committee's report and the Agenda 2000 proposals come at a time when UK agriculture and its related industries are suffering from the strength of sterling, increased costs, especially within the livestock industry, and a lack of concern as regards its relative competitive position within the food chain. That underlines the need for reform, as a constrained agriculture reduces the ability of farmers to diversify or to act effectively as stewards of the countryside.
Although the Commission claims to be continuing the reforms started in 1992, it does not go far enough. Despite clear statements made at Cork in 1996 and by the Agriculture Council in Luxembourg last year, a more prominent role has not been given to rural development. EU policy must do more to diversify the economy in rural areas and to deliver environmental land management through rural communities as a whole.
In Agenda 2000, the Commission has gone for a piecemeal rather than a coherent approach. It has introduced the further complexity of national envelopes which is likely to lead to more market distortions. It fails to understand the importance of agri-environmental and rural development and fails to recognise that rural areas demand an integrated approach.
Agriculture has been in long-term decline as an employer and generator of wealth for many years. The challenge is to sustain communities while they identify fresh opportunities. I should like to highlight this evening just one area of the committee's report immediately relevant to the process of change from funding commodity support to funding, even as a temporary measure, the environment; namely, cross-compliance. It is essential that contradictory messages are not given out through the linkage of environmental conditions to production support. Community funding of environmental policy should relate to community benefits. The attachment of environmental conditions is misconceived. If the aim is to reduce production support, cross-compliance will be of little long-term benefit—it may be cheaper to forgo the aid and not to comply.
Once environmental policy is tied to existing farmers, that will be used as an argument to resist change on the grounds that the environment would suffer. Cross-compliance is not cost free, as it will result in substantial expenditure in setting up and policing schemes so as to avoid massive fraud of the sort that helped bring the CAP into disrepute. Further, it does disservice to competitive agriculture by distorting common market conditions, especially if it becomes devolved through national envelopes.
What is needed is a commitment by the Commission to phase out production compensation payments and to use a substantial part of the funds released to underwrite an effective rural environmental programme. That will stand on its own merits and apply to all who could contribute to enhancing the countryside, not only existing producers in receipt of CAP support payments.
1406
Thus, the proposal to cancel support payments to farmers who do not respect given environmental standards is fundamentally flawed.
It is encouraging that the latest OECD report entitled, The Environmental Effects of Reforming Agricultural Policies, supports the committee's views, saying:
"Agricultural environmental measures appear to have been effective when: the environmental goals were clearly specified and the actions required of farmers closely linked to the goals; the lands accepted into the programmes had a high conservation value; the measure were adapted to the environmental, economic and social situation prevailing in a given area; farmer compliance was closely monitored and the effects on farming practices and the environment continuously assessed against the stated objectives; and training and advice was provided to ensure that the measures were appropriately implemented".
The challenge of the future is to provide a clear pathway to change in the rural economy. Part-time farming will need to be encouraged. Planning policies must become sympathetic. Agriculture must begin to integrate with wider economic activity. The process of reduction in Community support must proceed in unison throughout the EU, and governments who wish to go faster must resist the urge—frustrating as it may be—to act unilaterally. Rural development will need encouragement and investment in job creation to return prosperity to agricultural communities.
11.3 p.m.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, the House of Lords' report places emphasis on investment and on new job opportunities in rural areas. I hold the same view as the leaders of the Farmers' Union of Wales. We argue that this will be achieved—given that agriculture is the core activity in rural areas—only by ensuring that agriculture is a viable proposition. Farming is the heart of the rural areas and many of the ancillary industries are dependent on it for their future. As is presently so obvious, the potential to add value to primary produce is enormous in order to create job opportunities that are compatible with rural communities. These employment opportunities have to be created off the back of a viable farming industry and not instead of agricultural jobs.
I am sure that noble Lords will forgive me if a stray a little from the report by referring to our domestic problems in my native country of Wales. At the end of the day, I take it that in our deliberations we all want to see a viable farming industry in the whole of Britain. As European monetary union approaches, the United Kingdom must not be locked into a new agri-monetary system that puts Welsh farming at a competitive disadvantage. Will the Government's approach be to ensure competitive equality for Welsh agriculture? What will be the Government's position on agri-monetary compensation if sterling strengthens again in the second half of 1998?
Farm incomes fell 45 per cent. in 1997 and incomes are unlikely to recover in 1998 or in the foreseeable future. The profitability of farming is under enormous pressure. In many areas this in turn threatens the ability of farmers to look after the countryside. The key question will have to be asked on the way to support the competitive position of Welsh agriculture now.

1407
When can the beef producers expect the beef ban to be lifted and opportunities to export re-opened for the quality end of the Welsh beef production? I hold the view that the Office of Fair Trading investigates the supermarket role and the way supermarkets deal with suppliers and consumers alike. The future destiny of the agricultural industry is in the hands of the supermarkets. We now have 1,000 hypermarkets in Britain selling 50 per cent. of all food in the country. There is little doubt that the supermarkets have done the consumer a huge favour. But in the process auction marts, high street butchers, bakers and greengrocers' shops have closed. That represents a huge diminution of buying power. In its place we have eight to 10 supermarket chains offering identical products at similar prices.
Not only are the majority of Welsh farmers desperately worried about their current situation, but also about their fate come the 21st century. Currently there exists great dissatisfaction, namely because of the proposals outlined in Agenda 2000. These will create a transition which will be detrimental to the long-term future of farming in Wales. Once again I urge the Government to establish a Royal Commission to look into the present state of the agricultural industry and the countryside. My request was turned down last time and I wonder whether the Minister has reconsidered what I stated on that occasion.
The insecurity among the young farmers in particular creates great misery in the rural areas, with their future looking exceptionally bleak. It really would be a great loss if we were to allow these small farms to disappear. After all, they are and have been the backbone of the Welsh economy and language. I agree with the views expressed by the Country Landowners' Association, which states,
"The Commission has gone for a piecemeal, rather than a coherent approach. It has introduced further complexity, not simplification. It fails to accord sufficient priority or resources to agri-environmental and rural development, and fails to respond to the needs of rural areas for an integrated policy based on three pillars: sustainable agriculture; sustainable environment; sustainable rural economy. So far, Agenda 2000 is a wasted opportunity".
Yesterday I bought the Sunday Times and I was depressed when I read an article by Peter Conradi in Brussels. I wonder whether the Minister can say whether this allegation is true or otherwise. It reads as follows:
"It was an all too typical example of the European Union's efforts to help the Third World. In an attempt to boost the poor farmers of the southwest African state of Namibia, the EU promised a £2.5m grant to build abattoirs that would supply meat to the lucrative market of neighbouring South Africa.
By the time the money finally came through more than a year later, some Namibians were wondering why Brussels had bothered. The country's meat industry was in crisis, devastated by subsidised European beef 'dumped' on South Africa at half the price of locally produced meat. The newly built abattoirs are running at only a quarter of their capacity.
'It was a bit nonsensical,' said John Leroux, marketing manager of Namibia's meat hoard, last week. 'The EU has been giving money to these plants and then sending their own subsidised meat in to compete'".
It is a very sad day if that story is true.
Finally, I should like to turn to my hobby horse: I have raised this matter many times during the past 25 years and have had the same replies from Ministers
1408
of different political persuasions over that period of time. Many noble Lords in this House profess, as I do, to be Christians. There are millions of people starving every day in the third world and we pay farmers in this country for not producing food. It is all wrong and I believe that we should do something to help those people who are starving. Many Ministers have said in the past that if we do that we will spoil their economy and stop their own farmers from developing their land. But that is not an answer when you are starving to death.
I believe that we, as Christians and as people living in the western world, can do a great deal to help these people who are dying for lack of food. It is food for thought for the Minister and for everyone within the Community. I believe that we could build processing plants and deliver to the starving millions food in a form that could be carried to the third world; and we could employ many people who are now unemployed to do that work on our behalf.
Having said that, may I thank the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and the other members of the committee for the excellent way they have carried out this report. I am sure that the Minister, in his wisdom, will do his very best, as he has promised in the past, to help the farmers, who have a major problem on their hands at the present time. I hope that in his deliberations within Europe in the months to come we will benefit from the contents of this report.
11.12 p.m.
Lord Palmer: What a pleasure it is to follow the noble Lord, Lord Geraint. I think it is the first time I have done so since I had the honour to congratulate him on his maiden speech many years ago, and exactly on the last subject he has mentioned: the starving, particularly in Africa. It is an absolute scandal that one is discussing Agenda 2000 with all this food going to waste when one looks at the television screen and sees those children literally starving to death. We are living almost in Cloud-cuckoo-land and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, will want to respond positively on this when he comes to wind up.
I too would like to add my tributes to the sterling work of the committee and it was pleasing to note the important role that the six hereditary peers played on that particular committee. Somebody saw me carrying the large red document and said, "Gosh, that looks like good bedside reading." In fact it made the most incredibly easy reading.
It is very interesting, when one thinks that the Government are keen to reform this House, that tonight there are nine out of the 12 speakers who are hereditary peers, and who are at "the coalface" of agriculture and who really know what we are talking about. I have to say that this is the most reader-friendly report and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and his committee most sincerely.
I must declare an interest. For the past 19 years I have tried to farm in the Scottish Borders. I was fortunate enough to inherit a small farm and a workforce of 17. Today I am farming a bigger acreage with just four men, three of whom are the second generation of their

1409
families to work on the farm. From 1986 to 1992 I represented Scotland on the European Landowning Organisation. I had the honour to ask the ELO president to come to Scotland on a fact-finding mission. I shall never forget taking him up to Glen Shee. We looked at that barren, snow-covered mountain face; and it was extremely difficult to convince him that that was home to 3,000 black- faced ewes.
I think it is important to reflect on what the situation was those 19 years ago. We were told that more food was required—drain the wetlands, pull out the hedges, buy bigger tractors and here is a grant to do so, and of course most of us had to borrow the shortfall. And—this is hot off the press this morning—indebtedness by UK farming today is at a staggering £5.5 billion, £900 million of which relates to Scotland. Had the captains of industry run the CAP, they would have all been sacked years ago for gross incompetence. And to think that we are now being told, "Stop—set it all aside" is quite unbelievable.
I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, did not use his normal wonderful analogy about the price of milk in relation to how many hours one has to work, and how many miles one has to drive to get a pint of beer, and so on. I looked up Hansard over the weekend. I remember the noble Lord saying that he had walked many miles, but never to buy a pint of milk! Going back those 19 years, a 100 horsepower tractor cost £15,000. Today that same tractor would cost £35,000. Nineteen years ago, wheat was selling at £100 per tonne. Today, if one is lucky, one will get £80 per tonne. A 15 foot-cut combine cost £25,000. Today that same combine, admittedly with many refinements, would cost £93,000. Those figures are very telling. One thing is for sure. The price of a loaf of bread and a pint of beer is not the same as it was 20 years ago!
I am also glad that the report emphasises the acute problem that the United Kingdom's agriculture is facing today. Most of Britain's farmers are professional farmers and not part-time farmers like many in Germany and France.
In the Scottish Borders arable farmers last year suffered a 70 per cent. drop in income, and I believe that many hill farmers in Scotland and Wales saw their income drop by 89 per cent. I do so wonder how a European Commissioner would feel if he were suddenly told that his take-home pay was going to fall by 89 per cent.
Farmers have not only done what they were told to do but also what they were financially encouraged to do. It must not be forgotten that farmers have little idea what their crops will cost to grow, to harvest and to dry, or what they will yield per acre—and, most importantly of all, what the wretched things will be worth. That is an incredibly important point for the Minister to take on board. It must be a unique situation. Farmers, unlike any other industry, have no control of their destiny. This in itself is a terrifying situation, as I hope the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, and his Cabinet colleagues will appreciate.
1410
Turning directly to Agenda 2000: any price cuts should be fully compensated by the new direct payments scheme. Modulation must be resisted at all costs. I am horrified that there is no reference at all to currency revaluations and it is indeed frightening to think that in the past two years alone sterling has risen by 33 per cent. against the German mark. It really is quite frightening. We must have a new agri-money system up and running by January of next year if the dreaded euro really is coming into operation.
There is also no mention of the sheep industry which is so vital to Scotland, and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Geraint's native Wales. Another glaring omission, about which I feel passionately, is industrial crops. North Sea oil is not going to last forever and I would urge Her Majesty's Government to increase the 2.1 per cent. of GDP which is currently spent on research and development into bio-fuels, straw bio-mass chemical production, which includes lubricants from oil seed rape, biodegradable plastics and paper from cereals and sugar.
Every speaker has mentioned the Countryside Stewardship scheme. I could not agree more. However, without a thriving and profitable agricultural industry, we cannot look after the countryside in the way people in this country expect us to do. It is simply not possible.
Finally, the CAP is a mess, a shambles and an utter disgrace and I urge Her Majesty's Government to do all they can in the last few weeks of their presidency to rectify the ludicrous situation in which particularly UK farmers find themselves through absolutely no fault of their own.
11.22 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Reay and his committee on producing an excellent report. My noble friend has paid tribute to the work of his committee clerk. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to extend that tribute. Having had some 12 years' experience on Sub-Committee D, I cannot praise too highly the clerks with whom I worked. Without their skill and diligence, the European Select Committee simply could not operate. The House owes them much.
In the introduction to this report it is stated that it was the decision of Sub-Committee D to focus on the rural development and rural environment aspects of the Commission's Agenda 2000 communication. I understand the reason for that decision.
But in order fully to do justice to the all-important subject of the CAP and the pressing need for reform, one has to look at the whole Agenda 2000 package. A balanced assessment cannot be made by concentrating on only a part of it. Reading between the lines, it is clear that my noble friend's sub-committee came up against that difficulty at the outset of its inquiry. Its report is all the more valuable for an inevitable broadening of the scope of the inquiry. A good deal of evidence was heard on the agricultural content of the package, and there are six paragraphs in the opinion section of the report devoted to that aspect.
The sub-committee was entirely right to emphasise the need to link the rural environment and rural prosperity with the need for a clear strategy for the

1411
removal of price supports and quotas and a timetable for degressive production-related compensation. It rightly criticises Agenda 2000 as a whole for not going far enough to prepare European agriculture for the kind of reform that would encompass such a strategy.
Turning to rural environmental and development policies, when Sub-committee D reported in 1996 on the Fischler reform proposals, we supported in principle the idea that CAP reform should contain what is called "an integrated rural policy". What were then lacking were any detailed relevant proposals. What we have now is still somewhat sketchy.
On environmental policy, the report sets out the arguments for and against "cross compliance", about which we have heard something tonight. It makes a compelling case against its adoption. This is slightly weakened by a wobble at the end of paragraph 82; but I listened to what my noble friend Lord Reay said about it in justification.
On rural development policy, our Sub-committee D's 1990 report on the future of rural society called for encouragement for rural-based, non-agricultural businesses, both on and off farm premises, for supportive planning policies and for a continuing role for rural development agencies. These recommendations are reiterated here, and rightly so.
The sub-committee reports the concern of witnesses who fear that the Commission proposals for the reform of the structural funds will be to the disadvantage of rural areas, particularly in the UK. Having heard my noble friend Lord Reay, I think I now understand what is meant by a "horizontal rural development policy". Whatever that implies, I share the worries of witnesses about the demands of both rural and urban areas being fused into the orbit of a new objective 2.
I share the concern of the Rural Development Commission when it gave evidence that the transfer of its responsibilities to regional development agencies may be to the disadvantage of rural England. My noble friend Lady Anelay developed this theme in an earlier debate today. I hope that the Government will take on board the points made in the report in this connection.
I also share the fear expressed in the report that the proposal to fund the objective 5(a) and 5(b) type measures from within the guarantee section may be too restrictive.
On the question of LFAs, I remember that when we were looking at the MacSharry proposals we were firm in advocating decoupled support where compensation was required. At the same time, we wanted continued funding for hill farmers. It was difficult to recommend undecoupled HLCAs, though we did so, in defiance of logic. I am glad to note that the report sees a logical way forward in the Commission's new proposals and recommends a degree of subsidiarity in operating this essential support. Great attention will be needed in creating an effective system to ensure the survival of our upland farmers in the UK.
1412
Turning to the question of funding, the report advocates a more sophisticated method of funding, pointing out in paragraph 110 that:
"There should be no presumption that savings produced by CAP reform should automatically he used in other ways in rural areas."
There appears to be support for the principle set out in Part III of Volume I of the Agenda 2000 document which says that a new horizontal measure is needed to be,
"implemented in a decentralised way at the appropriate level at the initiative of Member States".
I can see the merits of applying the principle of subsidiarity where agricultural environmental measures are concerned, the needs being so different across the community, but I am bound to say that alarm bells started to ring when I saw the word "appropriate". I wondered what kind of initiative might be taken by the UK and what level of contribution would be considered appropriate by a UK government under Treasury pressure at a time when support for rural communities was low on the spending priority list.
Finally, I am all too aware of the Commission's apprehension about trying to get member states to agree to the kind of radical CAP reform measures that are necessary. Of course, the political obstacles are huge; but it must be recognised that even these watered-down proposals will take a long time to negotiate in Council—several noble Lords referred to that. Ideally, it would be better to cut out that stage altogether and for the Commission to embark now on a full and radical new reform package on the lines recommended in our CAP reform report of 1991. It is accepted that such proposals will be more difficult to negotiate, but time wasted on the current, unsatisfactory Agenda 2000 would be saved. A spur towards agreement would surely be provided by the challenges of the WTO and enlargement.
The report on Agenda 2000 by the Agriculture Committee of another place concludes by saying,
"Though it prepares the ground for an integrated rural policy to he established in the future, Agenda 2000 is a missed opportunity".
That I believe to be an understatement.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I must declare an interest in that my wife has a small hill farm in the Radnorshire environmentally sensitive area and belongs to the ESA scheme. I can say to my noble friend Lord Rathcavan that we have got rid of our sheep, though we kept our pedigree Welsh black cattle.
I enjoyed this inquiry. I echo our chairman's tributes to our clerk and specialist adviser; and he was an admirable chairman. We were covering familiar territory; we had been there before in 1990–91 and 1995–96. But we have tapped some new sources of evidence. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention particularly to the evidence we had from Hampshire County Council and West Oxfordshire District Council, from Mr. Philip Merricks, who combines being a big farmer and a leading environmentalist, and from Strutt & Parker. All of them are well worth reading.

1413
Once again we are considering the problem of reforming the common agricultural policy. It is indeed deeply flawed and unsatisfactory—almost but not quite as bad as the common fisheries policy. It spends around £3 billion a year on subsidising food production in the United Kingdom, largely devoted to maintaining and increasing production, regardless of other considerations, while failing to give all but the largest farmers satisfactory incomes or to prevent the movement of farmers out of agriculture.
The written reply of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, to a question from me on 17th June last year made it clear that this Government share the view of the previous government that the CAP is costly, inefficient and wasteful and does not pay proper regard to environmental considerations. Our report quotes the Prime Minister—who can hardly be described as a Euro-sceptic—as saying that the CAP is,
"a manifest absurdity which discredits Europe".
Nevertheless, the CAP has been with us for some 40 years, and despite the calls of British governments for its reform, very little has changed. That is because in the EU, as now constituted, so many countries like the Republic of Ireland do well out of the CAP and so many like France and Germany are in thrall to determined agricultural lobbies that radical changes have not so far been an option. The only modest changes were the MacSharry reforms of 1991. I was on Sub-Committee D at that time under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, when we considered those changes which, for the first time, introduced agri-environmental measures, though expenditure on them was only a tiny percentage of what was spent on production support. They did however give rise to some valuable schemes like the environmentally sensitive areas.
Eighteen months ago the Commissioner for Agriculture held a conference in Cork on rural development which came up with a declaration that presaged much better integration of the environment with agriculture and was widely welcomed. We went to Brussels in July last year, just after publication of the Agenda 2000 proposals. I had the opportunity to ask a question of Commissioner Fischler. I asked him, among other things, why Agenda 2000 had apparently gone back on what had been said in the Cork declaration. I had a very long reply from Herr Fischler, in which, however, he contrived not to answer any of the questions I had put to him. It was depressingly clear from that visit that the environment was not a priority either for the Commission or for the majority of member states.
Agenda 2000 said nothing specific about the expansion of agri-environmental schemes and offered almost nothing to reverse the decline in the environmental quality of Europe's farms. The Commission evidently regards environmental considerations as peripheral and of low priority and aims in effect to continue the present system, under which 61 per cent. of the CAP is spent on crop subsidies, 33 per cent. on livestock subsidies and just 3 per cent.
1414
on the environment. MAFF, for its part, is providing £500,000 a year for a valuable pilot arable stewardship scheme, but that compares with £1,350 million paid in the arable area aids to farmers.
Professor Alan Swinbank of the University of Reading, that powerhouse of agricultural expertise, has recently argued that the proposals made by the Commission will not be acceptable in the trade negotiations due to begin next year in the World Trade Organisation. They are, he says, merely a disguise for the continuation of the present CAP, largely unchanged; an attempt to continue a protectionist agricultural policy under a new green WTO-compatible camouflage. Even so, the Agenda 2000 proposals, modest as they were, were in March condemned by the EU Agriculture Ministers, who did not even want this small further reform, and since then no substantial progress has been made, though detailed negotiations have now begun.
A fundamental difficulty is that the proposed compensation payments appear to be intended to continue indefinitely, a proposal we attack in paragraph 65 of our report. Unless these payments are phased out, there are, it seems, unlikely to be any more resources to meet the real and urgent needs of rural development and of the environment. The Worldwide Fund for Nature has argued that over 25 per cent. of the current CAP budget should be redirected from price support to direct payments for environmental benefits. The CPRE proposed 20 per cent. Clearly, the 3 per cent. spent on the environment is totally inadequate.
All across western Europe, it is on farmland that the greatest declines of birds and other wildlife have been observed. In this country, farmland birds have been the victims of the intensive industrialised farming, promoted by the CAP—the autumn sowing of cereals and the consequent absence of winter stubbles, the disappearance of hay meadows, the greatly increased use of herbicides and pesticides, so eliminating weed seeds and reducing insect populations, and the passing of mixed farms. The results are well known. For example, an 86 per cent. drop in partridge numbers, and skylark numbers falling by 330 birds every day. We are turning much of our farmland into a birdless desert.
What can we do? In Brussels, we can only make progress by seeking allies among other member states and trying to form a coalition of members determined to give the environment a higher priority. I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government are doing this, or plan to do it. But I am not too sanguine about the prospects. I think, for example, that the RSPB is being wildly overoptimistic in saying in the current number of its magazine that our presidency has given the UK a unique opportunity to take a lead on environmental policy-making. I see very little sign of that.
More generally, we have to realise that the policy decisions on agriculture are now made in Brussels, where we are only one voice among many, and a weak voice at that. We have had the bitter experience of the shameful treatment of our beef industry. We see all around us the results of subsidy farming, whether it is the endless livid yellow tracts of oil seed rape, or the

1415
excessive numbers of sheep in the uplands resulting from headage based payments, about which the noble Lord, Lord Reay, spoke.
I do not myself believe that simply calling for the reform of the CAP, as this Government and their predecessors have done, has any effect. It is possible that the CAP may eventually be modified because of pressure from the World Trade Organisation, the needs of governments to keep expenditure within bounds and the eastward enlargement of the EU, if that comes about.
Some member states may realise that change may eventually be forced on the EU and be reluctant to give anything away until it is. It is, I believe, deeply unsatisfactory that we are chained to a system which our Prime Minister regards as a discreditable absurdity. I would a thousand times prefer that we were out of the system and on our own, but so long as we are in, I believe that we must do what we can to persuade other member states and the Commission to take the environment more seriously, as I am convinced that the people not only of this country but of Europe as a whole, would wish us to do.
11.41 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, before adding a few comments of my own to this interesting and worthwhile report, which has been so lucidly introduced by my noble friend Lord Reay, I should explain to the House that I farm in Cumbria on my own account, both inside and outside the environmentally sensitive area. My experience there is that we have actually reduced the stocking on some of the fell and the heather is coming back. In addition, I am the owner of some let agricultural land.
In considering the common agricultural policy, it is important to look at it in two quite different ways and it is necessary to do both simultaneously. First, as an economic phenomenon and as a form of agricultural policy for western Europe in the second part of the 20th century, in particular when viewed from the United Kingdom, it is expensive, wasteful and in many respects unsuccessful. However, one must also look at it as a political phenomenon. It is the policy which created the Treaty of Rome and, as a result, in many quarters it has been ascribed an almost sacramental character.
What we have here is a combination which, when viewed from one perspective, is deeply flawed and, when viewed from another, is almost inviolable. Nevertheless, as the committee quite rightly points out, we cannot go on as we are. Even if we positively want to retain the status quo we cannot do so because we are seeing the development of World Trade Organisation policies digging further into the agricultural sector.
Secondly, the expansion of the European Union eastwards creates the need to draw eastern European agriculture into the western European market place. In short, in this respect we have to try to find a means of repeating in a different way what was done between France and Germany in 1956 but this time bringing eastern and western Europe together.
Against that background, I believe that it is important that we concentrate on principles and do not allow ourselves to be too hung up by detailed policy
1416
mechanisms, for I believe that if we get the principles right the latter will follow. There are more ways than one of skinning a dead cat.
What are the main principles and points which we should focus on in considering these reforms? I would like to enumerate one or two, although I do not wish the list I give to be perceived as exclusive. First, the policy is obviously too expensive and is very bad value for money for taxpayers and consumers. After all, support through intervention buying involves the taxpayers or consumers spending the total cost of production in order to confer the benefit of the value of the net margin in favour of the farmer.
Secondly, the policy is production focused at prices above world level. After all, in an era of EC surpluses it cannot be sensible to encourage surpluses at above world prices. This imposes quite unnecessary burdens on consumers, hinders world trade and hardly helps the hungry.
The third point has already been mentioned. We must oppose modulation, which has the effect of nullifying the benefits of the steps that farmers may well have to take when faced by the economic consequences of the reforms that they will have to make. Given that modulation will affect northern Europe quite disproportionately as against southern Europe, it is tantamount to discrimination on grounds of nationality and, as such, entirely at variance with one of the basic principles of the European Community.
It is also in practice a policy which discriminates in favour of farmer proprietors as against hired labour. As such it is inequitable and, I imagine, an aspect which I would expect Her Majesty's Government to be especially concerned about, not least of all from the Government who introduced the employment chapter into the Amsterdam Treaty.
Fourthly, as the report recognised, fluctuating exchange rates probably have a greater short-term impact on agricultural prosperity than anything else. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, pointed to the Government's shabby record in the recent past on this. Given the evolution of a Europe which its creators intend will be a stable currency area, can the Government confirm that for as long as support mechanisms calculate prices in a manner that does not protect the UK farmer from adverse currency movements, the Government will not permit UK agriculture to suffer from adverse exchange rates or be discriminated against for as long as we may remain outside economic and monetary union, for however long that might be?
As has already been mentioned, I believe that in parallel there are two wider policies that must be fully incorporated, as was spelt out in the committee's report. First, agricultural policy must be environmentally benign in its impact, promote environmental good practice and remember that policy must benefit not only those who earn a living from the land but the land itself. Secondly, agricultural policy must be integrated with wider rural policy both to ameliorate the effect of the inevitable changes on those squeezed and to diversify rural employment prospects and to underpin rural services.

1417
Finally, I believe that the present CAP is too Brussels centred. The policy should evolve more towards the model of, say, industrial policy and be delivered by mechanisms and paid for by money which do not necessarily go through the Brussels loop. That is entirely in accord with the wider principles of subsidiarity which are being entrenched in the workings of the Community.
I also agree with my noble friend Lord Middleton in his comments about the short-term problems posed by agricultural reform. In the longer-term it seems that the combination of the next round of World Trade Organisation trade liberalisation and the problems posed by the imperative of achieving the next stage of European Union enlargement eastwards provide as good an opportunity as we have had for many years for reforming the CAP in a direction which is appropriate for all of Europe in the next millennium. After all, we need to meet the needs of farmers and their families, who should not be accorded a peasant standard of living. It would indeed be ironic if the Government who are introducing the national minimum wage should impose standards lower than that on farmers and their families.
We must make sure that consumers should not have to pay unnecessarily high prices for their food and we should make sure that the land itself should be recognised as the source of future wealth and well-being and not merely a quarry to be worked out for today's needs. But I think it goes further than that. We are now seeing in the modern world a kind of seamless system across western Europe based around the European Union. The distinction between domestic politics and foreign politics, which has always been a bit blurred, is now becoming very fuzzy indeed.
As far as European Community policies have been concerned, the dominating position of the CAP, with its rights of pre-emption over so much spending, have unbalanced both policy-making and expenditure in the Community. That has always been perceived as anachronistic in this country. But as we are seeing, as a previous speaker mentioned, an increasing move from the land in many countries on the Continent, it is also being perceived as equally anachronistic there.
The central position that the CAP has in European politics has been a major contributor to public bewilderment and sometimes muddled, but far too often genuinely relevant, criticism of the European Union. If agriculture were to move away from the centre of the European political scene, I believe that that would very much be in the European Union's wider political interests.
11.49 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as an Exmoor moor hill farmer in one capacity and as a chartered surveyor in another part of the country in another, so I could be described as a "diversified rural businessman". I am also a member of the Country Landowners' Association and I declare that interest also.
I specialise in trying to make what could be described as silk purses out of sow's ears. In about 1989, I lost confidence both in the CAP and in rural policies
1418
generally and I set about diversifying my holding with serious intent. In addition to about 750 ewes, we now have a reasonably substantial commercial pheasant shoot. The ewes still employ one person, as they have always done. The shoot must account for at least six other employees, if not more.
I welcome the report and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and his committee. Although it will almost certainly make no difference to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, described as the "juggernaut process" of Agenda 2000, in both what the sub-committee said plainly and in what it implied I believe that this is a milestone report. It is a great shame that this debate is occurring so late when so few noble Lords are present in the House to listen to our deliberations.
Agenda 2000 is, at best, palliative treatment. It does not address the disease or its cause. We all know the state of the bodily functions and the pressure from the World Trade Organisation. The removal of the distorting factors is fine, but what of exposure to world prices for an EC economy that increasingly has a quite different cost and social structure from those of many other competitor areas? It is a world that in many areas does not share, in particular, British concerns over food standards, additives and methods of production—and specifically that they are humane and meet environmentally exacting land-use standards.
There is the problem of enlargement and the pressures on the future distribution of Community benefits, especially in the light of the great discrepancies (for a long time to come) in the national GDPs of the central and eastern European countries. There are lumps and bumps in affordability, efficiency, the degree to which the playing field is—or will ever be—truly level, and in the compliance costs that we impose which others across the world may not.
There is sclerosis in terms of the political pressure to change. The objective should have been to reduce the burden of the CAP in terms of cost and complexity; Agenda 2000 increases both. The increase in product support and the real risk of intensification of agricultural production run counter to what most EU voters want. There is the growing UK trade deficit in temperate food products and the declining importance of agriculture in the UK rural economy.
The buffers are in sight. We have had years of uncertainty and the EC answer that we are given is to switch the train into a siding that ends in 2006, prolonging the agony and doubt, and creating loss of confidence for consumers and producers. As a result, the rural economy is on the shortest of short-term agendas when it needs long-term vision.
It is now beyond question that we cannot sub-contract rural policy on the assumption that the CAP will provide. It will not. We have BSE and the severe decline in all areas of livestock rearing, including sheep, and a poor outlook in many other sectors. That has shifted the whole economic picture. Marginal areas, predictably, have been the first to reach crisis point, including some of our loveliest, most environmentally cherished and most fragile uplands—the sort of country where I farm.

1419
Structural funds are to be consolidated with no ring-fenced rural fund and, critically—although at the moment the regional development agencies hope that they will help in this—there is no clear strategic vehicle to make use of them, a concern expressed to me by the Association of National Park Authorities.
There is not the time to get all this sorted out by Europe. Europe's policy, an example of which is modulation, is now fundamentally a social and not an economic one and may well discriminate against economic efficiency while failing to protect environmental imperatives.
What do we do? I suggest that we must build our own rural policy lifeboat while the CAP soldiers on for as long as it can. But we will not do it by job substitution, by which I mean urban-style commerce simply translocated to a rural environment, making abandonment of land use all the more likely; and we will not do it simply by adding houses for people who will have to travel elsewhere for jobs. That must be an affront to sustainability. Nor will we do it by discriminating against holiday home or second home owners without finding ways to harness their resources. This problem is one that vexes local authorities in the Lake District. We cannot discriminate against valuable sources of inward investment whatever its source, but we should start to link the management and use of rural land with worthwhile economic objectives. We should reduce bureaucracy and overall compliance costs. If necessary, we should look at our domestic fiscal measures to make objectives worth while and attract inward investment, not for speculative gain or property sales but for businesses employing people who add value to the primary produce of the land. For example, scenically valuable land should be worth making valuable also for the land managers. I have mentioned this on many occasions in the past in this House. Often economics and the environment have an inverse relationship, which is totally wrong, but, in creating vehicles to deal with this, whether they be stewardship or anything else, there must be flexibility. Above all, we need a long-term strategy.
I believe that it takes a generation to change rural perceptions and economics substantially. We are part-way through that process. A 20-year forward rural policy by consensus, not a grand central plan like that of the former Eastern bloc, is required. There need to be signposts in that direction instead of the chopping and changing that has gone on in recent times. We need to encourage low input farming, organic farming and the highest standards of welfare and environmental care and insist on those standards applying to the goods that we import. We need to create a culture of diversification wherever feasible. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said that it could not apply everywhere. He is right; it cannot. But wherever that is possible it should be met with a "can do" mentality on the part of government, particularly in local authority planning powers, but always in ways that foster the use and management of the land, not simply to asset strip it.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, referred to biofuels, industrial crops and fossil fuel substitution. That requires serious pump-priming and further
1420
encouragement, if only on grounds of sustainability. We also need to create greater open-mindedness without built-in prejudice in favour of the reuse of old buildings—for employment uses where employment is not wanted in the particular area, or against holiday or residential uses where that may be the only feasible alternative. The key is to tie the use to the land and create an economic lifeboat that inures to the benefit of the land management.
Further, we must stop perpetuating the "something for nothing" mentality in which countryside amenity, and possibly access rights, are regarded as public benefits but the management costs and risks that flow from them are those of the private owner. That is simply social discrimination and is unsustainable in its brazen inequity. We should make recreational land uses an intrinsic part of the rural economy and value it as such.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, would elaborate the following point. We also need to repatriate to rural areas a large part of the obscene differential between the value of primary produce to the producer and its cost to the consumer. That means more local processing and adding value at or near source to benefit the purposes of land use. We need to look at our temperate food imports and seek local substitution. Buying large percentages of imports simply exports the underpinning utility of our countryside and is also energy inefficient.
We need to make environmental payments a proper return on cost and risk of management, not some notional idea of opportunity cost on declining agriculture. Above all, we need to improve rural communications.
Agriculture and forestry uses are in decline, as a percentage of the economic rationale of the countryside. The Select Committee really seems to be highlighting the need for an alternative home-grown rural strategy, and as a matter of great urgency. Only in that way do we shield ourselves from future turmoil in CAP reform, and we must do it ourselves. The repatriation to member states of some ability within national envelopes gives rise to the suggestion that that may be a growing element.
Midnight
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, Sub-Committee D, like the rest of us in the world who have anything to do with agriculture and the rural countryside—and that is everyone—found itself between a rock and a hard place. The rock is the WTO. It is a purely economic way of looking at things whereby eventually almost everything else will go by the board for the lowest economic price which the WTO can enforce.
The hard place is the desire to have a civilised combination of economic, environmental and social effects which we take for granted in everything else. If noble Lords cast their minds back about four hours, they will remember we were talking about regional reform. When that was being discussed, several times—and I noted at the time at least twice from the Government Front Bench—the necessity of having that tripod

1421
working was taken for granted: the environment, the economics and the social effects. That is in almost everything that we try to do.
In agriculture and in discussing the CAP over the past 30 or 40 years, we have started by discussing the economic side; recently, we have added the environmental side; and we have not added in the social side at all except through the much maligned—and quite rightly much maligned—CAP. It was extremely interesting that the report of Sub-Committee D did not, at any moment, discuss the social effects. It referred only to the economic and the environmental effects. I pay tribute to the members of Sub-Committee D because they had an extremely difficult job to do and they have produced a massive piece of work.
I pay particular tribute to the chairman who probably made the only speech this evening which represented the findings of his committee. He put them forward in an absolutely straightforward manner. But it was very much on the side of the rock and did not tend to go into the hard place.
It seemed to me that every speech since has tried to fill that gap between the two; has tried to bring out the matters which should be added to the basic WTO doctrine to produce something else which we all want. Different speeches made different points. There was almost always something with which I agreed as well as disagreed in every speech. But I do not believe that any speech stuck to the straight party line of Sub-Committee D.
In winding-up for my party tonight, I should like to acknowledge that we all suffer from that problem; indeed, my party is not separate from that in any way. We, too, are engaged in the work between the rock and the hard place and are involved in trying to find the things which we can do to give humanity and social effect to what is a very tough economic given.
I start from the assumption, as I am sure everyone in this Chamber does, that the rural environment is infinitely precious. I would also go on to say that I believe that it needs a high degree of population—although I know that I would part company with some in that respect—and that that population should be deeply connected in some ways with agriculture. The latter is not only an industry; it is also a vocation, an art and what ultimately gives rural life its character. In other words, one of the main charges that I level against this report is that while, thank God, the single-minded economic approach to agriculture and the countryside has by now taken on board, albeit grudgingly, the environmental factor, it still seems to be completely resistant to the social factor.
In paragraph 28 of the report the committee quotes with seeming approval the view that,
"nature and positive environmental benefits should be paid for as if they were crops",
but nowhere could I find the idea that social benefit should also be paid for as a crop. That is not terribly surprising because, admittedly, the trouble with the CAP was that it went too far in that direction. Indeed, we
1422
have all reacted strongly against it. Nevertheless, it is something that we need. It is true that the NFU said that it had a vision of,
"a strong and diverse rural economy with well-balanced rural communities".
However, in the light of the rest of its view, I feel bound to file that vision with one of "motherhood and apple pie"—admirable things about which we seldom need to do anything.
I believe, first, that food security is important for a nation and that we should grow as much of the food that we consume as possible—thus, incidentally, cutting down in the post-Rio world on the amount of wasteful international trade. Here I believe that I see eye to eye with the noble Earl. Lord Lytton. Secondly, in the over-populated world of the next century, it will be important for those parts of the world which are good at growing food to do so. As the method of growing the maximum amount of food with the minimum of harmful and resource-hungry inputs is through smaller holdings rather than larger ones, we must have a policy which will not bankrupt the family farm.
Again, your Lordships will be aware that, like the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and other Members of this House, I am deeply concerned about the welfare of farm animals. It is increasingly obvious that the way forward in civilised farming is towards more extensive methods applied in units, with a labour force which allows every cow, and almost every hen, to be known individually by those who tend them; as, indeed, was the case in most of our childhoods.
I found the evidence of Compassion in World Farming published in the report to be of extreme importance and was disappointed that the committee appeared to pay little attention to it. Other submitted evidence, to which it seemed to me that not enough attention was paid, was that from the Rural and Allied Workers section of the TGWU and, to a lesser extent, that from the National Federation of Young Farmers' Clubs.
One of the key paragraphs of the report seemed to me to be paragraph 16 on modulation, where the views of the European Landowners Organisation seemed to be given unnecessarily favourable treatment. It thought that modulation was opposed to efficient fanning and slanted towards small farms. The organisation was right about its second assumption; it is slanted towards small farms, and to a certain extent that is a good thing. I am not saying that there is a simple way in which this should be done. I am not saying that it should be a milch or cash cow. My noble friend Lord Mackie produced an extremely good example of a neighbour of his with only 50 acres who managed, by diversification, to survive. That is probably almost all that farmers ask these days; namely, that they should survive in the present economic situation.
We have fallen into the trap of measuring efficiency only as efficiency in cash. Efficient farming is that which looks after the countryside, treats animals well and produces the maximum food consonant with caring for the land and the environment. Of course it is important that farming provides a living wage for those

1423
who are involved in it, but the aim—as of all civilised life—must be to provide enough rather than to maximise income.
We have had a full day's work today and I shall not discuss at length many important issues I should have liked to touch on, such as the complexity of environmental schemes—where I agree that we should simplify—the need for better rural services, the need for social housing and the use of rural statistics.
I merely conclude by commenting that a world which tries to see that national agriculture is controlled by the GATT and the WTO, instead of by the need for a well fed population and a happy rural citizenry, is mad. The sooner we come to our senses the better for us, the countryside, our livestock and the world. I think this involves a certain amount of fudging and our finding a way through. It may involve a way which—as the noble Earl. Lord Lytton, said—takes advantage of what we think we can do in this country and the possibility of national envelopes.
I conclude by saying that I do not regard this report—though the work of a hard working and well meaning committee—as being a serious contribution to this essential aim. It is a statement of one of the two poles, and as such it is important because it shows us what we must make up our minds about. I do not think that anyone in this House has seriously made up his mind about it. I certainly did not detect that in any of the speeches I have heard. I look forward with great interest to hearing what the Government have to say.
12.12 a.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I too thank the committee and my noble friend Lord Reay for producing such a cogent and tightly argued report. When reading the committee's report I found myself agreeing with its views at just about every turn of phrase deployed to such good effect.
I shall not attempt at this late hour—it is actually an early hour of the morning—to cover every issue raised by the report as time simply does not permit that. I do not wish to undervalue in any way the importance of what the committee has to say by trying merely to comment briefly on each and every aspect. I hope that noble friends will be able to return to aspects of this report in debate and in Questions.
I note that the Government have published their response in advance of this debate. They have in large measure welcomed the report without, however, giving too much indication to the House of what they intend to do in practice to negotiate effectively to implement the committee's recommendations. Paragraph 2 of the Government's response states that,
"negotiations on the rural development regulation have recently begun".
I look forward to hearing from the Minister what the Government intend to achieve by those negotiations and what timescale they have set themselves for concluding them.
As other noble Lords have pointed out, the timing of this debate is indeed opportune. It falls before the Council of Agriculture Ministers' meeting next week. It
1424
will be the last chance that the United Kingdom has during its presidency of the EU to make any real progress on the consideration of Agenda 2000 proposals.
However, the debate is also set against a backcloth of a year of great hardship for those involved in Great Britain and Northern Ireland agriculture and its related industries. In the past year farm incomes have dropped by 47 per cent. The Government's policy of high interest rates has wreaked havoc on the industry because of green pound revaluations. The recent revaluation a couple of weeks ago means it is likely that direct arable payments will be further reduced by up to 6 per cent. later in the year. Output prices are well down in 1998 and the situation continues to deteriorate. Earlier tonight the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan, referred to Northern Ireland agriculture.
On Friday I visited Belfast for the Balmoral Show and I congratulate the organisers of that excellent event. There the industry accounts for 10 per cent. of civil employment and 8 per cent. of GDP, but the farm income average is a mere £5,000. The Ulster Farmers' Union pointed out to me that:
"The single biggest industry in Northern Ireland, the agri-food industry, is currently in its worst crisis in living memory. This is having a profound impact on the entire economy within the Province. Already large numbers of small businesses are having to cut their workforce numbers, which is greatly reducing the prospects of alternative employment for farmers and their sons".
They also pointed out to me what they considered to be the possible severe impact that this could have on the outcome of any attempts at restoring peace to that Province.
The profitability of farming and horticulture is under enormous pressure throughout Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In many areas this in turn threatens both the ability of farmers to act as stewards of the countryside and their role of underpinning the economy of many rural areas.
We all had so much to expect from Agenda 2000, but when I read the committee's report I was not surprised to see that their main theme is one of disappointment. In paragraph 64 they say:
"We are disappointed that the Agenda 2000 Communication does not go anywhere near far enough to prepare the Community's agriculture for competition in world markets without continued protection."
In paragraph 94 they argue that the contribution which the proposals in Agenda 2000 make to the process of rural development—which needs to be encouraged if the valued fabric of rural society is to be maintained—is relatively minor. Overall, the danger is that Agenda 2000 will be a missed opportunity—an opportunity to set out coherent and effective proposals for ensuring the successful development of food production and the success of the rural economy in the next century. As paragraph 68 points out:
"Adjustment to a competitive market is not simply a question of what happens within the farm fence."
Paragraph 70 says:
"A move to a competitive agriculture will affect not only those products which are subject to the CAP but the delivery of environmental services which currently arrive (if at all) as a by-product."

1425
The rural development proposals are narrowly focused on agriculture. Will the Government guarantee to develop and implement an integrated rural development that is not based exclusively on agriculture? And how in practice will they structure this? Will the early retirement scheme, which was referred to earlier this evening, be extended beyond the beef industry? Will the Government undertake that they will not agree to any requirement that an increase in land holding should be a condition for qualification—as many of the holdings are economically viable?
The report highlights the importance of decoupling, as other noble Lords have mentioned earlier. It points out in paragraph 73 that United Kingdom environmental schemes are stringently drawn up and involve only a minority of farmers. Elsewhere in the Community, notably in Germany, funds have been allocated on "environmental" grounds to a very high proportion of farmers with very modest requirements in terms of changed farming practices. This raises the spectre that environmental policy may be perceived as a disguised form of support for production. Do the Government agree that it is essential that schemes are decoupled from production and do not form covert production subsidies?
The report also points out the dangers posed by cross-compliance. First, it can be used only in those areas where CAP provides direct income support—and these may often be neither the product areas nor the geographical regions in which the greatest gain from environmental expenditure can really be made. Secondly, the obligation on farmers to accept environmental restraints exists only so long as the policy survives. Other noble Lords have also referred to the problem that the cross-compliance would apply only to existing producers, and that once an environmental policy is tied to existing farmers it is likely to be used as an argument against change. Do the Government agree that this would seriously hinder a major restructuring of production which is needed to create agriculture which competes fully on the world market?
While all states are required in Agenda 2000 to implement environmental cross-compliance, it is neither clear what should be the standard of these conditions, nor how common levels of environmental protection will be achieved across member states. How do the Government seek to resolve this matter?
Finally on cross-compliance, member states may use savings generated by environmental cross-compliance, and by labour unit modulation, to fund agri-environment measures. But the detail of how funding may be switched from CMOs to agri-environment measures is unclear. For example, how reliable a source would such funds be to agri-environment measures?
It is also worth noting that the Commission proposes that member states should take appropriate measures to restrict payments in circumstances where recipients fail to demonstrate their active role in maintaining rural areas. How do the Government anticipate that this will be achieved without duplicating provisions for environmental cross-compliance?
1426
When I spoke to a representative of the Tenant Farmers Association last week, he drew my attention to the danger that tenants could be locked out of environmental and rural development policy. He pointed out that UK tenant farmers' activities are bound by the agreement that they have already entered into. If they do anything outwith its remit—for example, tree planting—they could risk losing the tenancy. He would argue that tenancy agreements lock tenant farmers into agricultural activities alone. What account have the Government taken of this point in their negotiations so far? What note have they taken of the variation in the nature of farm holdings throughout Great Britain and Northern Ireland and their variation from the pattern in other member states?
United Kingdom agriculture, despite all its problems, still has many underlying strengths which we need to preserve and promote. It is a well structured industry compared with most other EU states. It has skilled farmers, farm managers and a workforce who can apply new technology to maintain and enhance the industry, if we give them the chance and the future to do it. Our young farmers are our future. I am reminded of the frustration expressed recently by a 32 year-old tenant dairy farmer, Craig Cochrane, who farms Richardson and Dyke near Darvel in Ayrshire. He said, "More than anything else, we need to get back some pride and motivation in what we do. I would rather have no subsidies and earn a fair price for my produce".
We all have a responsibility to fight for a future for farmers like Craig Cochrane, to fight for a future for agriculture and the rural economy. Consumers and producers alike, wherever we live, whatever we do, depend on each other. We do not need the countryside to become a glorified theme park. We need it to be a living, breathing, essential part of the whole economy. In this House we have argument and influence at our disposal. Only the Government have power—and of course participation in Agenda 2000 negotiations. If they fail there, they fail us all.
12.23 a.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, this has been an excellent debate, with constructive comments from all sides of the House, greatly assisted by the contributions from five—or was it six?—members of the distinguished committee whose report we have debated.
I should like first to thank the chairman of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Reay, for providing me with a welcome opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government to the Select Committee's report and on such an excellent opening speech. The Government have already replied fully to the committee, so there is no need to repeat those points in detail. However, I hope to expand on our formal response to the committee and reply to some of the points raised. I deeply share the regret expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, that so important a topic is debated so late at night. The noble Lord will understand the pressures of government business. I myself had an attractive appointment in

1427
Chelsea at 6.30 tomorrow morning; however, that prospect has receded as this debate has continued into the night.
I begin by congratulating the committee. The report is an excellent analysis of the European Commission's Agenda 2000 proposals and their importance to the United Kingdom. The written evidence makes interesting reading and highlights the wide range of interests that have been consulted. The committee's report is also timely; detailed proposals following the Commission's Agenda 2000 communication have now been received and negotiations on rural development regulation have begun, though these negotiations have a considerable way to go yet.
I broadly agree with many of the criticisms of the existing CAP—the Prime Minister's description of it as a "manifest absurdity" was quoted; it is typically mild and generous on his part—and the criticisms of Agenda 2000 have been expressed in the debate. I appreciate the acute difficulties being faced by many sectors of British farming at this time—though I should point out that our currency, which has been a major factor, can go down as well as up, as is demonstrated by much of the history of sterling over the past 50 years.
Before responding to particular points, it may be helpful if I say a few words about the Government's views on the common agricultural policy reform proposals on rural development. This is a very important element of the Agenda 2000 package. It provides a framework, bringing together environmental, forestry, structural and traditional rural development measures. The key problem is that more resources are required to enable the framework to bring increased benefits to the countryside. That can happen only if resources are made available by phasing out production link subsidies in the commodity regimes.
The Government therefore agree with the committee that the Agenda 2000 proposals do not go far enough to develop an agricultural industry in Europe able to compete effectively in world markets without subsidy. However, the Commission's proposals are a step in the direction that the Government have been advocating.
The rural development proposal lays down a framework from which member states would be able to determine programmes for implementation based on local priorities and covering seven years, from 2000 to 2006. Agri-environmental measures are compulsory, whereas all the other measures are optional.
This proposal would also permit a degree of flexibility in how the measures could be implemented in the United Kingdom. That is a matter to which the Government will be turning their attention over the summer. The outcome of the Government's comprehensive spending review will be an important consideration in this process.
Turning to the detail of the report, we welcome the committee's support for the European Commission's intention to simplify policy, and we note its view that support for the environment should be offered via the single menu. The Government believe that there are advantages in integrating schemes where the schemes have proved their value and where amalgamation will
1428
bring efficiency benefits and assist farmers. We shall look at this in the forthcoming review which the Ministry will undertake of the habitat, countryside access and moorland schemes with a view to integrating successful elements into the countryside stewardship scheme. The English ESAs have proved effective, though we shall reflect on whether in the long term they too could be amalgamated with the countryside stewardship scheme. Similar reviews have been undertaken, or are planned, by the other agricultural departments.
We agree with the committee's view, put again by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that environmental payments must not be production subsidies in disguise and that we should aim to decouple support both for its own sake and to meet the developing arguments of the WTO. The Government believe that the most effective way of providing environmental benefits is through specific, well targeted environmental schemes which are properly evaluated and monitored. However, the committee must be aware that full decoupling from production may not be possible as some schemes may require a particular form of agricultural production to deliver environmental goods. An example is the need for grazing to maintain heather moorlands.
The Government agree with the committee's view that there should be a synchronised process of reducing production-related compensation payments and building up an environmental policy justified by its own merits. We are committed to the phasing out of production-related farm support and the redirection of some of the savings on CAP expenditure towards support for the environment and rural development.
The committee highlights the role for rural development to play in easing the social and employment problems which result from the continued decline in agricultural employment as well as from wider changes in the rural economy. The Government are determined to pursue sound economic policies for the benefit of the country as a whole and to help ensure a healthy and diverse rural economy. The creation of employment is one of the Government's principal priorities, and rural development policy must assist in creating sustainable employment opportunities. This involves a combination of national programmes and specifically targeted measures. National initiatives such as the New Deal for the unemployed are intended to help both urban and rural communities.
Earlier today this House approved the Second Reading of the Regional Development Agencies Bill, to which a number of noble Lords referred. RDAs will be region-wide bodies which are intended to take a coherent and integrated approach to the development and regeneration needs of their regions. This should be of considerable benefit to rural areas by ensuring that rural issues do not become marginalised. The same Bill provides powers to enable the merger of the Countryside Commission and the Rural Development Commission. The new body will provide a national overview on rural economic and social issues and will play a central role in the Government's objective of developing a sustainable living countryside.

1429
The Government are pleased to note that the committee believes that the development of alternative economic opportunities must be supported. We agree that further diversification of the rural economy is a desirable objective. We have supported diversification of that kind under the Objective 5(b) programmes and domestic programmes. The Government will consider what further measures might be necessary in the context of the proposals currently being negotiated.
The Government are pleased with the committee's comments on the value of harnessing the enthusiasm of local partnerships and using the bottom-up approach to developing programmes. We note the committee's view on the need not to lose the expertise that exists in the Rural Development Commission. The Government recognise the valuable work of the Rural Development Commission, particularly at local level, and are determined to make full use of that expertise. RDC staff working on regeneration issues will transfer to the regional development agencies. RDAs will have a specific remit to serve the rural areas of their regions and, outside London, each board will have at least one member who can contribute a strong rural perspective. However, I note the concerns expressed by the committee and witnesses to it—emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, with his great expertise in this whole area. I can assure him that we are negotiating for rural areas to receive a fair share of support from Objective 2 schemes.
The Government agree with the committee's view that the mark of a successful rural development programme is that after time it becomes unnecessary. The aim of rural development policy under Agenda 2000 should be to enable the rural economy to cope better with adjustments to the economic base of and quality of life in the targeted areas. As now, programmes will continue to be monitored for effectiveness and designed to be flexible to allow room for adaptation as circumstances require.
I should like briefly to turn to a number of points raised in the debate. Modulation was brought up, particularly by the noble Lords, Lord Reay and Lord Inglewood. The Government made clear in their reply to the Select Committee that they do not welcome modulation. We have forcefully opposed the proposal for a Europe-wide ceiling because that would have a disproportionate adverse effect on our own farmers. We have, however, signalled that if other member states want to modulate payments to their own farmers under subsidiarity provisions, the United Kingdom would not stand in their way. But that is firmly on the condition that our agricultural sector does not lose out.
The noble Lord, Lord Reay, referred to the need for a national body to advise on redundant building conversions. I am sorry if we appear to have misunderstood the committee's recommendation on the need for advice on planning applications for redundant building conversions; nevertheless I can assure the noble Lord that the merged Rural Development and Countryside Commissions will be well able to advise us on policy in relation to such applications.
1430
My noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone referred to the sheep regime not being tackled by the proposals and we agree that the Commission missed an opportunity to put forward proposals to reform the sheepmeat regime. But the Government will continue to press for reforms in that as well as other sectors where proposals for reform are equally absent or inadequate.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, referred to green pound evaluations. I must point out again, as we often have to point out to commentators in this sector, that European money is simply not available for us to take in order to compensate farmers. The Fontainebleau abatement means that even European money represents a cost to the United Kingdom Exchequer of some 71 per cent. of the total available, and in this year alone that would have cost over half a billion pounds. We must take that into account. Other member states do not have to think about that effect and since Fontainebleau there has not been a level playing field in that respect.
I particularly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, said about simplification. I made a passing reference in my speech to the fact that we certainly need simplification both for the existing consultative bodies and for the environmental schemes on offer.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, referred to the Cork conference. It is true that that conference in 1996 raised expectations of support for rural development which have not been sustained into the Agenda 2000 reforms. But it is still the case that the rural development proposal offers a framework within which, over time, resources can be shifted from the CAP to rural development or to environmental measures, as production support is reduced, as we believe it must be.
The noble Lord, Lord Geraint, referred to a newspaper report about European aid to Namibia. I shall need to check on that and will write to him about it. But I may not be able to comment on the detail of the story, and he will be aware that modern British newspapers are not strong on facts.
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, referred to industrial crops and bio-fuels. I agree with him completely that it is an area which needs more work and more research. The department is currently looking at that and we have also used Objective 5(b) schemes to encourage alternative crops such as those for energy. He will be aware that there is a possibility for more of that under the rural development proposal.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, referred to agri-monetary compensation, one of the most important points facing Europe, this country and this Government. I can only promise him that we will negotiate as vigorously as possible to protect our farmers from discrimination in any new measures proposed when the existing schemes terminate later this year. However, tie understands better than most how the business works out there. We are part of the minority—the out of the pre-entry minority—standing outside the single currency. That is not perhaps the ideal negotiating position.

1431
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, raised a number of questions at this late hour. I can promise her that I shall write to her when I am more refreshed.
In conclusion, I strongly commend the report to the House.
12.42 a.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the last thing that any noble Lord present will wish to do now is to listen to another speech from me. However, I should like to say how grateful I am to all those who took part in the debate and also for the fact that so many should have taken part at such a very inconvenient hour on a Monday night and with fairly short notice. It reflects the wide recognition of the importance of the subject.
There was a large measure of agreement in the debate. A few reservations and caveats were entered into with regard to the report. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, found a weakness, my noble friend Lord Middleton found a wobble and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, found that we ignored the social policy. If my noble friend Lord Middleton still does not understand why there was a wobble, I will explain it to him afterwards. However, I feel that I should say something to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, now.
1432
His criticism that we ignored social policy I do not find to be fair. In the evidence section, paragraphs 48 to 51 deal with rural services and rural communities.
"Social exclusion was a marked concern"
is the introduction to paragraph 51. We go on to quote later in that paragraph,
"There is no point in having jobs if there is no local affordable housing".
If one turns to the conclusions, paragraph 105 says,
"Rural development policy must seek to ease the social and employment problems which result from the continued decline in agricultural employment as well as from wider changes in the rural economy".
Other paragraphs also take up aspects of social policy. Therefore I do not believe that it can truthfully be said that we ignored social factors and considerations in the report.
I would like to thank all noble Lords who spoke kind words about me or the committee. I am also grateful for the support of the Front Benches and for our Front Bench speech which was very gracious towards the report. I also appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue had to say. He gave a careful reply, not without some wit even after midnight. The reply will need further study. I am grateful to him for taking up the questions and points that I and other members of the committee raised. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before one o'clock.

  Members of Parliament: Age Statistics
  Members of Parliament: Age Statistics
  Rough Sleeping in Westminster
  Rough Sleeping in Westminster
  NHS Executive Regional Offices
  NHS Executive Regional Offices
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: Funding
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority: Funding
  NHS: Millennium Compliance
  NHS: Millennium Compliance
  EC Health Council, 30 April
  EC Health Council, 30 April
  NHS Dental Care Expenditure
  NHS Dental Care Expenditure
  Northern Ireland: Target Revolvers and Terrorist Incidents
  Northern Ireland: Target Revolvers and Terrorist Incidents
  Northern Ireland Agreement: Accelerated Release of Prisoners
  Northern Ireland Agreement: Accelerated Release of Prisoners
  Northern Ireland Agreement: Parliamentary Ratification
  Northern Ireland Agreement: Parliamentary Ratification
  Pesticides Approvals: Review
  Pesticides Approvals: Review
  Fishing Vessel Licensing and Economic Link with UK
  Fishing Vessel Licensing and Economic Link with UK
  Immigration Advisers
  Immigration Advisers
  Women Prisoners
  Women Prisoners
  Chief Constable of Gwent: Suspension
  Chief Constable of Gwent: Suspension
  Firearms Rules: English and Welsh Language Licensing Forms
  Firearms Rules: English and Welsh Language Licensing Forms
  Firearms Consultative Committee
  Firearms Consultative Committee
  UN Human Rights Commission: Late Publication of Reports
  UN Human Rights Commission: Late Publication of Reports
  Bosnia: Muslim Armed Forces
  Bosnia: Muslim Armed Forces
  Building Contractors in Greater London: HSE Prosecutions
  Building Contractors in Greater London: HSE Prosecutions
  Allotment Closure Procedures
  Allotment Closure Procedures
  Army Engineer Logistics Review
  Army Engineer Logistics Review
  War Widows Pilgrimage Scheme
  War Widows Pilgrimage Scheme
  Military Low Flying
  Military Low Flying
  Defence Council Instructions
  Defence Council Instructions
  Army General Administrative Instructions and Material Regulations For The Army
  Army General Administrative Instructions and Material Regulations For The Army