Sitting of 26 November 1998

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

  Business of the House
  2.33 pm
  Sir George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): As the House is aware, the Debate on the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech will be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 1 December.
  The business following the conclusion of the Debate on the Humble Address will be as follows:
  WEDNESDAY 2 DECEMBER—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
  Consideration of allocation of time motion relating to the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.
  Proceedings on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill.
  THURSDAY 3 DECEMBER—Debate on the European Union on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
  FRIDAY 4 DECEMBER—The House will not be sitting.
  The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
  MONDAY 7 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Water Industry Bill.
  TUESDAY 8 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Road Traffic (NHS charges) Bill.
  WEDNESDAY 9 DECEMBER—Until 2 o'clock there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
  Opposition Day [1st Allotted Day]
  There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.
  THURSDAY 10 DECEMBER—Estimates Day [1st Allotted Day]
  There will be a debate on prison sentences and alternatives to prison sentences. Followed by a debate on New Deal Pathfinders and Pathways into Work for Lone Parents. Details will be given in the Official Report.
  At 10 o'clock the House will be asked to agree the winter supplementary estimates, the votes on account and supplementary defence votes.
  FRIDAY 11 DECEMBER—The House will not be sitting.
  [Thursday 10 December:
  Estimates Day [1st Allotted Day]—Class 1V, Votes 1 and 2: Home Office administration, police probation, immigration and other services, England and Wales and
  314
  prisons, England and Wales, in so far as they relate to prison sentences and alternatives to prison sentences. Relevant Reports: the Third Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 1997–98, on Alternatives to Prison Sentences (HC 486).
  Class 1, Votes 1 and 3: Department for Education and Employment, programmes and central services and Employment Service and Class X11; Department of Social Security, in so far as they relate to New Deal Pathfinders and Pathways into Work for Lone Parents. Relevant Reports: the Seventh Report from the Education and Employment Committee, Session 1997–98, Pathways into Work for Lone Parents (HC646); and the Eighth Report from the Committee, Session 1997–98, New Deal Pathfinders (HC 1059).]
  Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business and for an indication of the business for the week after. Can the right hon. Lady confirm that, very shortly, there will be a statement on the local government revenue support grant? Can she possibly tell the House the date when that is expected?
  On General Pinochet, we understand your ruling, Madam Speaker, that this matter is sub judice. However, if the Home Secretary exercises his discretion, and it is no longer sub judice, can she confirm that the Home Secretary will make an oral statement to the House? Can the Home Secretary find a way of explaining how he plans to use his discretion—discretion that the House has given to him—on this subject?
  On Wednesday, when we deal with the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, may we have confirmation that there will be the normal Committee stage? On the Bill dealing with the House of Lords, can the right hon. Lady confirm that it will begin in the House, and that all stages of this constitutional measure will be taken on the Floor of the House? Will she consider allocating extra time for a debate on the Second Reading of the Greater London Authority Bill, many stages of which we would again expect to be taken on the Floor of the House?
  Finally, on the Christmas recess, is it her intention that the House should sit in Christmas week? Can she give us an indication of the dates of the Christmas recess?
  Mrs. Beckett: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, the date of the revenue support grant settlement will be 2 December—next Wednesday. The statement will be made here, then.
  On the matter of General Pinochet, I, like the right hon. Gentleman, am conscious of your ruling, Madam Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to ask the Home Secretary to explain how he intends to use his discretion. I am not entirely sure that that can be reconciled with the ruling that he has just mentioned, but I take on board that he is anxious to have the issue explored.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked about the handling of the Bill on House of Lords reform. Obviously, that will be subject to discussion. I anticipate that the Bill will begin in the House. He asked me for it all to be taken on the Floor of the House. I hope that that can be subject to discussion and agreement through the usual channels in the ordinary way.
  The right hon. Gentleman pressed me to provide extra time for the Greater London Authority Bill, and to take much of it on the Floor of the House. Again, the issue of

  315
  what and how much should be taken on the Floor can be discussed—and, I hope, agreed—through the usual channels. As for whether we should have more than the normal first day for the Bill on the Floor, he makes a fair point. I am not at all unsympathetic, and I will certainly consider giving the extra time that he seeks.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked about the proceedings on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. I anticipate that the Bill will go through the proper proceedings. The Government motion will be published next week.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Christmas recess, and I sympathise. I realise that we are much nearer to the Christmas recess than perhaps is entirely comfortable for hon. Members before publishing the dates. Equally, he will appreciate that we are, literally, in the first week of the new Session. I am afraid that I cannot give him the dates today. I shall give the House the information as soon as I can.
  Mr. David Winnick: Will we have a statement next week on the court judgment in Japan on the allied prisoners of war? Is my right hon. Friend aware that this matter has been raised on a number of occasions, when colleagues from both sides of the House have referred to the unspeakable treatment which British and other allied prisoners suffered at the hands of the Japanese—one of whom is my constituent, Stephen Long? Should not the British Government take up this matter with the Japanese, because those people who served so bravely in the war and were treated in such a terrible and evil manner are simply asking for an apology from the Japanese Government, and for compensation? Yesterday, we had an excellent decision on human rights, but the decision by the Japanese on the subject has been very poor.
  Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's strong views and the concerns of his constituents. The whole House sympathises deeply with those who brought the case for the suffering that they have endured, and we understand their disappointment. I fear that I am not in a position to offer my hon. Friend a statement next week, but it will not have escaped his notice that we are to have a debate on foreign affairs in the House tomorrow.
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: Liberal Democrats welcome the decision to move ahead quickly with the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. Can the Leader of the House give us an assurance that the Government will push ahead speedily to ensure that all stages of the legislation are in place in time for there to be fair and proportional elections in Europe next year, and that we can overcome the obstructions of the House of Lords?
  Will there be time for a debate on the Acheson report on public health, which was one of the central planks of Labour's manifesto at the general election? It would be right and proper for the House to have an opportunity to discuss the important recommendations in the report.
  May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 33,
  [That this House notes that there are an estimated 44 million television sets in the United Kingdom, and that many require up to 80 per cent. of full power when in
  316
  stand-by mode; notes that on the Parliamentary Estate there are over 2,000 monitors and sets, all of which are frequently in stand-by mode; believes that significant energy and financial savings could be made by switching off wasteful stand-by units; therefore calls for a vigorous national campaign to raise public awareness, and to promote the rapid introduction of less fuel-consuming technology; and requests the House authorities to examine urgently their purchasing and operating policies to minimise the waste of electricity by stand-by units in the Parliamentary Estate.]?
  Can the right hon. Lady find time for the House authorities to consider whether savings could be made by switching off television and computer monitors in the Parliamentary Estate, which would contribute to the Government's achievement of the Kyoto targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases?
  Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about the Government's intention to press on with the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. I can certainly assure him that it will be speedily dealt with in this place, but he will appreciate the fact that I am not in a position to know what will happen to it thereafter. Indeed, the fact that we cannot know such things is the reason for re-introducing the legislation in the first place.
  The Acheson report was commissioned by the Government and it is certainly our intention that the findings should contribute to our wider health strategy, which will be spelt out in the White Paper, "Our Healthier Nation", in the new year. I certainly expect that the report will be taken into account, but I cannot offer a statement specifically on the subject in the near future.
  The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about television monitors. I rather think that it is a matter for the Accommodation Committee or another Committee of the House rather than directly for me, but I am sure that my observations and his will have been heard.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that the Government are imminently to issue a consultation paper on leasehold reform. There is to be a major lobby on the subject next week. Governments over the years have tried to deal with the matter, so can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that, when we have a debate in Government time, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, we will have time to debate fully all the complexities?
  Mrs. Beckett: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who takes a great interest in this subject, as do many hon. Members. What is discussed in Adjournment debates is not necessarily a matter for me, but we are all very conscious of both the complexity and the importance of the subject. I feel confident, knowing his experience and ingenuity, that he will find ways of raising the matter.
  Mr. Peter Brooke: There is no edge to this question. What rules are the Government currently applying on parliamentary private secretaries intervening in debates or asking oral questions relating to their Departments?
  Mrs. Beckett: I cannot say off hand, to be perfectly frank. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying

  317
  that there is no edge to his question, but I am sure that there is a point to it. If it is a point that concerns him, perhaps he will let me know.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: In view of the fact that you, Madam Speaker, have already ruled that we cannot have a debate or a statement on the question of Pinochet, would it be in order for me to say, on behalf of many Labour Members, that we would regard it as gut-wrenching if he was allowed to go back to Chile?
  Mr. Robert Syms: That's a quote.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am confident that it was unnecessary to say that that was a quote. I hear what my hon. Friend says and I understand his concern, but I am ever mindful, Madam Speaker, of your reminder to us of the status of that matter.
  Mr. John Bercow: Further to the disturbingly non-committal reply by the Leader of the House to my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, will she confirm that the European Parliamentary Elections Bill—a constitutional measure—will have a Committee stage?
  Mrs. Beckett: I fully expect that the House will have a proper opportunity to consider the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not present, but I remind him that we have already considered the Bill in full.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), may I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the fact that I have asked in the past whether we could have a dedicated debate to consider the issue of war veterans, widows and dependants? The last time we had such a debate was on 1 July 1996 and it was one of the best attended Friday debates. There would be universal interest in the House in giving the issue substantial parliamentary time and perhaps it should become part of our annual parliamentary calendar, like the debates we have on the armed forces and the police. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give early consideration to the matter.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend and I know what a great interest he takes in the matter. He has a strong record of advocacy on behalf of veterans and their families, who have made great sacrifices for this country. I shall bear his remarks in mind.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will probably have seen the press release issued by Families Against Intimidation and Terror about punishment beatings, which have continued even during November, and alleging that a high percentage of those beatings have been carried out by those recently released on licence. May we have a statement in the House next week to examine the issue and probe it further?
  As a Member who represents a constituency from which it is not possible just to run up the road to London, may I press for an early notification of the Christmas Adjournment? Many other people want to get back home for Christmas and the planes might be full.
  Mrs. Beckett: I do indeed take the hon. Gentleman's last point and I apologise to him and to the House. I am
  318
  sure that the House will appreciate that, after the length of the overspill, we are in an unusual position this year in that we are in the first week of the Session, yet close to Christmas.
  On the hon. Gentleman's serious first point, I know that the issue is of as much concern to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and her Ministers as it is to him and all who wish to see a settled peace emerging among the communities in the island of Ireland. I will take great heed of his remarks, but I cannot at this moment undertake to arrange a statement next week.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the excellent progress that has been made to reform the health service. I invite her to join me in congratulating the newly elected and very enthusiastic members of the Harrow West primary care group, which has just had its first meeting. When will the legislation on the modernisation of the national health service come before the House? We need to sweep away the last vestiges of the appalling internal market which wasted so many resources on bureaucracy.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am entirely happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Harrow West primary care group and I am confident that their enthusiasm will lead to the provision of a better system of health care in the locality. The national health service legislation will come before the House as early as possible, but I cannot at this moment give my hon. Friend a date.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Has the right hon. Lady read Glasgow's The Herald today, and does she agree that the leaking of any Select Committee report is a gross discourtesy to the House?
  Mrs. Beckett: I fear that my daily reading does not encompass The Herald, for which I feel confident that I should apologise. I certainly agree that leaking is always to be deplored, and it is something in which I have never engaged.
  Dr. Desmond Turner: In recognition of the fact that there are 400 days to go until the millennium, will my right hon. Friend indicate the Government's progress on preparations for that event? Will it be possible for the House to debate an issue that could have grave consequences if it is not successfully handled?
  Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend will know, the Government have put in hand measures to tackle any problems that may arise from the millennium date change. We are working to ensure that there is no material disruption of services. We also have a mechanism for regular reporting to the House on progress in Government Departments and in the wider public sector. I hope to be able to make the latest information available to the House in the not-too-distant future. I fear that I cannot now promise my hon. Friend a debate on the matter, but it is an issue to which we may return in time.
  Mr. Syms: Will the Leader of the House make representations to the Foreign Secretary for an early statement to the House on security and travel

  319
  arrangements for British citizens going to Chile? The right hon. Lady may not be aware that 2,000 boy scouts, guides and leaders will attend the world scout jamboree in Chile on 20 December, and that many of them will take off for that event over the next few weeks. Many parents are anxious to receive advice from the Foreign Office before their children go to a country where relations are a little volatile at present.
  Mrs. Beckett: I can help the hon. Gentleman immediately. He need merely come to the House tomorrow to ask the Foreign Secretary himself about the situation.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: As the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) has said, there are 400 days to go until the millennium. Will the right hon. Lady find time for an emergency debate on the Jubilee line? Is she aware that in the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport just three hours ago, the chief executive of London Transport said that he could not guarantee that the line would be ready for the opening of the millennium dome? Is she aware that the New Millennium Experience Company says that at least 55 per cent. of those who will visit the dome would need to get there via the Jubilee line if the dome were to be viable?
  Mrs. Beckett: I was not aware of the statement made by the chief executive of London Transport. I am sure that all hon. Members will be sorry to learn that there may be difficulties, but I feel confident that we can rely on the Deputy Prime Minister to take the matter up with some vigour.
  Dr. Vincent Cable: May I request an early statement on a major tax anomaly that affects about 300,000 low-income, non-taxpaying pensioners who stand to lose an average of £75 a year as a result of the withdrawal of tax credit on dividends? Is the right hon. Lady aware that a file on that subject has been sitting in the pending tray of the Paymaster General for more than five months, despite a public assurance to the House that the matter would be dealt with quickly, and despite an assurance in June from an all-party group—including the new Solicitor-General—that it would be dealt with urgently and sympathetically?
  Mrs. Beckett: I hear the hon. Gentleman's observations. I know that such matters are not always easy to resolve, and I am aware that what Departments regard as "urgent" sometimes takes rather longer than people outside think reasonable. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I shall draw it to the attention of
  320
  my hon. Friend the Paymaster General and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. I am confident that they will wish to make progress as fast as they can.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: May I ask for clarification on two points? Can the Leader of the House confirm that it will be possible for hon. Members to table amendments to the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, and that the timetable motion will provide an opportunity for those amendments to be properly debated? Secondly, 18 December, a Friday, is listed in the Order Paper as a non-sitting day.
  Mrs. Beckett: 11 December?
  Sir Patrick Cormack: No, 18 December. In view of comments made by hon. Members, can the right hon. Lady assure us that the House will not be called back for a single day on the Monday of the week after 18 December? If there is any chance of an extra day being needed, will she ensure that it is the Friday rather than the Monday for the convenience of House staff and of all those who serve us?
  Mrs. Beckett: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I will bear that in mind. Presumably, he is suggesting a full day of business on that Friday. I have mixed feelings. Although I take his point about the potential disruption and about not calling the House back for a single day, that presumably also means that he is suggesting I should call the House back for several days, which may not be as popular as he thinks. However, I feel confident that that is a matter that ought to be, and will be, considered through the usual channels.
  On the hon. Gentleman's first question, I am not sure why Opposition Members keep raising that matter. Of course, there will be a proper timetable motion and the House will go through the proper stages of consideration of the Bill, as it always does. I am not prepared to be any more discursive on the matter because anyone who listened to Conservative Members would think that the House had been deprived of the opportunity to debate the measure.
  Mr. Bercow: It has to be fully considered.
  Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is right. We have fully considered it and we rejected the views of another place on no less than five occasions, apart from all the ordinary time that we spent on the Bill. Of course, the House will have a proper opportunity to consider the matter and come to a view, but any notion that the Conservative party will be able to use it to further prolong debate on the matter will not meet with a warm reception on the Government side.

  Point of Order
  Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Clearly, you will not be able to give me an answer on this matter today, but it is of great importance. As you will know, the speech from the Throne is the principal occasion on which the Executive disclose to Parliament their policies for the year and we make a lot of it: we keep Black Rod out and we go to the other place to hear it. However, it has come to my attention that the leader of the Liberal party, who was given a copy of the speech the night before, read it to his parliamentary colleagues. So, when the House met on Tuesday to hear the debate, the only group of Members who knew its contents were an Opposition group. I am not raising with you why Labour Members were not told, as that is a matter for my party.
  I believe that it has been a common courtesy for some time for Opposition leaders to be given a copy of the speech in confidence to help them to plan their strategy. My point to you is that the relationship between the Executive and the legislature is being fundamentally changed.
  The House has many divisions—between left and right, Government and Opposition, Front Benchers and Back Benchers—but the only constitutional distinction is between the Executive and the legislature. If the division between the two is blurred so that an Opposition party has members on a Cabinet Committee and Opposition Members have access to knowledge that is not available to other hon. Members, could it be true to say that the Liberal Democrats are in opposition? They enjoy the right to Opposition Supply Days and so forth.
  What is happening—it is for the Prime Minister to determine—is that a private coalition is being established, which has not been disclosed to the House, while those who are party to it still enjoy the full rights of opposition. That merits consideration. I wonder whether you could give us your judgment on that matter at a suitable time.
  Madam Speaker: I appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman raises. As he said, he has given me no notice of it and wants me to reflect on it. I will certainly do so.

BILL PRESENTED
  RATING
  Mr. Secretary Prescott, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Michael, Ms Hilary Armstrong and Mr. Nick Raynsford, presented a Bill to make provision about valuation for purposes of non-domestic rates in England and Wales: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 2].
Orders of the Day

  Debate on the Address
  [THIRD DAY]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [24 November],
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament—[Mr. Ashton.]
  Question again proposed.

  Health and Welfare
  2.59 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): At the general election, the people knew that the national health service was in a bad way. They could see what a mess the NHS was in after 18 years under the Tories and they feared for its future. In response to their concerns, we promised to save the NHS, to guarantee its future, to stick to the principles on which it was founded and to renew and modernise it so that people in every part of the country get top-quality treatment. We are keeping those promises and the measures announced in the Queen's Speech will mark another big step forward.
  All that we want to do will take time. We cannot put right in 18 short months all the damage that the Tories did over 18 long years, but we can make a good start and we have. We have got under way the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the NHS. New hospitals started under this Government are already being built on sites at Dartford and Gravesham, Norfolk and Norwich, Royal Berkshire and Battle in Reading, Carlisle, Calderdale, north Durham, south Manchester, High Wycombe, Amersham, Greenwich, central Sheffield and Rochdale. The building programme does not end there. Our £2.4 billion programme is planned to deliver a further 20 new hospitals from the new Royal London in Whitechapel to the Royal hospital in Gloucester, and in places as far apart as Newcastle, Hereford and Hull.
  The renewal programme does not end there. Far too many patients and staff have for far too long been expected to put up with run-down, shabby premises and unreliable equipment. We must change all that and we are changing it. More money is being invested in renovation and modernising older buildings and in replacing run-down plant and equipment. Next year, one quarter of existing accident and emergency departments will be modernised to provide faster, better services for patients and, equally important, a safer working environment for staff.
  Since we got in, we have increased spending on the NHS by £2 billion more than the previous Government had budgeted to spend. As we announced in the summer, after conducting our comprehensive spending review we will be investing an extra £21 billion in the NHS over the next three years, an average annual increase of 4.7 per cent.—described by the NHS Confederation as "beyond our wildest dreams". It was certainly beyond the wildest dreams of the Tory and Liberal parties. They and various newspapers announced in advance of the comprehensive spending review that any increase less than 3 per cent. a year would not be enough. Compared with what they called for, we are investing half as much again—£21 billion to strengthen and modernise the NHS to make it fit for the new century, the new millennium.
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: Does not the right hon. Gentleman misrepresent the position of both the Liberals, for whom I do not particularly want to speak, and ourselves? Did we not say anything less than 3.1 per cent. over the lifetime of the Parliament? Over the lifetime of the Parliament the Government are spending not 4.7 per cent., but 3.6 per cent.
  Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Lady is wrong. Representatives of the Tory party said that they expected
  324
  us in future years to match what they had been spending on the NHS. We are matching it virtually this year, although this budget was set not by this Government, but is a hangover from the previous Government. Next year, the year after that and the year after that the increase will average 4.7 per cent., which is far in excess of anything that the Tories called for. The right hon. Lady should sit still and accept that we are doing more than they asked us to do. In those circumstances Opposition Members should sit tight and say, "Thank you".
  Mr. Simon Burns: What thanks should my constituents give the right hon. Gentleman concerning hospital waiting lists? Some have been waiting for 12 months or more for treatment. According to the Department's own figures, on 31 March 1997, 104 people were waiting for hospital treatment and as of 30 September—18 months after the Labour Government came to power—1,155 people were waiting for hospital treatment. What thanks should those people give the right hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. Dobson: From bitter experience of these debates, I take the hon. Gentleman's figures with a pinch of salt. [Interruption.] I did not say that they are wrong, but that I take them with a pinch of salt. I will check afterwards because, strangely, I do not have every figure to hand. What I do know is that since April, hospital waiting lists in the country as a whole have come down by the best part of 100,000, just as we said that they would when we found the extra £500 million to bring them down—£500 million that Tory Front-Bench spokesmen said that we should not have found. It is no good them prating about the length of waiting lists and then objecting to us finding the money to bring them down.
  Mr. Burns: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No.
  Looking further to the future, we have committed this Government, and, therefore, future Governments, to increasing the number of medical student places from 5,000 to 6,000 to avoid shortages of doctors in six, seven, eight or more years. That is because this Government take their long-term responsibilities seriously. When it takes such a long time to train doctors and nurses, short-term measures simply will not do. That is why we are increasing the number of training places for both doctors and nurses.
  Over the past few years, the system of nurse education and training has developed in a way that has deterred the recruitment of young people who did not relish an academic course, and some new nurses are not as well equipped with the necessary practical skills as they and the health service would like when they start work. The United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting is already looking into this, and we intend to work with the professions to modernise nurse education and training to deal with these and associated problems while retaining the better aspects of the current system.
  We have already started to encourage care assistants and others to train to be nurses by providing the necessary courses and by letting them keep their existing salaries while they are carrying out their training. That is one way

  325
  of getting into nursing people who, under the present system, have felt excluded. We think that that is right and proper. I hope that everyone in the House agrees with what we are doing because we need the right staff with the right skills.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: Go on then.
  Mr. Hughes: No one could disagree with the intentions behind the Government's staffing policy, but when does the Secretary of State expect the shortages of places for about 1,000 midwives, 1,000 doctors and 10,000 nurses to be made up?
  Mr. Dobson: It certainly will not be tomorrow. The problem has not arisen over the past 18 months, but has been building up over a long period. In some places there are sufficient nurses, midwives or doctors while in others there are shortages. It is almost impossible to predict at the Dispatch Box with worthwhile precision when that is likely to be put right, except in particular areas. That is what we are going to address.
  Dr. Evan Harris: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? It is to help him out.
  Mr. Dobson: I do not think that I am so desperate that I need to be helped out by a Liberal, but I will risk it.
  Dr. Harris: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for not trusting his better judgment. The recommendation was for an urgent increase of 1,000 medical school places. The Government's pledge is to do it over seven years. If that is how long it takes to implement the Campbell committee report, it will be time for another crisis. The matter is urgent. Does he share the British Medical Association's regret that the timetable is not quicker?
  Mr. Dobson: We are on schedule with the earlier recommendations and intend to be on schedule or better with the new recommendations, which we have accepted. Strangely, the Campbell committee did not, like a Liberal, think that we could suddenly create 1,000 extra medical student places with a flick. That shows that Sir Colin Campbell and his colleagues live in the real world, unlike the Liberals.
  We have to look after the staff we have better than we are currently doing. We are already taking action to protect them from the assaults and abuse to which they have been subjected. We are getting help and advice from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, which has great expertise, about hospital layouts and methods of working. With the help of my right hon. Friends the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary, we are ensuring that the louts who assault nurses, doctors and ambulance staff are caught and punished. When discussing the problem with members of the professions, they tell me that when they raised it with my Tory predecessors, the answer they got was, "These sorts of assault and abuse reflect the society we live in now." Well, it is not going to be that sort of society in future.
  326
  Hospitals have been told to introduce family-friendly employment policies, to improve occupational health and to deal with the racism and discrimination that still shame some parts of our national health service. We all know that pay is a crucial factor. We have made a start by introducing extra pay and status for nurses and midwives at the top of their grades, so that to continue nursing will be worth their while, instead of their being forced to further their career by going into management.
  We want all health service staff to be properly and fairly rewarded, but, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the Royal College of Nursing, we know that pay has to be affordable and support our modernisation agenda. With the agreement of those concerned, we have made clearer the terms of reference of the review bodies. We know how unwelcome the staging of pay awards has been; the challenge that faces the review bodies is to produce recommendations that are fair to staff and affordable for the NHS, so that staging can be avoided.
  When we entered office, waiting lists were the longest in history and rising fast. We promised to bring them down, but, as I have told the House before, when I looked at the prospects for last winter, I had to make a difficult decision. I decided that the most urgent need was to avoid a winter crisis, so I asked the national health service to concentrate on winter pressures, which it did. I also said that if that meant that waiting lists continued to rise, I would take the responsibility. They did rise and I did take the responsibility. We are not like the Tories: we do not blame health service staff when things go wrong, only to claim the credit when they go right.
  Since the end of April, waiting lists have started to fall. We found an extra £500 million to help to bring them down and the NHS staff are doing a brilliant job with the money. Waiting lists fell by 3,000 in May; by 21,000 in June; by 20,000 in July; by 20,000 in August; by 29,000 in September; and they are still falling fast. Since that has started to happen, the Tories and the Liberals, led by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), have claimed to have discovered examples of fiddled figures and of people who have had to wait more than 18 months for treatment. Every single one of their claims has been proved untrue. They make their allegations, but do not check the facts; in so doing, they smear the hard-working staff who they say are fiddling the figures.
  Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman says that every one of our allegations has been proved untrue. Would he tell me what is untrue about the case of Mr. Wiles, who waited 32 months?
  Mr. Dobson: If the right hon. Lady will give me the details, I shall look into that case. There are 44 million people in England, but the right hon. Lady picks just one of them and says, "Here's a name—has this man had his operation delayed?" All I can say is that every case I have seen on paper has proved to be untrue.
  Mr. Burns: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, I will not.
  The Leader of the Opposition has picked up that bad habit from the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. It must be admitted that the right

  327
  hon. Gentleman's speech on Tuesday was a fun-packed affair, but it was also a fact-free zone. He peddled one of the right hon. Lady's good old stories about Bradford. She knows that what she says about Bradford is not true, so either she warned her right hon. Friend not to use that story and he did not heed the warning, or she dropped him in it. Maybe she has gone off him. The right hon. Gentleman should watch out: look at what the right hon. Lady did to her former boss at the Home Office.
  Miss Widdecombe: As the right hon. Gentleman loves all things on paper, he will presumably have taken the trouble to read the internal memorandum circulated at Bradford hospitals NHS trust by Bradford—not by us. That internal memorandum has been supplied to him. Is he saying that it is a pack of lies?
  Mr. Dobson: That memorandum is wrong in one particular respect. It says that new guidelines have been issued, but that is not the case. Bradford is following the national health service executive's data manual, which was published in January 1997. In case the right hon. Lady is suffering from a premature attack of Alzheimer's, I remind her that the Tory Government were in power in January 1997. Bradford is following the procedures that they laid down. I might add—for what it is worth—that not a single person has been removed from the list, even as a result of implementing the Tories' guidelines.
  Miss Widdecombe rose—
  Mr. Terry Rooney rose—
  Mr. Dobson: I will give way to my hon. Friend from Bradford, who may know a little about the situation.
  Mr. Rooney: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. The chief executive of Bradford hospitals NHS trust has written to me regarding the remarks of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). He writes:
  "I thought you would appreciate a brief note from me to explain that he has fundamentally misunderstood the internal memorandum… No patients were removed from the waiting list as a result of this memorandum. All categories of patients previously included in statutory waiting list returns continue to be included".
  Mr. Dobson: And answer came there none.
  To ensure that waiting lists continue to fall, I have announced an extra £320 million from our NHS modernisation fund to continue next year our relentless war on waiting. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) will continue his relentless war in search of the truth. Not only waiting lists, but waiting times will come down.
  We also inherited from the Tories huge cuts in the number of hospital beds. For years, the accepted wisdom was that reducing the number of beds in the health service did not affect patient care. That notion always struck me as being slightly contrary to common sense. It is certainly a fact that, in order to cope with winter pressures last year and perform the extra waiting list operations this year, hospitals have used scores of extra wards and hundreds of extra beds.
  328
  Of course, beds are not the be-all and end-all in the health service, but we will not keep waiting lists and waiting times down unless we have the right number and type of beds in the right place. Under the Tories, every hospital was encouraged to do its own thing. As a result, there was no sensible planning and co-ordination. That is why I have established an inquiry to discover how many beds we really need, what sort of beds they should be and how to make the best use of every single one of them. We have also started to put right many of the other problems facing patients and the NHS.
  Take cancer, for example. When we came to power, breast and cervical cancer screening systems in some parts of the country were a scandal. It is no wonder: under the previous Government's internal market, nobody had the power to check screening standards. We have changed all that—it is one reason why we are scrapping the Tories' internal market. We are setting new performance standards and we will ensure that they are met. The national health service executive regions have been given that job. Tory shadow Ministers call it centralisation, but I call it common sense. There must be no more scandals like Devon and Exeter, and Kent and Canterbury, which occurred because there was no one to check that standards were being met.
  We have put extra money into breast cancer treatment. By next April, every woman who is referred urgently to a breast cancer specialist should be seen within two weeks. We are putting extra money into treating bowel cancer. On top of that, we plan a multi-million pound lottery-funded boost to the fight against cancer. That will mean new scanners, new breast screening equipment and new linear accelerators to provide better and quicker diagnosis and treatment. It will mean extra help for hospices. We will make the NHS the best cancer service in the whole wide world.
  We have started to harness the power of information technology to meet patients' needs. We are committed to investing £1 billion on new systems so that when patients visit the doctor or district nurse or go into hospital at any time of the day or night, their accurate records will be available at the touch of a button. Test results can therefore be dispatched instantly and doctors will be able to discuss patients' scans or X-rays with a specialist looking at a screen hundreds or even thousands of miles away.
  We have also launched pilot schemes for booked admissions so that people can arrange over the phone to go into hospital at a time that suits them. If their GP says that they need an out-patient visit, the receptionist at the surgery will be able to make the booking. If, when they go to out-patients, they are told that they need to come into hospital for in-patient treatment, they will be able to book their admission there and then.
  Mr. Graham Brady: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, I will not.
  We have made a start on all those proposals and many more and, above all, after long and careful consultation with doctors, nurses, midwives, professions allied to

  329
  medicine and NHS managers, we have made a start on getting rid of the Tories' divisive internal market, which was unfair and inefficient.
  Mr. Brady: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No.
  That system set doctor against doctor and hospital against hospital, and slowed down the spread of new and better treatment and ways of working. It was wasting a fortune on paperwork. I shall give a simple example. When we got into power, the eighth wave of GP fundholding was about to go ahead, and the Tories had put £20 million into the NHS budget just to pay for the paperwork that was involved. We stopped that measure and put half the money saved into breast cancer treatment, where most people would think that it was better spent.
  In place of the divisive system that we inherited, and following detailed consultations with representatives of all the professions involved and negotiations with the British Medical Association, representing the doctors, we are going ahead with the establishment of primary care groups. Their boards will consist of GPs, nurses, representatives of social services and lay members. In each primary care group, doctors can choose, if they wish, to elect a majority of the members of the board and take the chair.
  With the co-operation of the professions, 481 primary care groups have been established in shadow form and will come into operation next April as sub-committees of their health authority. As we promised, we are putting doctors and nurses in the driving seat. They will be responsible not only for commissioning services from hospitals, but for deciding local priorities and raising standards of care.
  The development of primary care groups and the ending of GP fundholding commands the support of the medical profession. In June, the local medical committees conference of the BMA came out in favour of the proposals by an overwhelming majority. The Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives and other bodies representing professional staff also support what we propose.
  Of course, some doctors are nervous about our proposals. After all the ridiculous reorganisation of the Tory years, who could blame anyone in the NHS for having doubts about any further changes? Doctors have a lot at stake: their patients' well-being, their careers, their premises and their livelihoods and those of their families. That is why we have been careful to involve them at every stage in formulating our policies. That is how this Government work. It is no good the Tories and Liberal Democrats trying to make trouble.
  On Tuesday, the Leader of the Opposition said, in his blithely fact-free way, that our proposals would take power away from GPs. That is a funny way to describe an arrangement whereby GPs elect those who will represent them on the board that covers their local area and whereby they can have a built-in majority on the board. That is good enough for the BMA, but apparently it is not good enough for the Tory leader. I have to admit that he is consistent because his attitude to the House of Lords suggests that he would not recognise a built-in majority if one bit him.
  330
  The changes will lead to a massive reduction in bureaucracy. At present, the transactions between trusts and GPs involve nearly 4,000 separate purchasers. Our proposals reduce the number of organisations commissioning services to 481. They will also mean a move from contracts covering a year or less to service agreements covering several years. We are on target to reduce the cost of NHS paperwork by £1 billion over this Parliament—£1 billion less on paperwork, £1 billion more for patients.
  We are determined to raise standards throughout the NHS to those of the best. In this, again, we have the support of the professionals. I am fortunate to be the Secretary of State for Health now as there has never been a time when the doctors, nurses and midwives were so committed to raising standards, spreading good practice and dealing promptly and effectively with the small minority of practitioners who let down their patients and their profession. Up to now, the NHS as an organisation has made no contribution to raising professional standards. We propose to augment what the professions have been trying to do. That is why our proposals command their support.
  Patients want to be assured that their local hospital is up to scratch.
  Mr. Brady rose—
  Mr. Dobson: No, I will not give way at the moment.
  To do that we need clearer national standards, applicable throughout the NHS. We need national standards because patients are not willing to put up with variable quality and second best. That is why we are setting up what we call NICE—the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. It will draw up authoritative guidelines on a wide range of treatments and conditions, and so help to ensure that patients everywhere get faster access to treatments that work well.
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence will be professional-led. I have appointed as chairman designate Professor Michael Rawlins from Newcastle university, the Royal Victoria infirmary and the Freeman hospital, Newcastle. I promised the medical profession that we would appoint someone who commanded its support and respect. As I made the announcement at a meeting chaired by the chairman of the BMA who said that I had done exactly what I had promised, I am confident that Professor Rawlins is the man for the job.
  We are also going to launch a rolling programme of national service frameworks, which will set out "service blueprints" for major conditions. To be fair, the previous Government established one national service framework for cancer, and it is developing well. We have established one covering children's intensive care, and we are now working on heart disease and mental health. For the first time ever, the NHS will have clear standards in each area, spanning primary, secondary and tertiary care.
  Of course, it is no good having standards if they are not implemented and monitored. Above all, this needs action locally, within primary care groups and local hospitals. That is why our national health service Bill will place a legal duty of quality and "clinical governance" on every NHS organisation. In future, all hospital doctors will have to take part in national external audit, and we shall work with the professions to modernise the system of

  331
  self-regulation so that it is able to command the confidence of the public. It has to become more effective, more open and more accountable. It cannot operate in isolation, but must form part of an integrated approach to raising standards.
  All this will be backed up by a new commission for health improvement. Patients themselves will be represented on the commission, and its findings will be published. It will be responsible for checking on the standards of every trust, and it will have statutory powers to investigate concerns about clinical quality and to report on the clinical governance of trusts. In extreme cases, it will be able to recommend to the Secretary of State that new teams of experienced doctors, nurses and managers are sent in promptly to take over the running of any service that is failing.
  I must make it clear that none of this is designed just as a clampdown on poor performance after the event; it is designed to ensure high standards in the first place, and to nip problems in the bud before they ever do patients harm. At its bluntest, what patients want is a system that prevents future tragedies like that at Bristol before they happen, not one that just apportions blame and punishment afterwards. That is what the NHS Bill is designed to do; that is why it commands the support of the profession; and that is what we are determined to achieve.
  Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way eventually. It was apparent to all in the House why he was so evasive at the point at which I first sought to intervene. Will he take this opportunity to make it clear that, when patients are pre-booked for operations or in-patient treatment, of which he has made so much, they come off waiting lists—sometimes several weeks before an operation?
  Mr. Dobson: As the pre-booking system that I have just been describing has not yet begun, it is a little difficult for the hon. Gentleman to say that such things are happening already. The system is entirely new; people on the list are clearly waiting for treatment. Let me make it clear—
  Mr. Brady rose—
  Mr. Dobson: The definition that we inherited from the previous Government is that people who are waiting for treatment go on waiting lists if they are fit and immediately available for surgery, even if they have a booked appointment. I see no reason to change that. The hon. Gentleman should not peddle another misleading approach. You can see how evasive I am, Madam Speaker.
  The NHS Bill will cover a wide variety of measures to improve the quality of treatment and care in every part of the country, and will change the law to improve co-operation between the health service and local social services. All that will be spelt out in due course.
  We propose two legislative changes to protect the taxpayer and the health service's funds. The pharmaceutical price regulatory scheme is being renegotiated. To date, the scheme has been voluntary, and I hope and expect that we shall be able to reach another
  332
  voluntary agreement with representatives of drug companies which meets their legitimate objectives as well as those of the NHS. We have, however, decided to seek reserve powers to ensure that all companies subsequently comply with the agreement. That should have no significant impact on the vast majority which always have complied and are complying at present. It is directed at a small minority of maverick companies. We estimate that their failure to comply has cost the NHS £28 million this year. That cannot be allowed to continue; it must be stopped.
  As announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as long ago as his first Budget last year, we will amend the Road Traffic Act 1988, passed by the previous Government, to make it easier for hospitals to collect from insurance companies the money that they have been entitled in law to collect since the 1930s. The present arrangements simply do not work and, as a result, the NHS is losing a huge amount of revenue. We do not know how much; estimates vary from £30 million a year to more than £500 million a year. Whatever the figure, the extra funds for the NHS will be very useful.
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Lady should let me finish. There are two charges under the present law: an emergency treatment fee of £21.30, which is supposed to be collected at the hospital directly from any motorist who has been involved in an accident. That raises very little, asking for it causes great offence and it is not what NHS accident and emergency staff are there for. The Tories promised to abolish it, and broke their promise. We will abolish it.
  The other charge is levied on insurance companies when a motor accident victim makes a successful claim for compensation. At present, it covers the cost of out-patient treatment up to £295, and the cost of in-patient treatment up to £2,949. That money should have been collected in the past; it was not, but it will be from now on, and I am glad that we are doing it. Apparently, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald does not want me to give way any more.
  Under the Tories, the health gap between the well-off and the badly off widened. It was a shameful consequence of 18 years of Tory rule. The Government are determined to narrow that health gap. In July 1997, shortly after taking office, I invited the former chief medical officer, Sir Donald Acheson, to conduct an inquiry into health inequalities in Britain. I did so because I was determined to make an early start on our mission to reduce health inequalities the top priority in our overall programme to improve the nation's health. Today, I welcome his report. It is a further stage in our unprecedented programme to tackle inequalities in health.
  No previous Government have ever set themselves such ambitious targets, but we are confident that we can succeed, because the whole Government are taking action. Led by the Prime Minister, all members of the Cabinet are working together to tackle the problems that make people ill.
  Poverty is a principal source of ill health. Poor people are ill more often, and die sooner. Our tax and benefit changes, the working families tax credit and the minimum

  333
  wage mean that work will pay a guaranteed minimum of £190 a week for a family. That will guarantee a minimum income of at least £5.50 an hour for a lone parent in work with one child, and £6.37 an hour for an adult with two children.
  A poor start in life is bad for health. Our £540 million sure start programme, under the supervision of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health, will give young children and their parents the child care and support that they need, so that every child in our country is given the best possible start in life.
  A decent education sets people up for better health in later life. Earlier this month, as part of our work to drive up standards in schools, we announced an extra £250 million aimed at children who are disaffected with their schools and with society in general. That should help them.
  Being old and cold in winter because of a lack of money to buy warm clothes and good food, and being afraid to turn the fire on, is bad for health. Our £2.5 billion boost to pensions will ensure that the poorest pensioners are the biggest winners, with a guaranteed minimum weekly income of £75 for single pensioners. That will drive up health standards, as will our plans for annual winter fuel payments, the £150 million investment in home energy efficiency, the availability this winter, for the first time, of flu jabs for all those over 75, and the scrapping of the Tory charges for eye tests for pensioners.
  Low wages can only reasonably be described as a health hazard. We are improving health by introducing a national minimum wage, putting money into the pockets and handbags of the worst off who are in work. Bad housing makes people ill, so we are investing £4 billion in the building of new and better homes for people who have nowhere decent to live. That will improve their health. Being out of work makes people ill; our new deal, financed from the windfall levy and opposed by both Opposition parties, has helped more than 400,000 extra people into jobs.
  By April next year, 13 million people will be helped in 26 health action zones designed specifically to tackle health inequalities in areas including inner cities, coalfield communities, struggling rural areas and places where wealth and poverty live cheek by jowl.
  Mr. David Rendel: Much of what the Secretary of State has announced may be welcomed on both sides, but does he agree that cuts in incapacity benefit and widows' pensions will not improve health?
  Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman should wait to find out what the proposals actually are before commenting on them. No doubt he will say that there ought to be increases, and that they will all be financed by the penny on income tax that the Liberal Democrats have been promising everyone.
  We are investing £800 million in the new deal for communities to help the most deprived parts of the country. A reshaped single regeneration budget of £2.3 billion over the next three years will be targeted on the most deprived authorities to a greater extent than it was under the last Government. The integrated transport White Paper will help to ensure that public transport is a powerful weapon to alleviate poverty, improve access to jobs, and strengthen families and communities. The social
  334
  exclusion unit will continue to co-ordinate a national drive to support people who have been cut off from the mainstream of society, which also damages health.
  We are already doing most of what is called for in the Acheson report. We are tackling health inequalities with action throughout Government, and there is an important—although not exclusive—role for the Department of Health. Modernising the health service and ensuring fair access in every part of the country to services is a vital component of that effort.
  Health action zones are already starting to identify and tackle health inequalities in the most deprived areas. There will be a network of healthy living centres throughout the country which will be working to improve the health of the worst-off. We shall soon be publishing our White Paper against smoking, with action focused on the socially disadvantaged who are most likely to smoke and therefore most likely to suffer the evil consequences.
  Our Green Paper, "Our Healthier Nation", made clear our commitment to tackling health inequalities. The Acheson report will be used to ensure that the White Paper on public health, due next year, will be based on the best available evidence.
  I am grateful to Sir Donald Acheson and to the many knowledgeable people who assisted him in producing his report. Inequalities that have persisted throughout the century and often worsened in the past two decades will not be swept away overnight. Their work will be a key influence on our long-term strategy to narrow the health gap.
  All the measures that the Government are taking show that we are not only working to renew and rebuild the health service. We are also tackling the things that make people ill in the first place. It will be a long job and there will be problems along the way. However, we are keeping our promises. We are changing priorities, changing the law and finding the money. No doubt the Tories will now demonstrate that they oppose the whole lot.
  3.41 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: The Secretary of State commented that the Opposition should sometimes say thank you. The right hon. Gentleman has demonstrated clearly that sometimes the Government should say sorry. That is what he should have started by saying.
  The proposals on health in the Queen's Speech show finally and beyond all doubt that the Government are much more interested in political control than in patient care. They further reflect a great wasted opportunity, in that the Secretary of State has not addressed the central problem in the health service, which will trouble any Government, no matter what their political complexion: the huge disparity between expectation and demand and the capacity of resources and manpower to keep up with that expectation and demand.
  The fact remains that even if the Secretary of State were spending all that he is claiming to be spending, it would still not be possible to close that gap. The absence—in this addressing of the health service, which in reality addresses nothing at all—of any serious plan for coping with the single greatest problem of the health service cries out as an indictment against the Government's approach.
  There is something else for which the Secretary of State should apologise, although it is a matter for him: in the course of an exchange with me, he made a frivolous

  335
  comment about Alzheimer's disease. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that Alzheimer's is not a joke. Many people will be grossly offended by what he has said, including people who are caring for the sufferers of Alzheimer's—and I dare say that there are people in the House who fall into that category.
  Political control lies at the heart of the Government's agenda. It is an agenda to control everything from the fiddles in the waiting list statistics to the medicines that a family doctor is allowed to prescribe to patients. That is what the measures in the Queen's Speech will permit the Government to do. There will be top-to-bottom turbulence in our health service that will disrupt and disturb the work of doctors and nurses, and create uncertainty and upheaval for patients for years to come. That is exactly the reverse of what the Prime Minister promised. In June 1996, the right hon. Gentleman pledged to health service managers that there would be no great upheavals. That is another Labour pledge broken.
  The control culture that is being imposed on our health service is set to cause great harm to patients and to the morale of our doctors and nurses. Already our hospitals are buckling under the strain of trying to meet the Government's bogus pledge on waiting lists. We know that operations are being cancelled, that hospitals are facing terrible staff shortages, we know that doctors and nurses are working horrendous hours to force through quick procedures, and the trolley problem is growing. Do we remember the trolley problem? That was what Labour promised to abolish the moment it came to power—[Interruption.]—the patients lying in corridors waiting to be seen, which is now, apparently, a subject of great hilarity on the Government Benches.
  The right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) had the trolley problem in mind when she opined:
  "If I am Secretary of State for Health I will lie awake at night worrying until we get this sorted out."
  I do not want to disturb the peaceful nights that the right hon. Lady is doubtless now enjoying, but Labour's obsession with its fiddled waiting list pledge is resulting in an army of trolleys descending on the health service.
  The situation seems to be particularly serious at the Royal Liverpool hospital. The Liverpool Echo tells of patients waiting for hours on trolleys in hospital corridors, apparently terrified by out-of-control youths. An elderly patient's daughter wrote to me, telling of her mother's seven-hour wait in pain on an uncomfortable and unsuitable light trolley in appallingly hot conditions, just to be seen by the doctors. It is horrifying to hear of a 95-year-old man examined in public on a trolley in the waiting room of the accident and emergency department, to be told that his leg was to be amputated. That happened just one week after the first anniversary of the new Labour Government. The man died one week later.
  Just two years ago, as Leader of the Opposition, the present Prime Minister said:
  "I do not see why people should be kept waiting on trolleys for hours in a modern NHS."
  He promised a task force specifically to look into the problem of patients waiting on trolleys. The right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham promised weekly performance checks on the number of patients waiting
  336
  on trolleys. What happened? Where is the task force? Where are the performance checks? More broken promises, and more early pledges cancelled.
  Another example is the Minister of State's comment on accident victims. He said:
  "The increased charges are a tax on accident victims"
  and described the provision in the Road Traffic Act 1988 as "a sick law". Is it still a sick law, now that he is responsible for widening its scope? If not, how does his proposal differ from the present system, and will the extended charge be compulsory?
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): In the interests of accuracy and the pursuit of truth again—and to set the record straight for the right hon. Lady, as I would not want her to be wrong again—what I have campaigned against both in opposition and in government is the emergency treatment fee. It is insensitive to patients and embarrassing for staff. The right hon. Lady's Government promised to abolish it, but they failed to deliver that promise. This Government are abolishing it, and I am proud that we are.
  Miss Widdecombe: The Minister of State referred to a tax on accidents. If, as a result of the Government's proposals, it is true that insurance premiums will go up—I shall not make a value judgment on whether that should happen or not—is that a tax on accidents? Is that the first new charge that the Labour party is to introduce on free NHS treatment? I shall willingly give way to the Minister of State, who made the comments, but I see that the Secretary of State wants to respond.
  Mr. Dobson: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State was correcting the right hon. Lady's assertions about him.
  We are not introducing anything new. Since 1930 or 1933, depending on one's interpretation, anyone who has been the victim of a road accident and has made a successful claim against an insurance company should have been charged—or his insurance company should have been charged—for the treatment. However, that has not been done. We intend to make the system work as Parliament intended when it re-affirmed that by passing the Road Traffic Act 1988 without any votes against. That is not a tax on accidents, but an emergency charge on anyone who needed treatment was a tax.
  Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance. Is it not out of order for an hon. Member to be reading a newspaper in the Chamber, which, it seems clear, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. King) was doing until a few moments ago?
  Madam Speaker: If a newspaper article relates to the debate, or if information is being obtained from it, it is in order to read it, whether in Committee or in the Chamber.
  Mr. Andy King: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  Miss Widdecombe: I return to the matter in hand, which is the subject of the debate between the Secretary of State and myself.

  337
  I quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman has said, which is that he is seeking to change the system by which money is collected. But he also said that that was to collect it more efficiently and to get the money in. If that is true, I think that he will accept that the additional sum, which has not hitherto been collected as efficiently as it should have been, will have to be covered.
  The question is simply this. If, in the process of covering that—I make no value judgment on whether this should be so; I am simply asking—drivers have to pay more, is that not a charge? The Secretary of State does not want to answer.
  All these problems and bungles are happening at a time when the health service is supposed to be awash with new funding. The Secretary of State never tires of bragging about all the money that he claims to be spending, so how can anyone now believe—
  Mr. Dobson: Is the right hon. Lady's definition of a bungle 18 years of not getting in money to which the NHS was entitled, or a Government who, after 18 months, are going to get that money in?
  Miss Widdecombe: My definition of a bungle is when a Secretary of State does not know what is a charge and what is not. That is a bungle. He is afraid of the word "charge", but when the matter is discussed in the House, the exact extent of the way in which the Government are wriggling out of calling this a charge will become extremely clear.
  How can anyone now believe the Government's warm words about modernisation? The truth is that too much of the money that the hon. Gentleman claims he is spending will go on a new bureaucracy—the bureaucracy that will not be cut in the upheaval that the Prime Minister assured us he was not about to impose on our health service.
  Primary care groups will cost £150 million to set up. Is that a bureaucratic expense or not? Dragooning family doctors into general practitioner collectives—
  The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): Dragooning!
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Lady obviously takes exception to the word "dragooning", so let us examine it.
  When the Conservative Government set up fundholding, it was voluntary. Primary care groups are not voluntary. When we set up fundholding, doctors could choose whether to become fundholders. They have no choice about joining primary care groups.
  Ms Julia Drown: Does the right hon. Lady accept that, in making the system that she mentions voluntary, her Government necessarily set one doctor against another and one patient against another, whereas primary care groups will ensure that patients are treated like with like, and that clinical priority becomes the priority?
  Miss Widdecombe: No, because what the hon. Lady proposes is a levelling down, not a levelling up. By the time that we left office, between 50 and 60 per cent. of general practitioners were either fundholders or had applied to become fundholders because they saw the system working. We introduced the system gradually and
  338
  volunteers entered the first phases, and thereafter it was still voluntary. More and more doctors were joining the system and, had it continued, every doctor would have been either a fundholder or a member of a multifund. That would have given flexibility to each and every doctor to exercise in the interests of each and every patient. Every patient in the NHS with a fundholding doctor had exactly the same rights as any patient going to a private doctor to consult that doctor about where and to whom to be referred. That was what we did with fundholding, and that is what is being abolished. Patients' rights are being abolished, and doctors' rights to their clinical judgments are being abolished.
  There is no choice. They are being dragooned. They are not even being dragooned gradually—it is all happening in one big bang, so that if anything is going to go wrong, it will go wrong universally on the first day. That is the policy of the Government.
  Ms Drown rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) must control her jack-in-the-box tendency. I will not give way at the moment. I have already explained it to her—she wants to level down; the Secretary of State wants to level down; and the Minister of State is wholly committed to levelling down. The Conservative party wants to level up.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I take it from that that the right hon. Lady is opposed to the Government's proposals. Will she elaborate on one linked point? Does she also hold to the view, expressed at her party conference, that the NHS will work properly only if fewer people use it by going private?
  Miss Widdecombe: What I expressed at the party conference was that it was total spending that counted. If one simply looked at public spending, and ignored completely the contribution that people made in their own right, one was necessarily limiting the degree to which we could increase total spending. If the Secretary of State would like to look at the spending patterns of our major European partners, he will find that, whereas public spending differs by a few points of 1 per cent., private spending differs by multiples. Those countries do not have many of the problems that we have because they have learnt that it is total spending that counts.
  Actually, I should not be addressing the Secretary of State—I really ought to be addressing the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). However, it is easy to confuse the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats today, and we are never quite sure when the Liberal Democrats are in opposition and when they are part of the Government.
  Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: For the Opposition or the Government?
  Mr. Hughes: Opposition.
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall give way.
  Mr. Hughes: I wish to press the right hon. Lady a little further. That was a long answer about health funding

  339
  comparisons. Is the short answer to my question that she believes that the health service will only function better if fewer people use it because they go private?
  Miss Widdecombe: I believe that the health service can treat more people and can give a comprehensive range of treatments if some of the burden of expenditure is shared. At the moment—as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey knows, because he has said so in this House—a number of people have no treatment at all and cannot exercise any alternative.
  I have letters from elderly people, telling me that they can no longer receive clinical treatment for varicose veins on the NHS. Several have cashed in their life savings to go private. I make this deduction. Some people cash in their life savings and go private, however difficult that may be. Therefore, there must be people who cannot get the operations that are no longer available and cannot exercise a private alternative. At conference, I said that we would help to get a greater range of treatment available to NHS patients if there were more sharing between the private and the public sectors.
  Perhaps I can return to the Queen's Speech, which we are supposed to be addressing. I am sorry that I was led into a discussion of my party conference. I am flattered that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey took such a close interest in it and I would be delighted to give him a verbatim copy if he wants to study it.
  Dr. Desmond Turner rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: I will give way again later, but I want to make some progress now.
  Let us consider the national institute for the control of expenditure—sorry, I mean the national institute for clinical excellence—which will be the Government's rationing mechanism. As the Government claim that there is no rationing, where is the final directive that the Secretary of State promised on Viagra? I am extremely grateful to Viagra. It solved a very big problem: getting the Government to admit the truth—that the NHS has always rationed, is rationing and is likely to ration increasingly as it is unable to satisfy every last demand for every new treatment.
  That is the truth that I stated at our party conference and that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has also stated, but from which Labour Members consistently hide. The NHS cannot meet every last expectation. Undeniably, the national institute for clinical excellence will lay down what it calls priorities and what the man in the street would call rationing, forcing it on PCGs and removing once again the clinical discretion of individual doctors.
  Can the Minister of State confirm his threat to change the Medical Act 1983 by ministerial edict rather than by secondary legislation if he wants to dismantle the 150-year-old tradition of clinical self-regulation, as exemplified by the General Medical Council? He sits tight.
  The Government told us that NICE and CHIMP—the commission for health improvement—would not require any extra funding, but the British Medical Association and
  340
  the Royal College of Physicians disagree, telling us that without 10 per cent. more consultants, effective pilot schemes and proper evaluation the proposals will be catastrophic. Can the Secretary of State produce 10 per cent. more consultants? Will there be effective pilot schemes? Will he evaluate the proposals before rushing into them? I suspect that the answers will be no, no and no.
  NICE and CHIMP will not be the end of the exciting career opportunities that the Government are creating for Tony's clinical cronies. We are also to have an advisory committee on resource allocation, a capital prioritisation advisory group and local education consortiums. It is unclear how health and local authorities are to be duty bound to administer joint investment plans without new co-ordinating bureaucracy.
  Can this really be what the Government meant when they said that they would divert money from health service managers into front-line patient care? Even without this massive increase in pen pushing, the huge upheaval in the health service under Labour's new structures of political control will devastate patient care.
  The Government are not abolishing the internal market, as they claim. If the Secretary of State needs a definition, the internal market is the purchaser-provider split, and the Government are keeping that, by their own admission. The administrative shock of imposing massive new bureaucracies nationwide, combined with huge regulatory control on family doctors, will be immense, with consequent disturbance to patients.
  The centrepiece of the agenda is the imposition of primary care groups. If they are so popular, one wonders why the Secretary of State does not propose to ballot the medical profession. Why was he not prepared to do that if he was so sure that a majority would be in his favour?
  Mr. Dobson: Some people at the BMA urged the GPs' representatives to hold a ballot and they decided—I assume that they are in contact with the members they represent—that that was not necessary, because the bulk of GPs agreed with what we were doing, following all the consultations we had had with them and the excellent, if tough, negotiations that they had had with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. It is no good the right hon. Lady screeching away about how terrible our proposal is and what harm it will do to general practice, when the general practitioners accept it.
  Miss Widdecombe: But they do not accept it. Since then, the BMA have produced several opinion polls. It was not a comprehensive ballot, but one poll showed that 55 per cent. of doctors wanted nothing to do with the running of primary care groups.
  Will the Secretary of State confirm that, if his Bill is not in place by 1 April—and that is a tight and ambitious timetable—his entire upheaval of family doctor services will be in ruins, because he will not have the power to coerce the many unwilling GPs into collectives? Does he have a contingency plan to avert the chaos that that would bring to our health service or is he hoping against hope that fundholding family doctors will come quietly and surrender their autonomy to his regime of political control?
  According to a poll in BMA News on 4 February 1998—if the Secretary of State wants the reference, although he has had time enough to catch up with the

  341
  findings—55 per cent. of doctors actively want no part in the running of the collective. Can we blame them? Primary care groups are set to make medical eunuchs out of our family doctors by giving them responsibility but taking away power.
  Doctors will have responsibility for rationing, through the guidance of NICE and Prodigy, and prescription budgets will be capped for the first time in the history of our health service. I shall repeat that, in case the Secretary of State missed it: prescription budgets will be capped for the first time in the history of our health service. Doctors will bear the responsibility for the Government's failure to meet their fiddled waiting lists, because doctors will have to reduce their referral rates to hospitals.
  Mr. Tony McNulty: This is no good.
  Miss Widdecombe: No, indeed, the proposals are no good. They are rotten and the hon. Gentleman is right.
  Mr. Dobson: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall give way in a minute. Individual family doctors will have no power to manage their budgets. They will have no power to innovate or to maintain the specialised services that they have developed for patients through fundholding. Doctors will have no power to drive improvements to local hospital services. The Secretary of State is keeping all the power, but he is making others responsible for his policies.
  Mr. Vernon Coaker: The right hon. Lady has gone to great lengths to defend doctors and their professional status. Will she acknowledge that one of the advantages of primary care groups is that they value not only doctors, but nurses, health visitors and all the other people who contribute to the community's health? She is undermining their role in the primary care groups.
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman should ask the nurses, because they complain bitterly that they have been squeezed out. The nurses say that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State gave way to the doctors. The nurses claim that the situation is exactly the opposite to the one that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  Mr. Coaker: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: No. His first intervention was not worth having and the second one almost certainly will not be.
  Mr. Dobson rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: Sit down! I beg your pardon, Madam Speaker. I was not calling on you to sit down. Would the Secretary of State please sit down and wait until I give way to him, which I have said I shall do. I am a lady who keeps her word and I shall give way to him when I come to a natural pause. When I give way I hope that the Secretary of State will answer the following question. Will he admit that his proposals will impose a four-tier service for patients, with the quality of care determined by postcode? Those patients who were previously served in an area with many fundholding
  342
  family doctors will be lucky, because they are likely to be served by a primary care group that is not simply a focus group for the local health authority.
  The right hon. Gentleman should take note of the BMA's GP committee chairman, who has stated that collectives will mean that
  "people in different parts of the country will receive different levels of service… we will see increasing variations in how the NHS is developing… this cannot be good for patient care."
  The most insidious thing of all about that is that the patient will have no choice.
  Mr. Dobson: For once, the right hon. Lady gave us the origin of one of her facts, saying that a poll had shown that doctors were against our proposals, but she admitted that that poll was published in February. I have to tell her that this summer, the British Medical Association, representing doctors, agreed to accept what we are proposing. It is reasonable to assume that those who had been fundholders might have been the most opposed to what we are doing, but today, Clive Park, general manager of the National Association of Primary Care—to which the National Association of Fund Holding Practices has changed its name—has said that it wants to make sure that PCGs work and work well, and that it will support the Government.
  Miss Widdecombe rose—
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I think that I must first answer the Secretary of State's point. Of course doctors, being responsible, will try to make work any legislation that is foisted upon them. They are not irresponsible people, and they will not sit in the streets, refusing to make it work. They will do their best. The point is that the Government are making that extremely hard for them.
  Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. My office spoke yesterday to a fundholders' association, and its president said that there was no point in opposing a Government who have such a large majority that they will twist the doctors' arms. That shows how committed that association is.
  Miss Widdecombe: It does not sound like a terribly enthusiastic endorsement of the Government's proposals.
  Hitherto, patients have been able to choose a fundholding family doctor if they thought that it would benefit their care. Under the GP collectives system, they will be assigned to a PCG simply on the basis of where they live. We will end up with a four-tier service distributed according to postcode.
  Helen Jones: I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Lady has said about patients having the choice of a fundholding practice. That clearly is not true in my constituency where the most deprived areas have few fundholding practices. The people who live there do not have that choice. Under the system introduced by the previous Government, those people had lower levels of primary health care, higher rates of limiting long-term illness and a much worse

  343
  service than that in the more affluent areas in the south of Warrington. Does the right hon. Lady want all that to persist?
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Lady listened to me so carefully that she has made my point for me. That is exactly what I was saying. We wanted to level services up. We wanted patients who did not have fundholding GPs to be able to go to fundholding GPs. We wanted every GP to be a fundholder or a member of a multi-fundholding practice. I have the interests of the hon. Lady's constituents at heart. She would level them all down.
  Quality of patient care will depend on the rung of the primary care group on which the patient's own collective stands. If the collectives are on the first rung, they will be totally toothless, and all that they will be able to do is to advise their health authorities. If they are on the fourth rung, they may have a little freedom, subject to the controls of NICE and CHIMP, to provide something other than a basic service. Labour's collectives will not have any control over their own budgets, or the ability to try to re-develop some of the innovations lost with fundholding until they have been able to wrench free of the grip of the health authorities, and that may take years.
  Let us turn to the Secretary of State's favourite boast—waiting lists. It is well known by now that his official statistics do not begin to reflect the full nature of the problem that he has created. He knows better than anyone that the figures are being fiddled and the patients are being diddled.
  Mr. McNulty: Does the script say, "Pause here for laughter?"
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall go on saying that, because it is true. Labour Members may moan and groan, but they will do more moaning and groaning when their constituents realise exactly what the patient care reforms will mean to them. When they realise that they can no longer discuss with their doctor where and to whom they should be referred, there will be moaning and groaning and the Government will be called to account. I would not be at all surprised if it was the Government's stewardship of the NHS that was the most potent factor in bringing them down at the next general election.
  It is not merely a question of the massive distortions in clinical priorities that have been caused by treating quick, simple cases at the expense of more complex, and often more serious, ones. We need look no further than the Secretary of State's own figures, which show that the number of people waiting more than 12 months has doubled since he came to power. How he can smile about it, I do not know. The British Medical Association has told him time and again that, unfortunately, giving priority for political reasons to patients whose need is less
  "is happening because the Government have put themselves and therefore all of us on a most unfortunate hook."
  Those are the words of the previous chairman, Dr. Sandy Macara. When he referred to "all of us", I think that he meant patients and not merely practitioners.
  The Secretary of State has himself admitted, albeit reluctantly and after a lot of probing and questioning, that there is "some build up" in the waiting list to go on the
  344
  waiting list. In other words, he has shifted the bulge from one list to another. So, when will he publish the combined figure with all his waiting lists added together, as he promised? He has the information already. What is he afraid of? Is he afraid that that will prove that the real waiting lists are still rising as a direct result of his bungling?
  Let me help him, since he has the figures but does not appear to be able to add them up. Doing so would show that for the last month for which figures were available the real waiting lists were up 243,600 since the election—almost five times higher than the figure that the Government now claim.
  The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware of the waiting list for the excision of skin cancers, which, according to a local doctor, currently extends to about four months—four months for a cancer waiting list, that Essex Rivers health care trust refuses even to acknowledge or to put into its submissions to central returns on waiting lists. He likes paper and I can give him the documentary evidence.
  Mr. Dobson: Will the right hon. Lady please give me the documentary evidence and I will deal with it.
  Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman is good at this. "Give me the documentary evidence," he says, "and I will deal with it." Unfortunately, he does not. Instead, he puts a good spin on what has been going on. He does not deal with the problem. For example, when we raised the problem of a child who had certainly waited in excess of the longest limits that the right hon. Gentleman claims, giving the name and all the details of the trust concerned, we were told from the Dispatch Box by the Minister of State—it is in Hansard—that the operation would take place on such and such a date as the trust had always planned. That was a good piece of spin, which was heavily undermined by the fact that a motorcycle courier was dispatched that very evening with the date of the operation.
  Dr. Harris: The right hon. Lady is making an important point about the distortion of clinical priorities produced by the political need to bring down waiting lists rather than waiting times, and the underfunding of operations on an average cost basis. I join her in condemning that practice, but she must be careful not to fall into a similar trap with regard to basal cell carcinomas of the skin, for which a waiting time of four months might be appropriate to enable more urgent operations to be carried out. It is wrong to politicise any individual condition, particularly for people who may be waiting for treatment for such a cancer, which does not need urgent excision.
  Miss Widdecombe: Then the Government should not make rash promises about a maximum waiting time of a fortnight. If that case is to be made, the hon. Gentleman should make it to the Government and convince them. Then we would not have such rash promises.
  The Government have made a pledge, which they are distorting clinical priorities to deliver and they have made another pledge that they are coming nowhere near meeting. If the Government said, with humility, that that is because the problems of the NHS are not susceptible

  345
  merely to political solutions but are deep because demand and supply are so badly out of kilter, we might then have a rational and grown-up debate on the NHS instead of always having to deal with the Government's political priorities.
  The right hon. Gentleman has challenged me to let him know of any fiddles that are going on so that he can sort them out. He has just said so. There is one, so I shall ask him to do something about it right away. It beggars belief that the Government try to claim credit for spurious waiting list falls and refuse to acknowledge the slightest shred of responsibility for the most blatant fiddles, even when those fiddles are the direct result of the climate of fear that the right hon. Gentleman has created in his panic to meet his so-called early pledge. We have found two further fiddles.
  The Withington hospital in Manchester has a two-year waiting list for appointments with an orthopaedic consultant. I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman knew nothing of this, because he has been inaccurately boasting that he had eliminated two-year waiting lists. To get round this inconvenient fact, some patients have been palmed off on to physiotherapy practitioners, thus eliminating them altogether from the waiting list statistics. Again, we have documentary evidence.
  Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that no patients are being kept off waiting lists by hospitals refusing for months to give a firm date for an operation, and then placed on the official statistics at the last moment by offering the patient a date and carrying out the operation super quickly? I should be surprised if he can give that assurance, because, apparently, that is happening in Macclesfield and in Altrincham. Again, I have some documentary evidence. It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to come to the House and, whenever we rumble one of his little fiddles, to say that he will make sure that it does not happen again. [Interruption.]
  Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman has just said honestly that he cannot claim to make sure that that does not happen again. We note that.
  Mr. Andy King: The right hon. Lady is a control freak.
  Miss Widdecombe: Not a control freak. Oh dear, oh dear. If the hon. Gentleman asks the BMA, the nurses, those who will be rationed by NICE and those who may no longer exercise clinical judgment, the words "control freak" would be the first that they would apply to the Government.
  For some time we and the BMA have been calling for a new system of waiting times for particular disease groups, instead of the crude, politicised system of waiting lists. I agree that it is not politically appealing, but it is at least practical and it is the system that measures what matters most to patients—whether they have been waiting for more than the appropriate time. If the right hon. Gentleman decides to go for that system, I will not tease him about how he has abandoned his pledge or his central political boast. I will welcome what he has done and support it. The Opposition will say, "Well done", but I do not somehow think that we will be able to do that.
  May we at least have an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman will investigate ways of moving towards that common-sense approach and away from the discredited,
  346
  crude and fiddled waiting lists that are now posing some danger to patient care? I do not think that he will give that assurance, because his priority is not patient care but political control. It is evident in their scandal of broken pledges and patients on trolleys; in their hidden rationing agenda of NICE and CHIMP; in their refusal to take responsibility, despite taking unprecedented control over clinical judgment and health service planning; in clinical priorities that are being distorted by their waiting list obsession; and in taking choice away from patients and family doctors. As services suffer, patients suffer, waiting lists are fiddled and GPs are dragooned into collectives, this Queen's Speech sets out a blueprint for a centralised, bureaucratic health service set to undergo an unprecedented, deeply unwanted upheaval, where Ministers have all the power and none of the responsibility and where it is all about political control, not patient care.
  Will the Government finally admit that they have failed abysmally on the NHS? Will they admit that the reason for that failure is that for two decades the Labour party deceived the British electorate into imagining that there was some magic wand to wave and that it would be a Labour Government who would wave it? Tell that to the patients who have been waiting for more than 12 months, to those who have found waiting times increased under this Government and to the doctors who are about to lose the power to exercise their judgment on behalf of their patients. Tell that to all those who will find yet another huge bureaucratic upheaval in the NHS. Tell it to the patients lying on trolleys and to all the people who write to me saying that the Government have broken pledge after pledge. [Interruption.] They laugh. The Government find patients on trolleys funny. The man who cracked a cruel joke about Alzheimer's thinks that patients lying on trolleys are funny. Let the nation see them laugh. They will not be laughing when they are called to account for what they have done.
  4.25 pm
  Mr. Terry Rooney: I am inclined to say, "Now for something completely different." I rise principally to speak on social security but I must say a few words about health, especially after that performance.
  Having never had to suffer a night in hospital, and having been a rare visitor to my general practitioner, my knowledge of the health service is limited to the experiences of my family and constituents. My constituents are delighted with the changes that they have seen in the past 18 months. Doctors in the Bradford health authority area willingly and rapidly agreed four primary care groups. The only time that there was a point at issue was when some were asked to cross the boundary into Leeds and there was danger of a revolution, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State understands.
  Since the general election, Bradford health authority has received an additional £43 million, of which £34 million is over and above what was in the plans of the previous Administration. I pay tribute to the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), for his wisdom in selecting Bradford as one of the first health action zones. He knows that much of the bid was based on collaboration between the health authority and the social services department, which is about the best in the country. That is undoubtedly the way

  347
  forward and it is bringing new thinking into the provision of not only health care but health prevention, which must be the focus for the future.
  I must toss in a cautionary note. Under Bradford health authority, there are still two hospital trusts and two community health trusts, with four chief executives, four boards, four finance directors, four personnel directors and all the rest. The sooner they come together, the better.
  Finally on health, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows about the advice, which I regard as nonsense, of the Medical Defence Union to its members never to say sorry. It is time that that advice was challenged for the rubbish that it is. Far too many cases finish in litigation because someone early on, when something has gone wrong—as things always will—refuses to say sorry because their insurance company has told them not to do so. I have had three cases that finished up in unnecessary litigation. Money disappears out of the health service as a result.
  I am pleased by the commitment to the continuation of welfare reform announced in the Queen's Speech. The reform is based on clearly defined and public principles: that all those who can work, should; that there is security for those who cannot; that the state has a responsibility to help people into work, which we are doing through the new deal, education and the national child care strategy; and that work should pay. The minimum wage and the working families tax credit are helping those on the lowest incomes.
  Under this Government, reform is based on those principles, which are maintained throughout, and not on requests from the Treasury. The previous Government doubled the social security budget but poverty increased dramatically. When they left office, 2.3 million children were in families dependent on income support for their sole income, and 1 million pensioners were entitled to income support but did not claim it. Take-up rates where nowhere near what they should have been. For income support, the take-up rate was only 79 per cent. and for family credit only 70 per cent. I am pleased that the Government have started pilot schemes to ensure that those 1 million pensioners claim the benefit to which they are entitled, and to discover the reasons why they have not done so and deal with them. Pensioners are a group who, perhaps more than any other, deserve an adequate income.
  The working families tax credit is welcome because, unlike family credit, take-up will be automatic. The recent announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security about the single gateway represents a magnificent and massive step forward, for two reasons: first, only those who are entitled to benefits will get them; and secondly, those who are entitled will get what they are entitled to get. Sadly, all too often that is not the case at present.
  The Government are already putting their reforms into practice. Pensioners are being given £2.5 billion through the minimum pension guarantee and winter fuel payments. There has been a record increase in child benefit; the disability income guarantee has come on stream; and mobility payments for three and four-year-olds have been introduced for the first time—what a tragedy that it took 20 years to do that.
  348
  Reform of the ridiculous and discredited all-work test has been proposed. What a testament to the previous Government that is: one is either fit for work, in which case one is kicked down to the job centre to sign on and start looking for a job, or one is unfit for work; there is nothing in between. That is nonsense. On that basis, no one should ever claim incapacity benefit, because there is always one day in the week when one feels able to do something. A system that judges people to be either fit or unfit for work, with nothing in between, is a joke.
  I welcome the extension to one year of the period in which people who are in receipt of incapacity benefit can try work and see whether they are fit for it, without fear of losing their entitlement. The most recent statement on widows and widowers is welcome, because for the first time all people—male and female—in that sad position will be treated in the same way. In addition, we shall be supporting people, especially those with children, in their time of need.
  Two areas of welfare epitomise the difference between the Labour Government and the previous Administration—disability living allowance and the Child Support Agency. We had the nonsense of 40 per cent. of all lifetime awards of the care allowance element of DLA being on the lowest rate. If one is in such a condition that one needs an award for life, it is nonsensical to be given only the minimum rate. Logically, a lifetime award should be at the higher rate. In addition, far too many DLA claims—about 50 per cent. of the total—were awarded without any medical evidence being produced to support them.
  We need to ensure that those who are entitled to DLA receive it, but, because of the lax manner in which the system was set up and the lack of training given to staff, far too many awards are incorrect. However, the benefit integrity project has been a disaster and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to abolish it and introduce a reasonable, fair and sensible means of assessment. We need to move forward.
  The Child Support Agency has been heavily criticised and much debated in the House. Seven years after its inception, and despite three major pieces of legislation, only one in eight parents with care get the full maintenance to which they are entitled. What a testament to the previous Government. The principal problem with the CSA is that, right from the start, it was not child focused. It was not about the family, it was about the need of the Treasury. That was the driving force from day one, which is why it has become such a mess.
  The proposals in the Green Paper published earlier this year have been the subject of wide consultation and I believe that the principles have been widely accepted. The consultation was genuine and many of the comments received have been taken on board. When the legislation is published, we shall see the benefits of that consultation and of the Government having taken advice from a wide range of sources, instead of presuming that they know best. The system we propose will give genuine support to families and it will be fair, transparent and simple. People will understand, accept and respect the new child support system. We are developing an active modern service for claimants to replace the dead hand of bureaucracy. The linkage with the Employment Service in assistance schemes to get people into work is of real benefit.

  349
  Tremendous economic benefits are associated with being in work. The roots of prosperity will always be through work and never through the benefits system. However, it is important that proper conditions of work are maintained. I welcome particularly the Government's fairness at work proposals that we expect to see translated into legislation—especially those such as parental leave, which will affect families. The Government's extension of the maternity leave qualification, which has changed from two years to one year, will affect some 1.5 million women. The change in statutory maternity leave from 14 to 18 weeks will benefit 2.3 million women.
  Those in work will have a better standard of living in the future through the introduction of the minimum wage. The working time directive—which has been much derided by the Opposition—will benefit families. It is a fact that, in the 1990s, it is still acceptable for people to work 60, 70 and 80 hours a week. How is that consistent with a family friendly employment policy? It is not.
  The welfare reform programme, although good in itself, cannot be viewed in isolation. It must be linked to other social programmes if it is to bring combined benefits. We must address poverty and injustice and make work pay. We must remove barriers to work and ensure decent terms and conditions at work. We need a modern, active social security system that provides help to those in need when they need it and dispenses with the bureaucracy of the past. We must recognise that people can better themselves through work and provide employment opportunities to those who need them.
  We have addressed the poverty of income, but we must address also the poverty of expectation. I am sure that all hon. Members will identify with the situation in my constituency where there are boys and girls of six, seven or eight whose older brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, grandparents and aunts and uncles are out of work. Those children go on to become truants and disruptive pupils because they see no point in education when they will not be able to get a job when they leave school. We must eliminate the poverty of expectation and give that generation the hope and the opportunities that, sadly, too many of their parents and grandparents were denied. They were abandoned by the previous Government. The knock-on effects in terms of health and education are enormous and there are great bounties to be reaped.
  My right hon. Friend spoke eloquently about the effect of poverty on health, and a similar argument applies to education. We must take a wide-ranging look at those issues. I look forward to the forthcoming pensions Green Paper. Nobody wants to see the present situation repeated in the future. Too many people are approaching old age with insufficient incomes. We need a permanent, and I believe compulsory, second-tier pension system. We have had compulsory second-tier pensions in the form of the state earnings-related pension scheme since 1975, and we must translate that into stakeholder pensions so that future generations do not suffer income poverty.
  In conclusion, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his work so far. I look forward to the publication of the legislation mentioned in the Queen's Speech and hope that further measures will be taken. More power to his elbow.
  4.39 pm
  Mr. Michael Heseltine: When reading through the Gracious Speech and the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, the single overwhelming conclusion one draws is the stark contrast between the reality of the Government's actions and the rhetoric in which they clothe those actions. The Gracious Speech contains much high-flown talk about enhanced competitiveness and an effective economy, but it also contains many measures to move the economy in precisely the opposite direction.
  A naivety seems to flow from the Prime Minister's rather breathless approach. He thinks that, if he says something, it will happen. Anyone who is a connoisseur of such matters should read Hansard, in which he talks about
  "making this country No. 1 in… electronic commerce".—[Official Report, 24 November 1998; Vol. 321, c. 36.]
  Anyone who has any idea about what is happening in the world will understand that, in electronic commerce, the Americans are light years ahead of anything that is happening yet in this country. The world has shrunk in recent decades. It is ludicrous to pretend to the House that introducing legislation on electronic commerce will enable us to close the gap between this country and north America.
  Perhaps even more naive is the hostility with which the Government approach the previous Government's record. Britain has a position of strength in electronic publishing relative to parts of Europe, but that is because, in the 1980s, we made all the difficult decisions to privatise and deregulate, all of which were ruthlessly opposed by the Labour party. We know exactly where the heart of the Government lies—in yesterday's ideas and yesterday's solutions. Although they understand that most of those are out of date, unfashionable and unpopular, they are edging back, in their legislative proposals, to the practices, assumptions and policies that failed the country so dismally in the past.
  Today's debate centres on the health service. I listened with great care to the opening speeches. Two fundamental weaknesses emerged in the case advanced by the Government. The first was brilliantly exposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), when she made the point that, to reduce waiting lists, the Government are dealing with the easy cases. Of course that is desirable, and I have no complaint about it, but if, in the broad spectrum of health care, a mercifully small number of cases are relatively serious and a huge number can be coped with quickly, the easy, cheap way to get the plaudits of the crowd is to deal first with the easier cases.
  When my right hon. Friend made that point, there was no flicker of recognition by the Secretary of State that she had stumbled on the essence of what he is doing, which is to preside over a rise in the number of more serious cases. The heart of my right hon. Friend's case is that the Government are in the business of levelling down. They are pandering to numeracy and the case that is being argued about statistics, but they ought to be preoccupied with the quality of the service.
  My right hon. Friend made an important point that contradicted the Secretary of State's case, which was that the Government have talked to doctors, and, of course, many are hostile to what they are doing, but—he used a

  351
  quotation—they have decided to co-operate. Doctors will always co-operate. They are passionate in the pursuit of health and the interests of their patients. They will not let anyone down, whoever are the Government of the day.
  Under the system of fundholding introduced by the previous Government, we tried to put doctors into a position of power as close to decision-making as possible, so that they could judge their patients' best interests. That was not popular with the great baronies of power—the vested interests of the unions and bureaucracies. We all know that they never want front-line people to be given the power to exercise individual discretion.
  The Secretary of State's case was that doctors did not need to worry, because the Government will set up primary care committees, and doctors can elect the majority of their members and even be the chairman. If I were a doctor, I would shudder at that prospect. What does it mean? Doctors will have to become involved in the politics of the health service. Instead of dealing with their patients in their practice, they will have to go to committee meetings, stand for election and sit on the committee with people from different pressure groups, which all have a political agenda. That is enormously time-consuming. If one has the stomach for it, one may prevail, but the vast majority of doctors did not go into the medical profession to become politicians.
  Having regard to some of the politicians who have done so well on the left of politics as experts in the manipulation of committees, I do not blame doctors for not wanting to spend their valuable time trying to advance the interests of their profession by the bureaucratic process of negotiating their way through a labyrinth of committees.
  In any human activity, including medicine, one has to make difficult decisions. It is essential that we trust people to experiment, make decisions, explore alternatives and exercise initiative. That was happening under the fundholding arrangements, which is why doctors were voluntarily adopting them. That flexibility will now be replaced by a centralist system that will gradually impose the will of the Department of Health on the medical profession. That will not succeed. It will lead to trouble. Ministers will get into an appalling mess when things go wrong, and they will be hauled to the Dispatch Box to account for a myriad of errors that are not their immediate, personal responsibility, but, the politics of the system being what it is, they will be in the firing line.
  The vast majority of people think that the health service is a fantastic achievement. They thought so under the previous Government; they think so under this Government; and they will go on doing so, but the Secretary of State's proposals will politicise the service.
  As the Secretary of State knows, I have to explain to my constituents why a hospital will be closed. No hospitals in my constituency were closed when the Conservatives were in power. [Interruption.] No, they were not. The Secretary of State has generously agreed to receive a delegation of my constituents so that they can listen to a Labour Minister explaining why this munificent Government, with all their extra money, are threatening to close a hospital.
  Miss Widdecombe: One of many.
  Mr. Heseltine: One of many, as my right hon. Friend says. She was generous enough not to make that point at great length in her opening speech, but I suspect that my colleagues will want to make it.
  Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Gentleman brought a delegation to see me. I have agreed to receive other Conservative Members who represent parts of Oxfordshire. They will tell me that they want to keep their hospitals open, and that the right hon. Gentleman's hospital should close.
  Mr. Heseltine: As the right hon. Gentleman has spent his life trying to explain the conflict about priorities in the health service, he should not be surprised about that. That is the legitimate responsibility of a Member of Parliament. He should be concerned by the fact that I am not the only hon. Member from Oxfordshire who has made a representation about a proposed hospital closure—my colleagues also face hospital closures. Why did the Secretary of State read out a long list of new hospitals that will be constructed, but make no reference to the fact that hospitals in Oxfordshire are threatened with closure? I find that extraordinary, when so much extra money is apparently available.
  Miss Widdecombe: Is my right hon. Friend not also surprised that that should be happening when, before the general election, the then shadow Secretary of State for Health said that the Labour party had no plans for a programme of hospital closures?
  Mr. Heseltine: No, I am not a bit surprised. That is exactly what I would have expected of the then Labour Opposition. They said anything to con the people into believing that they had miracle solutions. Having got into government, they have had to face up to reality, which for my constituents means facing hospital closure.
  Dr. Harris: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heseltine: No, I shall not.
  The wider issue is not merely one of trying to stifle individual initiative in the health service and remove competitiveness—those themes run through the Gracious Speech. There will be trade union reform. The Government use charming words about a new partnership between managers and employees. If one genuinely wants higher-quality industrial relations, one must create such partnerships. That is the aim of Investors in People, an excellent programme that the Government support. The one way to bring it juddering to a stop is to bring the unions back into the process. Once the unions are in charge, there is another career pattern and another range of motives—and all of us know exactly what happened when they were involved in the process before.
  The union leader wants to enhance his own reputation. Where he can, he wants to create the impression that he is fighting for the lads and lasses in the factories, but, before long, there are tensions between managers and union representatives. Discussions take place behind closed doors; the union representatives leak what was said, to the disadvantage of management; the process festers, and the situation deteriorates. The union leader then becomes part of a national chain. People want to climb the union ladder. To do so, they have to be seen to

  353
  be fighting local battles. The more battles they can fight and the more rows they can create, the more they attract the activists in the union chain who can promote them to national leadership.
  There is thus an agenda quite different from that of the company whose interests the representatives were first elected to serve. That process has gone from this country. We have excellent industrial relations and increasing productivity, and we are more competitive than ever before, but what is to happen now? The unions are to get their privileges back. It is a retrograde step, which will prejudice our recovery and our progress towards increased competitiveness.
  The story is the same in local government. We are told that we are to have more modern local government. There is a great case for that, and I am the first to say it. We cannot get councillors of the calibre we need. No party finds it easy to recruit men or women of the calibre required to command the scale of resources involved in local government. Councillors do not have the experience necessary to challenge the bureaucracies on which they have been elected to serve.
  One would have hoped that the Government would tackle the problem. I have no doubt that we must move towards the introduction of directly elected chief executives who are paid an income corresponding to the level of their responsibilities. That should be done as a matter of urgency. It would create a far greater sense of local accountability. The Government are committed to the experiment, but does it appear in the Gracious Speech? No, and why not? It does not appear because it is a complicated idea. Instead, we understand that compulsory competitive tendering is to be ended. The challenge of balancing services and their value and cost is to be removed from the marketplace, and CCT is to be replaced by what is known as best value.
  Best value is another classic example of this Government's public relations skills. Who can possibly be against best value, but how does one decide what it is? Who decides? One has only to ask that question in the Government's presence to know exactly who is going to decide. The people who are administering the systems will decide, and will do so in cahoots with the unions and the direct labour organisations.
  That is transparent, but what will the consequence be? The consequence will be a monopolistic regime from which the chill of private sector competition is eliminated, under which costs go up, restrictive practices are tolerated, and the abuse of the democratic process, characteristic of Labour's long-held monopoly over local government, is perpetuated.
  The Government talk about raising standards in education. I go along with that. The quick and easy way to do it is to start sacking some head teachers in Labour authorities where the standards are unacceptable. How many head teachers have been removed since the Government came to power? Why have the Government not done anything? They have the power, and they tell us that they want higher standards. They have been in office 18 months, so what is holding them back? It is the rhetoric of a broad, happy, smiling body of people running the country in everyone's interest that prevents them from challenging the vested interests of the power groups on which so much of their political support depends.
  354
  If anyone is looking for the worst housing conditions in the country, I can tell him where to find them.
  Mr. Patrick Hall rose—
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman probably represents some of those very places. The worst housing conditions are to be found in the urban constituencies that have been represented for the longest time, at municipal and national level, by Labour politicians. The conditions in which many people live in public sector housing are scandalous, and the worst scandals are to be found where the Labour party is in charge. How can one begin to argue that that situation should be tolerated under a system called best value? It has nothing to do with "value" and nothing to do with "best"; it is simply about paying off the unions for the support they gave the Labour party in the general election.
  Mr. Hall rose—
  Dr. Alan Whitehead rose—
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentlemen should relax. I listened to the Secretary of State for a long time, so I hope that hon. Members will be kind enough to listen to what I have to say.
  The situation is even worse, because the problem does not end with the elimination of the competitive challenge in local government. We are now to have a whole new tier of local government. There are menaces inherent in that. To begin with, it is a menace in itself.
  We all know about Labour's desperate position in Scotland. Labour has decided that the only way to deal with its problems there is to pander to Scottish nationalism by pretending that devolution will change something. Once there is devolution in Scotland, there has to be devolution in Wales, although the Welsh do not want it. Then we have to think about what to do in England, and we now have a ludicrous scheme for a mayor in London and, before we know where we are, we are witnessing the regionalisation of England.
  The first step is to get rid of English Partnerships, which is an extremely effective weapon to bring about the regeneration of stress areas. No one is keener on that than I or the Government in which I served. English Partnerships is being broken up into regional development agencies. I know exactly what will happen. The advice given to the Secretary of State will be clear. He will be told that strategic thinking is needed—along with academics and unionists, this, that and the other—to create a plan.
  By the time the Government seek re-election, the regional development agencies will have been set up, a fortune will have been spent on consultants, many urgent decisions will have been delayed, and a plan will have been produced. The moment a plan has been produced, there will be an election, and whoever becomes Secretary of State will say that he does not like the plan, and wants to have another look at it.
  The essence of urban regeneration and regional renewal is site-led. One has to have local projects and policies to deal with specific problems. It is not about a concept for the north-west of England, for example. There is no such thing as the north-west of England, as is clear to anyone

  355
  who lives there or knows that part of the country. Manchester does not get on with Liverpool; Preston is a long way north—
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Don't forget Macclesfield.
  Mr. Heseltine: Macclesfield leads the bunch.
  The way to rejuvenate such areas is to have a macro-economic policy for growth and stability, and then to stimulate local communities. That is why I believe in directly elected chief executives. However, we are to have these great bureaucracies inserted between national Government and existing local government. That means more delay and more cost.
  My final point is a chilling one. I am a European. I believe that this country's best interest is served by our playing a leading role in the European Community as it is now emerging. I have believed that for 40 years, and I believe it today as profoundly as ever. We have to fight within Europe for the United Kingdom. However, there is another European agenda, which is a federalist one. It wants to bypass the nation state.
  Federalists want to bypass the nation state because they realise that, if they can regionalise Europe, they can exercise a much more pervasive influence from Brussels and through the European Parliament than they will ever be able to do if the nation states are the building blocks of Europe. What the Government are doing—I doubt whether they have even thought that this is what they are doing—is creating a blueprint that brings this country into line with a potentially regionally governed Europe.
  It is as sure as night follows day that the Labour party will lose to the nationalists in Scotland. The nationalists will go to Brussels, and Brussels will pay them, as it pays the Irish, to bring about an artificial, short-term prosperity in that country. That is what will happen. The Welsh will say, "If it is good enough for Scotland, why isn't it good enough for us?"
  By that time, people in the north-west, the north-east and the south-west will be saying, "What about these lousy regional development agencies? They have no teeth. They are just talking shops dominated by the Treasury in London. We need directly elected regional assemblies, and then we'll be able to go to Brussels, like the Scots and the Welsh, in order to try to get our handout." This place will become increasingly unimportant, as the power is shifted, with the money, towards a regional process in Europe.
  Many other European countries are already ideally suited to such a concept. The German lander are a very obvious example, as are the great departments of France. Italy, as a state, was put together only just over 100 years ago. One can see how that concept of Europe is fed by what the Government—wittingly or unwittingly—are doing in breaking up the United Kingdom's coherence.
  I see this Government as very much the successor of the Attlee Government of 1945—a Government of big ideas, who nationalised the Bank of England, introduced punitive taxation and nationalised the commanding heights of the economy. It took us 50 years to get rid of those ideas and to restore prosperity to the British people. This Government are on a different journey, but the consequences could be as bad.
  5.1 pm
  Ms Bridget Prentice: I welcome the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, particularly on raising standards in the health service, which, sadly, have been eroded over the past 18 years. In his absence, I should like to make a plea to him through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. If we must listen to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) speak at such a decibel level, will he guarantee hearing tests for us all afterwards to check whether we have gone deaf?
  The theme of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health was modernisation, not just in the health service but throughout areas in which the Government are trying to make changes. I want especially to address another area in which we can help to create a healthy society: youth justice. If my right hon. and hon. Friends will bear with me, I shall speak on that aspect of the Queen's Speech, despite the theme of today's debate.
  I say in passing to the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) that he clearly does not understand what best value is about. Labour local authorities are quite prepared to ensure that their communities receive the best service, regardless of where it comes from. If he wants to see that in practice, he is welcome to visit my authority of Lewisham.
  Two years ago, there was a serious problem with young people causing mayhem in Downham, a part of my constituency. The local police, the council, teachers, community workers and youth workers got together to consider ways in which they could try to solve the problem. A few months before the election, my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary visited Downham, with me, to see what was being done, and was told that, despite being very proactive, the police were constrained by the length of time that it took to get young people through the courts. I therefore particularly welcome the part of the Gracious Speech that refers to modernising the youth justice system.
  Not only do court delays affect the young person who is charged: they have a detrimental effect on the victims, and create frustration and pessimism throughout the community. At the moment, a court can do very little—in fact, nothing—to guarantee the attendance of boys and girls between the ages of 10 and 16. If they fail to attend, the first sanction at the disposal of the court is remanding into local authority accommodation. If they fail to attend a second time, their files are marked "No appearance", and a warrant is issued. The defendant must then be arrested, and the process repeated. In other words, bureaucracy moves very slowly. The young person has the opportunity to commit further crimes, and the local community suffers as a result. The only other option would be for the local authority to apply for a secure accommodation order, although, as we know, they are very few and far between and costly. Local authorities are therefore reluctant to do so.
  I encourage my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his Bill on youth justice either to instigate further, better and stricter bail conditions for young people that youth magistrates are able to implement quickly, so that young people who break such conditions are brought back to court much faster, or to implement section 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which has not yet been brought into force, but which provides the courts with

  357
  directed, secure remands. As a result, young people who continue to fail to attend court or to comply with set conditions can be prevented from committing further crimes, to the great benefit of the courts, the agencies that support communities, and the witnesses, all of whom are concerned to bring about a much speedier conclusion.
  Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security pass on my concerns about the youth justice system? I welcome the fact that it is to be modernised, although we must ensure in the Bill that, when a young person is arrested, it does not take six months or longer before he is brought to court. By imposing more stringent bail conditions or bringing into use section 60 of the 1991 Act, we can ensure both that the young person does not end up with many offences to be taken into consideration and that witnesses and victims see the matter being dealt with quickly.
  The work on the Downham estate, where the community has worked together and youth workers especially have acted as a preventative team, targeting young people who they believe are likely to commit offences and working with them, has made life much better. It is important to underline that youth workers do not take the view that they should not make value judgments of the young people with whom they deal. In fact, that is their raison d'etre. We must consider such matters in the youth justice Bill, so that young people are dealt with quickly and effectively, the courts have the strength and power to implement proposals, and communities benefit.
  5.8 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I should like to take up two of the comments of the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice), who is a near parliamentary neighbour. I support her plea for speedy youth justice, and I hope that it is heeded. I, like her, have some experience of the failure of the system. Young people understand far more if they are dealt with quickly. I disagree profoundly, however, with her motto, "Come to Labour authorities to see good value". Lewisham may be wonderful, but if Southwark were ever held up as a model local authority, many in this Chamber would be hugely surprised. Sadly, in many respects, Southwark is not yet a good Labour authority—or a good authority at all. The sooner that we have good quality services in Southwark, the sooner that my constituents will be happy.
  When William Beveridge produced his report in 1942, he made it clear that a national health service was the precondition of a good welfare state. It is therefore appropriate that this debate links welfare and the health service—and logical that we debate health first and welfare later. I am sad to note that no health Minister is currently present, although the Secretary of State for Social Security is here.
  Today is Thanksgiving day in the United States. We all give thanks for our good health, and hon. Members have often joined hands in giving thanks for the national health service. As the 50th anniversary year nears its close, we give thanks as loudly as ever. Let me say to the Secretary of State for Health—although he is not present—that none of us intend to criticise those in the health service who are trying to do a very good job.
  The Minister for Public Health has just arrived. May I ask her to convey some information to the Secretary of State? On one occasion during the past year and a half,
  358
  I have misrepresented someone's position. Two weeks ago, we had an exchange about South Devon healthcare trust. The trust used the phrase "pending lists" rather than referring to waiting lists, and I suggested that people on pending lists were not included in waiting-list figures. I was corrected, and I apologise to the trust and those who work for it. I say, unreservedly, that we should always give accurate information, and if we make mistakes we should admit to them.
  I hope, however, that, as a consequence of our debates about waiting lists and waiting times, a common form of wording will be introduced. I also hope that a common system will be introduced for the publication of figures relating to out-patient and in-patient waiting times, so that the statistics are objectively valid and can be checked and there is no massaging of statistics, either by Government or by those trying to criticise Government. A senior member of the staff of the King's Fund called for such a system only earlier this week.
  Today's debate coincides with the launch of the Acheson report, whose commissioning by the Government we welcomed. Like the Black report before it, it sets out a range of measures—thirty-nine steps—to reduce health inequality and improve public health. It is important for the nations of the United Kingdom to understand that, even with the best health service in the world, the sickness service—for that is what the NHS is—will be of relative rather than better worth unless we improve public health.
  I applaud the appointment of a Minister for Public Health, and, like the current Minister, I want us to have a public health service that is as effective and integrated as possible. I shall make a couple of positive observations first, and then issue a couple of promptings that will be constructively critical of the position that the Government have reached over their first 18 months in office.
  We all remember the section of the Labour manifesto entitled "We will save the NHS", in which the Labour party made a welcome commitment. It stated:
  "Smoking is the greatest single cause of preventable illness and premature death in the UK. We will therefore ban tobacco advertising."
  Sadly, there was a blip—a glitch, or hiatus—last year. Regrettably, unless the Government bring the date forward, the manifesto commitment will not be fully implemented until 2006, which, especially in the light of the Acheson report, may be far too late. I hope that tobacco advertising will be banned much earlier than that.
  The manifesto made another commitment in the next sentence: to
  "establish an independent food standards agency."
  Many people, not just politicians, regret the absence of a measure for that purpose in the Queen's Speech. The public regularly express strong views about the need for better food standards.
  It is a case of "not yet" for the banning of tobacco advertising, and for the food standards agency; and, sadly, there are to be free eye tests—but not dental checks—but not for all. Both used to be available to all, but the Tories abolished that, and the Labour Government are reintroducing free eye tests only for pensioners. That is a shortfall, and I hope that the Government will think again.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) pointed out in an intervention—I hope that he will catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker—less help

  359
  will be given to widows and disabled people. It was announced in the Queen's Speech that their benefits would be cut. We shall have further debates about that, but it clearly will not help to reduce inequality for those in these categories concerned.
  The commitment to reduce inequality also contains no commitment to redistribute wealth, which means taking from the well-off as well as giving to the less well off. The Government have policies to improve the conditions and wealth of the less well off, but they have resolutely set their face against collecting more from the better-off. Some of us believe—and our party voted to this effect at its conference—that there should be redistribution of wealth as well as an increase in the wealth of those at the bottom of the league.
  These are important issues. I am glad that the debate has begun again, 20 years after the Black report. I hope also that the Minister will persuade her colleagues that we should debate public health and inequalities in health, on the basis of Sir Donald Acheson's excellent recommendations, in Government time and relatively soon, after we have all had time to read the report.
  I want to raise a couple of other matters that do not relate to the NHS Bill. I know that the Minister, like me, is committed to ensuring that our efforts and resources are directed as much towards mental as towards physical health. I look forward greatly to the Government's announcement about its mental health policy. My health authority, Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham—the largest in the country in terms of population—gave me its figures this morning. In a population of about 750,000, 100,000 people suffer from mental illness—roughly one in seven. That is not unusual in urban areas, and, indeed, other parts of the country.
  In terms of mental health, a person may be fine one year, but not the next. It might be us one day, and someone else the following day. People need to know that resources, support and, where appropriate, drugs that they may need are considered a priority by the Government. I am not saying that the Government do not understand that, but we must continue to remind each other that our duty to those with mental illness is as great as our duty to those with physical illness.
  Let me now raise a matter that is also in the domain of the Minister for Public Health. It is appropriate that it should be raised this week. There is still a battle to be waged against HIV and AIDS. We have been waging that battle, but we have not won it. The Terrence Higgins trust has told the Minister, who responded in a recent interview, that although the prevalence of HIV in this country is relatively low—22,000 cases—there are still 2,500 new diagnoses each year. Of those cases, about 1,500 are men—often gay men—and young people form a high proportion.
  We must spare no effort. Perhaps there is some complacency because, owing to vaccines and therapies, people with HIV do not necessarily look as though they will automatically die of AIDS. Unless we continue the attack with publicity, information and education, as well as funds—an attack that may have to be very hard-hitting—we may not be able to win the battle. I hope that winning it will remain a high priority, and that we realise that such action is our duty in this country as much as in other parts of the world.
  360
  Two Bills were proposed in the Queen's Speech, the NHS Bill and a supplementary Bill relating to charges. I believe that services and staff in the NHS are more important to people outside than structures. The Government say that they will abolish the two-tier NHS. Under the Tories, people were given either fast or slow treatment, depending on who their GPs were. That practice is to be abolished, which we welcome; but in some areas there will be a three-tier NHS caused by rationing. There will be some treatment for some people, and private treatment, or no treatment, for others. The Government have yet to grasp that nettle.
  The Government say that they will abolish the internal market. They must be careful, because that is not actually true. The purchaser-provider split will remain—we accept and support that—but the internal market will also remain: reduced, yes, remaining yes, and abolished, no. Let me give an example. If a primary care group is able to choose where to send its patient, there is choice and therefore, to an extent, a market. What will happen to what were called extra-contractual referrals? I understand that they are not being abolished, but are merely being renamed. Let us not delude people into believing that the system has been completely changed.
  The Government say that they will reduce bureaucracy. That may happen, and the Government say that they will maintain their £1 billion cost reduction target; but it is another case of "not yet". According to this week's newspapers, 500 new managers will be appointed under the new proposals. I am not against additional managers but let us not pretend that bureaucracy will be reduced if there are to be more.
  The Government talk about established primary care groups. We think that that is a flawed and second-best proposal, which we shall seek to amend and improve. A radical and sensible Government would have merged health and social services authorities, and would have done so under democratic control. A radical and self-confident Government would not have given in to doctor influence over the composition of primary care groups, which delivered them a majority and the chair in every instance. A sensible and democratic Government would not try to rush changes through now. They would have a start date later than next April to enable proper scrutiny of the proposals and the concept embodied in the proposed legislation to ensure that it is up and running properly and not rushed to meet an artificial target.
  We are in favour of health improvement plans, but they should be led by democratic local health authorities and social services authorities. That is where the debate can take place.
  We support the raising of standards as we support the health improvement commission. It is not as radical a concept as that which we have proposed in the past, when we said that there should be a national inspectorate of health and social care.
  We support the idea that it is necessary to deal with people who are not up to the job. However, let us not confuse having a go at people who are not up to the job with having a go at those who are overstretched in trying to do their job because there are not others to help them do the job. The patient needs an NHS contract to know what service, standard and speed he can expect, but there must be the staff to deliver the service and the money to deliver the staff.

  361
  We are in favour of reducing inequalities but that means equal access to health care throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. Access cannot be available in one area and not in another. We shall achieve greater equality only if we face the fact that in some areas patients are not receiving treatment at all. There is rationing, as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, as there has always been. The sooner that the Government own up to the R word, the more realistic the debate will be.
  It may be inappropriate to ban effective but expensive drugs, and we must ensure that everything we do is effective. That has not always happened in the past. Statutory control of drug prices is a large and complicated issue, but our gut reaction would always be to support it. However, the objective should be a reduction of unnecessary drug use in Britain; there should not be drug rationing where drugs are needed. Some people, including those who are mentally ill, often need drugs that at present they do not receive because they are told that they cannot be afforded.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: I will not give way. I would like to do so but I was told that if my remarks were brief one of my colleagues might be able to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair later. If I am not brief, that will not be possible.
  Reserve powers to increase regulation of the professions are important. We support absolutely the registration of all the professions that are allied to medicine, or waiting to be registered—for example, psychologists, chiropodists and physiotherapists. I hope that Ministers will introduce such proposals in forthcoming legislation so that all the relevant bodies can be registered. If someone sees a plaque on a door bearing the word "Chiropodist", he should be confident that that person is a real chiropodist, not a would-be chiropodist. There are many professions that are disadvantaged by pirates and rogues.
  There is a difficult balance to be struck in regulating the professions. The General Medical Council and the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting have been making every effort to get it right. I support their efforts. We should examine whether auditing practice can ensure that we deliver the best quality people. The hon. Member for Lewisham, East and I have constituencies that share the same health authority, which has a minority of poor doctors. Getting rid of poor doctors is an almighty difficult job, and that is not acceptable. For every poor doctor there is a much higher risk of mistreatment. We must be willing to introduce reserve powers although that might not happen now.
  There is a problem with amending the Road Traffic Act 1988, and that is not because necessary legislation has not been on the statute book. We have had that legislation since the 1930s. What is the logic in levying money from insurance companies where the victim successfully claims compensation after a road accident but not where someone claims after an industrial accident or makes a claim after falling over in his local park or on the pavement, or makes a claim against someone else? We are talking of a charging mechanism, and if we are to
  362
  consider charging an insurance company or others, we must consider all the circumstances and not some of them. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will be critical and will scrutinise carefully the charging proposal. We are not yet persuaded.
  My colleagues and I have been engaged in a bit of a discussion recently about what collaboration there should be between Liberal Democrats and the Government. For a long time we have put a proposal to the Government, which I hope will be accepted with or without closer collaboration before the close of the 50th anniversary of the NHS. We propose that there should be a standing conference on the national health service, which should be separate from this place and from party politics, where we could debate how we might recruit and retain the staff that we need. That is necessary because we have a staffing crisis. We could debate how we might raise and spend the funds and resources that we need. We have an underlying resource crisis. We could debate also how we might face rationing, because we have a rationing crisis too.
  We believe that the three Rs—it is technically four if recruitment and retention are taken separately—are the crucial issues for the health service, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said the other day. If we can secure the best structures, staffing and quality outcomes for the NHS against the background of best public health, whatever our parties, we shall be serving the patients and the people of Britain best. That is the challenge, and we shall be a constructive opposition for the rest of the Parliament to ensure that the Government do as well as possible to respond to it.
  5.26 pm
  Mr. Patrick Hall: I shall concentrate on the national health service, but I was fascinated by what I thought to be a new policy initiative on education that came from the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). I think that the right hon. Gentleman said—the record will show whether this is the position—that the best way to improve education would be to sack head teachers.
  The Conservatives have a difficulty in debating education, but nothing like the difficulty that they face when it comes to the NHS. We saw that in the performance of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). It struck home to me that it must be a most difficult task for any Conservative to criticise the Government about the NHS. Despite the right hon. Lady's undoubted abilities as a parliamentarian, she failed to offer any real criticism. She did not even attempt to defend the Conservative Government's record. Perhaps that is why she resorted to so much sound and fury rather than concentrating on content.
  One of the key ingredients in the Queen's Speech is the Government's continued commitment to the NHS. We have heard especially about a Bill to end the highly divisive and destructive internal market together with general practitioner fundholding. There is evidence from throughout the country that those policies have led to a two-tier health service which has not served the British people well. We have heard that there will be a Bill to replace that division with a system that will enhance collaboration and co-operation and introduce negotiated

  363
  agreements and longer term planning, which is the foundation upon which a decent health service needs to be built.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, a Member of the Government's party, for giving way, unlike the Liberal Democrats, who do not find time to give way. I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying about general practitioner fundholding. Clearly, there have been abuses of fundholding, which have caused considerable problems for certain hospitals, where, for no real reason, doctors have referred their patients from many miles away, thus putting departments in district general hospitals in some jeopardy.
  Would the hon. Gentleman agree that GP fundholding has brought benefits as well, and that many of the services that have been developed in doctor's surgeries and community health centres have taken the pressure off hospitals? That has been of benefit and people have been able to obtain treatment close to home rather than having to go into their district general hospital.
  Mr. Hall: Certainly there have been some initiatives of benefit. The Government want to see a system in place whereby those benefits can be available to all patients, to all people in the United Kingdom and not only those whose GP happens to be a fundholder. The hon. Gentleman talked about some fundholders referring patients to certain hospitals without a good reason. I think that the reason is clear. They realised that by making those referrals they might secure faster treatment for their patients. I do not blame them for trying, but that is not the way to run a comprehensive national health service. Most people agree that we need our hospitals and community services to work together to share new ideas for the benefit of all, and not to be engaged in the useless paper-chase of extra-contractual referrals and annual contracting, which was a key feature of the NHS under the internal market.
  Under that system, a good idea developed in one hospital had to be defended in that hospital because if it was shared with other, competing hospitals, that could undermine the contractual position of the original hospital. That is not the way to go forward.
  Dr. Harris: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says about ending competition and improving collaboration. That is clear, but could he define what features make up the internal market, as opposed to the two-tier system, and as opposed to competition rather than collaboration, and could he explain what features of the internal market will be abolished by the proposed Bill?
  Mr. Hall: It is well understood that the internal market generated an excessive paper-chase and the diversion of resources from front-line patient care into unnecessary bureaucracy. Of course we need management and administration, but that must be directed towards a clear purpose.
  On the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we shall have to wait and see what is in the Bill. I do not have the advantage of prescience. With him, I shall examine the
  364
  Bill to make sure that the objectives that he and I appear to share are delivered. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. A clear message has come from the Government about what has happened under the internal market, and that system will be changed. [Interruption.] I hope that all hon. Members will assist us in trying to achieve that, in the interests of the NHS.
  Whatever the Leader of the Opposition may have said on Tuesday and whatever the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald may have said today, no one in my constituency, including those working in the NHS, would defend the system devised by the previous Conservative Government. They do not want to retain that system; they want it changed. There is no public support for continuing with the internal market.
  The Conservatives are the last people who should complain about red tape coming before patient care. That was one of the inherent disadvantages of the internal market system. Under the internal market and under the Conservatives' stewardship of the NHS, the health service was almost drowned in red tape.
  Miss Widdecombe: If there is no support for our system and so much support for the Government, why does opinion poll after opinion poll show that 68 per cent. of the public believe that the Government are getting it wrong on the NHS?
  Mr. Hall: That is an interesting use of statistics. If that is the case, why does opinion poll after opinion poll show support for the Conservative party as low as it has ever been, and show considerable support for Labour in government? Whether Labour is in government or in opposition, poll after poll shows that, with regard to the NHS, the British people trust Labour more than any other party. That has been an unmoving fact for some decades.
  I welcome the devolution of power in the NHS to the local level through the establishment of primary care groups. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, there will of course be a need for the management and administration of primary care groups, but there is a world of difference between investing money to manage those structures effectively, and putting money into the management of the internal market. There is a difference between doing something for a good reason and doing it for a bad reason.
  Dr. Peter Brand: In his scrutiny of the legislation, will the hon. Gentleman consider another aspect of the internal market, which served patients and is now at risk? I refer to the concept of resources following patients. We have had an assurance that members of primary care groups can still refer patients anywhere in the country—that practice has been enshrined in the NHS since its inception—but we have had no assurances that the trusts to which patients are referred are obliged to accept those referrals. If there are no resources attached to a referral, it is quite likely that the referral will not be accepted. Will the hon. Gentleman help to make sure that there is a mechanism to ensure that patient choice is retained?
  Mr. Hall: I will, indeed. One of the principal effects of the greatest ever additional investment in the NHS—the investment of £21 billion over three years—will be to

  365
  widen and deepen patient choice and make the NHS work for patients. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman adopts a constructive position on the Government's performance on the NHS.
  Primary care groups represent a superb opportunity for greater accountability in the NHS and more openness between the NHS and the British public. The role of lay members on the PCGs is important. The methods of selection must be open and credible. It is crucial that there should be support for that one lay person, or possibly two people, depending on the size of the primary care group. If there is only one lay member in a large body, his or her views may be swamped. The Government must deal with the question of how those people are to be supported.
  A mechanism for such support already exists in the form of community health councils, health councils and their equivalent in Northern Ireland. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State consider allowing community health councils, health councils and their equivalent to enjoy observer status on primary care groups, with speaking but not voting rights?
  I hope that the confidentiality clauses introduced by trusts under the previous Government in an attempt to gag whistleblowers will be scrapped. It is time for that system to end. Confidentiality clauses are a feature of organisations that are in competition with one another; they have no place in the new, co-operative, open national health service. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the matter and act to take the fear out of whistleblowing, so that never again do we experience the ill and the harm that was done in the Bristol babies case—one of a number of examples.
  Another welcome aspect of the Queen's Speech in relation to the NHS was the proposed commission for health improvement. Not only will that oversee performance in clinical practice in order to raise standards, but it will enable community health councils and whistleblowers to report suspected problems to that they can be examined in a wider setting.
  I warmly welcome the potential offered by health improvement programmes addressing not only clinical matters, but public health issues such as sickness and illness prevention, health promotion, and tackling health inequalities—the exciting agenda raised by the excellent Green Paper on public health, and before that in the Black report which, after months or years of suppression, was eventually published under the previous Government. It argued that education, income and housing are closely intertwined with health.
  Those matters can be addressed only by a co-operative partnership across the board—NHS trusts, primary care groups, dentists, opticians, pharmacists, local councils, employers, utilities. The list goes on because health is affected by so many interconnecting forces.
  The prospects for the NHS reinforce the universal entitlement to full and free treatment at the point of need for all the people. That is the founding principle of the NHS, and we are now at a point where we see that principle being reinforced and taken forward for the decades ahead.
  It was the British people's strong support for that principle which prevented the previous Government from undermining the NHS even more than they did. The Government's support and belief in that principle lies
  366
  behind the excellent features in the Gracious Speech on the NHS which will help us to build a new NHS to serve the British people in the many years ahead.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: I do not know whether doctors in Bedford feel the same as doctors in Lichfield, but there is no enthusiasm whatever for primary care groups among general practitioners in Lichfield. I shall quote later from GPs in my constituency who have e-mailed me on that matter in the past 24 hours.
  First, I want to address the Queen's Speech. The Prime Minister and the No. 10 Downing street policy unit seem to have difficulty in determining exactly what the third way is—or the "troisième voie", as the Prime Minister put it at the Assemblée Nationale in Paris recently. The third way, or the middle road, as the Prime Minister puts it, sounds suspiciously like the caring capitalism of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). Privatising the Queen's flight, air traffic control and other organisations is following in Margaret Thatcher's footsteps, not Attlee's. While we should welcome the Prime Minister's apparent conversion, I think that he sees that this is no road to posterity.
  The Prime Minister, like others before him, wants to be remembered. He realises that following a well-trodden path is no road to posterity. As we know, the Labour party is heavily into marketing so, to use a marketing term, the Prime Minister has to product differentiate the Labour Government from previous Conservative Governments. Therefore, the Prime Minister has decided to tinker, without thinking through the consequences. His big idea is to tinker with the constitution and, as we shall see later, to tinker with the NHS.
  The Prime Minister will tinker with devolution, even though it may mean the Labour party in Wales and in Scotland splitting away from new Labour. That is a real possibility for the Labour party. Conservative Members will be watching that space with considerable interest when it comes to the elections for the Scottish Parliament and if, as we all believe at the moment, the Scottish National party wins.
  The Prime Minister will tinker with the other place, although a Chamber of placemen is even less democratic than the status quo. Why cannot he wait for the royal commission on the other place to report back first?
  The Prime Minister will tinker with our voting system, even though Israel, New Zealand and Italy all seek to adopt a first-past-the-post system—the very system that the Prime Minister is now trying to abolish.
  As I said just now, not happy with tinkering with the constitution, the Prime Minister now wants to tinker with the health service. This Government of soundbites maintain that the internal market is somehow destructive. We have heard that from the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) and from other Labour Members. They criticise the internal market, but it benefits patients. Let us remember what it was like before the internal market.
  In 1990, the King's Fund centre published "Health Care UK", its annual review of health care policy. The paper

  367
  addressed the lack of efficiency within the NHS compared with other Government Departments. The centre, a neutral body, asked:
  "Why should so little have been achieved within the NHS not just during the 1980s, but in the previous decades?"
  Mr. Stephen Hesford: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the 1990 review was carried out after 11 years of a Tory Government and that that is why there was no progress in the NHS? It was under your Government. It was your tinkering—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must distinguish between his second and third person.
  Mr. Hesford: It was the hon. Gentleman's Government after 11 years.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman spat it out eventually. Unfortunately, he was preparing his intervention before he had heard the full quote. I repeat:
  "Why should so little have been achieved within the NHS not just during the 1980s, but in the previous decades?"
  I said that, but the hon. Gentleman was not listening. The report describes the huge leviathan of the NHS, the biggest single employer in the United Kingdom since 1948, as being incapable of efficiency with
  "simultaneous centralising and decentralising tendencies interfering with the thorough-going implementation of either."
  That could not have been a Conservative party report because there is no way that such a report would use a ghastly phrase such as "thorough-going" with a hyphen.
  The report went on to detail how cumbersome the NHS was. Its efficiency was almost as bad as that of the BBC, yet just four years later, after the introduction of the internal market, the same King's Fund centre was writing a different story. In a paper entitled "Evaluating the NHS Reforms", it stated:
  "In many areas of hospital operations, trusts had significantly lower costs than non-trusts, particularly in ward unit costs and in areas associated with administration and management."
  Let us be absolutely clear about this history lesson. The money saved is money that can be spent on patients and beds instead of on waste.
  In 1989, a report in The Guardian—hon. Members know that it is my favourite newspaper—gave an example of the waste and bad management that existed. It stated:
  "Health authority beds have patched fences, walking sticks have been spotted in vegetable plots smothered in runner beans, and bed hoists have been seen raising engines from cars. Sheepskins have moved from beneath the bedridden elderly to the pride of place in front of fireplaces.
  Equipment is haemorrhaging at a cost of £1,000 a week."
  That is in one health district. The paper also stated:
  "Officials calculate that a quarter of their £56,000 of home-care equipment goes over the garden fence each year."
  In 1988, the same paper, The Guardian, citing an example of waste, before our reforms and the introduction
  368
  of the so-called evil internal market—which, incidentally, the Government are not getting rid of, simply giving it a different name—stated:
  "Responsibility for equipment is split between health, social services, and the artificial limbs and wheelchair authorities. Supply is a muddle: social services fit one type of hoist, the health authority another … Multiple sources for some items, the lack of others, and informal rationing which means long waits, all create confusion for disabled people and their carers.
  They often have to accept what's on offer, instead of choosing the equipment that would best suit their needs.… Research shows that up to 50 per cent. of equipment can go unused."
  Dr. Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman is being a little selective in his trip down memory lane. In 1983, the Conservative Government introduced the Griffiths reforms to introduce general management into hospitals to solve precisely the problem that he has just described. Is he not therefore describing the failure of the Conservative Government to get to grips with the NHS?
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman raises a perfectly reasonable point. Policies evolve—after all, who would have thought that the Labour party would be into privatisation? The Labour party has evolved. In 1983, we tried to do something with the leviathan—and yes, you are right, it did not work. That is why we brought in the internal market. That works, and that is why the Labour party is not getting rid of it. Don't believe your pager—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is the hon. Gentleman who is now forgetting his second and third persons.
  Mr. Fabricant: You are absolutely right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That goes to show how important it is to have debates and interventions. It shows also that one can get emotionally concerned—as I am—about the welfare of people of this country, and not about spin-doctoring.
  Who are the Government kidding? Does the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), want to return us to the old shambles? The Minister—whom I know from the previous Parliament—is a sensible man and does not want that. Let us hear no more soundbites about the internal market setting nurses against doctors, and all the other claptrap that we have heard over the past hour or two.
  The latest proposals from the Government involve tinkering with the GP fundholding practices, and that is what I want to concentrate on now. The proposed changes have serious consequences for my constituents in Lichfield. Every GP in Lichfield has chosen to be a fundholder; not one has shown any enthusiasm for the Government's proposals. That is not because Lichfield doctors—or any other fundholding doctors in the UK—are greedy, as the Government try to make out in an attempt to demonise them. It is because my local doctors firmly believe that GP fundholding practices benefit their patients.
  As a local doctor said to me last night,
  "Fundholding had its faults but at least GPs were in the driving seat of improving patient care."
  He believes that primary care groups will worsen the treatment of patients. While PCGs give GPs the responsibility for looking after their patients' interests—in theory, at least—they will lack the power to have any

  369
  significant impact. The Government will point to the higher tiers of the new system, culminating in level 4, where the primary care trust will be responsible for all services to patients—like the health maintenance organisations in the United States, which the Government are attempting to copy.
  On paper—like all soundbites—it seems like a good idea, but not for Lichfield, and not for the rest of the country. Let me explain why. Leaving aside the high management costs of HMOs, GPs will be locked into underfunding. Let us cast our minds back to the introduction of fundholding. This history lesson puts things in context.
  Hospital consultants were using the media time and again to say that the NHS was not providing a service to individual patients. The then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, personally announced on television a review of hospital services, out of which grew the purchaser-provider split to generate efficiencies for the benefit of patients. Until then, hospital consultants had huge power at health authority level, and the authority was responsible for providing hospital services.
  As community services did not have the power to influence health authorities, proper development of community services, with a fair share of resources, did not happen. However, the purchaser-provider split could be killed at birth, as the consultants and health authority executives were the same people. Why would a hospital become a self-governing trust and take all the risks when paying lip service to the reforms was all that was required? Many hospitals would have remained under health authority control, so there would be no purchaser-provider split. From this, GP fundholding was born.
  Let me give the House a local perspective. In the main, patients from Lichfield are sent to three main hospitals—Good Hope in Sutton Coldfield, Burton hospital and Stafford hospital. Lichfield doctors tell me that the services provided by Good Hope hospital used to be "atrocious"—their word. GP representatives on teams and authorities were merely tolerated, and were usually ignored. Fundholding empowered their voices.
  By good fortune, and through the skill of the family health services authority—then chaired by a good friend of mine, Philip Jones—seven local practices were selected in the first wave of fundholders in the UK. Suddenly, local GPs controlled half of Good Hope hospital's budget for elective services. A marked improvement occurred at Good Hope for the benefit of patients as a direct result of the introduction of fundholding practices.
  At Burton hospital, where the service was adequate prior to fundholding, most of the business came from Burton and south Derbyshire. With little impact from fundholders, the consultants retained their power. Only when a consortium of practices around Burton formed the Burton fundholding group did change for the better occur—change driven by doctors, caring for their patients at community level. These successes have been duplicated up and down the land.
  Mr. Patrick Hall: What the hon. Gentleman has just described—which applied to small parts of the country, and certainly not to the whole country, under GP fundholding—can now apply to the whole country. That is the difference between the Government's proposal and
  370
  the Opposition's proposal. Why does not he want the benefits that he has just described, regarding the balance of power, to apply to the whole country for all patients?
  Mr. Fabricant: A sensible question, if I may say so, from the hon. Gentleman. On paper, it would seem to be a good idea—make fundholding compulsory, give it a different name and take away one or two of the powers. However, it will not work like that. If it did, I would be voting with him—but it ain't going to work like that.
  The Government—and the hon. Member for Bedford—have recognised that fundholding has been a success, but they argue that it is a two-tier system with the patients of fundholding GPs benefiting because they have more money. The Government argue that the system is fine for fundholding patients, but not for ordinary patients. As the hon. Gentleman says, the Government have said, "Let us change the name to primary care groups and make membership compulsory. There will be a single tier and everybody will be happy." That is not the case.
  Two fatal flaws in Labour's logic are dogging the Government—just as they have dogged previous Labour Governments. First, the Government ignore the fact that some GP practices are more skilled than others in management. It is not a question of whether they have more money or not—it is a question of whether they have the inclination to be involved in the management of practices. The second mistake in Labour's logic—a mistake that has been a common thread since 1948—is that the Labour party persists in the belief that dragging down to an equality of mediocrity is better than allowing excellence. We have seen that with the Government's aim to abolish the remaining grammar schools—we are now seeing it with fundholding.
  I shall now be more specific. Primary care groups are not the same as fundholding practices—despite what the hon. Member for Bedford might think. All partners in first-wave fundholding practices had to agree to enter the scheme. One veto from one doctor in the practice blocked their joining the fundholding scheme. With PCGs, every GP is compulsorily a member of the PCG.
  The boundaries of the group are arbitrary. For example, in Lichfield—I am sure that this will be duplicated in other parts of the country—if practices had a choice, they would join with certain practices in Tamworth, where there are like-minded GPs with whom they have worked for years. Instead, they have been bundled in with Burntwood. However, that is not the main point. In fundholding, each practice was responsible for funds for its own patients. With PCGs, the budget is for all practices in the group, with the implication that every GP has corporate responsibility for the spending of GPs in other practices.
  In fundholding, the budget was set for planned procedures—this is the most important point, which has not been picked up yet—with the budget for emergency procedures remaining with the health authority. The new PCG scheme will result in practices having to fund unpredictable emergency treatment. Will the doctors in the House be so pleased with the changes if we have a bad winter and more people go to accident and emergency departments, and their budgets are cut accordingly? I suspect not. The budget for first-wave fundholders was set according to the hospital, drug and staff expenditure in the year before anyone had even coined the idea of fundholders.

  371
  A Lichfield GP wrote to me. He said:
  "Will I be able to convince the Chancellor that my practice needs extra funding for winter pressures or waiting list monies to reduce the number of my patients on waiting lists? I am sure you know the answer to that question, and you will understand the attraction to the Government of PCGs. South Staffs Health Authority is about 13 per cent. underfunded so the playing field is not level; hence a multi tier NHS. Where you live may still determine the service you get. In addition to the 13 per cent. underfunding inherent in the budget calculations, there is also the thorny question of how to deal with overspends run up by health authorities by the end of this financial year. Will the Treasury write off these debts or will PCGs be forced to take on board these debts as a first charge on next year's funds?"
  I do not know whether the Minister will be able to answer that question, but it would be helpful to receive a letter from the Department. The letter from the GP continues:
  "Unlike fundholding if it goes wrong we cannot pull out."
  What about the management skills needed by GPs? First-wave fundholders had to demonstrate management skills to be accepted on the scheme, but PCGs are compulsory. There has been no assessment of whether the skills are available countrywide. Are the Government aware that management skills are not part of GP training? Perhaps the Government feel that management skills are not needed because of the appointment of general managers, but the overall sum available for the manager and his team, for reimbursing GPs for the cost of locums in their absence on PCG business and for an honorarium for GP advisers is a measly £3 a year per patient registered with the practices in the PCG. The formula is obviously insufficient for Lichfield, Tamworth and Burton and for other areas.
  Will the Lichfield team be able to deal fairly when Tamworth GPs will want to protect their Sir Robert Peel hospital? Could the Victoria hospital in Lichfield be threatened in such a scenario? As development at the Victoria has involved portakabins for several years, I would like to know whether Premier Health now favours Sir Robert Peel over the Victoria?
  With fundholding, savings made by practices could be carried forward for up to four years, so GPs did not have to waste money by rapidly spending any surplus in the last month of the financial year. Savings had to be accounted for and the spending of savings had to be approved by the health authority. Improvement in care or facilities for patients was paramount. It was prudent to keep a reserve for future years' hospital care, as a practice could have an unusual imbalance of expensive procedures.
  The Government have said nothing about what is to happen to PCG savings. If savings are not carried forward, where is the buffer for extraordinary years? The question is especially pertinent now, as for the very first time, the Government are making GP budgets pay for unpredictable, emergency work. It is a fundamental question: if the weather is bad, will GPs have their budgets slashed? The Government should tell the truth.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend reflects the concern of GPs throughout the country. I spoke earlier of the benefits brought by GP fundholding, but admitted that there had been abuses. My hon. Friend is outlining some of the problems with the Government's proposals, but
  372
  how would he amend GP fundholding to reduce the abuses and the problems that were created for some hospitals and hospital trusts, while preserving the many benefits that it brought for patients, putting as it did the GPs on an equal footing with the hospital consultants, who had hitherto dominated the health service?
  Mr. Fabricant: I would like to extend fundholding. I would not make it compulsory and I would provide better training so that all GPs would have the ability and the financial wherewithal to manage their own practices, as happens with the 55 per cent. of practices that are currently fundholding. Eventually, by voluntary choice and ability, all practices in England and Wales would be GP fundholding practices. We should certainly not say, as the Government do, that the extraordinary budget—for emergencies, for illnesses in winter and cardiac arrests—should come out of the GPs' budgets.
  Dr. Brand: rose—
  Mr. Fabricant: I am coming to my conclusion, and I know that others want to speak.
  The measures will not help community care. They are all about party dogma. I end not with my words, but with those of my Lichfield doctor. In an e-mail that he sent to me last night, he said:
  "Like the 'new' arrangements for the House of Lords,"—
  I will have to sign this doctor up to the Conservative party if, as I believe, he is not already a member; his words provide a better ending than any that I could possibly write. He said—I repeat his opening words—
  "Like the 'new' arrangements for the House of Lords, the new NHS seems to be words with no substance. Sorry, that is unfair; circulars describing the new NHS arrive almost every day. The comparison is only valid as nobody seems to know how either will work!!"
  6.8 pm
  Dr. Howard Stoate: As the only general practitioner on the Government Benches, it is up to me to inject some common sense into the debate, following some of the arguments that we have heard from Conservative Members. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is not here, because I want to take issue with much that she said. I am afraid that, as usual, she displayed a tendency not to let the facts get in the way of some damn good rhetoric. It is important to consider in more detail some of what she said.
  The right hon. Lady spoke about GPs having referral rights taken away from them by primary care groups. The record will correct me if I am wrong in supposing that she said that, under the new primary care group arrangement, GPs will lose referral rights to the hospital of their choice.
  Some years back, under the fundholding arrangements—I hasten to add that I have never been a fundholder or accepted the necessity for fundholding— a patient came to see me and I diagnosed a particularly rare and unpleasant form of leukaemia. I knew that there was only one hospital in the land that could offer her any hope of decent treatment; I contacted it and spoke to the consultant. I said that if the woman was to have any

  373
  chance of survival she should be in his unit. He said that he entirely agreed, that it was a very rare case and that he would like to see the patient immediately.
  The consultant asked me to send the patient along, but then said, "Hang on a minute, you're a fundholder, aren't you? You do have a contract with this hospital, don't you?" Oh, dear. Of course, the whole thing then fell flat on its face and it took another 12 hours to sort out whether I could have an extra-contractual referral on an emergency basis. That was all to the great detriment of my patient, who subsequently died.
  I would argue that fundholding has not been a great success because it has led to a two-tier service and undermined doctors' ability to send patients where they choose, causing great distress and difficulty.
  Dr. Brand: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has just described my fear that the new arrangements will mean that all patients will be treated in the same way as patients of non-fundholding GPs. I am sure that he has read the executive letters issued by the Department of Health and I hope that he is clear, because I am not, on how we can retain the ability to refer patients in the situation that he describes. A speedy response between clinicians is essential for an effective national health service, and managerial systems must not get in the way. Fundholders cut out a lot of the rubbish and I hope that primary care groups will be able to do the same.
  Dr. Stoate: Fundholding took out some of the nonsense, but it should not have been there in the first place. Before 1990, a GP had the right to refer a patient to any hospital in the land. The previous Government created the mess and it needs sorting out. GPs who were not members of fundholding groups did not have the right to choose to whom they referred their patients and that caused great distress and difficulty for many people.
  I wish to tell the House about experiences I have had in my constituency. I take issue with the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), who seems to think that all the doctors in his area are opposed to primary care groups. He gave the game away when he said that he would send a membership form for the Conservative party to one local doctor, who seems to be a ripe candidate for joining. The hon. Gentleman's experience differs from mine.
  Mr. Fabricant: The doctor is not a member of the Conservative party. In Lichfield, every GP is a member of a fundholding practice—it works for them and, more importantly, for the patients. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can talk about fundholders when he has never bothered to become one. Does he not think that his patients might have benefited?
  Dr. Stoate: I never bothered to become a fundholder because I was sure that it was not right for my patients. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) claimed that we would spend huge amounts on bureaucracy under the new system of primary care groups. Currently, there are 4,000 commissioning groups of varying sizes and we intend to replace them with only 600 primary care groups. Huge savings will be made in bureaucracy.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Those two statements are not necessarily logically connected. If fundholders
  374
  are abolished, there will be fewer commissioners, but the new primary care groups will have to employ staff—they are all now advertising for chief executives. Some 500 extra managers will soon be appointed and nobody, in the professions or the management, has claimed that the first few years of the new system will result in any net reduction in managers.
  Dr. Stoate: I shall enlighten the House on that point. As the hon. Gentleman knows, fundholding practices employ fundholding managers. They employ members of staff to shuffle bits of paper around, to sign off completed patient episodes, to sign off patient treatments and to ensure that patients have been seen by the right consultants. That involves thousands of pieces of paper. Every fundholding practice has a member of staff, sometimes several, to deal with that. A primary care group will contain an average of 50 GPs covering 100,000 patients, and one level of bureaucracy will cover all of them.
  Mr. Hughes: One member of staff?
  Dr. Stoate: No, but one level of bureaucracy. We will no longer need single pieces of paper for every completed episode of patient care. We will sweep away that nonsense of a bureaucracy that never taught anyone anything about patient management and never contributed to patient care, but snarled up the system with thousands of pieces of paper. That will lead to huge savings.
  Nobody has yet put forward a sensible argument against a primary care-led NHS. Our changes will mean that local doctors, nurses, and members of social services departments who understand the local needs of local patients will set up local services to meet those needs. What could be more sensible? That has to be the way forward, not the hugely bureaucratic system we now have.
  Change is threatening, and the hon. Member for Lichfield described the fears and doubts of some of his local GPs. I do not decry those fears, because they are genuine. Nobody easily votes for change—other than to get rid of the previous Government, when people voted with alacrity for change. Many GPs have expressed their concerns to me because I am the only GP who sits on the Government Benches and I tend to be the focus for GPs' concerns and anxieties. I do not wish to patronise them by saying that their doubts and fears are unfounded, because in many cases they are not.
  In the interests of good debate, I wish to point out some of the genuine fears of GPs. For example, fundholders have spent much time and energy setting up new clinics and services for the benefit of their patients. Good luck to them. They have sometimes succeeded in pushing at the boundaries of medical care and making some treatments very effective. Some genuine innovation has flowed from fundholding and I do not seek to minimise that. Fundholding GPs do not want to see those benefits lost and they are anxious that the clinics they have set up continue to provide good care for their patients.
  Non-fundholders are anxious to ensure that they have enough time, energy and expertise to make the new primary care groups work. I do not seek to minimise those fears, either. Other fears include overspending and what will happen if the money runs out. Some people are concerned that if they take time out of their practices to

  375
  sit on primary care boards, their partners will have to pick up the slack. If a doctor is out of the practice for half a day a week, somebody else has to see the patients and that can cause tensions in partnerships. We must face up to those problems in an adult way, instead of with rhetoric and loud voices. Those fears are not merely moaning from a privileged interest group that has always had its own way. That is a patronising and simplistic view. It is also wishful thinking, because GPs have raised real issues that will not be solved without careful consideration and thought.
  This morning I contacted Dr. Alasdair Thomson, the GP chief executive of the Dartford, Gravesham and Swanley HealthCare Partnerships Project and chair elect of the new primary care group. The project was initially set up as a pilot scheme, covering 220,000 patients with 116 GPs, 70 per cent. of whom are fundholders. They have worked with non-fundholders, voluntarily, to set up the project, which is a precursor of primary care groups. The project has followed, almost exactly, the model that will be followed by all PCGs. It has blazed the trail for PCGs, faced up to the difficulties I have described and found solutions.
  The project is enthusiastic about its work. I was due to meet Dr. Thomson this evening to discuss his group's plans, but I felt it was more important to take part in the debate. We intended to discuss the project's seemingly unquenchable thirst for innovation. I am sure that Ministers will be delighted to hear that the subject of tonight's meeting was whether the project should express an interest in becoming a primary care trust at the earliest opportunity. The project is convinced that it is of real benefit to the local communities.
  Dr. Thomson sent me a progress report today, which explains what the group has achieved and how that has benefited its patients. The report states that the project was set up
  "as a Locality Commissioning Group Pilot in September 1997.… Since the publication of the White Paper … the GPs have been working in partnership with West Kent Health Authority, Kent Social Services Department, Trusts, particularly Dartford and Gravesham Acute Trust and Thames Gateway NHS Community Trust and the Community Health Council to develop services which are more responsive to local needs."
  The progress report continues:
  "The pilot status has given us a head start in developing partnership working, bringing together organisations in Health and Social Care and in particular, tackling the 'Berlin Wall' culture.
  This has enabled … GPs from very different types of Practice in Dartford, Gravesham and Swanley (Urban, Single Handed, Rural) to come together in a specific forum to raise issues and solve problems which directly relate to local health needs."
  It allows GPs to become directly involved in commissioning decisions and service development of local trusts. In particular, GPs are looking at ways in which to bridge the gap between fundholding and primary care groups. For example, equity of patient access to in-house clinics is one of the difficulties that we have considered, and they have found the way around that problem.
  GPs have also formed new service review groups to develop local services in conjunction with trusts. So far, there has been success in urology, anticoagulant therapy, radiology and ultrasound, and dermatology. That is
  376
  exactly in line with the Government's proposals in the new Bill. Our primary care teams—GPs, practice nurses, practice managers, district nurses and health visitors—are working together with social services care managers to develop elderly care services in the community. That way of working has been piloted at six GP sites in the district, and it is ready to be rolled out across the entire group. It has also allowed the commissioners, the health authority, social services and GPs to work together with providers to improve mental health services in the locality.
  Perhaps more excitingly, the groups are also working with the health authority pharmacists and pharmaceutical advisers to draw up guidelines on the most rational and cost-effective prescribing. The report sent to me this morning asks, "What's gone well"? It responds:
  "Groundswell of support from all organisations, particularly around partnerships working.
  A belief that we can tackle local issues better.
  A head start in developing management structures to cope with the new PCG agenda.
  GP involvement in the Commissioning process.
  A foundation to enable us to start to tackle issues in Primary Care and the concept of Clinical Governance."
  That is not a bad record for a group that set itself up voluntarily, and which is a mixture of GP fundholders and non-fundholders who have demonstrated a year ahead of everyone else that they have tackled most of the problems head-on in a way that has met local need.
  More importantly, the group has also improved local services for patients in a way that would have been undreamt of a couple of years ago. That is the reality of what happens when we work towards primary care groups. The reality is not the rhetoric that we have heard this evening, but the fact that real GPs treat real patients in real situations, making real improvements in care. It is not about some GPs fighting against others for scarce resources. All the GPs in the area are working together to improve resources for all patients. That must be the way forward. I commend what the Government are doing to roll the programme out to the entire country.
  6.22 pm
  Miss Anne McIntosh: I am delighted to participate in the debate on the Gracious Address. I am afraid that I do not share the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) for primary care groups. I have consulted almost every practice in Vale of York over the past six months and I do not believe that primary care groups will work. In two or three years time, we shall have to come back with more proposals. I am no gambler, but I predict that the proposals will not work.
  I was disappointed to hear the Secretary of State for Health say that he was removing a tier of bureaucracy. One of the grounds that general practitioners offer for being whole-heartedly against the proposals is that primary care groups will add another tier of bureaucracy. In North Yorkshire, there will be something like seven chief executives—recruitment adverts have gone out over the past two months—and they will cost, I imagine, between £20,000 and £30,000 each. I am not medically qualified. I cannot handle the sight of blood, so I went into another noble profession, the law. However, my father, my brother and my uncle have between them served between 80 and 100 years in the health service. The money intended to pay for chief executives in North

  377
  Yorkshire will be multiplied across the country and will total at least £1 million. In my view, and in the view of GPs who have written to me, that money should be spent on patient care, hospital treatment, the training of midwives or an increase in nurses' pay, to which the Government claim to be committed.
  Do the Government intend to honour their commitment to raise nursing salaries? We all know that morale in the nursing profession is at an all-time low. In my surgery within the past month, I met a police officer and his wife, who is a nurse. The police officer believed that the Government did not have the money in this year's budget to make good the promised increase. The nurse was keen to extract a commitment that the Government would make good their promise, particularly through a big one-off pay increase that would bring nurses to the level that the profession justifies. Perhaps the Minister might tell us later whether the Government are committed to that increase.
  I received a press release today from North Yorkshire health authority. It relates to the future of the Duchess of Kent hospital, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). The hospital is in Catterick, but it attracts patients from Vale of York. The thrust of the press release is that the immediate future of the hospital is secure. It is not to close for, I imagine, the foreseeable future. General practitioners are being asked to run it, which is welcome. In my experience, many GPs are well qualified to do operations, especially small ones, and I hope that that will work successfully at the hospital.
  However, North Yorkshire health authority and I, with the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks, are trying to extract a promise from the Government. The hospital was budgeted for in the Ministry of Defence budget, but it has become a direct drain on national health service resources. This year, it will suffer a shortfall of £500,000. I have taken every opportunity to write, to ask questions or to raise the matter on the Floor of the House. I have tried to extract from the Government a promise to make up that £500,000 shortfall. The short-term future of the hospital has been secured. In view of that fact, will the Government assure the House and my constituents that the money will be forthcoming?
  The Minister for Public Health, the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell), who is not in her place, kindly replied to my Adjournment debate within the past month on the question of health among those living near overhead line transmissions. I referred in particular to power lines in Vale of York and other parts of North Yorkshire. Would the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, who is here, convey to the right hon. Lady the fact that I am concerned about the important work being undertaken by Bristol university and Professor David Henshall, which I know she values and which is making a major contribution to the debate. The Electricity Association has intervened at the highest level at the university—the vice-chancellor—to try to stop that work. The right hon. Lady committed herself, when she replied to my Adjournment debate, to making more studies available. That work could prove conclusively that health risks exist, and that leukaemia may be formed—cancer is certainly formed—among those living close to overhead lines.
  378
  My constituents share my regret about the Government's knee-jerk reaction to a minuscule risk when they banned beef on the bone. A much greater and clearer risk exists from power lines, but the Government are not so quick to react to the very serious health concerns of those living underneath or near overhead lines. I urge the Government to assure me that they will make a similar knee-jerk reaction to that problem. I did not agree with the decision to ban beef on the bone, but the Government must be consistent. If they react with a knee jerk to one health scare, they must do so again for another scare that affects a much larger number of people.
  Finally, the link between health, welfare and food hygiene in livestock farming is compelling and serious and I must place on record my concern about the apparent lack of communication in many instances between the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The banning of beef on the bone was just one example of that.
  The Minister may or may not be aware that two proposals are decimating turkey production. I speak with heartfelt concern for Moorland Turkeys, a large company based in Vale of York near Thirsk. The Government's proposal to ban the sale in butchers' shops of turkeys that have not been eviscerated—in common parlance, that means with their giblets—is already causing great concern and has affected turkey production. A number of turkey factories, not least some owned by Moorland Turkeys, have closed. Production had to be halted because of that proposal. That was another knee-jerk reaction. There is no consequential health risk from such sales about which we need to worry. I wish that the Government would stop damaging food production in that way.
  Another Government proposal affects turkey production. Health checks are to be made on turkeys and vets are to be present during their processing and slaughter. It costs £40 per hour for a vet to be present. I realise that that matter is probably the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but the two Departments should talk to each other. There is no co-ordination between them. That sort of knee-jerk reaction is threatening to put turkey producers out of production, as other schemes have already done for beef producers and others.
  I shall leave the Government with a thought on a matter that I raised with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday. I am convinced that this country has the highest food hygiene and production standards. Producers need to be reassured that imported food products have to meet those same high standards before they are sold in our stores.
  6.33 pm
  Mrs. Ann Cryer: Today's subjects of health and welfare in the debate on the Queen's Speech and our legislative programme for the coming year are subjects close to my heart, and, for good reasons, the hearts of many of my constituents.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on moving to the abolition of the wasteful national health service internal market, so that co-operation, rather than competition, will become the motivating force. I am also extremely pleased by our move away from general practitioner fundholders. In Keighley, the Aire Valley health consortium three years ago led the way towards

  379
  primary care groups, which include all the practices in Keighley—large, small, rural and urban and, more particularly, Asian doctors, who give an excellent service to their community but tend to work alone. The situation there is similar to that described by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) in relation to his area.
  I look forward to fairer provision, regardless of which part of the town one lives in. Nationally, the provision of primary care in the health service will, I trust, be first rate for all, and will be according to a patient's physical and mental condition, not their postcode.
  Many of my constituents are more than happy with the existing administration of the Airedale national health service trust. Airedale general hospital at Eastburn is the biggest employer in my constituency and serves an area north as far as Bentham in the dales, west as far as the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) in east Lancashire, east as far as Leeds, and south as far as Bingley, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie). Airedale hospital is extremely well regarded by all the communities that it serves. The staff of the excellent special care baby unit were delighted to be visited by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier this year. That visit was regarded as recognition of the magnificent service given by a dedicated team of carers at all levels and in all specialties.
  Recognising the special place that Airedale hospital holds in the hearts and minds of the people of my constituency and the many communities that I have mentioned will, I trust, persuade my right hon. Friend that to merge the Airedale and Bradford NHS trusts would be extremely unpopular and ill advised—in fact, not even worthy of consideration. I hope that those will be the final words on that subject.
  I believe that my commitment to universal benefits is known to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. It may be very old Labour indeed, but universal benefits, available to all with the benefit clawed back where necessary through taxation for those on high incomes—provide the safety net of welfare benefit provision, in particular for the most vulnerable people who are often unaware of their entitlements and simply do not know their way around the system. I am particularly pleased that child benefit will remain universal and that it will continue to increase, although I still mourn the loss of the enhanced rate for single parents.
  I am sure that none of us can take exception to the idea of providing support for those who need it most while helping those who can work back into work. Certainly, extra support for families charged with the lifelong task of caring for children born with spina bifida, Down's syndrome, cerebral palsy and other chronically disabling disorders must be welcomed by all. Most of us who have been asked for some form of help by such families know of the dedication of the parents involved.
  We are also aware that some incapacity benefit claimants have jobs in the black economy but, judging from my experience as a Member of Parliament and a member of the social security appeal tribunal for nine years, those are the rare exceptions and certainly not the rule. One of my abiding memories is of a man who was
  380
  reduced to tears before the tribunal when he graphically described how a Department of Social Security doctor asked him to kneel, but when he said that he could bend his knees only so far, the so-called doctor pushed down on both his shoulders until his knees reached the floor. He had cried out with the intense pain, but he was thus declared fit for work. I trust that our justified enthusiasm for helping people back to work will not put claimants into that sort of painful and degrading situation. No doubt our constituents will tell us if unnecessary pressure is put on those with a genuine illness and we will in turn make Ministers aware of such cases.
  By and large, the changes in widows' benefits are an improvement for many, in particular bereaved fathers of young children. The doubling of the lump-sum payment will help many people with the enormous costs encountered on bereavement. However, the universal nature of the benefit long term will disappear, and for many people it will do so at a time when finding a job will be difficult.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken into account the many people of my generation and some younger who have taken time off full-time paid work—in my case from 1964 to 1974—to care for our children. In our case, the Government did not give national insurance contribution credits for that period. I understand that that happened only from the mid-1980s. Therefore, were I not in the fortunate position of having the long-term widow's pension, my retirement pension would be much reduced when I reached 60, owing to the lack of contributions for 10 years. With the approval and generous support of my party and of the people of Keighley and Ilkley, I look forward to at least a second term in this place, in which case I shall be working until the age of 65. Even so, I would still be on a much-reduced state retirement pension as a result of those 10 years out of paid, full-time work. I hope that the new arrangements for widows take that into account so that widows at the age of 60 will have a full pension regardless of contributions.
  For one or two items in the Gracious Speech I should have preferred the promise of legislation to that of draft Bills—for example for the strategic rail authority and freedom of information. Given my age, impatience may be understandable. I am pleased with much of the legislative programme and much in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition made me happy to be a Labour Member.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) and I congratulate her on her compassionate speech. I would not have expected anything else, knowing her family background, if I may put it that way. Perhaps I can do a deal with her and create a pincer movement. If she approaches the Government from an old Labour point of view and I from a Liberal Democrat view, we might reach our goal in the end.
  I have always supported the Government's approach to developing social security and to planning welfare reform in so far as they believe that that must be done across Government Departments. If ever anybody wanted evidence of the need for that, they would find it underscored in the Acheson report, the independent

  381
  inquiry into inequalities in health. It is inadequate to try to implement social change simply by using the Benefits Agency and the Department of Social Security. I have always taken that view, and after the election I encouraged the Government in that direction.
  I support what the Government have been doing—and certainly much that has been done to introduce work as a way out of welfare. Obviously that is the right way forward. Nevertheless, I am worried about the fractured way in which some social security policy is beginning to unfold. There is concern that the Department may have lost some momentum in evolving a coherent set of long-term policies. The Queen's Speech provides an opportunity for us to tease out from Ministers the Government's long-term vision and strategy for our social security policy. By that I mean, not just for the next 12 months, but for the next five or 10 years. As we all know, policies that we put on the statute book must stand the test of time and, hopefully, withstand changes of Government, if there is to be any stability in the system.
  Although this matter is not solely for the Department of Social Security, I am worried at the way in which the policy is being deployed. The Treasury is involved. The Prime Minister is now chairing a Cabinet committee. The social exclusion unit, which I welcome, is in on the act. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is now looking after housing benefit. The Treasury introducing a working families tax credit. All those initiatives can be considered individually and found to be good or bad, but I would have expected the Government's programme for a second term—I appreciate that it takes time for a new Government to get into their stride—to give more of a hint at the long-term strategy. I am nervous that that is absent from the Queen's Speech and I should be pleased to be guided on that.
  I fully accept the clearly adumbrated principles in the Loyal Address of work, security, fairness and value for money. No one could argue with that. On the detail of the proposed welfare reform Bill, I hope that the Government can assure us that reform of disability benefit will be implemented only after proper consultation with the pressure groups involved. I am anxious that the pension sharing and divorce measures—the Select Committee that I have the privilege to chair has just completed what I hope is a valuable report on the matter—do not get lost in the totality of the stakeholder pension provision reform. If the measures are tacked on in some clauses to a Bill that focuses in other directions, there is a danger that the Standing Committee may wish it through with one or two amendments because the Select Committee thought that it was not a bad idea. The measures are more important than that. Their implementation may benefit from slightly more delay than the Government currently envisage. We were certainly grateful to have the opportunity of pre-legislative scrutiny and I hope that it will prove to have been of value to the measure when it comes before the House.
  The working families tax credit is a good idea in principle. However, some thorny implementation problems remain to be addressed. In particular, the previous Chairman of the Select Committee is rightly credited with having identified fraud as a major issue in social security policy. This is the first new benefit that the Government have come up with, yet I cannot see any design attempts at its gestation phase to make it proof against fraud. The Government have rightly made an issue of trying to wring fraud out of the system. This is the first
  382
  benefit of whose implementation they have been in sole charge, yet there is no evidence that they have taken steps in gremio to make it harder to defraud the system. If that turns out to be the case, that will be a shame.
  The social exclusion unit is an exciting idea. To build a unit into the whole process at No. 10 based in the Cabinet Office and reporting directly to the Prime Minister is an extremely good idea. How will the unit be held accountable to the House? I do not ask that in any carping way, but because it straddles Departments, there is no Select Committee with a unique responsibility for monitoring its work. It is to cover a vast range of Government activity from the DETR, the Department of Social Security, the Department for Education and Employment, the Department of Health, the Cabinet Office, the Home Office, the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry. That is a huge brief and the work is important. The unit is to report directly to the Prime Minister, but how can Members follow and understand what it is trying to do? Following the Cabinet reshuffle names of responsible Ministers are being considered and have yet to be announced, but the Government have a duty to say clearly how the House can get access to the work of the unit.
  That is true, too, of the DETR task forces. There are 18 policy action teams, all with so-called champion Ministers assigned to them. I am in favour of inter-departmental working, but I am worried that it may become incoherent and that it may not be effectively scrutinised by this House. I hope that Ministers will consider these criticisms in the positive, constructive spirit in which they are made.
  The Green Paper on success measures is a brave idea. It is brave of a Government to say that they will set success measures in social security, because the Government can be tested against them. There has been some well-directed criticism to the effect that some of the measures are ill-defined and impractical at the draft stage. That consultation process is now over, but we have not yet heard what the Government will make of that consultation process and what improvements they want to introduce. It is important that we do not lose momentum. I am disappointed in particular that there are no criteria for measuring a reduction in poverty. That is a significant omission. I am sure that the hon. Member for Keighley would agree, knowing her concern about these matters. If success measures for welfare reform and social security are to be meaningful, some benchmarks against which to test poverty must be included. I put it no higher than that.
  I notice that the Queen's Speech did not refer to a proposed pre-legislative scrutiny stage for the draft child support Bill. The previous Ministers at the Department gave an undertaking to the Select Committee that we could examine a draft Bill on child support. This is too big an issue to get wrong twice—and I do not need to say that twice. It is a tough challenge for the Select Committee, but we look forward to it. I hope to be told that that point was omitted for brevity's sake and that there will be no going back on the undertaking.
  The Secretary of State's recent statement on changes to bereavement provision elicited a number of responses from hon. Members on both sides of the House about the future of the contributory principle. I talked earlier about trying to get a better idea of the Government's strategy. If we do not get some idea of what the Government have in mind for the social insurance principle, we may move

  383
  by default to an American system where everything is means-tested. There may be an argument for that but I would not want it to happen by default.
  I remind the Minister that the Government Actuary's quinquennial review of the national insurance fund provides an opportunity for a debate. If the Government have challenging ideas, I for one am willing to sit down and work them through. If there are radical changes in the Government's mind, I would rather have them out in the open so that we can have a proper debate rather than having it all done by default.
  I am worried about two big issues that concern the modernisation of information technology. I know that the Minister is an expert—I nearly said an anorak—on IT. The two projects are private finance initiatives. NIRS2, the national insurance recording system installed in Newcastle by Andersen International, is suffering serious delay and major technical difficulties. In October, the Department admitted that the computer database had collapsed, resulting in underpayments of up to £100 a week for some pensioners. That is a serious matter and casts doubt on the PFI. If we are going to get into that sort of trouble, perhaps we should reconsider it. I would like some reassurance on that.
  I believe that the Horizon programme, which put Benefits Agency technology into post offices, is teetering on the brink of collapse. If so, it is another PFI project that is years behind time and suffering escalating costs. The Government have an opportunity to enhance the ICL scheme by going for smart cards rather than magnetic strips. Something must be done. A statement must be made soon or people will think that the Government are reneging on the contract. I do not want to go scaremongering in that direction but I fear not that delivery of the modernisation programme—a key part of Government policy—will be prejudiced but that the post office network will be prejudiced. I am sure that the Government know that that is a double whammy of enormous political significance. The silence of Ministers is deafening and the more that it continues, the more those of us who watch these things will worry.
  To return to my first point, I hope that Ministers can reassure the House, now that we are nearly two years into the Parliament, that they have a long-term view of where their reform and modernisation proposals will be in 10 years. I hope that they will use the Queen's Speech debate to make that clear to those hon. Members who are interested.
  6.54 pm
  Dr. Ashok Kumar: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), and to praise his work on the Select Committee and the seriousness with which he approaches the subject. I agree with him about the work of the Child Support Agency. I have had to deal with about 250 cases, and I have real problems to sort out.
  It has been pleasant to listen to the Loyal Address debate. I even enjoyed the ranting of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who accused the Government of following in the footsteps of Clem Attlee's Government. I am delighted to plead guilty,
  384
  because that Government had great successes. It was the jewel in the crown of Labour Governments, and I am proud to be associated with them.
  Mr. Burns: They only lasted six years.
  Dr. Kumar: They were elected in 1950 as well. The hon. Gentleman must wait.
  This has been an inspiring week for Labour Members. Today's debate is on health and welfare. Within that framework, I want to raise the needs and desires of disabled people; but first I have some general comments on the Loyal Address. I hope that the message has gone home to the British people that, unlike the Tory Government, this Administration know what they want to deliver, and refuse to be pushed off course. Labour fought the general election on a manifesto with 177 commitments, 63 of which have been met. The Gracious Speech contains the bones of legislation that will enable the Government to deliver on more.
  We are committed to improving educational standards and ending the two-tier national health service, with the help of reform and the financial support of £40 billion announced earlier this year. We are committed to fairer asylum and immigration laws, and to introducing more, and fairer, protection for people in the workplace. We are committed to securing greater social justice by lowering the age of consent. As a democratic socialist, I welcome all those commitments as part of the big picture of creating a fairer society. I hope that the reforms—there are plenty of them in the Loyal Address—will unite all who believe in progressive values on change in our society.
  The Loyal Address and the Government's programme was described by David Halpern in the New Statesmen as an attack on the lazy and lucky: the people who by birth have been handed the right idly to dictate the country's democratic programme, and the people who were in the right place at the right time when the spoils of monopoly and privatisation were handed out. By contrast, the beneficiaries of the Government's programme are those less fortunate: those who were unable to share in the greedy spoils of the past 18 years, and those who were the victims of discrimination.
  I have been a campaigner against discrimination. I know from direct personal experience what it is, and what it feels like. I came into politics and the Labour party as a vehicle to fight discrimination. As a former chair of a local authority equal opportunities committee, I am acutely aware of the discrimination faced by disabled people. It is sometimes overt, too often covert. That is why I give three hearty cheers for the Bill that will set up the disability rights commission.
  I was astonished to hear the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who represents the constituency that neighbours mine to the south, praise the initiative. If that section of the Gracious Speech is so praiseworthy, as it is, it will be asked why in the past 18 years his party did not introduce legislation with the same proposed powers and duties. Why did his party take great pleasure in killing several private Member's Bills that would have introduced measures that we are beginning to implement?
  I was a Member of Parliament in 1992, when the Conservatives killed the private Member's Bill promoted by Alf Morris, now Lord Morris. The culprit on that

  385
  occasion was the then Conservative Member for Kingswood, who was subsequently defeated in the 1992 general election by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry). Yesterday, my hon. Friend spoke eloquently about disability issues, although he underplayed his own praiseworthy contribution to campaigns on those issues. I shall be gracious to the Conservatives and concede that, under intense pressure from outside this place, they did finally enact legislation; but, although well-meaning, it turned out to be toothless.
  Having referred to pressure from outside, I should pay tribute to the campaigning work of organisations that represent the disabled. Much of the legislation that we shall enact originated with those organisations and their members' direct experience. The questions I pose to the Conservatives here are those which many of my constituents who are disabled or who care for the disabled will put to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks. They will also put them to those representatives of the Conservative party who undertake the grim and gruesome task of trying to sell the Conservative party in the local elections next spring.
  Let me now turn to broader issues. The disabled in Britain are a large community: if we count all those receiving the state benefits that are due to disabled people, we arrive at a figure of 5.14 million people—the equivalent of the population of a large city such as Birmingham. However, there are others whose personal occupational circumstances do not allow them to receive benefit, as well as those who are on the borderline between disability and long-term illness. If we add them, the total is more than 9 million people.
  Discrimination comes in many ways. Loose thinking sees it only in terms of access to employment, but it is far more complex than that. In the terms used by the consultation paper that was the precursor to the setting up of the disability rights commission, discrimination can cover
  "access to goods, facilities, services and premises."
  That is a wide-ranging definition. Disabled people often face multiple forms of discrimination, including discrimination in gaining access to buildings—often important ones such as railway and bus stations, local council offices and, it has to be admitted, Government Departments and agencies, many of which are still inaccessible, despite all our attempts to adapt them.
  Disabled people often have difficulty in accessing services. They find it difficult to gain personal mobility by means of private or public transport, such as buses and trains, and—just as important—in terms of vocational and non-vocational training and other education opportunities. The ability to gain access to goods is also important, as many disabled people need special foods, medicines and clothing—goods that are often hard to obtain, and which might not be available at the right place, at the right time and in the right quantity.
  Another issue that we should consider is whether many aspects of current legislation covertly discriminate against the disabled. I am thinking of simple things such as standards of highway and pavement design, food packaging and building regulations, and the design and layout of official forms and publications and of shops, libraries and post offices. Those are issues that the disability rights commission must be allowed to tackle.
  386
  The commission must be able to take direct action against those who directly and overtly practise discrimination against the disabled. It must be able to help disabled people through complex legal proceedings, and so enable them to gain what is rightfully theirs. Such support will often require partnership with other advocacy bodies and organisations—the work of the commission must not be ring-fenced.
  The state, in its local and national manifestations, is the body that has the greatest impact on the disabled and their needs. We should not attempt to hide the fact that discriminatory practices have been discovered within state agencies and institutions. The disability rights commission should have unfettered freedom to probe the state and hold it to account when it has been guilty of discrimination. The Government must see the commission as the lead advisory body when drafting legislation that will have an impact on the lives of disabled people.
  The commission must have the resources to support a truly capable conciliation service—one that has the clout to broker agreements and ensure that they are fully implemented. It must also have the resources to conduct and commission deep and far-reaching research into social and economic issues affecting disabled people. It must have the ability to institute and monitor codes of good practice, and to examine existing codes in order to determine how applicable they are to the needs and rights of the disabled.
  I hope that Ministers will bear in mind some smaller issues later this year, when we debate the nuts and bolts of the Bill to set up the disability rights commission. The first is who has the last word on the content of codes of practice. Currently, codes issued by bodies such as the existing equality commissions and the National Disability Council are subject to ministerial approval and may be rejected by the Secretary of State. The consultation paper on the setting up of the disability rights commission proposed amending that, so that the Secretary of State can modify codes, rather than having to reject them outright. In some ways, that gives more power to the Secretary of State. The proposal requires clarification, and perhaps amendment, so that there is a common playing field for the various equality commissions.
  Other potentially contentious issues include the concept, floated in the consultation paper, of having the power to charge for direct personal services to an individual in matters of legal representation. Given that the majority of disabled people depend to some extent on state benefits, such a proposal might be seen as threatening, and might deter people with genuine cases from seeking advice. In addition, greater clarification is needed of the relationship between the proposed rights and roles of the disability rights commission and those of the other equality bodies, and of the suggestions made in the Human Rights Act 1998 about the establishment of a human rights commission.
  A general point, which is applicable to all areas of the Gracious Speech, relates to the bodies and agencies that will be established to control and run our new initiatives. Those will often take the form of a new or adapted non-departmental public body—in plain English, a quango. Many of us dislike quangos, and would prefer public affairs to be run by democratically elected bodies, but we know that, in the real world, that aim is not

  387
  always achievable. If quangos have to be set up, they must be as transparent as possible, and be seen as directly representing the interests of the people they serve.
  It is important that as many as possible of the people who serve on the disability rights commission should have direct experience of the issues and problems affecting disabled people. A substantial number of those who serve on the new commission must be disabled themselves. In that context, it would be an interesting experiment in the development of a truly pluralist society if those who wanted to serve on the commission and who were registered disabled were subject to a ballot by members of disabled groups throughout the country. However, that does not mean that it should not be examined as a principle to aim for, in terms both of the composition of the disability rights commission and of other bodies that serve a specific client group.
  I am proud to be a member of an Administration that has sought to see the benefits flow to the many, not the few. I am also proud to be a member of an Administration that has ensured that those most disadvantaged by virtue of their disability are allowed to make the most of their innate talents, initiatives and abilities. That has been recognised by the groups and organisations that represent those with special needs.
  There are such groups in my constituency. The Redcar and Cleveland access forum has told me of its joy at the measures. Its secretary, Jocelyn Holmes, said:
  "Not all disabled people are able to call on qualified help and advice—but now we will have a body that will have the power of law behind it so as to speak for all of us."
  There is popular support for the measures, both nationally and certainly in my constituency. That has been our message, and that is the substance of the Gracious Speech.
  The establishment of the disability rights commission is a key milestone in the Government's long march towards a fairer and more equal society, and it is a step that I know many of my constituents welcome warmly.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. Robert Syms: This debate excites many passions, particularly when discussing health, for the simple reason that most of our constituents care deeply about these subjects. They value the national health service and the people who work in it. It is fair to say that, apart from a few cases, the vast majority of people receive good treatment from conscientious staff who work extremely hard. This year, as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the national health service, it is worth reflecting on the prosperity of the nation, the national diet and the contribution of the NHS. Its founders would be surprised by how healthy, robust and successful we are as a nation.
  As a Conservative, I am perfectly prepared to give credit to the Attlee Government for founding the NHS, if the Labour party is equally prepared to acknowledge that Conservative Governments have administered and nurtured it for 35 of its 50 years—or nearly 70 per cent. of its history. If all the dire headlines and the jibes thrown across the Chamber during the last Government and previous Governments had been true, we would not now be valuing what many hon. Members on both sides of the House have called the "jewel in the crown".
  388
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made a very good point: total health spending is vital. The Government started off badly by abolishing tax relief for over-60s private health insurance—a measure which encouraged people to put a little more of their own money into their health care. There is a real problem with public expectations that cannot be addressed through the Exchequer. If we can use the tax system to encourage people to invest a little more of their own money in their health care—and there is every evidence that they will do that—we will be able to provide a better service for all.
  I do not intend to go into the details of the Government's proposals, because I have a feeling that I may spend many hours doing so later this Session. However, I must mention GP fundholding. That system has been in place for seven years, and nearly 60 per cent. of patients are covered by some 15,000 fundholders. GP fundholding has proved a success, because, by and large, decisions are taken nearer to the patients. It has empowered many GPs. I accept that there were no GP fundholders in many areas, but I believe that the solution was encouraging more GPs into fundholding rather than abolishing the system.
  GP fundholding was voluntary, and, as many of my hon. Friends have pointed out, the system of primary care groups is coercive because people have no choice: it is a form of conscription. For that reason, the Government's proposals contain deficiencies—many of which we will undoubtedly test later this Session. One of the key differences is size. The Government propose increasing the size of groups to hundreds of thousands of people, or to 30,000 or 35,000 in rural areas. Frankly, that structure is too large.
  Grouping together 50 or 100 doctors will cause difficulties. It is often hard to encourage doctors to work together—although they are very worthy people. I questioned a Yorkshire GP about this matter when the Select Committee on Health considered it, and he said that the regional groups would subdivide. That is perhaps an acknowledgement that, in rural areas, the Government are trying to create an edifice that is far too big.
  I turn now to issues involving the national institute for clinical excellence. We are moving towards evidence-based medicine, which is good. However, doctors sometimes prescribe treatments that are not fully tested; some trial and error is involved. I think that we will get into difficulty if the institute provides guidance that doctors do not wish to take in the interests of their patients. Doctors may be put under professional or financial pressure to follow those guidelines. There must be a balance in this area between sensible guidance and audit, and sensible conduct on the part of medical professionals.
  Earlier in the debate, we discussed moving away from self-regulation to more intervention by Government. The British Medical Association is aware of terrible abuses within the medical profession. Mention has been made of the fact that it is difficult to get rid of bad doctors and consultants, because their colleagues in the profession are not always prepared to stand up and be counted.
  I served on a regional health authority some years ago that forced a particular consultant to take early retirement. Although other doctors refused to work with him, they would not put anything in writing, because he was

  389
  a colleague. Actions such as forced early retirement benefit the patients, but cost the national health service a lot of money. It is a question of balance. I shall be interested to examine the Government's proposals in detail when they introduce a Bill.
  Mention has been made of reclaiming sums from insurance for accident victims. Like many other hon. Members, I have constituents who have suffered accidents and, as a consequence, cannot work. That often leads to financial problems, such as falling behind with the mortgage. That is not always the best time to try to get money from people, unless it can be done efficiently and cost-effectively. If a new agency is to be established to try to get money from insurance companies via patients, it must do so efficiently and effectively. We must test its success pound for pound.
  In their publication "Our Healthier Nation", the Government stated that stroke and heart disease would be one of their four main priorities. However, the Stroke Association was a little exercised when the "national priorities for health" guidance, which was sent to chief executives of health authorities, failed to mention it. The Stroke Association viewed that as either simply an omission or a change in the Government's priorities.
  The association is concerned because stroke is the third largest killer in this country, and the main cause of severe disability. Some £2.3 billion of resources from the health and social services budget is devoted to addressing that problem. It is not an exciting side of medicine—there is no fancy machinery—but the Stroke Association does valuable work improving people's thought processes and encouraging them to talk again and holding group sessions for stroke victims two or three times a week. That provides some respite for partners and carers who bear the brunt of caring for stroke victims.
  Lord Skelmersdale issued a press release a few weeks ago to the effect that he would seek a meeting with the Secretary of State in order to gain a reassurance that strokes remain a high priority within the NHS. I hope that the message has got through to Richmond house, and that that assurance will be provided. My constituency on the beautiful south coast is rather more elderly than some, and, although there are young stroke victims these days, the elderly are particularly vulnerable to strokes.
  Because it is reliant on blood products, the haemophiliac community gets really scythed down whenever anything goes wrong with them. In the last Parliament, the Government took the correct decision to compensate haemophiliacs with HIV.
  As the Minister of State no doubt knows, there has been a campaign for compensation for the many haemophiliacs who contracted hepatitis C through NHS blood products. It is a great pity that, despite the campaign, the Secretary of State provided a written answer in July, only two days before the beginning of the summer recess, to say that the Government were not persuaded of the argument for compensating people with hepatitis C. Some of them will die, and they are concerned about looking after their families. They are finding life difficult. That issue needs to be reconsidered.
  There has recently been a statement about Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. If that is causing problems with blood products, it will affect haemophiliacs more than any other group, and they will experience problems first. I welcome the Government's decision to spend £30 million on blood
  390
  products, of which I know there is a shortage. That is a belt-and-braces approach, but we cannot take any risks with blood products, particularly for communities such as haemophiliacs.
  I hope that, during this Parliament, I and other Members on both sides of the House can persuade the Government that sufferers from hepatitis C, who have difficult lives, deserve compensation to enable them to adjust to their problems.
  7.21 pm
  Helen Jones: I shall address my remarks to the decisions on the health service and the announcements about that in the Gracious Speech.
  I am conscious that I and others of my generation are children of the NHS; I was born into the NHS and I have never known anything else. We are therefore probably the most fortunate generation in this country's history. We have never had to fear the consequences of illness or worry about how to pay the doctor, as our mothers and grandmothers did. We have been able to benefit from huge advances in medicine and surgery without worrying about the size of our pay packets. It is precisely because my generation has benefited so much from the health service that we have a duty to protect and extend it so that others might benefit in their turn. That is our aim in this Session. We are working for nothing less than the modernisation and improvement of the health service to make it, once again, the envy of the world, because for the people whom we represent, nothing less is good enough.
  The previous Government paid lip service to that duty but did not carry it out. We all remember them saying that the NHS was safe in their hands. I am sure that General Custer said the same to the 7th Cavalry. He probably said, "Stick with me boys and you'll be all right." Far from safeguarding the NHS, the Conservatives set about damaging it. They introduced a two-tier health service in which doctors and nurses were competing against one another not for patients' benefit but to satisfy their accountants. When the Conservatives left office, inequalities in health had grown so much that people in social class V had a mortality rate three times as high as those in social class I. So much for one-nation Conservatism.
  The Conservative party's response—which we heard again today—was not to consider how those problems could be tackled, but to encourage more and more people to use private medicine and to subsidise that through the tax system. This afternoon, Conservative Members have talked not about providing good public services, but about how they could provide a route out of such services for those who could afford it.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) would no doubt tell us that such measures provide freedom of choice. They do, but what freedom is there for people in Bewsey in my constituency, which is the most deprived ward in north Cheshire, who, however hard they worked and saved, would never in a million years be able to afford private medicine? What choice is there for people who require geriatric nursing, long-term mental health care or other services that the private sector hardly touches? Those people rely, and always will, on good public services. We are determined that we will meet their needs and tackle the health inequalities that so disfigure this country.

  391
  In common with some of my hon. Friends, I still have on my bookshelf a samizdat copy of the Black report. The then Prime Minister, now Baroness Thatcher, did not like its conclusions, so she sought to suppress it, but health inequalities do not go away if we ignore them. They have got worse, as the Acheson report has revealed today. We are tackling those inequalities. We have appointed the first Minister for Public Health and changed the direction of the NHS so that it will not only treat illness but promote good health.
  The north-west needs that change of direction more than most regions. Its mortality figures are the worst of any regional office area and they are much higher than those for England and Wales as a whole. In 1995, the last year for which I have complete figures, two thirds of all deaths were from circulatory problems and cancers, many of which were preventable. Those are not only figures on a balance sheet; they represent people suffering pain. It is the duty of Governments to tackle that.
  The same inequalities are perpetuated in my constituency. Bewsey and two other wards—Poplars and Hulme—form part of the most deprived health district in my area. Their residents have higher rates of debilitating long-term illnesses and higher rates of cardiac surgery, but there is less uptake of preventive medical treatment such as child immunisation and cervical smear tests. They are poorly served in the quantity and quality of primary health care services. For example, they have a lower provision of health visitors than their needs would suggest. They have the lowest proportion of district nurses per members of the medical practice population aged over 65. They even get fewer knee and hip joint replacements than those living in the more affluent areas nearby.
  If ever there was an argument for the Government's health improvement programmes and the use of primary care groups, it is evident every time that I go home. It is clear that, in the past, money and resources have not been allocated according to need and have not worked to improve health. That is precisely what the Government's programmes are designed to do. They will ensure that doctors and nurses, working in primary care groups with other agencies, deliver health improvement programmes.
  Mr. David Heath: I agree with much of the hon. Lady's speech. Does she not agree that it is a shame that primary care groups will essentially be general practitioner groups and will not sufficiently include other health care professionals, such as dentists, optometrists and pharmacists? They should be involved; they could provide business skills and would contribute to the holistic approach that she is advocating.
  Helen Jones: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's view that primary care groups will consist of only doctors. They will include doctors and nurses, who will have the right to work with other health care professionals. We have heard much about bureaucracy. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion would add further layers of bureaucracy to the NHS. For my constituents, the programme is not an optional extra; it is vital to their well-being and, in some cases, to their lives.
  I welcome that change in direction, but I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that we must also change direction in other areas of the NHS. Mental health
  392
  has been neglected for far too long, and care in the community has been introduced without the necessary back-up services. I know that there are differences of opinion on that matter in the House. Care in the community can work well, but it is not a cheap or easy option. It needs to operate alongside a range of services such as help lines, counselling and 24-crisis intervention teams, which work well in many areas and which help to meet the spectrum of people's needs.
  We also need to consider innovative projects such as the Gatehouse assessment centre in Warrington, where there is a dedicated and enthusiastic team of staff who have created a multi-disciplinary way of working. They offer a range of physical treatments but also relaxation classes, health education counselling and even aromatherapy. More important, they have developed a system of clinical nurse assessment which has been validated and which has been proved to work well. It is that kind of forward thinking and multi-disciplinary approach that we need to encourage across the health service, not only in respect of mental health.
  We want staff to be able to use and develop their skills; in return, they have to be accountable for what they do. We recognise that the vast majority of people are happy with the treatment that they receive, but when things go wrong—which, tragically, they sometimes do—it is important that mistakes are acknowledged and put right straight away. The commission for health improvement and the plans for clinical audit will have a major part to play in raising standards and in making sure that we learn from mistakes and that people get the most effective treatment. However, that by itself will not be enough.
  The Select Committee on Public Administration, of which I am a member, has already heard too much about a reluctance by some doctors and trusts to admit mistakes, to acknowledge patients' need, or even to give simple information. They are a minority, but they have to realise that such attitudes have no place in a modern health service. Sir Lancelot Spratt died a long time ago. Consultants can no longer play God, and administrators and chairmen of trusts have to be accountable.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Matron is still with us.
  Helen Jones: I take that for granted.
  While we require accountability on the part of staff, we must make sure that they are registered and regulated properly. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) mentioned this in passing. I hope that the review of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997, which the Minister is carrying out, will not only ensure stricter checks on the registration of nurses but will examine how we can protect the title of nurse. It is a mystery to me why people cannot call themselves midwives unless they are registered midwives, but can call themselves nurses so long as they do not claim to be registered.
  I hope that we shall also make sure that if people are removed from the nursing register, they are not able to get jobs elsewhere in the health service or in social services, perhaps as a health care assistant or in some other capacity where they are still working with vulnerable people.
  The NHS has moved on and developed new techniques and skills, but our systems of registration have not necessarily caught up with them. Let us consider the

  393
  example of operating theatre practitioners. They do not have to be registered—there is only a voluntary code. However, their jobs are often interchangeable with those of theatre nurses. In fact, trusts often advertise for a nurse or an OTP. Certainly, nurses and OTPs have the same access to sensitive equipment and controlled drugs yet, if an OTP abuses his position, he cannot be removed from a register, unlike the nurse working alongside him, and is quite free to get a job elsewhere.
  The public deserve better from us, just as they need us to examine the way in which we register people practising as psychotherapists and physiotherapists and the restrictions that we place on them as to whether they can call themselves psychotherapists and physiotherapists. The good and conscientious staff working in the NHS deserve that protection. Their standing should not be damaged by charlatans who should not be practising.
  There is much that needs to be done. This is a period of great change and great opportunity. I am pleased that we now have a Government who will tackle the various difficulties. As I said, like most of my generation, I am a child of the NHS. Perhaps our generation was in danger of taking the NHS too much for granted. However, after the last 18 years, we will not be in danger of doing that again. Because the NHS has been under attack, we have learned how precious it is. I hope that the Government will ensure that the NHS returns to the principle of its founder, who clearly said that private charity is no substitute for organised justice. It is organised justice and equality of health care that we want in the NHS, and I hope that the Government will ensure that that is what we have.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: Like the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), I, too, am a child of the national health service, but I also had the privilege of being a Health Minister. This is the first time since 2 May last year that I have contributed to a debate on the health service. That was a deliberate decision, and I want to take part in this important debate because of my concern about what I believe to be a glaring omission in the Queen's Speech. That glaring omission is the absence of anything positive and concrete to deal with the problem of hospital waiting lists.
  I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is present. She has done a great deal of work in the past few months to highlight the problems suffered by our constituents as a result of rising waiting lists. I share a district health trust area with my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), who is as concerned as I am about what is happening in the Mid-Essex hospital trust area. Sadly, the Minister for Public Health has had to leave the Chamber, but I am delighted that the Secretary of State for Social Security is present. I shall put to him several questions to which I hope he will have the courtesy to respond when he winds up the debate. My constituents desperately want answers to them.
  When the Secretary of State for Health opened the debate, he was very dismissive of my intervention in respect of hospital waiting lists. My constituents will be extremely disappointed that he sought to brush aside my valid point by saying that he did not know where the figures came from and so was not prepared to say anything about them.
  394
  The figures came from written answers sent to me by the Minister for Public Health on 22 October and on 9 and 17 November. Therefore, the figures that I shall cite, which illustrate my concern about the lack of action proposed in the Queen's Speech, have not been dreamed up by the Conservative research department to embarrass the Government. They are figures put into the public domain by the Department of Health and the Minister for Public Health, so I assume that even the Government will accept that they are accurate and honest.
  As I said, I am concerned about hospital waiting lists in the Mid-Essex hospital trust area and about the lack of any measure to tackle that problem in the Queen's Speech. Let me share with the House the scale of the problem facing my constituents.
  During the general election, a little plastic credit card was circulated. It had on it a photograph, taken by Lord Snowdon, of the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Prime Minister. On the back of the card were several irrevocable pledges on which I think the Prime Minister wants his Government to be judged. One of them was that they would reduce waiting lists.
  It goes without saying that, since early 1991, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister, targeted money each year specifically to bring down waiting lists. We started by eliminating lists of those waiting for more than 24 months. Waiting times were then brought down to under 24 months, then 18 months, and then, for non-emergency treatment, to between 12 and a maximum of 18 months.
  During the election campaign, all hon. Members and their opponents had six weeks to canvass. I vividly remember my Labour opponent and the Labour party at large throughout the country saying, "Elect new Labour. We pledge to bring down waiting lists"—not increase them. The campaign was so frenetic that Labour created the perception and raised the expectation that, under new Labour, people would be able to walk into their local hospital on the day that a problem was identified and surgeons would queue up to treat them. The country believed that, if there were a Labour Government, waiting lists would fall and non-emergency hospital treatment would be available infinitely more quickly.
  What happened? From day one of this new Labour Government, hospital waiting lists for non-emergency treatments have risen inexorably. My constituents cannot turn up at Broomfield hospital and immediately have the operation that they need. Funnily enough, they are put on a waiting list. Let us consider what has happened to those waiting lists. So that nobody thinks that the Conservative research department is painting a terrible picture, I add the caveat that the following figures are from the Government.
  On 31 March 1997, the number of people in the Mid-Essex hospital services NHS trust area waiting 12 months or more for non-emergency hospital treatment was 104. The latest figures that the Government have produced are for 30 September 1998—after 18 months of a new Labour Government, under whom, apparently, there would be no problems with hospital waiting lists. They show that 1,155 people are waiting. The Secretary of State for Health suggested that the country should be thanking him for what he is doing on hospital waiting lists. Nobody on a list in my constituency has anything to thank him for.

  395
  The Secretary of States says that waiting lists are coming down, so people might think that the peak has been reached and that the number of people waiting fell to 1,155 on 30 September. Not a bit of it. On 31 August, a month before, 1,063 people were waiting. Month after month, hospital waiting lists in the Mid-Essex area have increased dramatically, in utter contravention of pledges and promises given on the doorstep during the election campaign in West Chelmsford and throughout the country by the Prime Minister down to the most junior new Labour Back Bencher.
  Mr. Fabricant: I want to probe my hon. Friend. Does he think that Labour candidates deliberately misled and lied to the electorate, or were they just naive?
  Ms Ann Coffey: Think about it.
  Mr. Burns: Given my anger at what has happened to my constituents, I am thinking, first, that I do not want to use unparliamentary language and secondly, that even Labour politicians are basically decent human beings. I think that they were spun out of control by the prince of darkness and spin doctors in Millbank because they were desperate to get into power. They saw an emotive issue and milked it for all its worth.
  Over the past few months, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald has highlighted the fiddle that has been going on in an attempt to remedy the political damage caused by the Government's appalling waiting lists. The Government cannot fiddle figures in my constituency for a very simple reason: the number of people waiting for 12 months or more for hospital treatment has risen so dramatically. Nobody can dispute that; even the Government have produced figures to show it.
  Let us get under the skin of the figures: let us consider the numbers of people who are waiting to see a consultant following a GP visit—even before they are put on a waiting list for hospital treatment. They, too, are appalling. On 31 March 1997, the number of such people waiting between 13 and 25 weeks in the Mid-Essex area was 481. By 30 June this year—the last month for which figures for this category are available—the figure had escalated to 1,348. In March 1997, 74 unfortunate people were waiting 26 weeks or more to see a consultant, but by 30 June this year, the figure was 256. In only 14 months of a Labour Government, even the number of people waiting for more than 13 weeks to see a consultant rose from a maximum of 555 to 1,604. That does not suggest that new Labour is honouring its pledges to the people of the Mid-Essex area.
  The total number of people waiting in Mid-Essex for hospital treatment for any period of time was 8,391 on 31 March 1997. The latest figure, 18 months after the Government came to power, having pledged to bring down waiting lists—unlike, apparently, the previous Government, who did reduce waiting lists—was 11,615. I repeat that those are not my figures.
  In written answers, the Minister for Public Health happened to say—I welcome this—that North Essex health authority is working with the waiting list task force to see what can be done to meet its target of reducing
  396
  waiting lists by 31 March 1999, which is almost two years after the Government came to power. That intrigued me; nowhere in the answer did it say what the target was. I thought, "Wonderful!" I thought that the Government must be so concerned that, according to the Sunday papers last weekend, the area has the highest waiting lists in the country, and so embarrassed about breaking their pledge that they are pouring loads of extra money and expertise into the area so that fewer people will have to wait than did when they came to power. I tabled some more questions. Hon. Members can imagine my disappointment when I discovered that that was not so.
  I welcome any target that reduces waiting lists so that fewer people have to wait—and wait for less time—for hospital treatment. However, the Government's target is very modest: to reduce the figure from 11,615 to 9,738—about 1,400 people more than when they came to power. What sort of target is that?
  I pray that we do not have a hard winter. As anybody who has worked or been involved at ministerial level in the health service knows, the winter crisis period is the most worrying time for the Government of the day and the NHS. If there is a harsh winter, the number of illnesses and of people needing operations rises dramatically. That is regrettable, and can throw even the best-laid plans for treating more people more quickly. Even if we ignore that consideration, however, the Government's target for waiting lists in Mid-Essex is incredibly modest. It is still the case that significantly more people are on the waiting list than when the Government came to power.
  It is ironic that a Government and a Prime Minister who have made such a deal—day after day—about keeping their promises have not kept their promises to my constituents who are ill and need non-emergency operations and other hospital treatment. More and more of them are having to wait longer and longer under new Labour.
  Let me say one more thing on this subject. I wonder what the West Chelmsford Labour party thinks. We have not heard a dicky bird from it on this subject over the past 18 months. I understand how ashamed it is, but one would have thought that its candidate at the last election—who happens to be a consultant in psychiatry in the Mid-Essex community and mental health trust working at Broomfield hospital, which is at the heart of the health trust area—might have had something to say. He made a big deal—citing his medical background when talking to my constituents on the doorstep and in his literature—of the fact that his party's Government, like a new Jerusalem, would cure my constituents' problem. The irony is that their problem is infinitely worse under his party's Government than it ever was under my party's Government. Under my party's Government, waiting lists were reduced in the Mid-Essex hospital trust area.
  I realise that the Secretary of State who will reply is responsible for social security rather than health, but, because the Secretary of State for Health was not prepared to discuss the issue earlier, I ask him to give me some answers when he winds up the debate. I do not want to hear the usual platitudes about what the Government are doing.
  I would be grateful if the Secretary of State would listen for a minute, rather than talking to the Whip about—presumably—an entirely different matter. He might then be able to give a specific answer to my questions.

  397
  Why have my hospital waiting lists lengthened? Why is the target for reducing them by March next year 1,400 higher than the target set by the Government when they came to power? Why has this happened under new Labour, which promised to reduce hospital waiting lists?
  Let me now pick up an important point made by the hon. Member for Warrington, North. She spoke knowledgeably about mental health, and implied that, like me, she considered that for too long mental health services have been the Cinderella of the NHS. They have been underfunded and pushed aside by Governments of all political parties—
  Ms Coffey: That happened under the last Government.
  Mr. Burns: As I said, it happened under Governments of all political parties. Let me reply to the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey). Over the past five years, mental illness has been given much more recognition, and much more priority. More and more money was channelled into it as the Government tried to help to change attitudes, both in the medical profession—where, sadly, the wrong attitudes still obtained—and outside it. They wanted to break down the barriers, and to end the prejudices afflicting mentally ill people. I am sorry that the Queen's Speech contained no specific measures to deal with that, but I recognise that the Department and the relevant Minister are examining the whole subject of mental health.
  I hope that arrangements regarding patients in the community will be tightened. I am not saying for a moment that caring for such patients in the community is the wrong policy, but I think that the policy should be improved in certain respects. One example that we have seen over the last few days showed, tragically, that something must be done—not, I hope, in a party political way. I look forward to hearing an announcement from the Department of Health. I hope that the Department will come up with a framework allowing people of all political persuasions to work together to improve the medical care and physical well-being of mentally ill people.
  It is equally important for much more to be done—by us, using our positions of responsibility, but also by the medical profession and the voluntary sector—to end the horrendous prejudice that affects the mentally ill. Everyone sympathises with someone who has appendicitis or flu, telephoning and sending flowers and good wishes. The awful thing about our society is what happens to those with mental health problems. This tends to be forgotten.
  All too often, because of the prejudice that they know to exist, relatives will try to hide the fact that a member of the family is suffering from a mental health problem. Far too few people will telephone, show genuine interest or send flowers. Mental illness is a stigma: it is something that must be brushed under the carpet. People suffering from mental illness are suffering through no fault of their own, like people suffering from flu. The barriers that have built up are unacceptable in a society that is heading towards the millennium.
  I look forward to the Government's announcements, and hope that they will tackle many of the problems that desperately need to be tackled in the next few months.
  7.57 pm
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) is present, and sad to see that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) is not. Both made interesting speeches. The hon. Member for Lichfield spoke of the recent history of the national health service, which is an interesting subject, although I did not agree with all that he said. He assumed that a background of common sense existed; I can only put it like that.
  In what could kindly be termed a wide-ranging speech, the right hon. Member for Henley concentrated on best value in local government, and a number of associated issues. He demonstrated comprehensively that he had signally failed to understand the first thing about what the Government are saying about best value, assuming that his prejudices of many years ago still hold true. In discussing GP fundholding and best value in local government, both speakers implied that what they had suggested—suggestions that preceded the two proposals in the Gracious Speech—was common sense, and that the Government's proposals were, in some way, deeply ideological.
  Interestingly, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) could hardly contain herself before, after a few minutes, claiming that the GP commissioning bodies that the Government propose were aimed to collectivise the profession. It seems that Opposition Members are saying that they have adopted a commonsense position and that the Government are attempting to introduce ideology into the provision of public services. My view is that the contrary is true. The Government are attempting to undo the damage that was inflicted by the previous, deeply ideological, Government by the Acts that they introduced, which brought about compulsory competitive tendering, general practitioner fundholding and the internal market in the health service.
  By way of evidence, I shall read a brief quotation from 1993 from William Waldegrave. I shall be interested to see whether anyone on the Conservative Benches nods when I read it. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  "The key point is not whether those who run our public services are elected, but whether they are producer-responsive or consumer-responsive. Services are not necessarily made to respond to the public by giving our citizens a democratic voice, and a distant and diffuse one at that, in their make-up. They can be made responsive by giving the public choices, or by instituting mechanisms which build in publicly-approved standards and redress when they are not attained."
  If any Opposition Members are thinking to themselves that that sounds perfectly fine and a reasonable argument, that demonstrates why the Conservative party so comprehensively lost the 1997 election and why it is so far out of touch with what the public these days are thinking.
  The quote suggests, as have some of the contributions to the debate, that Opposition Members are still thinking about public services as if they are cans of pineapple—as if we can buy and sell them. They seem to think that they can be obtained off the shelf and that if they prove to be defective they can be taken back and the shop will replace them. They seem to think that it is all about customers going into stores and buying commodities.
  I suggest that public services are not capable of being boiled down to the whims of the market. However, that is the course that the previous Government took in the

  399
  public service areas that we are discussing. Those who required good public services in both health and local government had foisted on them GP fundholding and compulsory competitive tendering. Those policies arose from the assumptions that the market is always superior to the public service ethos; that competition would of itself sort out any problems that might arise; and that both would inevitably produce a better service.
  Those who have argued that the Government would wish simply to remove the internal market from the health service and from local government should understand that the issue is not that competition is never right for public service provision. If, for example, I wish to organise the purchase of some textbooks or some roughbooks for a school, I can think of no better method than to specify what I require, obtain tenders and opt for the cheapest one, provided that it meets what my specification sought to achieve. That tender would win. However, as competition attempts to deal with issues that become ever more complex, it becomes increasingly apparent that we cannot apply it on the basis of one size fits all to the public service.
  That is what happened in local government with compulsory competitive tendering. Whatever the circumstances were, the previous Government slapped on competition. That is what happened in the health service. The previous Government attempted systematically to introduce crude competition in the quasi-market that they sought to establish throughout the health service. Similarly, they introduced GP fundholding to try to make GPs subject to the market in the way in which they dealt with their patients and in organising their own practices.
  It is interesting and instructive to examine the claims that were made against these systems and compare them with the outcomes. It was claimed that competition itself would solve the problems. We were told that GP fundholding would make more efficient use of services; break down bureaucracy; liberate doctors to enable them to take better decisions; and ensure better care for patients. We were told also that CCT would save us money and improve services at the same time. It is clear, a few years on from both those deeply ideological impositions, that there is no evidence overall that that has happened.
  That is not to deny that many GPs have made a success of their fundholding practices within the terms within which they were required to work. Nor do we decry the idea that many local government employees have worked hard to win and hold the contracts that they were asked to bid and compete for in local government. However, if we look—
  Mr. Eric Pickles: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore believe Sir Jeremy Beecham, the head of the Local Government Association, when he said that there can be no doubt that compulsory competitive tendering brought much benefit to local government, increased efficiency and reduced costs? Is Sir Jeremy wrong in that assessment?
  Dr. Whitehead: I was referring to the original claims which were made by those who instituted CCT. They talked about huge savings and huge increases in services. I have emphasised that many council workers have
  400
  worked hard, with their local authorities, to ensure that, within the terms presented, to them CCT was a success in that services and efficiencies were maintained.
  Several studies, particularly that of the London business school, have demonstrated, among other things, that if we take into account the transactional costs of CCT—those things that were taken out of the equation when the original claims were made by Government as to the successes that CCT would introduce—it is not possible to identify the savings that the previous Government suggested. Furthermore—
  Mr. Pickles rose—
  Dr. Whitehead: I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with me while I make my point. I shall then let him intervene again.
  If a service is removed from local government and taken into the private sector for contracting, there is strong evidence that costs arise once there is not a public sector yardstick against which the private sector can compete. Consequently, private sector cartels have arisen in the long term in CCT provision. There is strong evidence that there are such cartels among CCT providers. That is evidence that refutes the claims made by the original proponents of CCT.
  Mr. Pickles: Sir Jeremy Beecham is a respected figure in local government and a respected member of the Labour party. Is he right or is he wrong? Yes or no?
  Dr. Whitehead: I was attempting to set out for the hon. Gentleman the fact that the claims originally made by the Conservative Government about CCT have proved not to be right in practice. The result of the long implementation of CCT is that a number of things have changed. Sir Jeremy Beecham was reflecting that fact. If we examine the overall results of both fundholding and CCT, it is apparent that the results have been destructive in terms of public service delivery and ethos. Fundholding has introduced buying and selling into what should be a straightforward relationship between the doctor and his or her patients. Fundholding has led to a two-tier NHS, and the idea that the patients of those who did not opt for what Conservative Members assured us was a voluntary move to fundholding are not treated in the same way as fundholding doctors' patients.
  Fundholding has undoubtedly led to a large increase in bureaucracy, not only within GPs practices, but because transactions outside GP practices have had to be accounted for within the internal market that has been created within the NHS. It has led to additional duties for doctors. They have had to run what, in effect, are small businesses, when many of them wanted to ensure that they delivered the best possible medical service to their patients.
  Fundholding has led to decisions on patient lists and on drug availability that set the market and doctors' clinical judgments against each other. Although the evidence points in many directions, the suspicion remains that in some cases, in order to balance the books, some fundholding practices appear to have attempted to remove from their lists patients who proved to be costly, awkward or difficult. All those outcomes contradict the basic idea of what a doctor's relationship with his or her patients should be.

  401
  Compulsory competitive tendering has led to the effective casualisation of much of the local authority labour force. It has made local authorities unable to respond effectively to the needs of their communities once contracts were fixed. If the material circumstances changed, if the local authority wished to take a different role in its relationship with the community, or if the community made different requests of the local authority, nothing could be done, because the contract had been given out and that was the end of the matter.
  CCT deeply damaged the democratic process, as it was unclear who was responsible for a particular service. I know of many instances in which members of the public experienced great frustration when they went down to the town hall to complain and were passed on, properly, to a contractor who they did not believe had anything to do with the service. When they sought redress, they were told that the contract had been given out, the matter was the contractor's responsibility and they must deal with the contractor.
  As I said earlier, CCT led to the development of large transactional costs as the client side monitored the process of tendering and policed its outcome, whether or not the internal labour force won the contract or the contract went out to an external organisation.
  All those destructive effects will be avoided through the measures announced in the Gracious Speech. The development of primary care groups will enable various professionals—not just doctors but, as we have heard, nurses and some specialties—to become involved at local level. We know that the multifunds—forerunners of primary care groups that were set up in Southampton—brought in specialist clinics to allow the participation of various specialties at immediate ground level, enabling them to co-operate to provide a better service.
  Instead of competing, GPs and other primary health carers will be able to collaborate in the running of services. Resources overall will be used to best advantage. Best value will allow local authorities to engage in the method of service delivery most suited to the service, the area and a productive dialogue with the local community. Any business man understands that much better results will be obtained from a long-term relationship with a contractor, whoever that may be, by growing and altering the contract according to how he wants the service to develop, as opposed to the regime of the brown envelope, which destroys everything that has been achieved and makes it necessary to start all over again.
  Local government will be reconnected to local communities. Before a service is decided on, local government officials will have to discuss with the community what the targets are and how the service should be delivered. The local authority will be required to justify to its community and to the Audit Commission—a fact that was apparently unknown to the right hon. Member for Henley—what the service will comprise.
  I congratulate the Government on introducing these measures, which demonstrate that at last we are out of the dark tunnel of dogma which, for the past decade and a half, has plagued the provision of much-needed services. The measures will restore to public service professional pride in providing good services, using all the skills and imagination that we know public service professionals possess. The public will get good services from
  402
  management that is responsive to the needs of the community. The Gracious Speech represents a good day for public service and demonstrates that the Government are determined to make sure that what works best for the community will form the basis of their legislative programmes in the future.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. David Rendel: Welfare reform is heralded as one of the central measures of this year's Queen's Speech, and has been heralded as one of the Government's principal measures, so I am rather concerned that there was nothing in the speech about some of the most important aspects of welfare reform.
  One example is the issue of compulsory second-tier pensions, which I believe is still unresolved in the Government's mind. As my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) pointed out, there is no mention in the Queen's Speech of the Child Support Agency. I hope that that was an unfortunate omission.
  Where are the means of tackling poverty, social exclusion, and health and income inequalities? Other hon. Members have noted that those are also omitted from the Queen's speech. I would have expected the Government to begin to tackle those issues.
  The Liberal Democrats support the principle of welfare reform because we believe that the current system contains a number of significant deficiencies. It traps people in benefit, yet it fails to deliver effective help where it is most needed, not least because of the sheer complexity of the benefits system. As we have heard, there is the continuing problem of fraud and the waste of money that it causes.
  However, we reject the argument, to which the present Government and the previous one were happy to subscribe, that there is a spending crisis in social security. We should never forget that in Britain we spend rather less on social security than most of our competitor countries in Europe. The real problem of welfare spending is not that we are spending too much overall, but that not enough of the money reaches those in greatest need.
  The Secretary of State's answer is to repeat the phrase
  "work for those who can and security for those who cannot"
  so often that it is beginning to sound like a mantra. He must grasp the nettle and make the basic philosophical decision, which he and his Government do not seem to have made yet, whether to extend means testing, with all the associated disincentives to work and to save, or whether to focus purely on getting people back into work. His Government will not make real progress with welfare reform unless and until he and they make that decision.
  I shall deal with the Bills proposed in the Queen's Speech. The publication of the Bill to introduce the working families tax credit will, I hope, clear up many of the detailed concerns that we and others still have. The Liberal Democrats are concerned that the Government still does not know how they will deliver the credit. For example, how will it work for someone who has several employers?
  Although the principle may be laudable, where is the evidence that tax credits are a positive work incentive? Evidence given to the Select Committee suggests that the Government are acting on a hunch. Tax credits have not

  403
  always worked in other countries. I was surprised to discover that the Tories oppose the measure. After all, they planned to introduce a similar credit in the 1980s, but failed to do so when they could not overcome the arguments about purse-into-wallet transfers and the large burden on businesses. Sadly, the Labour Government have not solved those problems either. It is sad that they have taken up a failed Tory policy, but it is ridiculous for the Tories to claim that they want nothing to do with it.
  On the cuts in benefit that will result from some of the measures in the Queen's Speech, the changes to incapacity benefit are a clear example of the Government's gradual abandonment of the contributory principle. Means-testing incapacity benefit claimants who have occupational pensions simply punishes those who have made provision for their future. Do we want to provide such a disincentive to saving? The cuts involved, which represent a real loss of cash to people who may have considerable medical problems, are huge. Let us compare that with what the previous Secretary of State said.
  On 28 March 1997, following a meeting with the all-party disablement group, that group and the then Secretary of State issued a joint press release which stated:
  "The savings to incapacity benefit would come through getting more people into work, not through reducing the level of incapacity benefit, or entitlement to it."
  What a contrast that is.
  Mr. Vernon Coaker: My experience in some of the mining communities in Nottinghamshire and elsewhere is that incapacity benefit was used as a convenient way of getting people out of mining jobs without sacking them. If that was one of the ways in which incapacity benefit was used, it is not unreasonable to consider how it works and to see whether that can be improved.
  Mr. Rendel: Looking at the way in which the benefit works is different from cutting it off from those who need it.
  My next concern is the decision to restrict the severe disablement allowance to those disabled before the age of 20. That measure will cause great financial hardship for students and others who have become disabled after the age of 20, who, legitimately, have not been in a position to pay any national insurance contributions and thus obtain incapacity benefit. There will be several in that position. Even if the Government do not reverse the measure, I hope that they will at least think of increasing the age limit at which that cut-off comes so that those who have not yet reached the stage of earning and paying national insurance contributions are not hampered by the measure.
  If the Government go ahead, that is another area in which they will be forcing more people on to means-tested benefits. That reform alone will force 70 per cent. of those previously eligible for severe disablement allowance on to means-tested benefits. Furthermore, despite the Government's claim to be women-friendly, the measure will penalise a disproportionate number of women who comprise some two thirds of those who claim that allowance.
  404
  More welcome is the measure to extend to widowers the benefit that currently goes to widows. There is no case for discriminating between women and men in this area, and it is therefore of little credit to the Government that they had that change of mind only when forced to do so by a case in the European Court.
  There are aspects to the changes to widows benefit about which I am concerned, as I hope all hon. Members are. Not least is the fact that the Government seem so desperate to make savings that they will penalise the recently bereaved. In particular, to limit the new bereavement allowance to just six months is far too short. Losing a spouse is about the most traumatic of all life events, and those who do so unexpectedly in middle age need a decent period of adjustment before they can be expected to stand entirely on their own feet again. It can be difficult for widows who are not working at the time of an unexpected bereavement, suddenly to have to re-enter the job market successfully, and the measures make no real allowance for that.
  A widow wrote to me recently expressing her concern about the changes and how they erode the contributory principle. She said:
  "After 24 years of marriage, my husband died leaving me a widow at 50 … I was absolutely devastated. There is just no way I could have gone back to teaching and frankly would have had no chance of being employed at that age, having been out of touch. My widow's pension of £90 per week was an absolute lifeline. My husband had, after all, paid all his NI contributions and SERPS all his life and was to receive no pension in return, due to his early death."
  We welcome the provision of a one-stop shop as part of a single gateway to benefits. The current system fails to deliver effective help to many people precisely because of the complexity of claiming different benefits with different rules from different offices. But a gateway can be one of two things. It can open up access to the land beyond, or it can be used to close off a bottleneck and to prevent access. We will welcome the gateway if it opens up access to benefits, but not if it is used merely as a mechanism for denying benefits to claimants.
  While the measure has the welcome effect of narrowing the possibilities for fraud in the system, we are concerned that, by refusing benefit until an interview has taken place, many vulnerable people may be left without money at a time when it is most needed. The introduction of the element of compulsion may well undermine any good will towards the welfare-to-work schemes and discourage co-operation.
  The establishment of a disability rights commission is welcome, but long overdue. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for such a commission for many years, and we hope that the Government will give it the power that it needs to do a good job and to ensure that real progress is made.
  I come now to what is missing from the Queen's Speech. We still await the Green Paper on pensions. We have been waiting for it for many months. There are some who think that we will be earning our own pensions before it is published. The problem seems to be that the Government remain determined to postpone a decision on whether to introduce compulsory second-tier pensions.
  Will the Secretary of State make it clear to the Chancellor, who I believe is the current stumbling block, that there is a significant difference between compulsory

  405
  savings put into a fund for an individual's own retirement, and compulsory taxation used for current Government expenditure. The Chancellor needs to appreciate that crucial difference.
  We are also disappointed that there is no mention of a draft Bill to reform the Child Support Agency. That may be because the Government intend to take more time to listen to the concerns being voiced about their proposals. I hope so. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the draft Bill will go to the Select Committee on Social Security this Session, despite the absence of any such pledge from the Queen's Speech? It is important that we have the opportunity to put right the wrongs associated with the current Act, and that we are not simply expected to go along with the Government's plans.
  What about the 6 million carers in the United Kingdom who provide support worth around £34 billion a year? Despite manifesto commitments, there is no mention in the Queen's Speech of the introduction of a citizenship pension, which would help those carers who cannot make provision for their own second-tier pensions.
  One point which has not so far received much attention is the size of this year's proposed cuts in benefits, which is far greater than those which were threatened last year. Last year's smaller cuts were, for the most part, reversed by the previous Secretary of State, in many cases before they had even taken effect, although not in the case of the lone parent benefit cut. This year's cuts amount to a much larger sum—some £1.25 billion.
  I look forward once again, I hope, to enjoying the support of Labour Back Benchers in trying to reverse some of the cuts, as we did so successfully last year with the enormous revolt against the cut in lone parent benefit. Perhaps this time we can overturn some of the proposals before the Government get themselves so hopelessly stuck in a corner that they find it difficult to get out without embarrassment, as they did last year.
  Health and social security are both areas where there are major differences between the Liberal Democrats and the Government. I can assure the Government that they will have our support on matters on which we agree, but my team will most certainly oppose the Government whole-heartedly on matters on which we do not.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. Stephen Hesford: There are a number of reasons why I feel moved to speak tonight—
  Mr. Pickles: Because you were told to do so by the Government Whips.
  Mr. Hesford: I have not sat here as long as I have for that reason. Opposition Members may laugh, but I notice that no shadow health spokesmen are present at the moment. None of those hon. Members whose speeches I intend to examine in a moment is present.
  There are a number of reasons why I need to speak on health matters. It is the 50th anniversary of the NHS—an important event for this country. In my constituency in the summer, I was honoured to welcome current and past hospital and community service staff to an event. The thousands of local people who turned out at the fair based around that event showed that the British people have the well-being of the NHS in their hearts.
  406
  Another reason why I wish to speak on health matters concerns what the electorate were telling me prior to the election. I represent a constituency that was not a Labour seat before the election—indeed, it had never been a Labour seat until the election. One of the reasons it became a Labour seat for the first time was that previously lifelong Conservative voters told me that the NHS was not safe in the hands of the Conservative party.
  The subject of the debate shows the genuine divide between the Government and the Opposition, and the debate has been illuminating for a young Back Bencher to behold. I have altered the nature of my speech to deal with the manner of the Opposition in this debate on the Gracious Address. I will not take the mock horror and concern that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) showed when her hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) was talking about increasing waiting lists—and, more importantly, neither will my constituents. Nobody was fooled.
  The fact that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald was chosen to lead on health for the Opposition demonstrates without qualification where the Tory party stands on the health service. The tenet of her rant—I hope that that is parliamentary language, Mr. Deputy Speaker—was to put the frighteners on. What was her purpose in trying to do that to my constituents, including the many who were previously lifelong Tory voters? She knows that, at the last election, the Tories were spotted on health, and had come to the end of their tether.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said that the Government's proposals—which I welcome, and to which I hope to return—would cause top-to-bottom turbulence. She and other Opposition Members were showing selective amnesia, and should think back to the absolute turbulence caused by the reforms of the previous Government. In an intervention on the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) pointed out that, in 1982–83, the Conservative Government tried to reform the NHS. The hon. Member for Lichfield had to accept that those reforms failed.
  The general public—and, no doubt, some hon. Members—will have a longer and less selective memory than Conservative Members. They will recall the sad case in Birmingham around 1986–87, when a baby died because it could not gain admission to the right hospital at the right time. That caused consternation in the Conservative party and was the cause of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, which forced fundholding and the internal market upon us. It was politically expedient. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test used the words "ideologically driven," and he was right.
  It is a bit rich for the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald to say that we are the cause of the turbulence. Not at all. The electorate asked us to sort out the health service, and that is what the proposed legislation will be about. Other hon. Members have referred to that matter, and I hope to return to the subject.
  The right hon. Lady attempted to frighten my constituents by saying that people are still on trolleys. Whether or not that is the case—the right hon. Lady was able to give only two examples—the general public

  407
  and hon. Members know who invented that process. From where did we inherit that problem? If a few hospitals are still in that situation—I will not comment on the right hon. Lady's examples—it is because, after 18 months, we are still trying to get at the backlog that was created under the previous Government. Their arguments will not wash.
  The right hon. Lady was selective in her use of statistics, which was not very sophisticated. She said that, in a British Medical Association opinion poll, 55 per cent. of general practitioners stated that they did not want anything to do with the running of primary care groups. Any scrutiny of that sentence gives it away—all it means is that many in the profession do not want to be on the boards. It does not mean that they do not agree with the primary care group proposal. The House will know that PCG boards will not be large and, by definition, not many GPs will be able to have anything to do with their running.
  The right hon. Lady talked about levelling up and not levelling down in the context of GP fundholding. She attempted, and failed, to make the point that GP fundholding was designed to improve services for everybody. What happened in practice? The right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) can have no hiding place on this topic. Fundholding has been in place for seven years, and during that time just over half our GP practices went for, or said that they intended to go for, fundholding.
  Where was the ringing endorsement after seven years? Why was there a delay in practices switching to fundholding? Why did the Conservative Government have to change the rules time and again to try to get people who were not really willing partners to join in? By the end of the seven years, there were four different versions of GP fundholding. Many GPs have told me that they signed up to the last wave only because there was an unconvincing inevitability about it. They did not want to do it, but they felt that they had to.
  There was no levelling up because, crucially, fundholding created a two-tier system, setting GP against GP and making planning difficult. The system was expensive and bureaucratic, and patients in one part of my constituency could do this, that and the other at the local hospital, while those in another part could not. That had to be ended. The Government will end GP fundholding, and not before time.
  Conservative Members, unlike my constituents, do not understand the significance of the general election result—it meant that the Conservatives could not and cannot be trusted on health. I shall give a brief history of the Tory philosophy on the NHS. In 1945 and 1948, they voted against it. In the early 1950s, having returned to power, they set up the Guillebaud committee to consider the funding of the health service. That Tory Government expected the committee to say that the funding could not be afforded out of general taxation and to recommend another form of funding—in other words, a dismantling of the NHS.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hesford: No, I want to make progress.
  408
  To the surprise of the then Tory Government, the committee said that funding out of general taxation was the best form of funding and that the health service gave very good value for money. Let us fast forward to 1997. What was the state of affairs on funding? The figures that we inherited show that in 1999–2000—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh, but these are their figures, showing that there would have been a real cut in NHS funding if the Tories had returned to power.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald about funding the NHS with private money, and the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) seemed to say that it was Tory policy. If my analysis is at all correct, the divide between the Conservative and Labour parties is such that, if the Tories had won at the general election or were—inconceivably—to win at the next one, there would be only a safety net. The NHS would not be funded out of general taxation to be there at the point of need, without requiring payment. My constituents—they realised this at the general election—would be left with a safety net that dealt only with emergencies, geriatric care and mental health: the services that the private sector does not like.
  My constituents saw through the Tories at the general election and they see through them now. Tory scare tactics will not work. The Tory party is in desperate need of publicity. It is for others to decide whether the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald is seeking publicity for herself and whether her party is seeking credibility because it has no profile. Tory tactics did not work at the general election and they will not work at the next one.
  8.48 pm
  Dr. Peter Brand: We have been promised changes in the benefits system. I make a plea for a change in attitude in the benefits system delivery. As a GP, and now as a Member of Parliament, I have been amazed by the insensitivity shown by some of those who administer the system. The medical division of the Benefits Agency seems hellbent on giving people just one point less than they need to qualify on the all work test. The staff should realise not only the anxiety that is created for their clients—and my patients—but the danger into which they sometimes put them.
  Over the past 18 months, I have seen three cases of that. One was a man who used to work as a builder's labourer, who had no other qualifications. He had had one heart attack and coronary grafting, and he still had unstable angina. A doctor from the medical department of the Benefits Agency found him fit for some sort of work. The agency withdrew that classification only when I asked it which doctor would represent it at a coroner's court should the man drop dead because of the advice given by the agency.
  The same happened to a man who had worked as a gas fitter. He had an unstable neck, surgery had failed, and he was becoming paralysed from the waist down, but he was considered to be fit for work. That is clearly nonsense, and shows the insensitivity and the poor clinical skills of some of the doctors employed.
  Most recently, last week, I saw the husband of a lady who suffered from Alzheimer's disease, who had just had an application for night-time attendance allowance

  409
  turned down. The lady became severely confused day and night, and she was taking a small dose of tranquilliser four times a day. The written report from the adjudication officer suggested that she could be adequately sedated at night so that she would not be a problem. That report was written by someone without medical or nursing qualifications, as far as I could see, and it is not their role to give advice that is dangerous as well as incorrect.
  I am concerned that the trend in the medical division of the Benefits Agency seems to have worsened since it has been externalised. I urge the Government to review the decision to privatise that aspect of the agency's work. We have heard much today from Labour Members about the dangers of private medicine and privatisation, but I was surprised that the Government have continued the policy of externalising an important medical input into many people's lives.
  I am not against private medical services, because they have a role to play. However, I am concerned that the development of an NHS with core services that excludes certain aspects of medical care may, overtly or more subtly, drive people to the currently unregulated private sector. Examples of such services include cosmetic surgery, counselling and psychotherapy, slimming clinics and infertility clinics. The best recent example is probably the treatment of erectile dysfunction—the great Viagra story—which is a wonderful illustration of the fact that the present regulations do not make sense if we want to deliver the best treatment for patients in the NHS.
  The Secretary of State for Health has issued an edict, not backed by any regulation, that Viagra shall not be available on the NHS. The people who execute his edicts have taken it a stage further. For example, my local director of public health wrote me a letter saying that, if I prescribed Viagra on the NHS, he would take every step possible to recover the cost of the prescription from me personally. No regulations exist that allow him to do that. He could take me to a tribunal only for irresponsible prescribing, but Viagra is a licensed drug with a proper purpose.
  We are dealing with a bit of bullying and bluffing, but that story illustrates an important point. Technically, I cannot prescribe Viagra, which is a useful drug, on a private prescription for my patients. The official advice is that I should see the patients, and then send them to see someone else to get the prescription. That is not in the interests of the patients or of efficiency.
  It is hard enough for patients to come and explain that they have a problem, and they want to sort it out with a doctor they know. If we drive them into the private sector, we will cause problems. We have seen how awful some of the clinical outcomes of cosmetic surgery are, and we have seen the irresponsible behaviour by many slimming clinics. We must consider the regulations, and, even if the NHS is not prepared to pay for certain treatments, ensure that those treatments are still available through the NHS, so that patients are supported while their treatment is carried out.
  It is not a problem to suggest that some treatments, such as life-style drugs, should be paid for. People are prepared to pay for such treatment, as the clinic at Euston
  410
  station shows. One can get Viagra from the Euston clinic if one is prepared to pay £120 for a consultation and a few pills.
  Mr. Coaker: It is more than that.
  Dr. Brand: I hear it is more expensive. People used to go to King's Cross to get advice on erectile dysfunction from the shops round there, but they now go to Euston station. The present regulations do not make sense, and I hope that the forthcoming legislation will address the issue of what may be prescribed through the NHS, even if the NHS does not pay for it.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Vernon Coaker: It is a good job that we do not always take everything that happens in the House personally. I saw the Whip talking to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I thought that I would be told that I was no longer needed.
  The Gracious Speech contained much to be commended on health and welfare. Although we all recognise that the primary care group proposals present certain problems, they are radical because they will bring together doctors and nurses with health visitors, community workers and housing workers to tackle health inequality. That will be complemented by the setting up of health action zones.
  The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) made some good points about mental health. He is not in his place at present, and I should be grateful if his hon. Friends could pass on my remarks to him. Families find it difficult to seek help, but the individuals who suffer from mental health problems often wish to hide the fact. The more all of us—this is not a party political issue—can talk about some of the difficulties that mental health problems cause many people, the better. All ages, from young people—as I know from my teaching experience—to old people, can suddenly develop a mental illness. It is a huge problem. Everyone will agree with the points that have been made about mental health.
  I will focus on welfare reform, which is a huge issue. I was pleased to see the Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security here, as I very much enjoyed my first meeting yesterday. It was a purposeful meeting, at which we tried to build a consensus, which is often more helpful than the inevitable ping-pong—in which, no doubt, I shall myself engage later. I commend the Government for grasping the nettle of welfare reform. Ask anyone whether the welfare state works. Few people, if any, would answer that it does. Most accept that reform is needed.
  The problem, of course, is identifying what reform we need, and how to go about it. That is difficult. The welfare state was set up 50 years ago, and longer ago in some parts of the system. During that time, there have been huge changes. People live longer now. The retirement ages are 60 and 65, and people often stop work before that. Working patterns have changed, and people move in and out of work. More women work. Many people care at home for long periods, and they are unable to contribute towards benefits. The welfare state is important to us all, but it needs fundamental change.
  The welfare state was not initially set up as anything more than a safety net. Now, however, some people live off the welfare state. That has become a life style. I do

  411
  not believe that that sort of dependency was what the architects of the welfare state wanted, or thought desirable. Without engaging in fundamental change, we may damage some of the central planks of society.
  Change, of course, is difficult. Modernisation is difficult. The Government are often accused, even by people who support me in my constituency, of not modernising with principle, but I think that they have very clear principles. They are grappling with difficult issues in trying to modernise according to those principles. That is not easy.
  I do not believe that the Secretary of State sets out to make people poorer. I do not believe that he sets out to make life worse for disabled people, or that he sets out to attack the sick. However, when we listen to some of the debate on welfare reform, those accusations seem to be made. In my view, people who want no change, and who have a vested interest in keeping things as they are, attack my right hon. Friend and those who try to change the system in order to undermine the real changes that are needed.
  The Gracious Speech offered a beginning. It did not cover everything. I accept that, and the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) may well say in a moment that some matters were missed out. However, the Queen's Speech contained a large number of measures, others have already been enacted, and more are on their way. The important thing is that the Government are determined to reform the welfare state in a principled way.
  We must ensure that those who need help receive it, but we must also face the fact that, without fundamental change, the people who are poor now will be poor in 20 or 30 years' time. One of the most depressing things at my surgeries—this must be so for all of us, of whatever party—is that I see people who are desperately poor, and I know that their children will be in exactly the same situation in 20 years' time. That is immensely frustrating and emotionally sad, for want of a better way of putting it. If we continue to defend the welfare state as it is, we condemn those people to that future. In reality, the welfare state fails them.
  We must have a more mature debate on many of these issues. Otherwise, we are arguing about defending the poor, the sick and the disabled, but using them as party political pawns, and doing nothing to help them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Government have started to grasp some of those very real nettles, in the face of determined opposition even from some Labour Back Benchers. That nettle has to be grasped.
  A number of other measures mentioned in the Gracious Speech are important, and should command widespread support. The establishment of a disability rights commission is long overdue, and I think that everyone will welcome it. We look forward to finding out exactly how it will work, and the way in which the idea will be developed.
  The shake-up of disability benefits is also important. We have enacted legislation to ensure that people with disability must be included. We must try to encourage them and consider what they can do. The fact that someone is in a wheelchair or has a disability does not mean that he or she cannot contribute. Indeed,
  412
  their contributions are often fantastic. I am sure that many people with disabilities could floor me when it comes to using information technology and such like.
  Surely we should be asking how we can use their talents and abilities, and bring them into work, so that we can create a better society. It is a shame that, when we talk about such matters, the debate often degenerates into an argument about whether the Government are trying to force people who are terminally ill or can do hardly anything to go out to work, as if that were the real aim of the reform, when it is nothing of the kind.
  The single gateway—the idea of compulsory interviews for benefit—is another important reform. For too long, people have got benefits passively. If they have fitted set criteria, they have received benefit. The gateway is a means of making the system more proactive. It will be concerned with the totality of someone's needs, whether those are child care or training, as well as with benefit. That is a positive way forward.
  The measures to try to make work more rewarding and to show that going to work can be attractive, both for the individual and for the pay packet, are important. The working families and disabled persons tax credits, as well as the child care tax credits that go with them, are important ways to move the debate forward and they will help more people.
  Again, there will be practical problems with implementation. Issues remain to be resolved and difficult problems to be overcome, but that does not mean that the concept is wrong. One can argue whether it is a good or a bad idea, but often people say, "It is a good idea, but this is the problem with it." Let us overcome those problems if we think that it is the right way forward.
  I am delighted with many of the measures in the Gracious Speech. It is important that the Government are determined to reform the welfare state, not so that people who are in genuine need are excluded, or as an attack on the poor, the needy or the sick, but to ensure that, when we debate this issue again in five, 10 or 15 years—as we undoubtedly will—we will have started to attack poverty and social exclusion. If we merely defend the existing welfare state and the system as it stands, we are condemning many people to remain in poverty and socially excluded. Sometimes we need to be more mature in debate, and to get behind the real issues underlying welfare reform. We need to join the Government to ensure that we build a more equal society. We shall achieve that not just by redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor, but by ensuring that everyone has access to opportunity and can make the most of those opportunities. That is the way to offer real prospects of inclusion in society and to enable people to make the most of their abilities. That is the way to tackle social inequality and exclusion.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. kin Duncan Smith: This has been a long and fascinating debate. I am sure that the Secretary of state will agree that, as ever, we are in the peculiar circumstance of both winding up and leading off on a completely separate debate—linked but different. Obviously, I want to talk about welfare reform and social security in particular, and I expect that the secretary of State will want to do the same, but clearly some of the contributions from both sides of the House require, rightly, some reference.

  413
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) made a powerful, fairly broad-ranging speech, much in character. He is a man who has been noted in the past to prefer the broadsword to the rapier. In this case it was a fistful of broadswords, and dynamic, too. It was nice to see him back after a short absence from the Chamber.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who is not in his place, made several points. Of most interest to this side of the House was his point about how there has always been rationing in the NHS. [Interruption.] Here he is. He spoke boldly about rationing, and reaffirmed, I think from a sedentary position during my right hon. Friend's speech, that there has always been rationing. He said that we must recognise to what extent that has been the case, rather than play games around it. That was a powerful point and well made.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) made a good speech. He was proud to announce that all his area was covered by GP fundholders, and believed that they were proud of it. I would be, too. I have a large number of fundholders in my constituency, and I know that the system has worked. The Government should build on that system rather than tear it down, but that is a record for another day.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), before she departed to talk about turkeys—I do not intend to follow her down that road, and would have some difficulty in recognising how we got there—made the important point that much of the change to the commissioning process will add to bureaucracy and create the costs from which the Government say they will save money. That in turn will create problems. She made the point particularly well.
  As ever, I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security, whom I see in his place. He is one of about three Members who referred to social security and welfare reform during the debate. He had to, the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) had to as well, and the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) did, although he did not have to—I shall come to him in a second.
  Among other points—I shall come to them in the course of my speech—the hon. Gentleman spoke about working families tax credit and means testing. Powerfully, he asked the serious question: where are we going on means testing? I think that there is clarity now; he says that there is not. I shall be interested to hear what the Secretary of State says in reply.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) made a powerful plea for haemophiliacs to be treated specially, particularly those who suffer from hepatitis C. I hope that the Secretary of State listens to that heartfelt point.
  The Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) said that she was a child of the health service. Most of us would admit to that, and proudly so. She seemed to want to attack the Conservative Government on their process of spending on the NHS. She glossed over the fact that health service spending in real terms fell under the previous Labour Government for the only time in its 50-year history.
  414
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) made a detailed speech, giving chapter and verse. He asked a series of questions—I know that Ministers who were present will have taken them down and passed them to the Secretary of State for answer; I hope that he has them—about how waiting lists have risen inexorably in his constituency. I thought that he spoke powerfully. Perhaps his most powerful point concerned mental health. On that, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) made an excellent speech, showing that he cares about welfare reform. He said that he agreed with my hon. Friend that mental health is seen as a Cinderella, and should be treated more seriously.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Gedling in one sense: no one should accuse the Secretary of State—as some did in the previous Parliament—of being out to crush people into poverty. No one in the House could or should be accused of wanting to do that. There are clear differences about approaches to solving problems, to which I shall come in a moment. I do not make such a charge. Whatever the Secretary of State is doing is done in good faith. He believes that he is right. He is wrong, but we will hear more about that dispute in due course. I do not believe that there is a hidden agenda to produce more poverty.
  Only three hon. Members spoke on social security and welfare reform, mostly on the same aspect. It is worth quickly reminding ourselves—I do it endlessly—what the Prime Minister said before and just after the general election. On 7 April 1997, he said:
  "as we get the welfare bills down… then we can release more money into education and health and the services where we really want them."
  After the general election, he said:
  "I have asked Ministers at the Department of Social Security to look in detail at how we can make far-reaching reforms that tackle insecurity and poverty as well as reducing the social security bills."
  It is not fair to judge the Government on someone else's agenda; we must judge them on their own, and find out when they will meet their pledge or whether they will meet it at all.
  We must start by asking exactly what the Government took over in budgetary terms that underscored the Prime Minister's commitment. His commitment was based on what was clear in the Red Books then and now: the budget for social security as a proportion of gross domestic product was falling. In the last financial year, it fell by 1 per cent. Over three or four years, the budget was on a downward trend. The Government admit that, and it is in their Red Book. The social security budget was stable in the short term, and, to all intents and purposes, under control.
  When we set the Government's forecast for social security spending against what they set themselves as a target, we see that, in the first year in which their policies really come into effect, 1999–2000, the budget leaps by 5 per cent., and that it goes up over the following three years in their general spending programme, pushing social security spending up to around 13 per cent. of GDP by the end of the Parliament. That does not cover falling growth rates. If the growth rate falls below one 1 per cent., the figures will go up, because, as the Secretary of State knows, it is a demand-led budget.
  The total increase over three years to the end of the Parliament is £37 billion, which matches health and education spending, calculated in exactly the same way.

  415
  That does not fit with the Prime Minister's rhetoric when he first took over and made those serious pledges. We must consider what the Government have done to arrive at this position.
  First, there are the Government's proposals, some of which have already been implemented, relating to the spend-to-save programme. The problem is that much of that is already beginning to fail. Let us remind ourselves what the Chancellor said in 1997:
  "Central to Labour's medium-term approach to public spending must be radical reform of the welfare state… to unlock the possibility of reducing social security costs".
  Like the Prime Minister, the Chancellor links social security costs to other spending. However, when we look at what the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have allowed to happen, we see that they have presided over an increase in spending.
  There is the £5 billion for the new deal, including the new deal for lone parents, which was raised through a windfall tax. We are now discovering, bit by bit, that the programme is failing to achieve its objectives. The cost per job, as stated in the press today, across all programmes is about £11,000; and the forecasts for the next three years suggest that that is likely to be the case until the end of this Parliament. In addition, about 25 per cent. of those who enter work through new deal programmes are out of work again within six months. It is clearly not a fully sustainable programme, but it is an expensive one, which is beginning to fail.
  The second part of the equation, which has yet to be implemented but is included in the Queen's Speech, is the working families tax credit. As the Government admit, that is clearly set to increase spending by £1.5 billion a year. The Government tried to move that figure out of the social security budget and into accounting adjustments, but no one, including the House of Commons Library, believed that that was the right way to go about things, so that sum has been put back in, and we can see that it raises social security spending, not lowers it.
  The Labour manifesto stated:
  "And because efficiency and value for money are central, ministers will be required to save before they spend. Save to invest is our approach, not tax and spend."
  Yet when have the Government ever given us their targets for savings, in line with that manifesto pledge? Perhaps the Secretary of State for Social Security will enlighten us. How and when will the Government cut the cost of welfare, and by how much? That is important, because it was a manifesto pledge, so I should like to know how they will do it. Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell us.
  If there are no targets—no departmental targets, no Treasury targets—how can the voters who elected the Government in 1997 have any confidence that the money they are spending under the spend-to-save programme is money well spent? Without targets, spend to save will rapidly become an incomplete equation—or, more likely, a case of spend to tax. That is the exact opposite of what the manifesto promised.
  The spend-to-save strategy clearly implies that the Government must save more money than they spend on their new programmes. If they spend £5 billion on the new deal and a further £1.5 billion per year on the working families tax credit, surely the Secretary of State
  416
  agrees that they will save at least that amount during the lifetime of this Parliament before moving on to fight another election—or perhaps they do not believe that they will save anything. The Secretary of State should tell us that much at least, as he leads off for his Department in the Queen's Speech debate.
  However, I recall the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), stating during our last Social Security Question Time:
  "The working families tax credit… is not intended to create … jobs."—[Official Report, 16 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 593.]
  That is not what the Government have been telling us, and it certainly is not what they have been telling the general public: the Government were going to save money, because people would be going into new jobs because of what the Government were spending money on. That is now clearly not the case.
  Instead, the working families tax credit begins to offer us the prospect of increased regulation on informal family child care; and it will further erode the status of single-earner couples.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman's flow, but will he answer the following question: I know that he is against and would scrap the working families tax credit; does it follow that he would oppose the disabled persons tax credit?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: No, not necessarily—it depends to a great extent on what the proposals are. If the disabled persons tax credit works out to be pretty much the same as the working families tax credit, we shall oppose it. We shall decide what to do when the right hon. Gentleman produces the details, as his hon. Friends have asked him to do. My simple point is that the proposals for the working families tax credit will result in effects that are exactly the opposite of what the right hon. Gentleman thinks will be achieved. It is clear that the WFTC will strike at the heart of families and supporting families, and create problems for them; it certainly will not improve their situation.
  I said that nothing in the WFTC will help the single-earner household. We have seen from the figures—I shall cite them in a moment—that the WFTC will create greater problems. The Chairman of the Social Security Select Committee, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, referred to the likelihood of increased fraud, partly because employers will know which employees are receiving the credit, as will their colleagues. That will lead to stigma and increased costs. Most businesses do not want that to happen.
  The Secretary of State will have to address a whole range of issues. The WFTC is not likely to work. We believe that it will fail, add cost, create no new jobs and, ultimately, raise social security spending—which is not one of the Prime Minister's declared aims. Behind the failing programme of spend to save—to which the Secretary of State is now pledged—screened by the rhetoric and the rising costs, lies a much clearer agenda. I disagree slightly with the Chairman of the Committee on this point. This is the dog that does not bark—but different from Labour Back Benchers, who spend most of

  417
  their time not barking about anything. It is the debate about means testing that the Government simply refuse to have.
  The Committee Chairman was quite clear: he is concerned about the way the matter is drifting. I do not think that it is drifting: I believe that the Government's agenda is to move to a means-tested system, in which the contributory principle is thrown away and people become wholly dependent on the state to meet their needs. That is not a constructive agenda for the future. It does not deal with the real issues of dependency or family breakdown, which it will accelerate.
  Let us examine the way in which the Government propose to deal with the state pension. The extension of pensioners' minimum incomes is nothing more than a con trick. I have talked to many pensioners—including those from the pensioners parliament—and many of them say that they have spotted the trick, and they do not like it. The Government have just repackaged existing benefit, and have not dealt with the real issue of improving pensioner incomes. They have reinforced the natural disincentive to save that is present in the means-tested system for existing pensioners or those approaching pension age.
  The Government say endlessly that, if people are going to save big, that is fine. However, if they are not going to save big, they should not bother to save at all. For example, the Government's proposal makes a saving of £9,000 an irrelevance—a person might as well not have bothered to save at all. People would be better off redeclaring and redefining their lives on to income support. They should not put money away for a rainy day, because they will suffer if they do. However, the person who does not save will benefit.
  The Government clearly intend to means-test the state pension. Let us clear up that matter once and for all. The Conservative party has said that we will not means-test the state pension after the next election. Will the Secretary of State match that commitment, so that we may have a proper debate? I give him the opportunity to intervene now. He does not wish to do so, so he has finally admitted that the Government wish to retain the option of means testing the state pension.
  The Secretary of State must admit that his inaction makes our case. If he did not believe in it, he would rule it out now. However, nothing would surprise me from a Government who spent their first few weeks in office discovering ways of taxing pensioners an extra £5 billion a year. Damaging pensioners' savings is no way of resolving these matters.
  The hon. Member for Newbury also referred to means testing, and to the severe disablement allowance. I hope that the Secretary of State will say once and for all what will happen to severely injured people over the age of 20 who have not had the chance to build up their contributions, and who will now not be eligible for severe disablement allowance or incapacity benefit. They will experience a real-terms cut in their income. The hon. Member for Newbury raised a reasonable point, and I hope that the Secretary of State will respond to that tonight, or write to us.
  The Government have a means-testing agenda. They view the system as a balloon, and believe that they can get rid of much of the cost by pressing down on it to make it thinner. They fail to realise that their action makes the
  418
  balloon expand at either side, as people find their way into other parts of the system. That distorts spending. Increasing means testing may reduce costs in the short term, but in the medium and long term, costs will balloon, and there will be changes in people's behaviour.
  Those changes will create confusion and chaos. For example, the working families tax credit will attack single-earner couples. I said that the difference between single-earner couples and lone parents will be made more stark by the working families tax credit. If a single-earner couple and a lone parent each earn £15,000 a year, the couple will receive next to nothing from the WFTC, and the single parent will receive about £70 a week more. That creates a position of divide and rule, it causes chaos for those who want to provide for themselves and to save, and it creates disincentives for those who are able to do so.
  As many Labour Back Benchers are now beginning to discover, the Secretary of State's changes to widow's benefit mean that many widows will lose their entitlement. Readjusting the benefit was a way for the Government to save money. I am surprised that Labour Members did not realise that when the Secretary of State made his speech on the subject, but he dressed up the measure more cleverly than his predecessor might have done. Its effect has now been spotted—it is another extension of means testing.
  I said a year ago, before the Secretary of State was in his post, that every Member of the House would want to support welfare reform, as long as the Government abided by four principles. First, reform must strengthen the institution of the family, rather than breaking or undermining it, which the Government are doing. Secondly, any change must strengthen personal responsibility, and break the dependency culture. The working families tax credit certainly does not do that; it will add 500,000 to the benefit regime. Thirdly, reform must strengthen alternative provision of welfare and break the state monopoly of provision. The Government have made no far-reaching proposals on that. Pensions come into that category. Fourthly, reform must protect those in genuine need.
  The Queen's Speech contained many proposals, all of which we were already aware of and which are mechanistic. There was nothing new or unexpected, and nothing to tackle the big issues. For example, what will happen to housing benefit when the working families tax credit is implemented? No change is proposed. I remind Labour Members that, back in March, the previous Secretary of State for Social Security, the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), said:
  "we are reviewing the interaction of housing policy and housing benefit and we will bring forward proposals… shortly."—[Official Report, 19 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 1436.]
  We have heard nothing. There has been no Green Paper, and no proposals on housing benefit. That creates a huge problem.
  There have been no proposals—only leaks—on child benefit. Most importantly, we have heard nothing on pensions. The Government have spent 18 months fiddling around on pensions, and still have no proposals for reform.
  The Queen's Speech, no matter what the spin or what friendly journalists write, reveals that, 18 months after the election, the Government have balked at their own targets

  419
  for welfare reform. Even the Prime Minister recognises that. He has changed his language to match the changes that he would like to make to Labour's pledges. In 1997, he said that Labour's aim was to
  "start reducing the very high welfare and benefits bills we pay in this country so that we can get the resources into education and health that we need".
  That is not happening, so, at the Mansion House earlier this month, the Prime Minister said:
  "People often say the aim should be to cut welfare bills. But they forget: some welfare spending… is good and necessary".
  I remind the Government that it was the Prime Minister who said that Labour would cut welfare bills. He set the target, and the Government now want to change the rhetoric. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said on Tuesday, it seems that they are a Government who govern to win elections, but do not win elections to govern. Nowhere is that more true than in this regard. Redefining their pledges and rewriting history will not work. The Prime Minister will and must be judged on the pledges he gave.
  The Government's heavy reliance, rhetorically and politically, on welfare to work merely masks the failure of their big picture. It is not as if there is no vision; it is simply that, after 18 months, we can see what that vision is. The Government's big idea is means testing and more means testing. It is not radical—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Social Security smiles in agreement. It is good to have that confirmation. All he will do is chase the error.
  Pensioners, widows, the disabled and families were all led to believe that the Government had a programme for reform which was structural and which would sort out the dependency culture. Far from it—what they are doing will increase it. It is a matter of great sadness to all in the House because the Queen's Speech was a golden opportunity for proper reform to deal with structural dependency. We offered the Government support for proposals that would tackle the problem, but they have thrown it away. In any event, very few such proposals have been forthcoming.
  There is also reason to be angry because the Queen's Speech marked the moment when it became clear that the Government's agenda—no amount of spin can change this—for the next three years is means testing, means testing and more means testing. We have been warned.
  9.36 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): It comes as some surprise to us and, I suspect, to the whole country, that the Conservatives are now against means testing. I do not remember one occasion in the past 18 years when any of the then Ministers said from the Dispatch Box that they were going to end means testing. Means testing has always been part of the welfare state. It is not the only part, by any means, but it is one way of ensuring that help can be got to those who need it most.
  I shall deal with welfare reform, the contributory principle and means testing shortly. However, like the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), I want to cover some of the other points made in this debate which covered health
  420
  and welfare, although I agree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the two are inextricably linked.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone—
  Miss Widdecombe: And The Weald.
  Mr. Darling: And The Weald as well.
  Until now, I had been spared the sight of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) in full flow. I did not see the video of her at the Tory party conference, but I have had the opportunity this afternoon to see something of a rather tormented and demented miniature Hattie Jacques.
  As I listened to the right hon. Lady talk about waiting lists and berate us on our record on the treatment of cancer and so on, I found it odd that she did not allude to the fact that she and her party oppose the £21 billion investment that we are putting into the national health service over the next three years. The shadow Chancellor, who, I assume, speaks for the whole of the Conservative party, has made it clear that all our public spending—our £40 billion on health and education—is a mistake. The criticism that the Tories make of us falls apart when one remembers that the Tories oppose every extra penny that we are investing in the health service.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: In a moment.
  Given that the Tories want to cut £21 billion of investment, it is not surprising that, to get around the gap that that leaves in the health service, they have to emphasise the importance that they attach to increasing private health provision. It is another example of how they are drifting further from the mainstream into the right wing of politics. I do not think that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), to whom I am about to give way, believes in that nonsense. He spent 18 years in the wilderness on the Tory Back Benches because he does not believe that. How on earth can he justify speaking for the Conservative party which is against the investment that most people want?
  Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman affords me rather more seniority than I can claim. He either has not understood or pretends that he has not understood the force of criticism from the Conservative Benches. Of course we are not against spending money efficiently on health and education. The Labour party came to power promising to pay for that incremental expenditure through social security savings, but he and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), have fundamentally failed to deliver them. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) pointed out, he is allowing his budget to increase out of control. That is the criticism that we are making.
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is most clearly wrong. He should listen to the shadow Chancellor, who has made it abundantly clear that the Tories oppose our additional investment. He says that such investment is

  421
  irresponsible and cannot be justified. As one half of the Tory party is telling us that, the spending half is saying that we ought to be spending more.
  Miss Widdecombe: Can the right hon. Gentleman name one occasion on which I have said that Labour should be spending more?
  Mr. Darling: The right hon. Lady has been shouting that she wants us to be spending more. When I looked into the Chamber during debates following the Budget last year, I heard her say on many occasions that we were not spending enough. She has been complaining about waiting lists and cancer treatment, yet she belongs to the same Front-Bench team as the Shadow Chancellor, who is against additional spending.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: I will later on—not just as the moment.
  We are investing £40 billion more in health and education. The Bill that will shortly be before the House, which will abolish the internal market, ensure that the NHS is universally available and get rid of competition and the false market that the Tories tried to create in the health service, will be welcomed by most people.
  We are able to make such investment and to restructure and reform the welfare state because we are doing so from a sound economic base. Over the past two years, we have taken steps to end boom and bust—the instability of the economy that we inherited—to ensure that we can plan ahead. We gave the Bank of England independence and, as a result, we have the lowest long-term interest rates for 35 years. The Conservative party is against not only our long-term investment, but one of the key planks of our strategy for economic stability.
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: I would be delighted to give way shortly.
  The hon. Members for Chingford and Woodford Green and for Grantham and Stamford criticised our approach to welfare reform. We said during the election campaign that we would cut the bills of economic failure, and we are doing so. Through the new deal, we are getting people, who were written off by the Conservative party, into work. We also said that we wanted to reform and restructure the welfare state so that it meets the needs not of post-war Britain, for which, fundamentally, it was designed, but of the next two to three decades and beyond.
  The rate of increase of social security spending in this Parliament will be half that of the previous Parliament. That is because not only have we been cutting the bills of economic failure by getting people into work, but we have taken steps in the Department to ensure that we pay benefits to the people for whom they are intended. We are taking more care to ensure that we have evidence before we pay benefits in the first place.
  The Conservatives must come to terms with the fact that, because we are in the business of fundamentally restructuring the emphasis of the welfare state, concentrating more on preventing failure in the first place rather than picking up the bill after it, we will be
  422
  successful in restructuring and reforming the welfare state, so that it delivers the support and active help that we require to get people into work.
  Mr. Burns: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: I will in one moment. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green wants to intervene, too. If the Tories believe that our increased spending on pensions, family support and disabled people is wrong, which area of spending would they cut?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be giving way to me. That is fine, but two or three of us had lined up to intervene. [HON. MEMBERS: "He said, `Chingford and Woodford Green'.] Yes, I was and still am the Member for that constituency.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that spending over the lifetime of the current Parliament would be half the amount of our spending when we were in government. He is wrong. If he looks at the figures for the first year of the present Government—figures that, as he knows full well, were set by the last Government—he will see that they fell by 1 per cent. If he takes those figures out of the equation, which is quite right—every other commentator will do the same—he will see that the spending that he predicts, even in good times, will grow by nearly 3.5 per cent. in the current Parliament. That is not half what our spending was.
  Mr. Darling: Taking numbers from any selected year will produce a different answer. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that social security spending was increasing by some 10 per cent. in the early 1990s. In any case, he did not answer the question. He says that we are spending too much on social security—on pensions, families and the disabled. He did not explain something else either. The Conservatives oppose the working families tax credit, which will help people on lower incomes and lower the barriers preventing people from getting into work; furthermore, they want to introduce a transferable tax allowance that will cost £4 billion a year. They must finance that before doing anything else—and, of course, such action would disproportionately benefit the better-off. We want to ensure that poorer people who have been trapped on benefit get into work: that is part of our fundamental reform of the welfare state.
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: I will in a moment, but I want to make some progress. I want to deal with a point made on behalf of the Liberals. At least, I think that it was made on their behalf; I discerned two or three different lines of thought during the evening. I refer to what was said about the Government's overall approach to poverty.
  The House will know, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health referred to it earlier, that the Acheson report on inequalities in health was published today. When I heard that the Conservatives had named today for a debate on health and welfare reform, I realised that they were more cunning than I had thought: they knew that the report would be published today, and they wanted to make something of it.

  423
  Perhaps it is not so surprising that the Conservatives did not mention the report, which is a damning indictment of their 20-year stewardship of the economy; but our response may show how this Government, with our approach to welfare reform generally and our economic approach, are beginning to tackle the inequalities. We have mentioned the working families tax credit, the sure start programme, the extra money for child benefit, help for families—one of the tests that was set by, of all parties, the Conservative party—the extra money that we are investing in communities that have been run down for years, and the minimum wage, which will address the problem of poverty. Across the board, the Government are tackling inequalities, in economic and health terms and in terms of welfare reform—a topic to which I particularly wish to return.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not dissent from what the Secretary of State has just said, but have he and the Government a target for reducing the gap between the richest and the poorest within a normal parliamentary term of five years?
  Mr. Darling: People want not just a commitment, but action. We know that poverty exists in every corner of the land. We know that there are inequalities and a lack of opportunities, and, right across the board, we have emphasised the need to tackle the problem. We will tackle it through, for example, the new deal.
  The Conservative party has accused us of spending some £11,000 per job. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said that that was in the press today, but it was in the press because he told the press.
  The Conservatives have priced the new deal in the manner of someone trying to price the cost of a new car on the basis of its first few weeks of operation. In fact, the cost is about £1,000 per job. The Conservatives are happy to ignore the success of the new deal: the fact that some 30,000 young people will have been given work. When they criticise us, it should be remembered that they would do absolutely nothing for a whole generation—a generation that was written off under their Administration. The new deal has been extremely successful in getting people—sometimes they have been in extremely difficult circumstances—back into work. That is something that any civilised Government should do for good economic and social reasons.
  We set out the principles that will govern our welfare reform in a Green Paper which was published earlier this year. In answer to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), the success measures there set out were responded to and overwhelmingly endorsed. I published the results of the consultation and I think that a list of responses has been made available in the Library.
  Over the past 18 months, we have made progress in reforming tax and benefits, including child benefit. There are further reforms to come, including to the Child Support Agency, for example. I say to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) that we are proposing to introduce more than 20 Bills in the coming Session, which will be shorter than the previous Session, which was quite long. We cannot legislate for everything in the first or even second year of the parliamentary term. We have been
  424
  elected for a five-year term and we are consulting on the CSA proposals. The Government will bring forward legislation as soon as we can. However, as I understand it, the Liberal party is against the concept of the CSA. That being so, I am surprised at its anxiety to get a new or improved version of it on the statute book.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Is pre-legislative scrutiny still planned by the Government?
  Mr. Darling: I certainly hope that we shall have an opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. That is an extremely important part of some of the changes that we have made to the way in which Parliament works. Indeed, a number of measures were announced in the Queen's Speech, to which I hope other Bills will be added. The disability rights commission, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) referred, is an important part of our reforms.
  I welcome the fact that so many Members have supported our approach on the single gateway. It is a complete change of culture for the Departments of Social Security and for Education and Employment. It is surely right that everyone should have the opportunity to know what options may be open to them if they come out of benefit. It is an example of how the culture and approach of government is changing. We are not merely reacting to problems but, ending a situation in which someone simply receives benefit and no help. I think that, overwhelmingly, people now believe that the Government must have a different approach to get people back into work.
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: The right hon. Lady has been containing herself for long enough. I shall certainly give way to her. Having done so, I want to talk about disability and bereavement issues, which some of my hon. Friends mentioned.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for at last giving way. He may have thought that as a result of delaying giving way for 10 minutes, I had forgotten what he was talking about, but I have not.
  As I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not knowingly or willingly mislead the House, I can conclude only that he is the victim of his own propaganda. I have never, either from the Opposition Dispatch Box or from a sedentary position, called upon the Government to spend more. I have said that they are claiming to be spending vastly more than they actually are by using a rather quaint form of accounting. If they really were spending all that money, what on earth is their difficulty about funding such things as keeping open community hospitals? I have said that. The supposed conflict between myself and my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, is a figment of the Prime Minister's imagination, which the Minister is trying to perpetrate. Will the right hon. Gentleman apologise?
  Mr. Darling: I take it from that that the right hon. Lady is confirming my suspicion that Conservatives do not want to spend the £21 billion that we shall invest in

  425
  the NHS. If the Conservatives want to go into the next election promising to cut £21 billion from the health service, that is fine by me. I am quite happy to put up with that problem.
  Mr. Burns: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Darling: No, I will not. I want to deal with disability and bereavement benefits, which hon. Members have raised.
  First, I turn to disability and a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer). We are determined to ensure that disabled people have the opportunities that are available to others. We are determined also to ensure that no one asks anyone who is disabled to do anything that is unreasonable. I entirely take my hon. Friend's point that people with disabilities sometimes have quite substantial difficulties and that we must take account of that.
  I want particularly to deal with two points on incapacity benefit. One is in reply to the hon. Member for Newbury and his complaint that we are taking into account people's occupational pensions. I remind him that we are ignoring the first £50 and introducing a taper of some 50 per cent. Given the rise in the amount of insurance that people now have, it is not unreasonable that there should be a better and fairer balance between their contribution and the contribution from the state. If we were designing a system from scratch, I am sure that we would not ignore that.
  The hon. Gentleman and others spoke about the principle of means testing. The welfare state has always had a mix of contributory benefits and means-tested benefits—benefits paid on the basis of need. We are extending some aspects of disability and bereavement benefits. We are extending some of the benefits available to those who are most severely disabled—for example, we are extending the mobility allowance component of disability living allowance to three and four-year-olds. For the severe disablement allowance, we have dramatically increased the amount of money that will be available to people disabled from birth or very early on.
  We have also made changes in widows bereavement benefit. The choice was whether to extend it to everyone, at a cost of £250 million a year, or to continue with the absurd situation where 40 per cent. of the women who receive the benefit are in the top half of the income bracket, whereas a man on low income with young children gets nothing. When faced with these difficulties, we must make difficult choices. We must ask ourselves what approach we would take if we were starting from scratch. My approach is unashamedly to do more for people who need it most. That is what I was elected to do, and that is what I am determined to deliver.
  Mr. Rendel: I accept entirely that the doubling of the initial lump sum will help people who need it very much.
  426
  However, the Secretary of State is arguing that he could not afford to do anything other than he has done, yet he also tells us that £500 million will be saved. He could easily have created a fiscally neutral change to widows benefits and still allowed the bereavement allowance to go on for much longer than six months.
  Mr. Darling: We are spending a great deal more in the first five years because we are extending the scheme. In future there will be savings. I am determined to ensure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) said, that the welfare state is affordable and manageable over the next 20 to 30 years. I know that additional needs will arise that we must deal with. The great thing about being a Liberal is that one need not bother about any of these things. One can pick and choose—take the good things and ignore the rest.
  In the time available, I shall deal briefly with pensions. The Green Paper on pensions was promised before the end of the year. If there has been any delay, that is entirely my fault. I want to ensure that when we publish the Green Paper, it is the right solution to the pensions problems that we will face over the next 20 to 30 years. Right hon. and hon. Members will see that it is. The reason that it is not mentioned in the Queen's Speech is that it will be in the Green Paper.
  The debate has been instructive, as it has shown clearly the divide between the Government and the Conservative Opposition. First, we are determined to reform the welfare state and provide more help for those who need it most, to carry on encouraging people who can work to get into work, and to change the whole emphasis of the welfare state in a way that never happened during the past 18 years. The welfare state will help people to get into work and provide security for people who cannot work. The Conservatives never tackled that task.
  The second point that shows the distinction between us is that we believe that where investment is necessary, in the health service and in education, we will make the necessary investment. We have created a secure economic platform which allows us to build for the future and plan for the years to come. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made sure that we have that secure future, which is enabling us to invest record amounts in the health service. Most people believe that that was long overdue and much needed.
  The Government are determined to modernise the institutions of Britain. We are determined to provide opportunity for individuals. The Queen's Speech represents another major step forward in the Government's second Session. We have much more to do in the coming years, but we are well on the way to delivering our manifesto promises.
  Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  OFFICE COSTS ETC. ALLOWANCES
  Resolved,
  That, in the opinion of this House, the following provisions should have effect:

  (1) The limit on the office costs allowance in relation to Miss Anne Begg should be 1.55 times that determined in accordance with paragraph (a) of the Resolution of the House of 10th July 1996 for any quarter beginning with 1st April 1998.

  (2) The limit on the additional costs allowance in relation to Miss Anne Begg should be 1.55 times that determined in accordance with paragraph (1) of Part C of the Resolution of the House of 13th July 1994 for any year beginning with 1st April 1998.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

  PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE
  Ordered,
  That in accordance with the Resolution of the House of 30th July 1997 in the last session of Parliament, a Select Committee of six Members be appointed to join with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords, as the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, to review parliamentary privilege and make recommendations thereon;
  That three be the Quorum of the committee;
  That the Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers, and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; to report from time to time; and to appoint specialist advisers to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference;
  That the proceedings of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;
  That Mr. Attorney General, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland, being Members of either House, may attend the Committee, may take part in deliberations, may receive Committee papers and may give such other assistance to the Committee as may be appropriate, but shall not vote or make any Motion or move any Amendment or be counted in the Quorum;
  That Mr. Joe Benton, Sir Patrick Cormack, Mr. Bill Michie, Mrs. Ann Taylor, Mr. Paul Tyler and Mr. Alan Williams be members of the Committee.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over government business on 26th February, 5th, 12th, 19th and 26th March, 16th, 23rd and 30th April, 7th, 14th and 21st May, 11th June and 23rd July 1999.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (House not to sit on certain Fridays),
  That the House shall not sit on the following Fridays:
  4th, 11 th and 18th December 1998 and 15th, 22nd and 29th January, 5th and 12th February, 9th July and 22nd October 1999.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  Question agreed to.

  New Forest
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: I approach this debate with some reluctance, given that whatever I may say will upset one or other of the lobbies in my constituency. There is nothing in it for me. I also approach it with a measure of humility in that I am a newcomer to the affairs of the forest, but I spent a considerable amount of time this summer consulting people who are intimate with it and its problems, and that intimacy is the product not only of their own lifetimes, but of generations.
  The New Forest is the most important natural heritage area in western Europe. It is vital that we preserve it. It is, to some extent, a credit to the House that it still exists and that we have preserved it over the centuries. There are, however, considerable problems.
  The forest is sandwiched between the expanding port of Southampton, seeking to expand into Dibden bay, and the expanding conurbation of Bournemouth, with its plans for a much expanded airport. It is bisected by the A31 which is, to all intents and purposes, an extension of the M27-M3 motorway network, with growing volumes of traffic audible over much of the forest, particularly on the approaches to Ringwood. In addition, we have the problem of housing and the demand that that makes on the infrastructure.
  Those problems are of a different order from the problems for which the legislation framed by the House was designed to solve. Those Acts attend largely to the conservation of forestry and to the rights of commoners as against the Crown.
  Notwithstanding that, the regime that persists in the New Forest—by that I mean the perambulation of Crown lands and attached commons—is fundamentally sound. It provides a balance of interests. It provides for the Forestry Commission to manage the forest but to be accountable to the public through the House. We can challenge the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and it is amenable to public pressure, as the current debate on the Minister's mandate has clearly shown. There are proper checks and balances. What is more, the regime affords the verderers enormous powers to thwart undesirable development. Those powers would not be available under much modern legislation.
  Therefore, I do not believe that the problems within the perambulation of Crown lands are primarily organisational. There is, undoubtedly, an economic problem, which largely hinges on the survival of the 400 or so practising commoners. It is vital that commoning survives because it is the grazing of the commoners' stock that gives the forest its unique character. It will be interesting to see what funds may be unlocked in the future to solve many of the problems faced by the commoners. But whatever happens, I urge the Minister to ensure that the commoners are always thoroughly consulted, not just because they have an interest to protect but because they have much wisdom, stretching back over generations.
  I move beyond the perambulation of Crown lands and attached commons to the problems of the wider New Forest heritage area. It is here that the pressures of the

  429
  modern world are much more intrusive. It is a vital area for the protection of the New Forest itself, because it provides a halo around the forest, insulating it from much development pressure. It is under threat. The New Forest Acts do not apply here. The writ of the verderers does not run here. It is difficult with any certainty to point to it even on the map because the boundary is subject to revision by the local planning process.
  The Minister must address at least two problems with respect to the heritage area. First, he needs to review and fix the boundary and, in that regard, I would draw to his attention the interesting proposals from the Ramblers Association. Secondly, he needs to review the planning environment within that heritage area. I suggest that he amend the general permitted development order.
  Whatever the Minister does must be done with some sensitivity—certainly with respect to business interests. We need jobs in Lymington and New Milton. I draw to his attention the problems faced by Lymington Precision Engineers—a successful company that is seeking to expand and provide vital jobs but which is unable to do so because of the constraints placed on the use of all the available land. Equally, there are problems faced by hauliers, who were recently banned from using forest roads. One visited me recently to say that his costs had gone up by £60,000 a year as a result, and that he was now at a competitive disadvantage compared with everyone else in the county.
  It is quite proper that the county council should exercise its powers because of the special status and character of the New Forest. Equally, I believe that compensation ought to be available and I hope that some new international status may be able to unlock funds for the New Forest.
  In summary, the New Forest is a unique environment, and therefore it would be inappropriate to roll it up in a solution together with the south downs. Most importantly, I urge the Minister to eschew the powers that he has under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 to impose a standard national park on the New Forest. A national park, under the 1949 Act, would provide disproportionate influence to local government as against the other interests in the forest.
  The Minister has a credible track record in local government and extensive experience of it. Nevertheless, local government priorities with respect to housing, tourism and traffic management are not necessarily the priorities of conservation. In that regard, I draw to the Minister's attention a letter that I received today from a constituent, who happens to be the chairman of the New Forest committee. He said:
  "Government might impose a standard solution for administrative convenience and ignore the special characteristics of the Forest e.g. that 50 per cent. of the Heritage Area is Crown land or that commoning would not be a special purpose for the designation … The Forestry Commission and the Verderers would be underrepresented on a standard National Park Authority… Existing responsibilities are discharged effectively and display none of the confusion which existed in some National Park areas pre-designation… Why strip them away and add to bureaucracy?"
  The letter stated that a standard solution would not address potential overlapping responsibilities. For example, the National Park Authority, Forest Enterprise, as recreational managers of the land, and the verderers would have overlapping responsibilities, and consequent muddles would have to be sorted out after the event.
  430
  I have quoted selectively from the chairman's letter. He advocates tailor-made legislation for a special national park. Before I would sign up to any such proposal, I would like to see the exact details. However, as I have quoted selectively, I will let the Minister have a copy of the entire text.
  10.9 pm
  Dr. Julian Lewis: With typical generosity, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) has allowed me to intervene in the debate, which he was fortunate enough to secure in the ballot. He has touched on three possible options for the management of the New Forest in the future. These can be summarised as: specialist legislation combined with the activities of voluntary bodies, voluntarily co-ordinated; specialist legislation combined with statutory bodies and statutory powers; and designation as a national park under the 1949 Act. I contend that either a statutory body or designation under the 1949 Act would overlap with and undermine the powers of the verderers to protect the institution of commoning in the forest, without which the forest would not be as it is today.
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the establishment of a national park authority under the Environment Act 1995 would allow for delegated powers to be given to the local authority and for the commoners and verderers to continue much as at present?
  Dr. Lewis: I am concerned that there are very different ideas as to what statutory powers would entail. I asked the outgoing chairman of the New Forest committee what would be the difference between a statutory body and one, such as the present committee, that voluntarily coordinates the various interest groups. His response was that the bodies that were voluntarily involved in the New Forest committee would have to belong to it in future.
  I asked what was the purpose of doing that if we were not to have a regime in which the majority of bodies that were forced to belong to the statutory body might outvote the minority, thus undermining the authority of the verderers. The outgoing chairman said that that would happen only in the last resort. I said that that sounded like the concept of subsidiarity and he said that, knowing my views on that concept in the European context, he had thought that the word would never pass my lips. I replied that I did not trust it in Europe and I do not trust it in the New Forest.
  On 15 July, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu initiated a debate in the other place on the future of the New Forest. Four days earlier, The Southern Daily Echo, a newspaper that is generally reliable—apart from an occasional rush of blood to the headline—quoted him as stating that his own preference was for
  "improved administration based on existing Acts of Parliament relating to the New Forest, with a co-ordinating role for the New Forest Committee—but not statutory powers."
  I was therefore rather disappointed that, when the debate took place, he gave a slightly different interpretation. He rightly said:
  "There is very little support for national park status in the forest"

  431
  but he went on to say, in relation to special legislation, that
  "Clauses would be required to establish a statutory authority to co-ordinate management over the whole heritage area".
  I am worried about a statutory authority for the reasons that I have given. I was impressed by the remarks of the Labour peer, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, a former chairman of the Forestry Commission, who said:
  "I very soon discovered that what I needed"—
  in the New Forest—
  "was not simply a good forest manager but also a diplomat who could live with all the conflicting interests. Without a great deal more evidence, I would be reluctant to believe that a change involving legislation would achieve any better solution than the present regime."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 332–35.]
  When the Minister came to visit us in the New Forest, I formed the distinct impression that the likelihood of any fresh legislation in the Government's timetable was remote. I fear that we will be faced, not with statutory powers for the New Forest committee or a similar body, but either with designation as a national park under existing legislation or a continuation of past practice whereby the forest has been defended, protected and safeguarded by individual laws and not by the erection of overarching bodies. What has worked for many hundreds of years is the best solution for the future.
  We face the prospect of the Dibden bay port development, which would erect massive container stacks and put massive burdens on the infrastructure along the edge of the forest. The problems which the Minister faces in dealing with the issues raised in this debate are as nothing compared to the problems which the forest will face if that development goes ahead without arrangements being made for the traffic into and out of any Dibden bay container port to go in and out of the port of Southampton, and not be inflicted upon the waterside or forest area.
  10.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): I congratulate the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on securing this debate on the important subject of the future status of the New Forest. I am glad to have the opportunity to respond and I pay tribute to him and other hon. Members who have continued to raise the subject in the House. If the hon. Gentleman will pardon me, I shall deal first with a point raised by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) about Dibden bay.
  I assure the hon. Member for New Forest, East that I am aware that Associated British Ports in the Southampton area is working on a port expansion on the western bank of Southampton water at the bay. That is to enable the port to attract new, larger, deep-sea container ships, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Proposals for that area are likely to be controversial, not least because of the nature conservation implications and the designation of the Dibden bay foreshore as part of a special protection area for birds. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the site lies in the New Forest district and is close to the New Forest heritage area. Although ABP has not so far submitted applications for the necessary consents,
  432
  I know that the company has been in discussions with environmental bodies, the relevant local authorities and my officials about the procedures that would be required. Those procedures are complex and various consents are required by the relevant legislation.
  My understanding is that a harbour revision order would be needed to allow the construction of a new terminal and ABP is also likely to require planning permission for some aspects of the works. Unless objections to the harbour revision order are resolved by negotiation, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will call a public local inquiry, during which time the objectors and any other interested parties may make representations. The final decision would then rest with my right hon. Friend, who is responsible for the Department that I represent. In view of that, it would be improper for me to express any views on the merits or otherwise of the proposals at this stage. However, I thank the hon. Member for New Forest, East for drawing the House's attention to the issue.
  As is to be expected, there is much interest in the New Forest area about the future status of the forest and the decision that the Government must take about the best way forward, but interest is not confined to the locality or even to the surrounding counties and cities. The New Forest has a special place in the nationally valued landscapes of England and there is, rightly, interest and concern throughout the United Kingdom.
  As the hon. Member for New Forest, West knows, the issue has a long history. The recent debate on administrative mechanisms occupies but the blink of an eye compared with the long history of the New Forest itself. However, the debate has taken place during a time of unprecedented change in so many of the aspects of human activity that have an impact on the forest, including, for instance, development proposals on a scale and of kinds not previously thought of; economic forces operating at an international level; personal mobility brought about largely through the use of the private car; and new agricultural and forestry techniques which have had an impact across the countryside. Hand in hand with those forces for change has gone an increasing realisation of the importance of conserving and enhancing our most important national areas of landscape beauty.
  Back in the 1940s, when the areas which would end up as the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty were being surveyed, the New Forest was left off the list. That decision was undoubtedly profoundly influenced by the fact of Forestry Commission management of the Crown lands, as the hon. Member for New Forest, West has said, and by the special arrangements for the management of the forest under the New Forest Acts, involving the powers of the verderers in regulating commoning.
  In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the position was considered again. The national parks review panel was asked by the Countryside Commission, on behalf of the then Government, to look again at the national parks in England and Wales, 40 years after the passing of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. In considering possible new national parks, the review panel considered that the New Forest was worthy of national park status, but suggested tailor-made legislation to take into account the powers and responsibilities of the Forestry Commission and the verderers.

  433
  The previous Administration accepted that something needed to be done, and in 1992 declared their intention of establishing a new statutory body based on the New Forest committee. Somewhere along the way their resolve faltered rather badly and they changed their mind. Instead, in 1994 they announced that there was no need for any new statutory management body, but that they planned to apply national park planning protection policies within the boundary of the New Forest heritage area. I feel obliged to advise the hon. Member for New Forest, West that even that limited gesture has not worked properly. The previous Government wanted to define the heritage area's boundary through the local plan process, and that has taken so long that it still has not been finalised.
  To date, because there is no confirmed boundary, it has not been possible to amend the general permitted development order to give full effect to national park planning policies. The Government have therefore asked the Countryside Commission to reconsider the position in the New Forest, and they have firmly re-stated the need for a statutory authority to take over from the voluntary New Forest committee.
  Before going any further, I would like to pay tribute to the partners in the New Forest committee who have come together voluntarily. They include the local authorities, the Forestry Commission, English Nature, the Countryside Commission and the verderers. The work the New Forest committee has done so far has been invaluable in furthering understanding of the New Forest and in taking forward sympathetic management.
  To its credit, the committee has co-operated in drawing up a management strategy for the forest and it has pulled in vital funding from Europe in a successful LIFE fund bid. As the hon. Member for New Forest, West rightly said, we should pay tribute to the commoners. I was greatly impressed with them on my recent visit to the New Forest, and, as I said then, it would be strange if they were not there. If they had not existed for so long, it would be necessary for the Government, or for local government, to invent them.
  However, the New Forest committee is only a voluntary co-ordinating body without statutory powers and responsibilities or a real spending budget. The committee itself, composed of all the bodies that I have mentioned with a stake in the forest, is campaigning for a statutory designation for the forest and for a new statutory authority to be set up to take forward the work which the committee has started. The New Forest committee recognises that further work needs to be done to define exactly the tasks and responsibilities that a new tailor-made authority would have. I know that the committee is holding a seminar on 28 November for stakeholders in the New Forest, to allow people to have their say on what a new statutory authority would do. I look forward to hearing the results and to seeing some specific proposals.
  The Countryside Commission, in its advice to the Government, suggests that a statutory authority should prepare a statutory management plan, should be able to enter into management agreements and make payments towards the conservation of the forest, and should have a statutory right to be heard on strategic activities affecting the forest. The details of how such a statutory authority would work are not entirely clear.
  If the Government decided to follow the course that the Countryside Commission regards as its first choice in its advice—that is, a tailor-made authority—all the interests
  434
  in the New Forest would need to take part in further serious discussions to agree just how they want the arrangements to work. Careful thought would have to be given to how the powers of the new authority would relate to those of existing bodies, in particular the Forestry Commission and the verderers. However, I must stress that the Government have not yet made up their mind on the most effective method for resolving the concerns about the management of the New Forest.
  Nevertheless, we have been listening carefully to all the arguments. For that reason, I visited the New Forest on 13 October as the guest of the New Forest committee. Not only did that allow me to find out at first hand about some of the important issues in the forest, but it gave me an opportunity to talk to many people with a variety of views about the best way forward. Indeed, following encouragement by hon. Members, including the two hon. Gentlemen who represent the New Forest, I am hoping to revisit the forest soon, to see some of the areas that I was unable to see during my short visit. I have held separate meetings with a wide range of interested parties, including both hon. Gentlemen, representatives of the verderers, the Ramblers Association and the Council for the National Parks. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has also met with representatives of the New Forest committee and held discussions with a range of other interested parties.
  Yesterday, I was able to reply for the Government in a debate on possible national park status for the south downs called by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner). Possible solutions for the future management of the south downs are also dealt with in the Countryside Commission's advice to the Government on protected areas and so are ideas for the better protection and management of areas of outstanding natural beauty, of which there are 37 in England.
  Many of the matters that we have to consider in the Countryside Commission's advice are interrelated and we are looking at them as a whole. Decisions about the New Forest cannot sensibly be taken in isolation from the other issues dealt with in that advice. The Government want to make the right decisions on each of those matters, which is why we are taking some time to reach conclusions. We will do so as soon as possible.
  I can tell the House today that we are studying carefully the full range of options for the New Forest, which include the option of a national park designated under the 1949 Act, with a freestanding national park authority, with the revised responsibilities and powers provided for under the Environment Act 1995. That option was not available when the national parks review panel reported in 1991 or when the previous Government said in 1992 that they were going to pursue a tailor-made solution. However, we have not yet made up our minds.
  We are fully aware of the special factors operating in the New Forest, especially the responsibilities of the Forestry Commission and the verderers. After all, almost half of the area is managed on behalf of Ministers by the Forestry Commission. A national park authority in the New Forest would have to work closely with the Forestry Commission and the verderers. It would also need to have an appropriate relationship with the planning arrangements of the local authorities in the area.

  435
  We are also aware that national park status would bring a number of benefits. Besides a 75 per cent. funding contribution from central Government, it would bring a statutory boundary, a recognised high planning status and well-understood powers and responsibilities. The 1995 Act provides for national park authorities to have duties both to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of their areas and to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of their areas. In doing so, they have to seek to foster the economic and social well-being of local communities. Those are all duties that are highly relevant to the requirements of the New Forest.
  Whichever management solution is adopted for the New Forest, the question of defining a boundary will need to be resolved. There will be a mechanism to do that, whichever route we choose. I am also aware that a number
  436
  of voices are in favour of a designation that goes wider than the heritage area. Those issues need to be considered in detail.
  The heritage area already covers about twice the area managed by the Forestry Commission. Within the Crown lands, the Forestry Commission has a highly regarded track record, reflecting the importance that the Commission attaches to its duty of care in the forest. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who has responsibility for fisheries and the countryside, visited the New Forest in the summer to launch the consultation on a revision of the mandate under which the Forestry Commission—
  The motion having been made at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom continues to impose an arms embargo on Afghanistan in line with the EU' s Common Position of 17 December 1996. [61609]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We remain committed to the EU arms embargo against Afghanistan which the UK interprets as covering all goods and technology entered on Part III to Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods Order 1994, as amended.

  Following consultations with this Department and the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry recently approved two export licences: the first for the export of mine-clearance suits for use by the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Assistance to Afghanistan in its demining operations and the second for the export of mine clearance equipment for use by the Halo Trust to aid their demining activities also in Afghanistan. The grant of these licences are for humanitarian purposes, and are consistent with the purpose of the embargo.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Digital Radio Multiplexes
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Radio Authority in relation to the limits on ownership of digital radio multiplexes under the Broadcasting Acts; and if he will make a statement. [60854]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have received representations from the Radio Authority and Commercial Radio Companies Association that the present limits on participation in bodies corporate holding digital radio multiplex licences which are included in the Broadcasting Act 1990 (as amended by the Broadcasting Act 1996) may hamper the development of digital radio. Although the overall regulatory framework for digital radio remains appropriate to the Government's policy aims and to the shape of the emerging digital radio sector, I believe that there is a case for some relaxation of the restrictions on the ownership of bodies corporate holding multiplex licences to encourage investment in this area.

  Following discussions between the Authority and my officials I am today issuing a consultation paper seeking views on proposals to use my order-making power in paragraph 11(5) of part III of Schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Act 1990 (as amended) to amend the present
  12
  limits in the Broadcasting Act. My proposals would allow the formation of a greater number of partnerships between radio companies for the purpose of applying for multiplex licences. However, my proposals are also designed to protect plurality of ownership and diversity of content by allowing smaller radio groups and stations the opportunity to make meaningful investments in a range of applications for local multiplex licences.

  I am placing copies of the consultation paper in the Libraries of both Houses.

SCOTLAND

  Water Industry
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he has taken to implement the conclusions of the Government's Review of the Scottish water industry; and if he will make a statement. [61682]

  Mr. Dewar
  The Scottish Water Industry Review proposed a range of measures to modernise the Scottish water industry. A central measure was the proposal to create a new position of a professional regulator responsible for all aspects of economic regulation of the Scottish water industry and for promoting the customer interest. There was consensus in all parts of the industry, including the Customers Council, that this would be a major improvement on the present arrangements. To safeguard the operational independence of the regulator, I proposed in my statement to the House of 16 December 1997,Official Report, columns 145–58, that we should establish the position in statute.

  The Water Industry Bill, which was published today, contains provisions to discharge this commitment. It will wind up the current Customers Council and establish a new Water Industry Commissioner for Scotland to promote the interests of the water authorities' customers. The Commissioner will assume most of the existing duties of the Customers Council and will have the new function of advising the Scottish Executive about setting water and sewerage charges over periods of several years. The Bill also establishes new Water Industry Consultative Committees for each water authority to advise the Commissioner on the promotion of customer interests in their respective areas.

  These new arrangements will allow objective, professional regulation of water charges. Requiring the Commissioner to consider charges over a number of years, will ensure more long-term stability than at present. This will allow the water authorities to plan for the future with greater certainty, helping them deliver better services to their customers as efficiently as possible.

  The Bill requires the Commissioner to publish the advice put to the Executive on charges and also any modifications the Executive might make to that advice subsequently. These arrangements will safeguard the operational independence of the Commissioner, and will make the operation of the new system transparent to the general public. The Commissioner will be accountable to the Executive and, through it, to the Parliament. I believe these arrangements will give customers the best possible deal on prices and quality of service.
  13
  The water industry review also stressed the need to tackle the chronic under-investment in the industry. I can report that by the end of the current financial year the water authorities will have invested over £800 million since 1996 in new and upgraded infrastructure, with a further £1,500 million of investment planned over the following 3 years. This scale of investment represents a massive transformation and modernisation of the industry and brings to an end decades of neglect.

  The Review stressed the importance of a stable financial framework for the industry, and it should be helpful that the recent allocation of EFLs has been made on a three-year basis.

  The Review also recommended that the water authorities should become more responsive at a local level. To promote this our new appointments to the Water Authority Boards brought the number of local authority representatives up to roughly half of the total. I also issued a direction to the water authorities on 14 August this year requiring them to consult local authorities and other local representative bodies regularly. Copies of this direction were placed in the Library. The evidence so far suggests that these new arrangements are working well.

  In sum, to implement our review we are modernising and improving standards in water and sewerage on a scale unprecedented since Victorian times. We are investing massive sums in improving the quality of drinking water and cleaning up our beaches, as can be seen by the new investment being put in place through the length and breadth of Scotland. And we are ensuring that our authorities are open, democratically accountable, responsive to local concerns and professionally regulated.

HEALTH

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to reply to the letters of 15 and 18 August from the hon. Member for Croydon, South to the then Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Brent, South, (Mr. Boateng) on the future of the Medium Secure Unit at Cane Hill, Croydon. [60869]

  Mr. Hutton
  There is no record of these letters having been received in the Department. If the hon. Member will arrange for copies to be sent to me, I shall ensure they receive urgent attention.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce the provisional local government finance settlement for 1999–2000. [61635]

  Mr. Prescott
  I shall be making a statement to the House on Wednesday 2 December.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Floodlighting
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what change has been made to the floodlighting of the river frontage of the Palace of Westminster. [60991]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  A new floodlighting scheme for the riverside elevation of the Palace was switched on for the first time on 18 November. My Committee agreed that it should be implemented as part of this year's programme of works because the previous floodlighting arrangements on the terrace were so unsatisfactory. They had consisted of temporary lights which were placed on the terrace only during the summer recesses. At other times of the year this elevation of the building was not illuminated because the floodlighting caused nuisance by spilling light into the rooms on the river front. The night time view of the unlit Palace from the riverside was most disappointing, in contrast to other well-lit buildings along the river.

  The new scheme has been designed so that the floodlights are close to the base of the wall. By casting light upwards at a shallow angle the nuisance from light spilling into rooms is greatly reduced and the effect is to highlight the modelling of the stonework. The lamps themselves are highly energy efficient, so the electricity cost of the new scheme is some 30 per cent. less than before.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fog Lights
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many motorists in Northern Ireland have(a) been given a fixed penalty notice and (b) been prosecuted for the unlawful use of fog lights in each of the last five years. [60990]

  Mr. Ingram
  The computerised records system does not permit a breakdown by particular offence. To provide the information requested would require a manual check of all records over each of the years in question and would incur a disproportionate cost.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Medway Secure Training Centre
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many trainees are currently held at Medway Secure Training Centre; and if he will make a statement. [61711]

  Mr. Boateng
  As of today, there are 36 trainees at Medway Secure Training Centre. This is fewer than the maximum of 40 trainees who may be held there because I have asked Rebound ECD, the contractors for Medway Secure Training Centre, to put in place a programme of work, including refurbishment, to address difficulties that have been experienced at the centre so as to ensure the high standard of care, control, education and training required by the contract. While this programme of work
  15
  is being taken forward, the number of trainees held at Medway will be reduced on a temporary basis to 25 to help facilitate this work. Other trainees will be placed in local authority secure accommodation. The Government are committed to ensuring that secure provision for those young people whose offending is so serious or persistent as to require a period in a secure environment is of good quality, positive and constructive in tackling offending behaviour. We are working closely with Rebound ECD to achieve that. We are monitoring the situation at Medway closely and will continue to do so.

  Commercial Dog Facilities
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce the results of the audit of commercial dog facilities that was announced in July 1997. [61712]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We have today laid before Parliament a report by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate. Copies are available in the Library. This makes a number of recommendations for best-practice in dog facilities. I have asked the Inspectorate to ensure that these recommendations are implemented, as far as is practicable, in all establishments.

  The recommendations will be incorporated into the Codes of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals—published under section 21 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986—when the Codes are next revised.

  Animal Procedures Committee
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the annual report of the Animal Procedures Committee and the Committee's report on its review of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and if he will make further appointments to the Committee. [61713]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We have today laid before Parliament the Committee's annual report. Copies are available in the Library. The report contains, at appendix F, a further report by the Committee on its review of the operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
  16
  I welcome the Committee's report and the agenda of work it has identified for itself during the review. I particularly endorse the Committee's conclusion that it should be more open and pro-active, and that its independent role needs to be emphasised. I have already agreed to provide a dedicated secretariat for the Committee to support this way of working and to help ensure that the Committee can continue to carry out its work in an efficient and effective manner.

  I am pleased to announce that nine new members are being appointed to the Committee with effect from 1 December 1998. In making these appointments, I am strengthening further the animal welfare expertise on the Committee and also bolstering the scientific expertise needed by the Committee in examining the areas it has set itself, including ethical considerations, biotechnology, use of primates and animal welfare.

  The new appointees are:

  Professor Christopher Atterwill—Head of Preclinical Drug Safety Department, Roche Products Limited.

  Mr. Mike Baker—Chief Executive, British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection.

  Professor Donald Broom—Professor of Animal Welfare, University of Cambridge.

  Professor Grahame Bulfield—Director and Chief Executive, Roslin Institute.

  Professor Stephen Clarke—Professor of Philosophy, University of Liverpool.

  Dr. Alan Holland—Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Lancaster.

  Dr. Colin Johnston—Associate Head of Research, Department of Medicine, Queen's University, Belfast.

  Professor Alan McNeilly—Deputy Director, Medical Research Council Reproductive Biology Unit.

  Professor Genevra Richardson—Professor of Public Law, Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London.

  In publicly announcing the Committee's annual report, its review and the appointment of new members, I expect to outline other developments: the results of an audit of dog facilities and the intention of the Home Office to liaise with major grant-awarding bodies. These developments follow my recent announcement of an end to testing of cosmetics on animals in the United Kingdom.

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

Pollution Prevention and Control Bill [H.L.]
3.7 P.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for a new system of pollution prevention and control; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question. Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Committee of Selection
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham)The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That in accordance with Standing Order 61 a Committee of Selection be appointed to select and propose to the House the names of the Lords to form each Select Committee of the House (except the Committee of Selection itself and any committee otherwise provided for by statute or by order of the House) or any other body not being a Select Committee referred to it by the Chairman of Committees, and the Panel of Deputy Chairmen of Committees; and that the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee—

L. Burnham,

L. Carter,

V. Cranborne,

L. Harris of Greenwich,

B. Jay of Paddington,

L. McIntosh of Haringey,

L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank,

L. Strathclyde,

V. Tenby,

L. Weatherill.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Tuesday last by Lord Clinton-Davis—namely, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
"Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to
134
thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament".
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, part of the area to be discussed this afternoon is foreign affairs. I need to mention to your Lordships that the case of Senator Pinochet remains sub judice and, under the rules of the House, no reference should be made to that case in this debate.
3.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, I am about to entertain your Lordships with discussion of one or two other matters that I am not going to talk about this afternoon. That is not out of any discourtesy to your Lordships, but because we have already considered certain defence matters fairly recently in this House and I hope that we shall debate them again in the near future.
As your Lordships will be aware, we debated NATO expansion not so long ago; we have twice discussed the future of the Territorial Army, and I hope that very shortly there will be time for a full debate on the Strategic Defence Review. The fact that I do not propose to refer to any of those matters in detail does not in any sense mean that I regard them as unimportant or that I would want—if I had the power, which, of course, I do not—to indicate that your Lordships might want to keep off those matters.
I thought that I should give your Lordships a brief tour d'horizon as we see it from the Ministry of Defence. I start with a brief résumé of the current activities in which Her Majesty's forces are involved. As your Lordships will know, we concluded in the Strategic Defence Review that we were not prepared to stand idly by; we are prepared to take a lead in the international community and to live up to our responsibilities. The clearest examples of that are found in Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq.
We consider that the United Kingdom, under this Government and their predecessor, has made a considerable contribution to ensuring peace in Bosnia. The British Army has been there since 1992. We are the second largest contributor to SFOR. We have about 5,000 troops there and considerable air assets. We are the second largest contributor after America. We are, of course, extremely proud of our servicemen and women who play a vital part in creating and maintaining a secure environment in Bosnia. That has enabled the Bosnian people to start rebuilding their country. We hope very much that the first SFOR review will provide scope for force reductions in that unhappy country. However, I emphasise that I do not want in any sense to prejudice the outcome of that review which will, of course, need to be agreed by our allies.
In Kosovo we have responded quickly to a fast-moving situation. I am told that some 60 UK verifiers, many of them service personnel, are currently in the region. More will follow, and we expect to provide up to 200 personnel to the OSCE verification

135
mission. We are also making available two Canberra PR-9s to the NATO air verification mission and have provided the head of the Kosovo co-ordination cell which is to be set up in Macedonia.
I turn briefly to Iraq. Your Lordships will be fully aware of the latest developments there. Many noble Lords will shortly receive yet another letter from my noble friend Lady Symons and myself. That letter will bring noble Lords up to date, should any details have been missed. I assure the House that our forces in the Gulf remain on high alert and on station, and that the military option is still in place. Looking at the response from Saddam Hussein in the past few days, the inconclusive exchange of letters between Iraq and UNSCOM last weekend is a very bad omen. It sits very oddly with Saddam Hussein's undertaking to provide full and unrestricted co-operation with the UNSCOM team. If we are forced to take military action, there should be no doubt whatever where the blame for that will lie. I very much welcome the recent attitude of the overwhelming majority of governments in the immediate region in the run-up to the latest crisis.
I now turn to some more fundamental matters arising from or in the context of the review. I was waylaid—if I may say that of so gentle a Member of this House—by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, asking me why there was no reference to nuclear matters in the gracious Speech. I thought it appropriate to address a few remarks to that question. As I am sure noble Lords will understand, it is not because Her Majesty's Government regard nuclear matters as unimportant. We have said that we are reducing the number of missiles and nuclear warheads to what we consider to be the minimum for a sustained, credible deterrent.
There will never be few enough missiles and warheads for some of my noble friends. Understandably, they want a nuclear-free world. I think I can say without hesitation that we should all like to see a nuclear-free world. We should like to see a world free of bombs, torpedoes, missiles and mines, not to mention light arms and bayonets. However, we do ourselves and the public no great service to talk in such language in a world in which, sadly, weapons of mass destruction are constantly proliferating. A nuclear-free world is not just round the corner—and that is not due merely to the indifference, idleness or incompetence of this Government, predecessor governments or governments in other countries.
This Government, like their predecessors, believe firmly in the deterrent power of nuclear weapons. They also believe in them as weapons of last resort. The question then arises: how does one reconcile a belief in the value of nuclear deterrence with a desire to see a world free of all weapons of mass destruction? Why can we not set a timetable for the elimination of our nuclear weapons if we really want to see a nuclear-free world?
I offer two answers. First, there are other countries which are now friendly but which have struck hostile attitudes towards us in the past, and which have, or could acquire, the power to deliver nuclear warheads on to our soil. Secondly, for a country with as small a nuclear arsenal as ours, we must wait until the
136
conventional weapons accumulated in malevolent hands are reduced to levels where they pose no threat to ourselves, our friends or our interests around the world before we can safely undertake further disarmament ourselves.
On the question of proliferation, it is a sad fact that there are some 15 to 20 countries which have, probably have, or possibly have a chemical warfare capability at this time. By that, I mean a capability to deliver chemical weapons. It is also our assessment that there are some 10 to 15 countries of concern around the world which have, may very well possess, or we believe are trying to possess, the same capability in respect of biological weapons.
I see no threat to this country today from hostile intercontinental ballistic missiles. I see no threat from Russian forces driving westwards. I see no threat from backfire bombers coming at us from over Ireland. I see no threat from Spetznatz forces landing on our shores. There are, however, many other possible dangers that we face, some of them even from our friends, quite innocently. Some arise from matters about which your Lordships read every day in the press. One example is the millennium bug—not just in terms of what it might do to other countries' weapons systems; in that respect we are relatively relaxed, because if the millennium bug does strike other people's weapons systems the great likelihood is that they will be neutralised rather than becoming active. However, there are other dangers, such as power supplies going down and serious potential difficulties with both conventional and nuclear generating stations in many other countries around the world.
That is not the only threat from which we suffer indirectly in regard to nuclear matters. Noble Lords may like to know some of the ways in which we are co-operating with our friends the Russians on improving national nuclear material accountancy and control arrangements. We have provided 20 nuclear weapon transport vehicles and 250 secure containers to help Russia transport weapons quickly and safely to dismantlement sites. We are exploring with Russia whether we can offer any practical experience in dismantling its chemical weapons stockpile. An expert MoD team visited Russia in September to look at possible options. With the United States and our European partners and others, we contribute to the funding of the International Science and Technology Centre in Moscow which provides research opportunities in Russia for former military scientists.
Last but by no means least, we have taken a number of steps to share information on our own appreciation of the Y2K problem with our Russian friends, as have the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our American allies. The defence aspects of the year 2000 problem were discussed in the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council with the specific aim of anticipating and forestalling potential problems that might arise from the impact of year 2000 on key military systems.
Looking more widely, the United States in particular—and this is very much an American-Russian matter in which we have a great interest—has been

137
active in raising a range of issues from the safety of ageing nuclear power stations to the continuity of supply of natural gas to central and eastern Europe. A great deal of progress has been made, including agreements to exchange key personnel between the United States and Russia who would work in the respective Year 2000 management centres over the millennium period.
Further work is being carried out to ensure that senior Russian political leaders are fully aware of the risk that the Year 2000 problem poses. Her Majesty's Government are providing active support to our American friends in all those measures.
There are other dangers that face this country and they face us directly in the years ahead. As your Lordships will be aware, the battlefields of the future will bear very little resemblance to the ones we are used to seeing on our television screens, dealing with wars gone by. The increasing dependence of all countries on high technology has encouraged some potential adversaries to look at alternative means of opposing us. Asymmetric threats to this country come at us in many forms. I list but a few. The challenge of a hostile biological or chemical environment is one of which we are keenly aware. We recognised in the Strategic Defence Review that a coherent national response was required to the threat from chemical and biological weapons. We have to maintain a balance of capabilities to deter, counter and defend ourselves against the use of these weapons. Protective measures play an important part, including above all detection capabilities.
Among the measures we have already taken is increased procurement of land-based biological detection equipment. To help protect our deployed forces, we have established a joint Army and Royal Air Force NBC capability available at high readiness. In addition, a detailed review of our national defence response to the risks posed by nuclear, biological and chemical weapons has been undertaken. We hope to announce its conclusions shortly.
Another area in which we shall have to get used to the need to defend ourselves is in our national information infrastructure. We are well aware of the risk of attacks on our information networks, not only the networks of government but of the economy and the private sector as a whole. We are determined not to underestimate the potential that threats of this kind have to degrade our fighting effectiveness. It is, of course, not just a defence issue about Y2K, it goes much wider than that. We are working across government, with our allies and suppliers of key services, to put in place security measures and technical solutions to defend our information infrastructure in both military and civilian fields. We will be working to ensure that we improve our ability to protect defence information networks, to deter those who would attack them and to provide us with the earliest possible warning of attack. In all those matters we are co-operating extremely closely with our American friends.
We shall have to test those arrangements and train our people to assure the security and availability of information vital to the conduct of defence and also to the wellbeing of our national economy.
138
Finally, I thought I should say a word about European defence. Your Lordships will be aware that the Prime Minister recently made some remarks on the subject which were welcomed throughout Western Europe. He has spoken of the need particularly to improve Europe's defence capabilities within NATO. I cannot emphasise too strongly the importance of those last two words "within NATO".
We remain quite open-minded about institutions, but we are determined to do what we can to improve the output that we get for the input. There is one well-known statistic which is bandied about. I cannot vouch for its accuracy but it gives your Lordships a sense of the task in front of us when I tell the House that it is widely believed that Europe spends about 60 per cent. of what the United States spends on defence, but obtains only about 10 per cent. of the capability. We must somehow or other address that shortfall.
We are in the early stages of the debate, but at least it has started and it was started by Her Majesty's Government. The last 18 months have been a challenging period for Her Majesty's Government in the development and application of our policies in the areas of foreign affairs, defence and international development. The next 12 months are unlikely to be any less challenging. In my view, the Strategic Defence Review has given us an excellent platform from which to meet the country's security needs. I personally am grateful to noble Lords in all parts of the House who have written generously to us at the Ministry of Defence about the review. I look forward to debating it further at your Lordships' pleasure when we can review some of the many matters which I have not had time to discuss with your Lordships today.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, today we have the opportunity to raise some of our on-going foreign policy concerns and to look ahead to the future, to anticipate the political landscape of the 21st century. Perhaps we may also reflect a little over the past 18 months on the Government's implementation of their foreign policies and on their handling of the shifting sands and, on occasion, the quicksands of international affairs.
Your Lordships' House needs no reminding of the challenges presented to the government of the day by the theatre of world events. Today is no exception. We are caught in the grip of a global economic downturn. In the Far East, the world's second largest economy, Japan, is deeply embedded in a stagnant economic rut, unable to kick-start its powerful economy. The ripple effect of this recession continues to be felt far beyond Japan and the immediate region. In south-east Asia, the Asian miracle has turned sour, engulfed by last summer's tidal wave of financial turbulence from which it has yet to recover, depressing some expectations that the 21st century would be the Asian century.
In Indonesia's struggle for democracy, the death toll continues to rise as this huge nation is threatened by disintegration under the pressures of deep-seated ethnic and religious tensions, with unrest, looting and violence now all too regular occurrences.

139
In Africa, while regional efforts to resolve the conflict between President Laurent Kabila's government and rebel forces in the Democratic Republic of Congo seem doomed to failure, the threat that the deadly contagion of instability will spread from border to border and will create an epidemic of violence across the whole of central Africa draws ever nearer.
In Europe, this month Russia received international food aid for the first time in seven years. The situation there continues to look bleak. That was underlined only this week by the horrifying murder of the Russian member of parliament, Galina Starovoitova. Russia can ill afford the loss of this ceaseless advocate of democracy. In these difficult times for Russia, when politicians are sometimes silenced for their beliefs, we have a duty to keep faith with those who follow in her footsteps.
In the Middle East, the Wye River Memorandum breathed fresh hope into the seemingly moribund peace process whose obituary had already been written by many pundits. The continued glasnost in our relations with Iran is encouraging. Yet while Iran continues to support terrorist groups and to seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction there can be no appeals to lift its pariah status.
In a debate as broad as this it is all too easy for speeches to turn into travelogues with two sentences for each region of the world. I hope to avoid that pitfall today. Therefore, I wish to concentrate on three particular areas: the crises in Iraq and Kosovo—they are mentioned in the gracious Speech and continue to present major challenges for the Government, having tested their skills of international diplomacy to the limits—and the problem posed by the crisis in Central Africa.
I begin with Kosovo. In Kosovo, President Milosevic's regime of brutal repression threatens to turn a political problem into a severe humanitarian crisis. Following the crackdown by Serbian security forces against terrorists of the pro-independence KLA in March, the world was shocked and revulsed by the subsequent explosion of violence in the province. In the month-by-month, sometimes day-by-day, revelations of atrocities, the names of previously unfamiliar Kosovo towns and villages brought a tragic familiarity to our lips. Those names are now synonymous with death, destruction and grief.
NATO air strikes against Serbia were narrowly averted. We on these Benches welcome the agreement reached, in particular the work done to ensure full and verifiable compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 1199. We commend the Government for the part they played in averting the crisis. It is a pity that the situation was allowed to deteriorate for so long before action was taken. Yet fears remain that Kosovo is an example of the "crisis averted, problem postponed" school of foreign policy. These fears have increased as a result of the news received from Kosovo in recent days, which I regret to say has not been positive. There are signs that the security situation in the province is deteriorating. Several Serbian policemen have been
140
killed, allegedly by KLA separatists, while the number of Serbian special police in the province is increasing. There are reports of Serb road fortifications.
In winding up, perhaps the Minister can inform the House whether she accepts that continued ceasefire violations at the present level threaten to unravel the Holbrooke agreement. Moreover, what steps are the Government taking together with their NATO allies to break the deadlock on negotiations on political autonomy for the province, given that for the seventeenth consecutive occasion the ethnic Albanian leadership has failed to attend talks with representatives of Belgrade on the ground that talks should be held only through the mediation of the US envoy, Christopher Hill? Belgrade has refused on the basis that it constitutes international interference. Does the Minister agree that the publication last weekend of Serbia's own proposals for the future of the province, which the EU special envoy for Kosovo has criticised and the Kosovar Albanian leadership has rejected, was a far from helpful step?
Kosovo is not the only country in which in the past months the challenge to the will of the international community has been laid down. For seven years, Saddam Hussein has failed to comply with the terms of the ceasefire agreement which ended the Gulf War. For seven years, he has attempted to dictate his own terms to the international community, while forcing the UNSCOM inspectors to participate in round after round of his tortuous game of hide-and-seek. For seven years, he has shown himself willing to gamble with the lives and health of the Iraqi population in order to keep his weapons of mass destruction. All the while, the menacing threat of those weapons continues to cast dark shadows over peace in the region and in the world.
In the past year, confrontations with Iraq have multiplied as Saddam Hussein continues to ride his reckless rollercoaster of defiance in an attempt to wriggle free of the sanctions of the international community without surrendering his arsenal of biological and chemical weapons. In winding up, can the Minister give an assurance that while Iraq continues to dodge rather than comply with its obligations the Security Council's comprehensive review of Iraq's compliance with its resolutions will not take place given that at the moment we do not have co-operation, let alone compliance?
UNSCOM inspectors have been unable to carry out their job effectively for eight of the past 12 months. The chances that they will be able to continue their work with full and unfettered access are remote. Once again, mere days after the "shoot first and negotiate later" policy of the US and UK forced Iraq's climbdown, we are facing another crisis. The prospect of Iraq's complete and unconditional compliance with UN Security Council resolutions seems as distant as ever as the familiar merry-go-round of Iraqi accusations, obstruction, blocking, conniving and lies begins again, this time over the release of documents requested by UNSCOM.

141
Less than two weeks ago, President Clinton told the world that Iraq must fulfil five obligations or face the consequences. Your Lordships will be well aware that one of those obligations was to,
"turn over all relevant documents".
Can the Minister confirm two critical points: first, whether in the opinion of the Government this refusal to hand over sensitive documents constitutes a breach of Iraq's latest commitments; and, secondly, that it is not up to Iraq to dictate whether or not UNSOCM's requests are relevant?
We may be slipping back into the depressingly familiar pattern of repetitive crisis syndrome, where the international community is forced to respond to yet another Iraqi-engineered crisis. Having overplayed his hand once already by withdrawing all co-operation from UNSCOM—a decision that united the international community in universal condemnation—Saddam Hussein is again using his familiar tactic of salami-slicing erosion of the UNSCOM inspectors' ability to do their work, stopping just short of providing grounds for military action. Of course, professional and technical judgments must be made by Richard Butler and his team of experts to determine the extent to which the work of the weapons inspectors has been undermined. Nevertheless, when at the beginning of this week the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, insisted that,
"It is crucially important that Iraq honours its commitments … If those commitments are not honoured then Saddam Hussein understands very well the consequences that will follow",
what guarantees can the Government give that Saddam Hussein will be inhibited by the consequences, if those consequences do not follow?
While we have been firm supporters of the Government's robust line towards Iraq, there are three logistical questions that I believe it is important to raise. Clearly, the safety of the UNSCOM inspectors is paramount. First, can the Minister confirm that contingency plans have been drawn up to remove the UNSCOM inspectors in Baghdad to safety in the event of unannounced military action? Secondly, have discussions been held between the United Kingdom and the United States as to how this will be achieved without alerting the Iraqi regime to the prospect of imminent action? Thirdly, how long can the Government maintain the ability to strike immediately, given that this requires a high state of readiness which is burdensome on manpower, morale and equipment; and how is such a state of alert to be sustained indefinitely?
While the first flickers of hope in the Middle East process for peace are fanned, in Africa it seems that the contagion of violence is spreading. In Sierra Leone, despite the restoration of the elected government, the country remains wracked by a conflict bordering on out and out civil war. And your Lordships are well aware of the potential for the fighting in the Democratic Republic of Congo to destabilise the whole eastern African subregion, risking a devastating humanitarian disaster. These fears were recently expressed by the
142
Presidents of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. Given their foreign policy, do the Government still consider that those problems are,
"regional in nature and therefore require a regional approach wherever possible"?
The Foreign Secretary has said that the Government will make it a priority of their diplomacy in Africa to build peace and prevent conflict since,
"without peace nothing else is possible".
How is that being put into practice in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in Sierra Leone?
Will the Minister join the UN Secretary-General in condemning the extrajudicial executions in Sierra Leone which are a clear breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Can the noble Baroness tell the House, first, what conditions were laid down by the Government when they pledged £6.5 million to help resolve conflict by supporting the disarmament and reintegration of ex-combatants; secondly, whether those conditions have been met; and, thirdly, if in the future the government of Sierra Leone fail to ensure fair trials and a proper appeals process for all those accused of treason for their role in the junta, will that have any affect on future pledges of assistance?
I have been able to touch on only a few of the vast array of issues which we on these Benches believe will be of critical importance to the United Kingdom and worthy of the Government's immediate attention. In today's world, the champions of peace, democracy and security remain beset by great obstacles. The Government will need all the skills of leadership, diplomacy and statesmanship available to them to rise to the challenges ahead. I wish the Government well in their programme for the coming year and I look forward to the Minister's response.
3.42 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I congratulate the House on the fact that the debate is described as a debate on defence, international development and foreign affairs. I understand that in another place international development will not he addressed in its debate. That exemplifies how modern and in touch the Upper House is as regards affairs of the world globally.
I welcome, too, the one proposal for legislation in the field of international affairs; namely. that which touches on the CDC. I make it plain that Members on these Benches will do their very best to examine carefully and speed up the passage of the Bill—a Bill which is badly needed. My noble friend Lord Redesdale will say more on that later.
As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, the challenge would be to try to touch on the many crises in the world in a few minutes. The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, said that the times were challenging. Indeed, one might say that they are tumultuous. I intend to devote my remarks largely to the serious global situation, touching in particular on Asia and Russia, to say a few words about some of the current crises in Europe, and to speak on enlargement, an issue that we cannot possibly avoid.

143
I begin by referring to the serious continuing global economic position. In the quarter that is concluding, the United States economy is expected to grow at a continuing figure of 3.9 per cent. annually. So far the West has not been affected seriously by the scale of the global economic crisis. But when looking at the American figures we must consider alongside them the Japanese figures. I believe those figures to be frightening. The latest OECD projections indicating a decline in growth of 2.5 per cent. in the coming year suggest that the East Asian countries, which are so heavily dependent on Japanese purchases of their exports, will continue to be unable to look forward to any great prospects of growth. We have gone far beyond economic setbacks, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said. In countries such as Indonesia and Korea we are looking at the meltdown of early attempts to establish democracies and the rule of law. That is very serious.
However, equally serious is the situation in Russia. Noble Lords who care to consider the stabilisation programme proposed by the new Government of Mr. Primakov published on 20th November will see the scale of the crisis we now face. For reasons of time I shall quote only one paragraph from that stabilisation programme. It states:
"The socioeconomic situation worsened in 1998. In the first six months, the growth of nonpayments accelerated. export earnings started to decline, the budget crisis became acute, and all segments of the financial market were destabilised".
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, perhaps I may draw the attention of the noble Baroness to the intervention by my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn to clarify to the House that the matter of the requested extradition of Senator Pinochet continues to be sub judice. Under the rules of the House no reference should be made to the case in the debate.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I apologise. I thought that I was addressing the economic situation in Russia. So far I have said nothing whatever about Pinochet and do not intend to do so. I always take the greatest possible notice of the highly thoughtful remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am sorry for the intervention. I think that a piece of paper probably went astray. It was not the fault of my noble friend Lord Hoyle, and was certainly not the fault of the noble Baroness either.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am more than delighted invariably to pick up pieces of government paper which go astray, and I shall watch carefully for the next one!
Without boring the House—I believe this matter to be not only of great importance but one that will overshadow the next six months—I return for a moment to the economic situation in Russia, about which I was speaking.
I quoted from the stabilisation programme. I might have made one other comment: that Russian taxation revenues are now running at 6 per cent. of gross national
144
product; and the minimum required simply to keep going the functions of the state is estimated by Russia to be between 10 and 12 per cent. According to my most recent information—I should declare an interest as President of the Britain and Russia Society—population movements from the east and north of Russia are already occurring because the Russian Government believe that they will be unable to supply even the basic necessities of life to some parts of their huge country. I fear that by the end of this winter we may be looking at starvation in parts of Russia, and a situation much closer to the terrible situation in the 1920s than most of us can bring ourselves to believe.
I make one final point about the international global crisis. I quote the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer Mr. Gordon Brown, at the Birmingham Summit of last spring. He said:
"It is essential to limit the impact of economic crisis on the poor and the vulnerable".
Let me echo those words. In recent bail-outs, in particular in Indonesia and Russia, most of the funds from the international financial institutions have not gone to the poor and the vulnerable but to commercial banks which are themselves corruptly run and in many instances have simply absorbed the taxpayers' money from the Western world.
In the gracious Speech, I note the reference to reform of international financial institutions as one of the objects of Her Majesty's Government. Nothing is more important than to reform those international financial institutions and to put the needs of ordinary human beings first. Indeed, those people must be given a much higher priority in IMF bail-outs. Those bail-outs should not be in the form of money from the World Bank. That money should rightly be spent on restructuring economies and on long-term development.
Secondly, I turn to the Prime Minister's speech in the North Atlantic Assembly to which the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, referred. The Prime Minister came out very clearly in favour of a much stronger approach to a common foreign and security policy for the European Union. In that, certainly on these Benches, we strongly echo what he said.
But of course, unless we pursue sensibly, honourably and reliably the process of enlargement of the European Union throughout central and eastern Europe, the common foreign and security policy will be seen not as an object for further integrating European defence, but rather as an alternative route to that of enlargement.
Many of our colleagues in countries like Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic have come to depend on enlargement and have made huge transformations of their own internal structures, civil services and laws in order to meet the European Union's requirement with regard to the acquis communautaire. If those countries believe that we are slowly slipping away from any reasonable timetable, I fear that we shall feed great insecurity and concern in their midst.
I say that primarily because the budget that was drawn up for the transitional costs of enlargement—that is, 3 billion ecus per year for pre-accession work and 40 billion ecus for structural and regional funds over

145
the six years from 2000 to 2006—was based upon the assumption of a 2.5 annual rate of growth in the European Union for the next six years. We are already falling below that figure, down to about 2.1 per cent. Therefore, I ask the Government whether they consider the better approach, should we not be able to meet that budget, is to lengthen the period in which we consider enlargement to be achieved or whether they would consider the possibility of some additional resources being transferred for the purpose. The Government may not yet be ready to reply. However, since the gracious Speech makes specific reference to the high priority given to enlargement by Her Majesty's Government, I wish to flag up the difficulties which may arise if the rather optimistic scenario is not realised.
I wish to say only a few words about two current crises since the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, dealt with them in great detail. I wish to ask one question about Kosovo. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned that monitors are being slow to be deployed. My latest information is that so far, virtually none has been deployed. They are still being trained. I fear that many of them appear to be not very experienced at all in the work that they will shortly be called upon to do. Will the Government tell us what they regard as the probable timetable for deployment given that, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, already there are considerable signs that the Kosovo Liberation Army in some areas and Serbian police in others are beginning to go outwith the bounds of what was agreed in the Holbrooke agreement? In that context, it is particularly worrying that as far as I can see, no progress has been made at all in relation to the prospects of a long-term political settlement based on the recognition of the autonomy of Kosovo by the former Republic of Yugoslavia.
I wish to follow what the noble Lord said about the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This weekend, there will be a Franco-African summit. That summit will address the problems of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. But many of the governments involved in that summit are members of the Commonwealth rather than members of the French-speaking community. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that the situation is now shaping up to become, prospectively, a major war in Africa. It is capable of destabilising the remarkable achievements of South Africa, one of the few countries on that continent genuinely trying to give a constructive lead towards peace as well as destabilising our Commonwealth friends in Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda. What steps, if any, are the Government taking to try to involve in particular the United Nations Security Council in finding a solution based upon peace talks in that region of the world? Are Her Majesty's Government prepared to assist, through the Commonwealth Secretariat, in providing the resources, whether for peacekeeping or other requirements, which will almost certainly be needed?
Lastly, I turn to the issue touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert. I listened carefully to what he said about nuclear weapons. In particular, he referred—and this is very important—to the probability that the United States will now review the level of its own nuclear missile holdings and is even considering taking those
146
missile holdings below the levels required by the SALT regime. I believe that that is 6,000 missiles on either side.
In view of Russia's serious economic position, she may well follow suit. Indeed, she would have a great interest in doing so. Following from what the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, said, will the Government be prepared to give a guarantee that there would be no increase of any kind in our own holdings of nuclear weapons should Russia and the United States both agree to move below the SALT levels? In view of the fact that India and Pakistan are both nuclear powers, I believe that it is of vital importance that we, as an official nuclear power, should not at any point be able to he presented as a country which is slowing down nuclear international disarmament on an agreed basis because, in the end, I believe that that is the way to try to control the dangerous potential of other nuclear powers in our very dangers world.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I should like to concentrate on defence because, sadly, I shall not be able to speak in the defence debate which has just been organised for early next month. Sadly, too, I deeply regret that other duties will take me away before the end of this debate and for that I apologise sincerely to noble Lords.
There is nothing in the gracious Speech to indicate that the Government do not want this country to play its full part and punch its full weight in international affairs; indeed, just the reverse. There is mention of strong defence arrangements and a determination to maintain the resolutions of the Security Council. In recent crises in the Balkans and in the Gulf, both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have gone out of their way to talk this country into the centre of international action or, at least, the threat of such action, even to the extent of incurring some criticism that constant repetition of threats, without the action itself, risks some loss of credibility.
Be that as it may, in the world as it is, positive diplomacy and aspirations to deter or correct aggression or other forms of international evil-doing are meaningless without viable and balanced forces which are seen to be capable of making a military contribution to the international good at the appropriate moment. The Government clearly realise that. As I have said previously, both inside and outside your Lordships' House, the Government are to be congratulated on the way in which, in a well-handled strategic defence review, they have given this country a realistic defence policy. That has been somewhat lacking in the past. With one proviso and one possible exception, this country will have viable armed forces which, incidentally, are as much as those forces themselves could possibly have hoped for.
The proviso is—if the efficiency savings of 3 per cent. compound over the next three years, imposed by the Treasury as a Parthian shot, do not, after all the similar exercises over the past 14 years, cut too deep into SDR's aspirations and intentions. I fear that it is a

147
rather big "if" and will need careful watching. But the Strategic Defence Review was a much better exercise than earlier ones and approached the problem strategically from the top downwards rather than, as so often in the past, from the bottom line financial restraints upwards.
Having given those sincere compliments, I wish that I could be as enthusiastic about the possible exception I mentioned; that is, the reserve forces and, in particular, the Territorial Army. I am not criticising Ministers for the outcome. I certainly do not blame the last Minister for the Armed Forces, Dr. Reid, now moved to other things. He realised only too well the vital quasi-social as well as military role of the Territorial Army throughout the nation, the chronic shortages in the regular infantry, now between 5,000 and 10,000, and thus the heavy reliance on the TA to make up the numbers in Bosnia and elsewhere. He realised also the fact that in such an uncertain world and a declining regular strength, the Territorial Army is virtually the only reliable and enthusiastic reserve we have for whatever emergencies come along.
As a result Ministers have consulted and, up to a point, listened. They have done their best to counter some of the departmental advice they were receiving, based, over-simplistically in my judgment, on the passing of the so-called home defence role and pushing up significantly the numbers from the original 30,000 or even less to the present 41,200. That is very good. The question is whether it is good enough.
The home defence role, such as it was, may have gone. But the need to encourage a volunteer adventurous spirit; to have a trained body of patriotic disciplined manpower as a general reserve for any emergency, natural or man made, expected or unexpected; and to provide a framework for any future expansion are as necessary as ever. In some cases they are being weakened by the new arrangements. Moreover, when we go in detail into how the greatly truncated Territorial Army is to be deployed throughout the country, it is difficult to see how the well-meant and totally unexceptionable principles, capabilities and aspirations with which Ministers found it necessary to justify the new arrangements will be achieved any better than at present. In a number of cases the result will not be as good as it is now.
The improvement in call-out legislation has already made reserves more usable in emergencies, as in the Falklands and in Bosnia. There has been a steady improvement over the years in equipment, though the claim that there can now be greater integration with the regulars is highly questionable. The term "one army concept" was invented many years ago.
The nub of the problem—this must be recognised—is that in the latest exercise, having at one fell swoop cut the Territorial Army establishment by at least 15,000; the infantry (the heart and soul of the Territorials) by 50 per cent.; and, in that truncated infantry, having removed all regimental battalions, only loosely but inflexibly linking cap badge companies into 15 or so regional groupings based in some cases on nothing more inspirational than administrative tidiness
148
in arbitrary and probably only temporary TA brigades, the Government, whatever their good intentions, will have disrupted links with the regimental system which Ministers purport to support—those with the Regular Army which the TA plans are meant to foster. We will be left, in relation to combat arms, with no more than token forces scattered throughout the country. That constitutes a far greater blow to morale than certain TA units not having a defined home defence role.
When one adds to all that the closure of 80 TA centres, many of them new, including the possible complete alienation of the Duke of York's, the flagship for the Territorial Army; the extraordinary abolition of no less than five Royal Engineers regiments with all their most appropriate skills for national emergencies and humanitarian operations abroad—I was always brought up to believe that there were never enough sappers—and the extra impact that that will have on morale, motivation, recruiting and links from the Armed Forces into the civilian population, there is a real danger that the stuffing will be knocked out of the Territorial Army.
It will be knocked out just as the last government, despite warning after warning, also with plans hatched in the Ministry of Defence, justified with exactly the same exhortations about modernisation and relevance in the modern world, virtually destroyed the Armed Forces' Medical Services with disastrous consequences which this Government are now desperately trying to tackle. I only hope that I am wrong. I hope that the analogy will not prove to be too close. But that will only be if Ministers do not consider the matter of the Territorial Army to be completely closed and if they have the courage to show some flexibility in the implementation of the new arrangements. If not, in certain areas, they must think again, as many of the responsible newspapers seem to be urging them to do.
Most importantly, whatever is now going to be the new establishment must be fully funded so that commanders are free to recruit right up to their establishment and receive the money to train everyone they recruit. In the past—this is one of the reasons why the Minister has been able to say that he is only cutting 12,800 and not 15,000—establishment has been steadily eroded both by imposed under-implementation and, further, by only granting enough funding for a limited number of those recruited. That inexorably forces the strength down. I hope Ministers will at least give a firm assurance on the valid and vital point of full funding.
Finally, it would be sad if this Government were to spoil the good ship SDR and the goodwill and plaudits that it rightly generated for a ha'p'orth of tar when, with little extra money, perhaps only 2,000 to 3,000 extra men and greater flexibility in real estate organisation, much of the damage that so many of us fear can at least be mitigated. Without that flexibility the damage caused may be found to be irreparable and leave us with too little for any sudden expansion that the future may demand.
If any Ministers or other noble Lords are tempted to say that as president—which I am for the next two to three weeks—of the Greater London TAVRA, "I would

149
say that, wouldn't I?", I say only that my support for the Territorial Army has equally as much, if not more, to do with my own experiences with them in peace and war over 50 years and my study of military history which tells me of the invaluable, sometimes incalculable, part that those reserve forces and their predecessors have played throughout this century in South Africa, in two world wars, and, more recently, in the Gulf and in Bosnia. I would not want the lessons of history, which seem to have been taken into account in the rest of the SDR, to be forgotten in this case, especially when the remembrances of the eleventh day of the eleventh month are so recently in our minds and when yet again conflict may be looming in the Middle East.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, with your permission I shall confine my remarks during the debate this afternoon to those aspects of the gracious Speech that relate to our membership of the European Union. Early in the gracious Speech was the statement of belief that,
"the historic decision to give the Bank of England the power to set interest rates has been crucial to the meeting of its inflation target and credibility in the system".
I applaud that sentiment and assert that independence of the European Central Bank is equally necessary for very much the same reasons: for the reasons of maintaining our treaty obligation to meet price stability—itself an imperative basis of competitiveness, growth and jobs—and also of maintaining credibility in the European monetary system. I note that the Government, in the words of the gracious Speech,
"will encourage preparations in the United Kingdom for the introduction in other member states of the euro".
Such a statement is patently sensible. However, I hope that the Government will also regularly monitor the progress that we are making against the criteria laid down by Mr. Gordon Brown, so that we can make a judgment about the desirability of our joining the euro and perhaps being able to do so sooner rather than later.
While I have every confidence in the Government, I must confess to a slight nervousness when I hear of promises such as that which appeared in the gracious Speech,
"to promote with their European partners the economic reforms which will help to create growth and higher employment".
If those reforms are to be the essential structural reforms in the labour, product and financial markets I warmly welcome the commitment. But I believe that we must resist any attempt to use the limited European Union budget as some kind of state supplementary benefit to industry and I am sure that I can rely on Her Majesty's Government to do so. In order to create growth and higher employment, the Government must both promote the structural reforms to which I have referred and resist as firmly as possible the current fashions which seem to be constantly demanding the harmonisation of both personal and corporate taxation.
I turn to the enlargement of the European Union. I believe that this Government have a most applaudable record as regards their role during the period of the
150
British presidency. In March alone we saw the opening of the European Conference; we secured an agreement on the accession partnership regulation; and we saw the launching of the accession process and the accession negotiations. All that occurred in fewer than three weeks.
However, enlargement is going to be an extremely costly process and unless the European Union budget is to expand exponentially—and I do not believe that it should—then agricultural reform must move from the area of rhetoric to that of reality and budget discipline must be strengthened within the framework of the 1.27 per cent. ceiling. Unless that happens, the imperative resources for the priority of enlargement will not be available. Enlargement will require not only substantial resources, but substantial institutional reform. That reform needs to be in place as a prerequisite of enlargement in order to prevent decision making in the European Union grinding to a halt.
Enlargement also demands a continuation and an expansion of the programmes of applicant countries in order to help them to consolidate their economies, on the one hand, and to buttress their institutions on the other. I strongly commend the Government's approach to the enlargement process; an approach which I believe can heal the divisions of the 20th century and make us all stronger as we approach the new millennium.
Finally, I want to turn to one aspect of the gracious Speech that was tacked on at the end of a sentence. It referred to the United Kingdom's abatement of its European Union budgetary contribution. The gracious Speech makes it clear that the abatement will be maintained. To change the abatement requires change to the own resources decision. As a change in that decision requires unanimity the abatement is secure as long as the Government wish to maintain it. But what we need to be doing while asserting the need to maintain the abatement is to pursue the policy of diminishing its significance. Those changes are clearly in the area of agricultural reform. Despite the fact that people can point to the diminished proportion of the European Union budget that now goes on agriculture—it has dropped to just under 50 per cent.—in real terms the increase in agricultural spending is 34 per cent. higher than it was at the time when the Fontainebleau agreement was negotiated.
We have to prepare for that reform by finding the resources in the European Union budget for an imperative such as enlargement. We must also prepare ourselves properly for the next WTO round, where even if the European Union has not adequately focused on agricultural reform the WTO will force it so to do. In relation to the rebate, we must make it quite clear that we are a significant net contributor, and despite the rebate we remain a significant net contributor. We are more significant in that regard than some countries with a larger capacity to pay. The best way is to keep the net contribution down by keeping spending under control. In that regard, agricultural reform is imperative. As I have said, in that area of agricultural reform we must move from rhetoric to reality; otherwise our rebate, if it continues, will dominate the European Union budget.

151
On the basis of the remarks made in the gracious Speech concerning our membership of the European Union, I warmly welcome it. I believe that its positive and pragmatic approach to Europe and to our European partners should be welcomed not only in your Lordships' House and in the country, but far beyond. It should be welcomed throughout the European Union and of course in the wider world, including those countries whose aspirations to join the European Union we wish to see come to fruition.
4.17 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to take the opportunity presented by this debate today to raise once again the issue of the Caribbean and consider some of the great political and economic problems that that region faces. The situation is, if anything, far more serious today than it was even six months ago. As I have observed before, small islands, when things go wrong, have the capacity to cause quite disproportionate crises. I think particularly of the Falklands and, more recently, of Montserrat. The Caribbean is a part of the world which can easily be forgotten in the course of considerations of all the other big issues which have been touched on this afternoon.
I should like also to touch on the role that Cuba can play in the region and the development within that country. I speak in my capacity as president of the West India Committee. In the foreword to his book, The History of the People of Trinidad and Tobago, Eric Williams, the late Prime Minister, set out clearly a theme which has been an abiding preoccupation throughout the region. He said:
"Separation and fragmentation were the policy of colonialism and rival colonialisms. Association and integration must be the policy of independence".
Today it is possible to look back and recognise that legal independence was not an end in itself but a very first step on the difficult road to political and economic self-sufficiency. Indeed there are some who would argue that the period from independence to the end of this millennium was simply a false dawn, during which time the Caribbean came to recognise that its destiny was in its own hands. The negotiations for a successor arrangement to Lomé IV may be proof of this
At the end of September this year Ministers representing the EU and the ACP states met in Brussels to open formally the negotiations for a successor arrangement to the Lomé Convention. These negotiations will continue through 1999 and probably as far as post-2005 when the EU/Caribbean relationship is fashioned. But it will be made much more complicated by the need to take account of the World Trade Organisation millennium round, the reform of the common agricultural policy, the enlargement of the EU and the Generalised Scheme of Preferences review in 2004
As if all this was not difficult enough, the background against which the post-Lomé negotiations will take place is not encouraging. The old certainties have gone. The Far East, which has already been referred to and
152
which was regarded just months ago as a powerhouse for global economic growth, is now in a much more uncertain state. Moreover, the priorities are changing in Europe, with the existing countries of the EU looking much more at economic integration. Many thought that the original Lomé Convention and its forerunners were conceived as a way over time to redress the imbalance caused by colonial history. With hindsight it is now clear that those then at the highest levels in Europe and the West were concerned with different issues. Their overriding concern was more focused. As a result, a system evolved whereby colonies and dependencies were replaced by what might be described as sovereign nations in a state of dependency on Europe or the West. Political independence was underwritten by linkages through Commonwealth preference; for example, the banana regime in anglophone Caribbean, or, at a later stage, more complex arrangements with Europe through the Lomé Convention
However, this time around, Europe's negotiators are likely to be thinking about very different issues. In the final EU negotiating directive the logical conclusion is that, some time after the year 2010, the EU expects to re-order its priorities in a way that removes any distinction between ACP and non-ACP countries. The fact is that the end of Lomé IV may mark a real turning point in the history of the Caribbean
If one looks at the very long road down which the Caribbean has to tread, it will be seen that the idea is being promoted by a number of small Commonwealth states that there are alternatives to a free trade world, but that it will require the smaller countries to convince the United States, the European Union, the World Trade Organisation and the nations of the G7 group of industrialised states, that vulnerability should be recognised as requiring special and differential treatment. Today's trade negotiations, both in the Americas and with Europe, will make urgent the need to determine whether small states are to have a special place in the global trade environment or will simply be written off and lost
In all this, the Caribbean negotiators will have to attain, both from Washington and Brussels, viable arrangements that will ensure a secure economic transition period. Perhaps I may voice my concerns. The first is that the United States and, to a much lesser extent, some of Europe's member states, have not recognised that their present approach may not facilitate this transitional period but rather create further problems. These may result in high levels of economic and political instability, especially in the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States, and the more so if policies are developed and implemented on the basis of short-term trade advantage. If instability occurs in the Caribbean region as a result of poorly thought-through measures aimed only at encouraging trade liberalisation, this may lead to a direct threat to all our interests and may make some of the smallest island states in the Caribbean economically unviable
It is simply not rational for the US administration to try to bring to an end the EU's banana regime while at the same time placing an ever-increasing demand on the region for co-operation on narcotics interdiction. The

153
consequences of the collapse of the banana industry in the eastern Caribbean as a result of actions at the WTO will lead to an upsurge in the use of these islands as centres for the trans-shipment of drugs. The new industries which will be required will need stability. Tourism, the single largest industry within the Caribbean region. the financial sector and information technology can only flourish and attract investment against a background of economic certainty
My second area of concern is that a precipitate end to existing arrangements may cause the region's economies to fail before they can change to these newer industries. My third area of concern relates to the continuing isolation of Cuba. The integration of Cuba into the region and into the global economy on terms acceptable to the people remains, in my view, the most challenging question facing the Caribbean, Europe and North America in this region. The decision by the Cuban Government to seek, first, observer status and then to become a signatory to a successor arrangement to Lomé IV is far-sighted. While no one should underestimate the difficulties of integrating the Cuban economy first with the Caribbean and then with the ACP, or underestimate the political conditionalities that some EU member states may seek to place on Cuban entry, it is an important step forward. As Sir Shridath Ramphal said at the Eighth European Caribbean Conference last December, it is an essential step in completing the Caribbean. I also welcome the closer links between Cuba and the anglophone Caribbean countries
However, the US attempts to isolate Cuba are not, in my view, likely to bring about change. Dialogue, investment and the development of new forms of co-operation are more positive ways to draw a nation into the international community and towards international norms, something which all friends of Cuba must surely wish to see
Perhaps I may conclude by touching on the visit that I made to Cuba last month—my fourth visit. I should like to say, first, how very grateful I was, as always, for the tremendous help that one receives from the staff of the British Embassy there. I should like to place on record my thanks for the great help which I believe all of us who travel round the world receive from our embassies, wherever they may be. I was delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, who is to conclude the debate, has paid a visit to Cuba; indeed, the first one by a Foreign Office Minister for many years. I was also delighted to note that her colleague Mr. Brian Wilson, the Minister for Trade, was able to go to the opening of the Havana International Fair
The most important issue outstanding between our two countries is that of debt. It will be very difficult to increase trade between Britain and Cuba until something can be done on that issue. I hope that through the Cuban initiative we may make some progress on the commercial debt. The discussions that I had during my visit were promising. I also hope that now Ministers are visiting Cuba—and I believe that others will be doing so shortly—there will be a much greater understanding as regards the need to deal with the other official debt. I found it very puzzling that the French and Italian Governments and, I believe, the Spanish Government,
154
are able to make an arrangement with Cuba while we seem totally unable to do so. I very much hope that that may he put right
There is also an opportunity opening up for a great many exchange visits. I am very glad that representatives of the Cuban National Assembly are to visit London next Spring. It will be the first such visit and is certainly much welcomed by the Cubans. I hope that it will be of real value to both countries in coming to a greater understanding of our respective political systems and that there will be the opportunity to discuss some of our common problems
In the context of today's debate, this is perhaps what must often appear as a relatively small part of the world, but it is a part of the world that is very important to us in Britain. If anything goes wrong there I believe that it could have the most serious consequences. In the context of considering all the great and difficult issues of the world I hope that this area will not be forgotten. We owe it to our long links with the Caribbean to do what we can to help and support it. I hope that we shall continue to do so
4.30 p.m
Lord Owen: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness and to the House that I shall not be in my place tonight when she winds up the debate. Today is Thanksgiving Day. As many of your Lordships will know, I am married to an American, so there is no alternative but to be at home with the family
I personally am very afraid that it will not be a matter of more than a few weeks before we are once more engaged in conflict with Saddam Hussein. I cannot myself believe that the latest challenge that he has mounted in the United Nations can be left unchallenged. We have discussed this issue before in this House. On the last occasion I mentioned my hope that we would look very seriously at dealing with the opposition parties in Iraq and helping them far more than we have done hitherto and, in particular, at the whole question of the Kurds
I am very pleased that both the United States and the United Kingdom Government have clearly made considerable strides in that direction. I note that Congress has made an authorisation of money, not yet appropriated, for help to Iraqi opposition parties, particularly the Kurds. The State Department has brought together two of the Kurdish leaders, who must co-operate far more than they have done hitherto if there is to be any sensible policy in Northern Iraq. I note, too, that Turkey put considerable pressure on President Assad to expel the PKK leadership from Damascus
It ought now to be quite clear that, if we have to take action against Saddam Hussein, the moment we do so we should extend the "no-fly" zone in the north to cover all military and vehicle movements there which have not been authorised. We should effectively begin to create a "no-go" area in the area where there is a "no-fly" zone. This time we must learn from the mistakes that we made between 1991 and today. There can be no helicopter gunships going into the north, or Saddam Hussein's forces

155
I believe that there is an historical issue that we must reopen: the question of the commitment made in 1919 to search for a homeland for the Kurds. It cannot be in Turkey or Iraq. That is the reality. It can only take place in Northern Iraq. The Kurds must discipline themselves and come together to co-operate in order to achieve that which is feasible and possible. I believe that that would be one of the most significant things that we could do, in addition to military action, to destabilise Saddam Hussein's regime. Military action on its own, particularly from the air, will be insufficient. We saw that in the way he treated the marsh Arabs as well as the Kurds
It is regrettable that the European common and foreign security policy has been unable to hammer out a consensus on how to deal with Iraq. It is a great tragedy. We should bear in mind in this House, when we hear constant demands for qualified majority voting in foreign policy, that on quite the most dangerous and serious challenge to the world at the moment—the necessity to grapple with Saddam Hussein's relentless pursuit of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons—we cannot get agreement. It would be absolute folly if we did not remember that lesson. We must never accept qualified majority voting in the pursuit of a common foreign and security policy. We should pursue consensus at every step and try to get agreement on a common foreign and security policy among 15 members at all stages. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said about the need to extend co-operation and enlarge the European Union to 20 or even 25 or more states. But we must never surrender the sovereign right to make decisions in rare cases where consensus cannot be reached and where one can decide for oneself
I pay tribute to the Prime Minister's determination and strength in giving his full support to the United States, not in a relationship of total subservience. Of course, there is a massive difference between the military strength of the United States and our own, but in consistent and coherent support for a firm policy he has been able to demonstrate that our voice is listened to in Washington. We have had considerable impact on the political problem in the Security Council. The Russians have very different interests in Iraq. Its Prime Minister has always made that quite clear. He has been much more open in his dealings with the Americans and the British in the Security Council than some of our European colleagues. But there is no option but to take this stance
There are other constitutional implications that need to be considered when we look at a common foreign and security policy. I have been a supporter of this Government's constitutional changes throughout. I have always believed in an assembly for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I argued in the previous Labour Cabinet for the European Convention on Human Rights to be made justiciable in the courts. I was supported in that by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams
We have made significant and important constitutional changes. Quite frankly, we are in danger of constitutional indigestion. We have to take it steadily and step by step. We need to be very wary when we
156
hear references to creating a new defence structure in Europe. I have always called for a strengthening of the WEU. I do not believe that one can have a coherent common foreign and security policy without being able to add the stiffening of a security element. Had we had that in place in 1991 the EC diplomacy over the break-up of the former Yugoslavia would have been much more effective. The fact is that the WEU could not intervene credibly in 1991. But when one looks at what has happened in the WEU and the relationship that has now been established, particularly for sharing key equipment in NATO when the WEU is undertaking a peace-keeping operation in which the United States does not wish to be involved, we are talking about a far more effective WEU in 1998 than existed in 1991
I want that military capacity, particularly in circumstances where the United States does not want to make a military contribution, particularly perhaps in peace-keeping, on the European continent or elsewhere. But we should be very wary about creating a new defence organisation completely sui generis without the WEU. For example, its treaty contains one of the strongest commitments—stronger than the North Atlantic Treaty—to come to the defence of a member state under attack. The WEU also has an organisation for bringing together parliamentarians from the national parliaments. It is inconceivable that we could enter into a defence organisation associated with the European Union, or even incorporated within the treaties of Europe, where democratic scrutiny lay with the European Parliament. The democratic scrutiny for defence must lie with the national parliaments. It is a very good thing to tie them into some European initiatives and not abdicate everything to the European Parliament. The two have to work together. That is important, particularly in a case where the foreign and security pillars are inter-governmental for they are not under the Commission, the European courts or the European Parliament. It is extremely important that that should remain
But the WEU needs to be brought much closer to the European Union. When we consider appointing now a senior individual to speak for the common foreign and security policy, there is a very strong case to consider that that person should be double-hatted and also have the role of Secretary-General of the WEU or at least some greater linkage, But a new defence organisation I view with great concern
As for Kosovo, many have mentioned it and I will not speak long on it. All through the spring and the summer I watched exactly the same inability to act as we saw in 1992 over Bosnia. It was as if we had learned no lessons. The honest answer, I believe, is that the UK Government did want to take more action but they could not reach a consensus on it. It is not an easy issue. In many respects it is the hardest of all the problems that we have had to deal with in the break-up of the former Yugoslavia
The agreement made by Richard Holbrooke with President Milosevic has, I believe, saved us from an appalling humanitarian disaster. Just as we needed the UN in Yugoslavia in September 1992, especially in the case of the French and the British—and undoubtedly

157
that UN force prevented a humanitarian disaster in the winter of 1992–93—so it is to be hoped that this agreement and the presence of OSCE verifiers may help to avoid this crisis.
That is not going to solve the political problems. Although I like to see OSCE used—and I understand why OSCE is being used—it is a difficult organisation from which to get a large number of verifiers on the ground. It does not have the infrastructure of NATO or the European Union, or, if I may say so, even the WEU. We have already seen a tragic delay in the introduction of people on the ground. In my view, a force similar to the stabilisation forces in Bosnia should have gone into Kosovo. I think that we will live to rue the day that we ended up with this extremely inadequate compromise.
There are tremendous problems in Kosovo. We often talk about the Kosovo-Albanian leader, Rugova, as a moderate. He is moderate in the sense that he has been utterly consistent in not wanting to use force, and I greatly admire him for that. In that sense he is a Gandhi-like figure. But, just like Gandhi, he is no moderate. He is absolutely adamant that they should have independence. Almost every single one of these people—particularly after the events of the summer—are adamant that there will be independence. We can go on hiding away from this for another two or three years and postponing the question, but we have to face the fact that there comes a moment when people will not live within the international rubrics that you cannot ever have independence.
We see this in Bosnia. The Bosnian Serbs—particularly those in eastern Bosnia, in Pale and elsewhere—have simply refused to accept being integrated into Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is as clear as daylight that they are going to go on refusing. There will come a time soon when we will have to open up the question of the boundaries of the former regions within Yugoslavia.
The Dutch Government, during its presidency in 1991, asked the European Union to look at the question of making changes in the boundaries of the former regions in Yugoslavia. Foolishly we said that those regions should suddenly become internationally agreed boundaries of nations. Thereby we sowed the seeds for most of the fighting that has taken place ever since. We must be prepared to look again at this question. In my view, at the end of the day, there will be a hectare for hectare exchange, Kosovo going independent and some parts—not all by any means—of Republica Serbska being given independence. For example, Banja Luka in the West would be integrated into a viable Bosnia-Herzegovina. There will have to be real European Union pressure on the Croatians to co-operate fully in Bosnia-Herzegovina and not, as at present, keep themselves apart from the integration process.
I shall speak no further on those questions. On the constitutional issues, yesterday the world looked at this House, many people perhaps for the first time, and understood the significance of the House of Lords as a judicial chamber. This House is a very delicate mechanism. We need changes in the composition of the House. Changes may now have to be made in two
158
stages. All I can say, as a politician who spent 26 years in another place, is that this House must tie down all governments, of all political persuasions, so that if they change the composition of the House in one stage they will be bound hand and foot to make changes in a second stage. I do not know if it is possible, but there will need to be a legislative amendment that insists that, at least within ten years, the issue of the composition of the House of Lords comes back to both Houses of Parliament for legislation, even if a government had the audacity to come forward with the proposition that the House of Lords should continue to be an entirely appointed House. Your Lordships should not miss the opportunity to impose your ultimate sanction of ensuring that this issue of a wholly appointed House of Lords cannot be swept away for years, decades or maybe centuries.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, after that fascinating and wide-ranging speech from the noble Lord, Lord Owen, like the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, I want to concentrate on the relatively narrower issues of the Government's policy towards Europe as set out in the gracious Speech. For my part, I start from a conviction that an effective European Union—and by that I mean a European Union that is effective not only in terms of economic integration but also in terms of political integration, a common foreign policy and a common defence policy—with the United Kingdom playing a leading role, is the best way forward, not only for British interests in the years that lie ahead but for the countries of Europe. It would enable us to play the solid role that we should play in international affairs.
The shape of the century that lies ahead of us is already very clear. It was described in grim and absorbing detail by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert. We now have a hi-tech world on the economic side that has produced a global, almost seamless, economy so that what happens in Malaysia, Mexico or Moscow has an immediate impact on us. Moreover, we have a hi-tech world of international politics that produces the very reverse of a global situation. It is a world that we have had a glimpse of in the speech to which we have just listened—a world of ethnic revolts, bloody civil wars, famine and menacing leaders such as Saddam Hussein and Milosevic in Serbia. There is only one superpower—and thank goodness it is the great American democracy. Alongside that is the United Nations which is simply crying out for reform.
For my part, I believe that a European Union that can make sound progress in the ways that I have mentioned could provide a much more equal partnership with the United States. Between us, in terms of the industrial democracies of the world, we could play an important role in world affairs. I was much struck by the figures which the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, gave. If I remember rightly, he said that broadly the defence expenditure of the European Union and the United States are comparable.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I did not wish to give any authority for my figures. I merely quoted the figures in

159
circulation. The European Union spent something like 60 per cent. of the United States' expenditure and reportedly got about 10 per cent. of the capability.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I thought the figures were very vivid and an example of the greater effectiveness that could exist among the countries of the European Union if they could organise their affairs more efficiently.
As far as Britain's part is concerned, to do so requires more than the good intentions stated in the gracious Speech. John Major genuinely tried to turn around the previous Conservative Government that he led and to put it, to use his phrase, at the heart of Europe. He was frustrated by the Euro-sceptics in his own party who now seem to control the Conservative Party. The present Government are plainly serious in their determination to make a success of Britain in Europe but they suffer from being a prisoner of the referendum pledges they made in order to get themselves elected. They are frustrated not by the number of convinced opponents of British membership of the European Union among their own ranks—although there are some of those with a great record of consistency in their views, which I respect—but more by the Conservative press led by two non-European proprietors who exploit the traditional insular instincts of British people for both commercial and political reasons.
At some point, the Prime Minister, like Stanley Baldwin in the 1930s with his remarks about Beaverbrook and Kemsley, will have to treat these press tycoons with the disdain that they deserve. In our democratic society they are a good deal more lacking in legitimacy than hereditary Peers and have a great deal more power.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I presume that he is referring to Mr. Rupert Murdoch and Mr. Conrad Black. I wonder whether the noble Lord has read the Daily Mail today.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am sorry to be in dereliction of duty. But my reply to the noble Lord is that the Daily Mail is not among my normal reading and that today I had another preoccupation, from which your Lordships' House is now suffering.
In almost every great development of the European Community Britain has lacked the vision and will to be in the first wave. As a result, we have suffered in influence and have suffered from having subsequently to adapt ourselves to arrangements made by others in their own interests. Despite the brave words in the gracious Speech, we are in danger of facing the same situation over joining the single currency. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor, in their various welcome initiatives with the new centre-left governments in Europe on economic, foreign policy and defence matters, are doing their best to keep Britain in the front line. However, I thought that the words from the gracious Speech quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, that the Government,
160
"will encourage preparations in the United Kingdom for the introduction in other member states of the euro".
were, as the noble Lord said, sensible words. But, my goodness, they were sad words. As the advertisement in the Financial Times earlier this week by a large number of industrial leaders made clear, it is very important in the British interest that as quickly as possible a positive pro-euro domestic campaign should be mounted to change the climate of opinion in this country. For my part, I believe that a referendum before, not after, the next general election would be best for both Britain and Europe.
The earlier years of such a historic step as the creation of a single European currency and central bank are bound to be very difficult—none of us should be under any illusions about that—but Britain's commitment and our immense financial experience will make a substantial and positive difference once we are part of the single currency. Making a success of the euro should concentrate the minds of the member states in getting their priorities right in the development of the European Union, and in particular in the difficult balance between deepening and widening the Community. Only a strong core economy for the European Union can provide the resources for meeting the costs of enlargement, a point on which I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson.
With the downturn in the global economy that we are now suffering one has to ask whether the financial estimates of the costs of enlargement remain realistic and whether the present timetable is likely to be practicable. Agenda 2000, the European Commission's proposal for a stronger and wider union, admits the European Union's predicament in this respect. It states:
"The enlargement will inevitably provoke deterioration in the budgetary position of all current member states".
That was set out before we found ourselves in the present global economic situation. The Commission then argued that the financial framework for the period 2000 to 2006 meant that both deepening and enlarging the Union could be achieved within the 1.27 per cent. European Union GNP ceiling. Its basic assumption was that the European Union's average annual growth would be 2.5 per cent. and that of the 10 applicants would be around 4 per cent. Those were probably arguable forecasts when they were made, but they are certainly very much more arguable and over-optimistic forecasts in the current situation.
The much needed policy reforms themselves—the reform of the CAP and of the structural and cohesion funds—which are a pre-condition for successful enlargement, may well play havoc with the figures. The 100 million people in the candidate countries, whom we very much want to welcome as members of an enlarged European Union, have a living standard of only about one-third of that in western Europe. Therefore, one is bound to ask this question. What if, as a result of the new economic and monetary policies being developed between the Chancellor and his fellow finance Ministers, people want their governments to spend substantial quantities of ecus for assistance in the fight against unemployment in the existing European Union,

161
money which may have been earmarked for enlargement? These issues were mentioned by my noble friend Lady Williams and they really ought to be faced.
The answer to the dilemma—we all want to see enlargement take place and we all want to see a successful enlargement—is probably to look at the timetable. My noble friend referred to the need for bigger budgetary resources. I think that a more realistic alternative in dealing with this situation is to look at the timetable. Those of us who are old European Union hands will remember that timetables in the European Union are notoriously elastic. I can remember times in my own experience when not only the clock was stopped but the calender was stopped.
I think we would all agree that enlargement is an "historic challenge", to use the words of the gracious Speech. For the member nations of the present European Union it is a challenge to make a success of the historic act of deepening that is going on with the single currency and to tackle the deep problems of re-shaping the common agriculture policy and the structural and cohesion funds. It is a challenge on the part of the central and eastern European countries to bring their economies closer to those of western Europe. In the end this might mean accepting a longer than the more optimistic timetable that one has heard in the argument. If that were so, it might diminish the risk of ending up with a larger but more fractious and less prosperous Union and create more realistic expectations, which is part of the art of democratic politics.
For those of us who believe in the historic importance of creating an effective European Union, there is always a temptation, to which I have succumbed frequently myself over the years. to let Euro-rhetoric run away with Euro-reality. It would be ironic if European integration were to falter and the success of enlargement were to be undermined by an over-ambitious timetable.
4.58 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, it is always a good idea to try to remember why we went to the trouble of setting up our great institutions. It is equally sensible to take stock from time to time of the changes that have been made, or have just happened to occur, and to judge.
I shall mention four things, which we seem to have forgotten why we wanted. The first and second are NATO and the United Nations. Those are two great institutions which have undergone either, as with NATO, a complete change of purpose or, as with the UN, a check in development and therefore an erosion of competence. I shall argue that the United Nations is ever more necessary in our changing and ever more unjust world, and NATO must not be allowed to usurp any of its functions. I shall also argue that we have forgotten what our interest was in Iraq, and that we have forgotten what we set up Israel to achieve. I shall take these in reverse order.
We in the United Nations did not set up Israel to turn Palestinians out of their homes or to deprive them of their civil rights in their own country, to invade and bomb its neighbours, to develop weapons of mass destruction at American expense, or to ignore the
162
Geneva conventions and a whole string of UN resolutions. The Government need to revisit their policy towards the Middle East, within which Israel is now by far the greatest military power, but could still become a hugely constructive economic and political presence if it were able. For now, it is urgent and overwhelmingly important to our own future as well as to that of the greater Middle East that we should stop pretending that we see nothing and can do nothing.
The United Nations sent UNSCOM into Iraq—which we in the West had first armed heavily and then driven out of Kuwait—to dismantle its ability again to threaten its neighbours, and we established an embargo for the same reason. After seven long years, if UNSCOM and the embargo have still not succeeded to our satisfaction the likelihood is they will not. UNSCOM's job anyway was to prove a negative, and so it could not possibly truly succeed. As the 19 bishops stated in Tuesday's Independent, it is time to revisit this policy. The embargo allows Saddam Hussein to survive while his people suffer, and one of UNSCOM's side-jobs seems to be to provide Israel with targeting information about not only Iraq but possibly Iran as well.
By now, only the United States and Britain are content with the embargo. We claim that it is Saddam's fault and his alone if the embargo has damaging effects on the population we recognise as innocent. But if children are malnourished and dying because of it, we cannot disclaim responsibility. We cannot disclaim any share whatever of the responsibility.
Quite apart from the embargo, there are the 320 tonnes of depleted uranium-based ammunition which the United States used there in the Gulf War and about which the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, told us in a Written Answer last week—860,000 rounds. What is that doing to people in Iraq? Agent Orange, widely used by the United States for deforestation in Vietnam, is now showing up in that poor country with thalidomide-like damage to the next generation but one. Would our Tomahawks attack targets we think are packed with stuff to fill chemical and biological warheads'? Where do we think that stuff will go? Would we be financially liable to the victims if we had "gone in" without a specific Security Council resolution?
Our declared intention not to go back to the Security Council for approval before some future attack on Iraq strangely states that in order to enforce a Security Council resolution we shall ignore the Security Council. The logic is not too good, nor was it when we used the same argument to attack Serbian targets.
Of course the also strange new doctrine of "overwhelming humanitarian necessity" which, I suppose, had some semblance of good faith in northern Iraq, can have none in Iraq today. I was glad that the Written Answer last week of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, confirmed the flimsy character of the doctrine in international law. No, the real business in Iraq by now is about not allowing Saddam Hussein to cock a snook at American presidents, which is precisely why the US stayed on and on and on in Vietnam. Someone must be taught a lesson. Now we hear of a repetition of the failed and discredited tactics used against Nicaragua by

163
President Reagan—Contra business. I only hope that we have not forgotten the lesson of 80 years that backing some Kurds without intending to give all of them a true Kurdistan will lead into a morass. It was a relief to read that Mr. Derek Fatchett made it clear to the assembled Iraqi opposition that we are not in the unlawful business of removing Saddam Hussein, even if the US Congress is. I hope that Ministers might now reflect on how Clement Attlee somehow dissuaded Truman from using atomic weapons in South-East Asia; how Harold Wilson somehow managed to stay away from Vietnam; and how Mrs. Thatcher managed to stay away from Nicaragua.
When the Americans are wrong, we should not support them. On the other hand, if we can do it, helping them out of the morasses their fallacious sense of "mission" gets them into may be the single most valuable thing we, the British, can do in the world. So let us, for all we are worth, help them out of the mistakes they are already making—worst of all in the Middle East—and those they are proposing to make, with NATO, and now apparently in Korea.
This is what makes the special relationship valuable. And international law has to be our best tool. When we managed at Rome to get the international community to accept the International Criminal Court, that was a great step forward. Until that is set up, partial courts—like our own, and the court ruling on internationally recognised crimes in the former Yugoslavia—must do what they can.
I turn now to NATO. It was set up, with Ernie Bevin to the fore, by the countries of western Europe and North America as a direct and immediate response to the culmination at Berlin of a progression of Soviet geopolitical probings, and to its achievement of nuclear weapons years earlier than United States intelligence thought possible.
The Warsaw Pact was set up after NATO was: Stalin was canny enough—though it is forgotten now—to hold back its signature until the day after the North Atlantic Treaty's. They were mirror treaties: each bound its signatories to come to one another's help if any of them was attacked. No attack was of course expected from anywhere but from the other treaty organisation. There were strong defensive postures, shaded over towards the mutually accelerating paranoias of arms race and first strike. Each side was like a man armed to the teeth, trembling for decade after decade before his own reflection in the mirror.
Then one day this decade, the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist. The adversary pact just disappeared, leaving nothing but a mass of weapons of mass destruction, leaking. The leading state of the pact, the Soviet Union, also just disappeared, leaving a large, broke, nuclear-armed Russia and 13 small, broke countries, mostly in Asia.
Therefore it would have been right to question whether NATO should not continue in its mirror role and dissolve too. The attractions would have been obvious. NATO's original purposes had been over-fulfilled on the grand scale. Not only had the adversary not attacked the West, not only was peace in
164
Europe guaranteed, and guaranteed on our terms, as far as the eye could see, but the adversary itself had ceased to exist. But we did not do that. Instead, at American insistence, a new, transformed NATO began to expand towards the East. Now, in 1999, the idea is that this expanding NATO should be excused from observing the Charter of the United Nations and should be extracted from the rule of international law, including the authority of the UN Security Council. These are the requirements of Senator Helms which the US administration is bound to promote and in which our Government seem tempted to acquiesce. They will, I hope, when I ask them specifically about this in an Unstarred Question in a week or two's time, make no bones about their prime adherence to the United Nations and to international law above their respect for one particular American senator.
Ahead of the three successful east European candidate countries for admission to NATO there now pushes a graded but still soft structure of states which are Partners for Peace. Beyond that there extend yet more partners, with a small 'p', taking part in military and planning exercises carried out in the "spirit" of "partnership for peace", whatever that may be.
There is no longer any pretence of that being for the security of Europe. The extended structure of US alliance policy, civil and military, now stretches not only around the western borders of the Russian Republic but also around its southern borders, covering the new oil province of the Caspian and central Asia. The whole Turkic belt is involved, up to the frontiers of China and beyond, that is where the geographically unbounded US-Japan security zone starts, with 100,000 American troops. That is not quite what NATO was founded for. Are we sure that it is what we want it to turn into? Would Attlee and Bevin have thought it right? Would Macmillan?
I turn now to the United Nations. It was set up in glorious and well founded hope. The important thing was that this time, unlike with the League of Nations after the First World War, the United States was going to take part in the enterprise—potentially by far the most important political enterprise ever undertaken by humanity: a comprehensive system based on the rule of law in which all states and all peoples would take part.
The price of American presence was the absence for some decades of China, as the American political imagination was not yet wide enough to encompass the idea of human universality. The purpose of the UN was simple: to provide a talking shop to discuss the world's differences; to provide a voting shop to settle them and in which to develop international law and procedures to stop such differences recurring, and to provide an infrastructure of global sectoral organisations to do the same, each in its sector.
It is often said that the idea of the United Nations has been around since the Middle Ages, but, as the late Harry Hinsley showed in his great book Power and the Pursuit of Peace, it had actually been around only since the 1620s, when it was invented in—wait for it—Paris; and if the French want to claim the credit, good luck to them. It was invented in Paris—not in Oxford or Heidelberg—and in a monastery, too, as a matter of fact.

165
Now though, under Senator Helms's plan, which he managed to make binding on the Clinton Administration and is therefore now US policy, NATO, led by the US, would move beyond reach of the UN system and of international law in general. The UN, through US under-funding, will become increasingly insignificant; and the United States will conduct itself in a manner fitting its famous mission and its status as sole military superpower.
None of that bears any relation to what the United Nations or NATO were founded for. So I ask the Government: are they sure that Senator Helms's vision for the 21st century is what Britain wants to take part in? Would Attlee and Bevin have thought it right or sensible? Would Macmillan?
There are signs that that is the way Ministers are tempted to go. I hope and I pray that they will think long and carefully before giving up on international law and on the United Nations and on common justice in the world. It would, of course, also mean giving up on Europe.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I shall probably not surprise your Lordships if I concentrate my intervention on recent developments in the Middle East.
I am sorry that I was not able to be present in the Chamber during and after the Statement which the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, repeated on Iraq on 16th November. That Statement, and the replies which the noble Baroness gave to points raised in the brief debate which followed that Statement, gave a clear picture of the aims and objectives which the Government have pursued, and are still pursuing, in trying to ensure that Saddam Hussein complies with Security Council resolutions obliging Iraq to accept the destruction of all its weapons of mass destruction, and to give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any places and records in Iraq which the UNSCOM and IAEA inspectors wish to inspect.
I was also glad to see, from an interview given by the Minister of State, Mr. Derek Fatchett, on 23rd November, when he had what I understand was a long-arranged and supposedly routine meeting with some Iraqi opposition groups, that the Government do not regard it as their task to change the regime in Baghdad, nor to organise the overthrow of that regime.
I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, that we need to work very closely with our United States allies. However, there is one aspect as regards which I believe that we should distance ourselves. I refer to the impression which the Clinton Administration have given—I believe both wrongly and dangerously—in recent weeks that their aim and objective is to change the government of Iraq. Mr. Fatchett's meetings will have contributed to confusion and misunderstanding in the Arab world about the British Government's objectives.
I have no doubt whatever that we would all sleep happier at nights if Saddam Hussein were to disappear tomorrow, whatever type of regime were to take his place. But I have severe doubts whether it is wise,
166
effective, or, indeed, consistent with international law, to preach the downfall of other people's governments. I hope that the noble Baroness, when she comes to wind up this debate, will give the House some further reassurances on this point. There are, I believe, several reasons why reassurance on these lines is necessary, apart from the need to remove misunderstandings in the Middle East.
First, it is of vital importance to maintain, or try to maintain, the consensus of the Security Council, the Arab world and our European colleagues that our aim and objective is not to remove or destroy Saddam Hussein, but to ensure his compliance with Security Council resolutions—if necessary by the threat of force. I share the pessimism of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, about the likelihood of force having to be used. Nevertheless, I seriously question whether it is consistent with a so-called "ethical foreign policy" that we should attempt to dictate to other countries what kind of government they have, however much we or they dislike them.
I also have a profound scepticism about the ability of the United States—still less of ourselves—to change other peoples' governments. One has only to look at the years of unsuccessful and, I believe, profoundly misguided attempts by the United States to remove or replace President Fidel Castro in Cuba to realise that.
The days of Western protectorates in the Middle East are, I hope, over. But that seems to me to be perilously close to what the United States Administration and Congress appear to be calling for. The British press has certainly given the impression, perhaps wrongly, that the Prime Minister is inclined to follow the United States' lead in this direction. I wish to utter the most solemn warning against doing any such thing.
Meanwhile. I think that we should acknowledge that President Clinton has at last shown welcome signs in the past month or two that he is ready seriously to engage in pressing both the Israelis and the Palestinians to come to an agreement. I have little doubt that it was a realisation of that fact that contributed to the decision of eight Arab governments, to which the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, referred, to issue a statement in Damascus on 12th November, firmly pinning the responsibility on Saddam Hussein for any consequences of his non-co-operation with UNSCOM.
There is no doubt that the Wye River Memorandum, to which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, referred, which was signed on 23rd October, represents a welcome breakthrough in the Palestinian track of the peace process. The United States Administration, and President Clinton in particular, deserve warm credit for that, as do the two parties concerned. That makes it all the more regrettable that the Israeli Cabinet decision endorsing the agreement should have been accompanied by an announcement that the Israeli Government were committed to strengthening and developing their settlements.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred to breaches of Palestinian rights in Israel. Israeli Government tenders for the construction of the notorious Har Homa

167
settlement were published on 12th November, and no action has so far been taken to prevent the illegal seizure of five hilltop outposts by settlers.
I hope that the Minister can assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will maintain their position that settlements in the Occupied Territories and in East Jerusalem are illegal under international law and are an obstacle to peace. I also hope that the Government and our European colleagues can do more to convince our American friends to adopt the same position. I can think of few more pressing requirements if the Government are to fulfil the commitment in the gracious Speech to promote peace in the Middle East. Reports in this week's Financial Times that the Israelis are pressing the Americans for a one-off package of 1.25 billion dollars to implement the peace accords should leave no one in any doubt as to the potential leverage which the United States could exert if it could be persuaded to ensure that that type of illegal activity is halted, and not resumed.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, on 16th November the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, said that she could not reply to a question from my noble friend Lord Lucas on the desirability of continuing to afford aid to a country that was involved in the Congo war. The explanation, as her words would seem to indicate, for this and all matters of foreign policy lies in the fact that it now has an ethical dimension. I am sure that the noble Baroness was not exceeding her brief, because the Foreign Secretary himself from the beginning of his tenure has talked of an ethical foreign policy.
The matter deserves exploration. It helps to convince one that the primary weakness of the present Government is their fondness for phrases without notable content. The "third way" has become almost a laughing-stock after it was necessary to invite into Downing Street a number of intellectuals (if that is the right word) in order to explain what it meant. It has now been translated into German as the Neue Mitte. No doubt some Germans are now engaged, with their usual thoroughness, in trying to find out what is meant by the phrase.
It is, after all, rather important that we should know the inner content that makes this Government's foreign policy different from that followed by previous governments of this country through the centuries, normally using as their guideline the question of national interest. Is there some matter beyond the national interest that is subsumed in the words "an ethical dimension"?
We know that the Foreign Secretary himself thought some exposition of the phrase necessary. At almost the same time as he declared himself in favour of an ethical foreign policy, he announced the setting up of a foreign policy centre which was in some way to substitute for the normal institutions with which London is enriched where matters of importance regarding foreign policy
168
and defence issues are normally explored and discussed. So far, the new foreign policy centre has made no great mark. The only appointment that has been announced is that of its director, a young man named Mr. Leonard, who comes from an organisation known as DEMOS, a think-tank. It is not very clear what it thinks about and it is less useful than a tank. Nevertheless, it has supplied a number of people who now enjoy the public purse. Mr. Leonard had made a public reputation for a day or two by declaring in a pamphlet that Prince Charles should not be allowed to ascend the throne when his turn comes without a national referendum. I do not think that that proposal was subjected to the scrutiny of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill.
One begins to wonder what is behind all this. As noble Lords, beginning with the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, have told us, we live in very serious times. I am therefore entitled to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, in replying, to indicate the purpose of the foreign policy centre, the way in which its personnel have been or will be recruited, and the task that the Foreign Office envisages it should fulfil.
But that is only a way into the main features of this debate, in which a number of grave issues have been explored, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Owen. I regret that the noble Lord's thanksgiving duties deprive us of his presence. As we look round the world at the end of this century—the worst century in human history, probably since the 14th, possibly since the fourth—we are struck by the fact that even this exhaustive debate, in which we have heard a number of eminent speakers, cannot list the threats that exist to human prosperity and even human survival.
We have heard about Iraq, Kosovo, and even, alas, again about Bosnia. We know that the war in the Congo, the matter raised by my noble friend Lord Lucas in the question to which I referred, is capable of setting much of Africa ablaze. Even then, we have not touched upon the threat to the Far East based on indications that North Korea, which some thought had been brought to some kind of agreement not to pursue the creation of nuclear weapons, is behaving with a falsity not inferior to that of Saddam Hussein. In other words, my worry about an ethical foreign policy is whether it obliterates or prevents us from dealing realistically with the issues that we confront.
If one looks at the record of history—this is why the matter is linked in my mind—mistakes have been made by governments, both our own government and other powers, which in retrospect the historian can chronicle and explain. They have largely been the result of an unwillingness to delve into the facts of particular situations or the aspirations of particular countries and governments. It may be that other elements go into it. One may have invincible prejudice, such as has been displayed on so many occasions in your Lordships' House, against the state of Israel by the noble Lord,

169
Lord Kennet. He manages to dislike Israelis and Americans with almost equal fervour, a position he has maintained over a long period.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him. I do not dislike either Israelis or Americans. I dislike some of the policies of the present governments of Israel and America.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord's explanation of his own views is the correct one. However, whether he would arrive at that condemnation of policy if he had more affection for, and understanding of, the countries concerned is something one may take leave to doubt.
Perhaps I may give an example. It relates to some remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, with whom, again, I do not always altogether agree and the position of the Palestinians. It is true that the Palestinians are among the most deprived peoples in the third world. They have the disadvantage psychologically of being in a position of poverty up against a society which has a GDP roughly comparable to that of western Europe. So the European Union and other benefactors—some in the Middle East itself—have tried to assist with financial aid. Yet we know that the Palestinian regime, the authority and its leaders, have behaved exactly in the way we have seen in other third world countries. I cite Africa. The aid is scooped up by a small number of members of the elite and the mass of the people whom it was intended to help are no better off than they were before. That is another sad fact about the world we live in. Therefore, one asks: is it ethical to give aid to Zimbabwe in order to enable its army to continue to pursue war in the Congo? Is it ethical to give aid to other elites in developing countries who use it for their own personal benefit rather than for the benefit of the countries they live in?
We come up against the grave problems referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Owen and Lord Wright of Richmond. At what point does the capacity of various governments to do damage outweigh the natural reluctance we have—particularly in an age of modern weaponry—to go to war against them?
I find it difficult to draw an adequate line between the coercion of Iraq to observe the United Nations' demands for destroying its weapons of mass destruction and the conclusion reached by some that so long as it retains its government it is unlikely ever to be so persuaded. Again, if one takes the parallel, the considerable effort which I believe has been made by the Government of South Korea, with American support, to try to reach some kind of friendly relationship with North Korea seems to be faltering. There is in the world no doubt a good deal of feeling in favour of ethics. There is, sadly, a great deal of feeling in favour of malevolence. We must take the world as we find it, alas.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, let us go back for a moment to the narrower subject of defence. In the course of my maiden speech in your Lordships' House during the debate on the gracious Speech in 1991, I
170
referred to the special courage which our servicemen and women showed during the Gulf War of that year. I cited the aircrews who had to get airborne and perhaps rendezvous at night in pitch darkness and in radio silence with airborne tankers, to top up their fuel. before flying deep into enemy territory. Each man in his cockpit knew that he would be under constant enemy fire as he approached his targets; yet he pressed on with his mission. I counted it a very special privilege to have been associated with the activity of such brave people who display that special kind of individual courage: to outface danger and conquer fear on their own and often alone.
Only two-and-a-half weeks ago, we had been literally within minutes of expecting our airmen to display similar courage and fortitude. The Prime Minister phones his good wishes to the Tornado crews in Kuwait at the 11th hour, and they are ready to launch into their attacks, strapped into their cockpits and within 15 minutes of take-off. When the attacks were cancelled at the very last minute, the impact on all those who were going to take part must have been dramatic.
Training and professionalism would have been honed to the finest edge. Pin-point attacks would have been expected and after so many months of preparation, they would have been achieved. But I doubt whether anyone was quite ready or prepared for such a last minute cancellation. Modern communications, of course, give governments the chance to make such changes at the very last minute. I am not so confident that the impact on those whom we expect to fight our battles is as simple, easy or straightforward. I do not expect any of them to say so. The "can do", "will-co" attitude will be well to the fore. Nevertheless, I hope that if there are reasons to be concerned, the Government will hear them in mind and not be tempted to try to turn people's emotions and fighting spirit on and off, as though they were a lot of light bulbs. It is not just the servicemen, but their families and friends back home too who are caught up in all this.
One of the other penalties of such last minute changes of mind is that they can all too quickly be likened to indecision and vacillation and perhaps a loss of credibility.
One of the important lessons of that Gulf conflict in 1991, to which I referred in my maiden speech, was the implication of mounting offensive operations at great ranges from these shores and against a numerically stronger foe. Such operations call for a great intensity of effort. Mounted thousands of miles from home, they place enormous demands on logistic support. Fighting forces need large tonnages of fuel and munitions and all the other paraphernalia for waging war.
Since that time in 1991 there have been a number of important changes in our logistic support to all three services. The Strategic Defence Review has taken these forward in a sensible and significant way and once they are in place with the ro-ro ships, the strategic lift aircraft and so on, we shall be better placed than in the past to mount and sustain distant operations.
But they are not with us yet and we are facing serious stretch, trying to be ready to fight in the Gulf once again, as well as dealing with the troubled regions of

171
Serbia and Kosovo, Bosnia and the like. I hope that we do not get caught out trying to do too much too soon. As the Strategic Defence Review so rightly said:
"We need to solve the problems of under-manning and additional overstretch which comes from overcommitment".
I doubt that the Government have yet heeded their own wise words.
There is another aspect to the changes to logistics support foreshadowed in the Strategic Defence Review about which I have misgivings. The concept of a chief of defence logistics, admittedly yet to be spelt out in any detail, is far removed from that of a chief of defence procurement. The latter provides for the services in the future, but logistics is for the day-to-day running and operation of a service. Because of their different methods of operation inevitably there are different approaches to the logistic needs of frontline forces. The SDR acknowledges this but then speaks of developing the three single service logistics organisations into a single organisation. Of course, if Royal Air Force Harriers are embarked alongside Royal Navy Harriers both will need to adopt the naval way of spares provision and on-board storage of them when at sea, but the exception does not always provide the best basis for a general policy. I believe that to argue that more joint operations equals more joint integration is to over-simplify a very complex area. We have long had successful joint operations with our current logistic style. I wait to see how this concept develops. I hope that if there were problems it would be possible to return to the present arrangements that serve the individual frontline well.
The support of operations, particularly when they are far from home, needs a dedicated and expert service understanding and approach that has been honed and developed over many years. I hope that all of that will not be lost in whatever new arrangements Ministers insist upon. I should welcome it if in the course of the defence debate next week the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, assisted the House on the justification for introducing what appears to be such a major shake-up in this key operational support area particularly when we are so much involved in ongoing operations.
Finally, as they say, has the Ministry of Defence any concerns about the future training of our forces carried out in Wales and Scotland? Defence remains a national responsibility and has not been devolved to the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament but other responsibilities like tourism and the environment have. While one wishes and expects the regional organisations to work with the grain of national defence policy, what would happen if there were acute political differences between them and Whitehall? Might training and low flying be restricted because of the alleged adverse impact on local tourism, the environment or whatever?
Arrangements for officials to mediate differences—the so-called concordats—are provided for in the Acts, but who has the final say? The Acts do not readily provide for the Secretary of State for Defence to rule on this matter. The services need confidence that their essential training and exercises are able to go ahead as planned; so, too, do those foreign forces, for example
172
the United States Air Force, who operate as does the RAF over wide areas of the whole of the United Kingdom. Armed forces need to be trained properly if they are to be committed to operations in the Gulf or anywhere. I hope that none of the many constitutional changes now in hand will add to the problems that our forces already face in finding adequate training in and around our shores. If we want servicemen to fight for us they must be properly trained. Their challenging skills need to be honed to the sharpest of edges in realistic training for such operations.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, while I welcomed the reference in the gracious Speech to the commitment to economic policies to build stability, the way to achieve this was rather conspicuous by its absence. I mention this because I hope that recent polls which suggest greater public confidence in the economy will not induce apathy on the part of the Government in what still remains a very grave problem in the Far East and Latin America. With a relatively good economy here, and even more so in the United States, it would not be difficult for complacency to creep in. This the world simply cannot afford.
It may be that the worst is over in Asia, but I would not want to hold my breath on it. We should not forget that, for example, Japan suffered an abrupt end to its post-Korean War boom as long ago as the end of 1990 when its stock market crashed dramatically. It still has not found a successful way to bring confidence back to the market. That was eight years ago. Nor has it solved the loan problems of its banking industry. Japan's resurgence is vital to the recovery in Asia in general and Korea in particular. It is to be hoped that the visit by China's President Jiang to Tokyo will focus upon economic as well as political problems in the region. Elsewhere in the area, political instability in Indonesia and Malaysia must be resolved before there can be any upturn in their economies. I do not believe that this country has yet felt the full burden of Asia's economic difficulties.
Latin America, too, has yet to regain confidence, and the terrible damage inflicted by Hurricane Mitch in Central America has only exacerbated its problems. I must declare an interest as a stockholder in a small trade bank with interests in the area. I was heartened to hear in the gracious Speech reference to the Commonwealth Development Corporation. The name of this admirable corporation is misleading as CDC no longer confines itself to emerging Commonwealth countries. During a visit I made earlier this year to Nicaragua, I was very impressed to discover that the CDC had made a foray into what had become a very successful poultry industry. I am very glad that the Government will encourage the CDC, whatever structure emerges from the public/private partnership, to continue to assist the development of the poorer countries in Central America and the Caribbean, including Cuba.

173
I was particularly intrigued by the reference in the gracious Speech to the decision taken last year by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to transfer to the Bank of England the power to set interest rates. That was a very brave decision which as a former banker I applauded. But it would be wonderful if well over a year later one could see the Bank leading rather than following. One did not need to be a financial genius to be aware many weeks ago that interest rates must start to come down, but it was not until the Federal Reserve in Washington reduced its rates that the Bank of England took any action. Not surprisingly, the Federal Reserve's move resulted in an increase in the strength of an already overvalued sterling. This overvalue—to some extent now reversed—has been very largely blamed for the difficulties faced by our exporters as dramatically illustrated by recent figures.
If most of us had foreseen that, the Bank of England should certainly have done so. Its position is not helped by the cumbersome procedure under which the committee of wise men which advises the Bank meets only once a month. I suggest that if a public limited company were able to take its important decisions only on a fixed monthly basis it would be in dire trouble. One also wonders whether the make-up of the wise men is entirely satisfactory. That they are men of eminence and integrity is not in question, but I do not believe that the committee should be made up entirely of what may be called professional economists. The trouble is that tertiary educational institutions do not award degrees in common sense. I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the country deserve more speedy and pragmatic decisions by the Bank.
Finally, I support the anxieties that have been outlined by my noble friend Lady Williams about the appalling corruption in what appears to be a leaderless Russia. In expressing that view, I do not merely join the cynics who complain that the cost of chartering large luxury yachts in the Mediterranean has been pushed up to unacceptable levels by the crime bosses of Russia. I am genuinely worried by the prospects of violent unrest in Russia if that country's economic problems are not faced and corrected.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I hope that I may be forgiven if I start with a purely personal reminiscence, but its relevance to the theme I propose to develop will be apparent soon enough.
For the past 50 years or more I have had a contact, in varying degrees of personal unimportance, with both this place and another place. Indeed, I was sitting in the Official Box in this very Chamber when Dr. Hugh Dalton pioneered the present Government's approach to the management of important items of news by informing the press of the contents of his Budget before he got round to informing the House of Commons. Clearly Mr. Alastair Campbell has still quite a way to go. But enough of that.
The one thing that this long experience has taught me is that the capacity of politicians for self-deception knows no limit; and that nowhere is clearer than in the
174
case of our relations with the European Union. The latest and sorriest example was in the Queen's Speech on Tuesday of this week. At col. 5 the Official Report of 24th November states:
"My Government will play a leading role".
That repeats the sentiment which appears in the Prorogation Speech last week, reported on 19th November at col. 1176 of the Official Report which staked out the vainglorious claim that,
"My Government have taken a leading role in the European Union".
To some of us who had hoped that new Labour represented a break from the past so far as concerns our relations with Europe, and would mark a turn for the better, those words brought back ominous memories of Mr. John Major.
If I may be so unkind as to remind the House, he returned from Maastricht declaring that he had won,"Game, set and match". Very wisely he did not specify which particular game he had in mind. The truth of the matter was that he had sabotaged the efforts of the other 14 member states of the European Union. That accomplished, he then proclaimed that he was "at the heart of Europe", a statement that was clearly accurate if he were wearing his heart on his sleeve.
Against that background let us come to Mr. Tony Blair and new Labour. The claim to take "a leading role in the European Union" is based on the claim that,
"They negotiated"
—that is, the present Government—
"and signed the Treaty of Amsterdam".
They signed it alright, but to say that they "negotiated" it is complete nonsense. On 1st May last year when the Labour Government took office the treaty had been fully negotiated and was only being blocked by the Major Government on a number of issues, some good, some bad. What the Labour Government did was to surrender, both where it was justified and where it was not. They cite the decision "to opt into the social chapter" to justify their claim. But that was simply Danegeld paid to old Labour without any regard to Britain's interests or the wider interests of the European Union as a whole. And now we find Mr. Mandelson, for whom otherwise I have neither sympathy nor admiration, attempting to extricate this country from the resulting mess that has been created.
On the basis of that long list of non-achievements, Mr. Blair then proceeded to claim that he was the leader of Europe. The reaction to that ranged from anger to contempt—and in some quarters worse. One would have thought that even Mr. Blair, after 18 months in Government, would have learned better. But not a bit of it. Now we find him closeted with the other Socialist leaders of Europe hatching plans to undermine the European Central Bank and thereby the euro itself; and to substitute discredited and long since discarded plans to boost employment by the device of accommodating inflation, or indeed creating it. Such policies have been tried before and they have always failed, and they will fail again.

175
I suppose the kindest thing that can be said about Mr. Blair's concept of leadership is that encapsulated in the apocryphal story of Robespierre's reaction when from his study window he saw the mob following the tumbrils on the way to the guillotine. He exclaimed, "I must follow them. I am their leader".
The simple truth, and we need to accept it, is that this country is unlikely ever to exercise a leadership role in the Union—not in this generation, and possibly not in the next either. That may well be not only in our own interest but equally in the interest of the other member states as well. Our attitude and outlook are too much at variance with those of most of the other members of the Union for us to take a leading role in the growing political integration which is the objective of possibly a majority of the other members of the Union. I must stress that I refer to political integration; economic integration is a different matter. I am referring also to the claim of taking a leadership role. We can and indeed should always co-operate where it is in our interest and the general interest so to do.
Membership of the Union is of immense value to this country, and we can still be effective and valuable partners in what is unquestionably the greatest development this century has seen in the governance of the people, by the people and for the people. With a modicum of modesty we can play our part—a valuable part. We can benefit. We can contribute. But that can only be on the basis of recognising that we are but one of 15, possibly soon one of 20, and ultimately perhaps more; and that the somewhat exaggerated opinion of ourselves held by successive governments—it is why I quoted the record extending over this Government and the previous government—needs to conform to reality.
On some future occasion I shall seek to speak to your Lordships about enlargement where under the unenlightened leadership of the present Commission we are all deceiving ourselves, and in the true spirit of Mr. Micawber we are dependent upon "something turning up". On the euro, the Government are telling us the truth, half the truth and anything but the truth about the real motives why they are dragging their feet. But that must await a future occasion.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, was I right in thinking that he separated economic union from political union? If so, is he saying that economic union does not lead to political union?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the answer to both questions is yes.
6 p.m.
Lord Gillmore of Thamesfield: My Lords, a number of noble Lords have drawn attention to the financial turmoil in east Asia. I should like to dwell on that for a few moments because it is a deeply worrying development. It is certainly worth a good deal more attention than this House, the other place or British media have accorded it.
176
What began as an apparently small financial crisis in Thailand spread, at great speed, throughout the region and is evolving now into an economic crisis which brings in its train a dangerous wave of political and social turmoil, most notably, of course, in Indonesia. The shock waves have spread still wider. No economy is likely to remain unaffected, particularly as, in my view, the crisis in east Asia is far from being over. At the very least, the economies of the region will need three or four years to begin proper recovery and that means that things will get worse before they get better.
The causes of the crisis have been analysed extremely extensively. International banks in Europe and the United States did not look closely at the credit worthiness of individual borrowers. They lent in large measure to domestic banks which in turn lent on without a proper assessment of risks and all too often on a basis of relationship, not on analysis. Combined with inadequate local business and banking structures, a lack of transparency and proper regulation, that meant that borrowers in Asia and lenders in the west were involved in a process which, with the benefit of hindsight, was set to produce grave problems.
The question is whether the west—the United States and the countries of the European Union—can do anything to help and, if so, what. There are a number of actions which we can and should take although it is important that we should neither overestimate nor underestimate our ability or influence. We should not overestimate our capacity because many of the remedies lie in the hands of the regional countries. They will have to devise the solutions to improve the regulatory systems and increase the transparency and accountability of their corporate structures.
It is most definitely not a question of western or eastern values, expressions which, in my view, seem to be almost entirely devoid of meaning and unsusceptible to sensible definition. Indeed, in the European Union and the United States, we cannot claim to know the answers. As recent events have demonstrated, far from it. Therefore, we are not in a position to preach even if that were likely to be diplomatically wise or practically effective, which it is most certainly not. However, by working discreetly with our friends, we can help them devise new systems which stand a chance of re-creating a confidence without which recovery will be very difficult.
Japan is critical, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, made clear. It is still the second largest economy in the world and accounts for somewhere between 70 per cent. and 75 per cent. of the total Asian economy. While it is not true to say, as some have alleged, that Japan was a link in the causal chain of present distress, its own severe difficulties mean that it is not in a position to play a part in the recovery programme within the region—the very role which, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandberg, said, its position, size and importance warrant. Its own recent package of measures to stimulate demand, large as it is—198 billion US dollars—may not be the right answer, or at least the whole answer. In a sense, it is a larger dose of old medicine. It does not address the key questions of credit worthiness; nor does it tackle the necessary reform of

177
the banking and corporate sector. The British Government must make every effort to discuss those issues with Japan. They most definitely must not hector through microphones but must build on the relationship of trust and frankness which has been developed so successfully over the years.
It is absolutely vital that every effort should be made to preserve the recent achievements made in the international trading system. It would be tragic, would it not, if, after all the progress made in the Uruguay Round and in the creation of the World Trade Organisation, the current crisis in east Asia led to a reversal in the trend to open and barrier-free trade. It is quite wrong to blame, as some have done, global free trade for the crisis in east Asia. Indeed, the chances of recovery will depend on maintaining and strengthening it. Here again, I believe the British Government have, as indeed they have always had, a central part to play. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the British Government, acting not only in conjunction with their partners in the European Union but also in their own right, will do their utmost to ensure that present difficulties in east Asia do not become an excuse for retrograde action in the international trading system.
6.8 p.m.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I wish to concentrate my remarks on the relationships between the United Kingdom, the European Union and international policy towards southern Africa.
The region of southern Africa has vast human capacity and tremendous national resources. It has the potential for extremely strong development and growth. If it were successful in that, the region could be the catalyst for economic growth and sustainable development wider than the region and, indeed, across the whole of Africa. But in order to succeed, the region needs very strong international support to help it to overcome the legacies of apartheid—poverty, the lack of education and the lack of a proper health service.
However, at present, despite the kind words of support on the assumption of President Mandela to the leadership of the country, when it comes to issues such as trade, peace in the region, stability and debt, I believe that much more should and could be done by the international community. We are now at the final and critical stages of the negotiations between the European Union and South Africa on a free trade area. Many promises have been made, the latest being at the Cardiff European Council, to conclude the free trade agreement discussions by autumn 1998. It is said that as one gets older, the blood gets thinner and one feels the cold more. I am bound to say that the weather outside feels a little bit more than autumnal to me. But it is necessary and vital that the pledge should be kept. The successful conclusion of agreement is important not just to South Africa itself, but also to South Africa's neighbours in the Southern African Customs Union—Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland and Namibia. A successful conclusion to a fair agreement will have implications for the wider discussions on the African-Caribbean and Pacific group
178
in the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, spoke so eloquently earlier in the debate.
The talks virtually broke down in September and there were subsequently crisis meetings between Alec Erwin of the South African Government and Commissioner Pinheiro. They thrashed out a compromise deal on 5th October which the South African Government were prepared to accept. Unfortunately, Commissioner Pinheiro was having a great deal of difficulty in persuading other members of the Commission to go ahead and attempts have been made to unpick it.
Basically, there are three sticking points. The first is the continuing protectionism of some EU member states over allowing South African agricultural goods better access into the European market, especially in the context of CAP subsidies. There is a problem, which may not be very serious, in relation to the appellation of South African port and sherry. The EU wants to ensure not only that South Africa does not use those terms in the EU market, but also that it should not be allowed to use them in third country markets or even within the South African development community.
Finally, there is a continuing insistence that there should be some discussion about the Spanish gaining access to South African fishing waters. My experience of the Spanish and the coastal waters of the UK is that they break every rule; they take no account of fish stocks; but I had better not go too far down that road or we shall be here all day. However, I know that in order to gain access to Namibian waters, the Spanish—they had some fishing rights further north—used to paint out the names and numbers of their vessels, go in and fish, then go out again and paint in the numbers when they went home. That must be bad.
The European Union insists that free trade is the way forward for developing countries and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, made that point, too. It also pointed out that it needs to be a two-way process: it is not free trade for the European Union into third world countries and their access being blocked into Europe. South Africa wants a fair deal and a quick deal. It is necessary for it to have that deal if it is to tackle its problem of poverty. I believe that at the stage we are now at in those negotiations it is necessary for political clout to be used by the member states to compel an agreement to be signed to fulfil the pledges. I am sure that my honourable friends in the Government will provide that.
I should like to turn to the situation in Angola and I mention that because it may be that some of my remarks will be taken out of context. We live in a complex world and I am not sure that we understand the dynamics of international affairs. When the Cold War ended, many people expected there to be great international benefits to the world at large; sadly, those have not been seen.
It is worth reminding ourselves that in those bad old days each side had its "client" states and "client" dictators; each side tolerated human rights abuses provided they were carried out in the name of "socialism" or "the free world". I welcome the demise

179
of those simplistic international politics which were so damaging to so many people. But the instability which followed the collapse of the Cold War raised its own problems. We heard today of the problems in eastern and central Europe; there have been a couple of mentions of the problems in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaïre) and those arise from the instability of people not knowing where they are going.
I want to refer specifically to the situation in Angola. Jonas Savimbi, the leader of the rebel movement UNITA, used the old Cold War dynamics. He exploited them to the full in order to obtain arms, equipment, and money and to do what he liked. It was said—and is probably true—that the MPLA Government was strongly Marxist. Even after the end of the Cold War the fact is that Savimbi remained a favourite of the United States. The dreadful consequences of the years of civil war were finally comprehended and the UN took steps to try to bring about an end to it. It did finish with the Lusaka accords of 1994. But where are we now?
Once again we are on the brink of an all-out war. There is serious fighting in the northern regions of Angola and UN monitors who were sent to oversee the peace process have had to withdraw from the UNITA-controlled areas. There is an increasing refugee crisis with severe humanitarian effects on the people of the region. The lack of world attention to that situation, particularly to Jonas Savimbi's blatant disregard of the peace process, is extremely serious. Savimbi never actually signed the peace process, but I am glad that the Government recently said, through Mr. Tony Lloyd, that there is no doubt that the main obstacle to the peace process is Jonas Savimbi.
The gracious Speech states:
"They [the Government] will work to maintain the authority of the Resolutions of the Security Council of the United Nations, including in relation to Iraq".
There have been UN Security Council resolutions in abundance on Angola and most of them have been honoured in the breach rather than in the actual carrying out. The latest batch of sanctions prohibited, for example, the sale of diamonds from UNITA-held areas of Angola. Industry sources say that Angolan diamonds are now readily available in the international markets and freely available in Amsterdam. It is possible to tell broadly the region from which diamonds come. De Beers, which is one of the largest buyers of diamonds, say "We are not buying diamonds any more from UNITA". But if they are mixed up among other diamonds, then the trade can go on.
The British Government endeavoured to apply sanctions. At this stage, I wish to record my satisfaction that at last, one year after the Government told the United Nations Security Council that in pursuance of the sanctions resolution the UNITA representative (Mr. Kindeya) had been ordered to leave the country, the Home Secretary has said that he must go. I understand—although it is uncomfortable for me to accept it—why he is still here. I was one of those, and I am sure that there are many in your Lordships' House, who argued very strongly that immigrants to this country who have certain rights of abode should not
180
simply be thrown out without the right of appeal. Then we find that that is being used against compliance with Security Council resolutions.
I am glad that Kindeya has now been told that his appeal to remain has been refused. However, he will undoubtedly exploit the appeals procedure further and all I ask is that my noble friend persuades the Home Office to speed up the process a little. I do not say that we should not carry out the immigration laws, but that we should not let the issue drag on. Dragging it on does two things. It may appear to be a minor issue and therefore not to matter, but delay sends the wrong signals, first, to Jonas Savimbi that we are not serious about applying sanctions and, secondly, to the Angolan Government that we are not interested in bringing Savimbi to heel. We are right on the edge of a very serious conflict.
What else can we do to try to bring Savimbi to heel? He has been given opportunity after opportunity. Kofi Annan has seen him and he has made promises. Everyone who goes to see him comes back saying, "He really means it this time"; but he does not. Again he lets loose the dogs of war.
There are calls from the southern African countries for Savimbi to be indicted as a war criminal and I certainly believe that his actions warrant that. I agree with those people who say there is no point in applying sanctions unless they are credible. One thing we can look at very seriously is cutting off his satellite communications facility. Someone may say that he could still use a mobile phone system, but that is not quite the same as using a satellite communications system in his headquarters. I do not think he knows what is happening outside. I think that if he were faced with the cutting off of this international satellite communications system he would know that we were serious.
So what do we do? Do we still speak to Savimbi? One part of me says that we should totally isolate him and have nothing more to do with him. As several successive United Nations reports have stated, he still commands a large number of well-trained troops and he is still in command of very sophisticated equipment. The stuff that he handed over under the Lusaka protocols was ancient and not much good to anybody. So the dilemma is whether if he is compelled into isolation he will go back into the bush and start fighting. If he is brought back and makes more promises, will the Angolan Government finally lose patience and try to end this by a military solution—in which case he goes back to the bush? I do not believe there can be a quick surgical way of ending the situation in Angola.
What is at stake are the lives of human beings. Many thousands died in the last civil war and we certainly do not want to see another one. I hope that at the end of this debate and in the days to come the Government will make it clear that they will use every possible means to bring Savimbi to heel. If we are saying that the United Nations Security Council resolutions must be adhered to and that if they are not we will send in the bombers, other people will be entitled to ask, "Why do you ignore Africa?". I believe that there is a huge possibility of

181
great development in southern Africa. It is time that our promises were fulfilled and I am quite sure that this Government will see that they are.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, one viewpoint that has, mercifully, been entirely absent from your Lordships' debate this evening on foreign policy has been the very fashionable contention that nation states can no longer manage foreign policy and that the whole matter must be delegated or assigned to higher, supranational and new globally constructed bodies, and that the days of clearly defined national interests have been lost in a whirl of interdependence and globalism. It is very wise of your Lordships to avoid going all the way along that track.
I should like to give a memorable quotation:
"There has never been a greater need in human history in this impersonal and fragmented world for the individual to be identified with the sovereign state and with the nation state."
That is not a quotation from some narrow nationalist: it is from the former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Dr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, for whom I had a lot of time. I believe he was a very wise man, grossly maltreated by the Washington Administration, and obviously a person in a position both to see the worth of the nation state and the worth of the international order which he struggled to maintain and administer at a very difficult time for the United Nations.
Nor am I trying to rubbish the whole concept of a common foreign and security policy in the European Union. It has value. I think that collaboration and close alliance with our leading continental allies is extremely valuable in certain circumstances, but it can only take us so far. As the noble Lord, Lord Owen, demonstrated, when we get to Iraq the whole thing falls to bits because France is going in another direction. There are many other instances where there are bound to be differences and delays which could damage foreign policy purposes. The classic case, of course, was the premature recognition of Croatia, which led to much bloodshed; and there will be many more such instances in the future.
Nor am I seeking to discard the important central tenet to which we have clung for many years: that we must be very close to our American allies and work with them on every possible occasion for the security of the globe, and particularly of Europe. But they, too, pursue policies which can become extremely fragmented. The idea that there is a single American foreign policy is, alas, not true. There are many, even in the town of Washington, and it is quite often very hard to pin down who is in charge. There, too, there is a great deal of fragmentation. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said in a fascinating article he has written in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, this random quality of American policy, although we try to follow it from time to time, leaves much to be desired. Certainly it does not justify our American friends constantly criticising the Europeans and the British for not having a clear foreign policy, when their own policy is very far from clear.
182
So I am not rubbishing any of that, but I recognise and indeed am warming to what I sense is the position of the Government: that we do still need an agile, subtle, very clearly defined and diamond-edged foreign policy of our own, which we must pursue in very rapidly changing world conditions. They have been changing so much even in the past year that many of the things we have talked about, such as the line-up in the Middle East and the modalities of European policies, which have completely changed, need redefinition all the time.
I should like to suggest two areas where 1 believe we could bring reinforcement to the tasks of redefining our national foreign policy and of supporting the appropriate international bodies, and to do so in a constructive way which would not necessarily put us, as my noble friend Lord Cockfield mockingly suggested, at the very heart and leadership of Europe. That is not the right language at all, as he rightly said, but we should try for a position where we could make extremely constructive contributions to the development of a stable, peaceful and prosperous Europe. We could also make extremely strong contributions to the stability of the wider world.
First, I should like to say a word about the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth gets one mention in the gracious Speech, rather by a side wind. I am pleased about that: I am grateful for small mercies. I also see in The Times today, although it may not be reliable, that the Republic of Ireland is thinking about joining the Commonwealth. That at least should make people open their eyes, whether it is true or not, to the fact that the Commonwealth is a remarkable thing. It is a new resource; it is not an old sentimental club. It is a fantastic network, which corresponds much more to the nature of the real new world order than people realise, and possibly more than some of the great centralised trade blocs, which of course are based on a different pattern of trade and global investment. There was a good start, when the Foreign Secretary announced the new mission for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its foreign policy at the beginning of the present Labour Government, when the Commonwealth got quite a good mention. Then we had the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting when everyone made a lot of speeches. However, now the subject seems to be disappearing again. That is a great pity and a real neglect of a very powerful resource of this country which can be developed as a network.
Let me detain your Lordships for another second or two with some figures, though figures are often tedious and many statistics are suspect. Over the past ten years. from 1987 to 1997, Britain invested abroad about £210 billion and received back over that same period in dividends about £172 billion. In return, foreigners invested here about half that: £85–£86 billion. So here was a huge "value-added" for the nation. Most of that investment was not in the European Union, and so while concentrating on getting things right in Brussels, we must not, for heaven's sake, make that the only policy. Other pillars of policy are needed. Eighty-two per cent. of the direct foreign investment from this country, which forms our overseas assets, is in non-European Union countries. There is a very large chunk of it in the other great English-speaking nation, the United States, and

183
about 30 per cent. of it is in other Commonwealth countries, together with about 18 per cent. in the European Union. The earnings from these investments roughly correspond.
Therefore, however strongly we may feel that the European policy must be right, that we must have good relations with our continental neighbours and strike the right balance between being absorbed into an over-centralised political union while at the same time playing a very active part in Europe, the realities—and realities are a very hard business—suggest that we should also be attending to our global relationships and to our relationships in the rest of the Commonwealth.
I hope that the Commonwealth will play more of a part in that aspect of our foreign policy concerned with our business interests and our links with other nations around the world, which are interested in good conditions for investment, one of which is the political condition; namely, that there should be good governance and democracy and proper concern for human rights in those countries. If they do not get that right the investment will not go there. That is one pillar that I should like to see put in place in our foreign policy. It does not seem to be very evident in the gracious Speech, but I hope that more can be made of it.
The other pillar relates to the European scene. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, raised the question of enlargement, as have many other speakers. They were right to do so; indeed, enlargement is the whole purpose of Europe. It is why the war was fought. Unfortunately, it was found in 1945 that the battle for the reunification of Europe had been lost, but then we fought the battle all over again and virtually won. The idea that the whole process should be delayed by endless negotiations about Bulgarian strawberries or Polish shoe leather, and so on, is most disappointing.
I believe that the British Government should make their own distinctive contribution to European policy by being the real champion of enlargement. Indeed, far from getting off to a flying start, I fear that the latter is rapidly running into the sand. One has only to visit the capitals of eastern and central Europe to hear the gloom with which they report their preliminary discussions with Brussels. Endless difficulties are being raised there of the kind which, in many cases, are literally insoluble. They are certainly insoluble until magic has been done in relation to the reform of the CAP, and other such measures.
We should recognise that Britain has always had very close friendships with eastern and central European countries. We helped little Estonia get its independence. We helped Hungary, which wanted a British leader, between the wars. Indeed, the other countries of eastern and central Europe looked again and again at Britain for an example and for support. We went to war for Poland. All the time those countries are looking back to us and asking, "Where's your help? We realise that you're busy in Paris, Bonn and Brussels sorting out your affairs, and so on, but you were our friend". At this very moment the Estonians are celebrating the 80th anniversary of what? I dare say that no one in the Chamber has the slightest
184
idea. Actually, it is the 80th anniversary of the British Government and the British Navy coming to the aid of Estonia and creating a new independent state.
What is our policy towards those three gallant Baltic states? As President Clinton said only the other day, there will be no security in Europe unless there is security in these three little states which have had such a tragic history. Is it our policy to see them divided? Estonia is apparently to be invited to the application process of the EU, while the other two are to be left out. Are we arguing any differently? Are we saying that they should be treated as one, which I think would be a better approach? Are we encouraging them into the World Trade Organisation? In short, are we working with the people who regard us as their friend and look to us for using our, in the European context, big-power status to see that their interests are carried forward in Brussels?
There are two areas where we could have a far stronger foreign policy without in any way upsetting the major thrust of our policy in relation to the EU, the Atlantic alliance and the wider world. As other noble Lords with much greater experience than I have said, we are moving into an extremely dangerous period worldwide. The turmoil is not over. The stock market thinks that it is, but I suspect that those concerned will receive a nasty surprise. The major crisis points of the world are getting worse. The economic crisis of east Asia, as the noble Lord, Lord Gillmore, very eloquently said, is leaking into politics and tensions are rising between China and Japan, which is extremely worrying. Indonesia is in chaos and we do not know where Malaysia is going. There are very difficult times ahead. Our bilateral relations with these countries and our experience in dealing with them in the past, especially Japan which regards us as a special friend, will be absolutely vital in ensuring that there really is a new and stable world order. We should keep our eyes very firmly on that goal.
6.34 p.m.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, we sometimes seem to talk as if war and peace were one of only two positions that we could adopt; that is to say, either the one or the other. I want to suggest that there is another state in between which people living in conflict times and conflict zones experience. It is one of survival and one of rebuilding their lives after peace is declared. My few remarks tonight are dedicated to the making of the culture of peace, which I see as a condition which can be fashioned and experienced throughout war and after war has finished her bloody business. I believe that much can be done. The United Nations is our major instrument for this. It offers mechanisms if we care to take them up, but only if we do.
One of the major problems during and after war is the plight of refugees or displaced people. The major instrument for dealing with that is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I look now to Iraqi refugees inside the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran has half a million Iraqi refugees and 1.5 million Afghanistan refugees. Iran receives 11.4 million dollars from the UNHCR to look after those refugees. There are

185
officially 2 million refugees but, unofficially, I think the figure is 2.5 million. Noble Lords should be aware that the amount I have mentioned is less than 1 per cent. of the whole UNHCR budget. The total budget of the UNHCR is 1.2 billion dollars a year. That is meant to cover the plight of 22 million people, 13 million of whom are refugees—that is, 58 per cent. of the total. Twenty-one per cent are displaced people, 15 per cent. are returning refugees and 6 per cent. are others. Iran is given less than 1 per cent. of the UNHCR budget to cope with 15 per cent. of the refugee population of the globe.
So much can be done, but only if we look at the situation constructively. Will the Government press the UNHCR to give considerably more of its budget to Iraqi and other refugees in the Islamic Republic of Iran? I refer particularly to the excellent beginning of a new relationship between Her Majesty's Government and the Islamic Republic of Iran on which I congratulate them.
The United Nations has been exceptionally taken up over the past eight years or more within Iraq itself. Recently, a letter to the Independent on 24th November of this year from Church of England leaders and other religious leaders and signed by Bishops, together with a leader published in the Independent at the same time, seemed to suggest that the suffering of the Iraqi people is caused by the United Nations. Perhaps I may swiftly put that misconception to rest. I do not even need to refer to yesterday's debate in another place when some very curious misconceptions were put forward, but correctly combatted by Her Majesty's Government and other speakers.
I should like to remind the House that Resolutions Nos. 706 and 712, which are the resolutions which allow Iraq to have oil for food, medicines and other essential civilian needs, were passed very early in August and September 1991 and that Saddam Hussein's rejections of those resolution lasted nearly six years. I recall it well. It was only after the resultant hardships began to spread well within the tentacles of his own regime that he accepted their implementation.
Despite the distinction that the UN properly makes—and which our Government have always made—between Saddam Hussein's regime and the Iraqi people, I suggest that Saddam Hussein has been determined to use their suffering as a propaganda tool and as a means of blackmailing the UN into lifting sanctions before he complied with other resolutions, especially as regards his weapons of mass destruction. I suggest that the arguments of those in the other place and in the United Kingdom who blame UN sanctions for the misery of the Iraqi people, show that they have been brainwashed into accepting Saddam Hussein's propaganda. It shows that he has succeeded in shifting the blame from his shoulders to those of the outside world. I remind noble Lords that the delay in processing Iraqi purchases under the current oil-for-food scheme, which is due to vigilant vetting by the United Nations, has been made necessary by the continual attempts of the regime to buy material for the security services or luxury items for Saddam Hussein's cronies. I use that word properly. Commodities such as whisky, marble for his palaces, equipment for cosmetic surgery or military use
186
constantly have to be weeded out of purchase orders. The regime uses the extensive oil smuggling operations to fund such purchases. It is clear that Saddam Hussein values his weapons of mass destruction more than the welfare of the Iraqi people and I ask why? Who is he planning to attack next? He has decimated one group; that is one in 10 people. He has virtually wiped them out. In the words of the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Iraq, Saddam Hussein has practised genocide on the marsh people of southern Iraq as well as on the southern Shia, the Kurdish people and on the people in the centre of Iraq. It has involved the entire population.
I believe that the lifting of sanctions would be a betrayal of the Iraqi people themselves—they have suffered three decades of rule by the present criminal clique—unless we have something to offer in its place. Will the Government make it a condition of lifting sanctions to restore the Mesopotamian marshlands of Iraq? I believe that scientifically it is a feasible solution. It is a physical possibility. The damming of the Tigris and Euphrates was a massive exercise. It can be stopped by demolishing the dams. The Tigris and the Euphrates could then flow back again into those ancient marshlands, which pre-date the last ice age and which contain so much human history and did contain 750,000 people. They are a lost tribe. Many of them are now dwelling as refugees in Iran. I expect the Government to make it a condition for the lifting of sanctions or discussion about that, to force Saddam Hussein to restore at least a part of the marshlands of Iraq so that the historic marshland people can be returned after the war is over.
Will the Government fully commit themselves to supporting the Iraqi opposition in its wish to remove Saddam Hussein? It is wonderful that Her Majesty's Government twice this week saw a number of the opposition groups. Who else might Saddam Hussein attack? I remind the Government that it is nearly 100 years since Britain signed a treaty in 1899 to protect the sovereign state of Kuwait from outside invasion. Next year marks the 100th anniversary. Will the Government re-confirm the United Kingdom's commitment to defend the sovereign nation of Kuwait which remains so highly vulnerable to Iraq which still contains weapons of major mass destruction?
On 5th October this year the US Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act to support the Iraqi opposition with military assistance and training. I am suggesting that the UN organisation, properly supported, had the requisite force to bring democracy to the Iraqi people. UNSCOM has had wonderful successes. While the USA has passed that law offering military intervention, it does not support one of the major UN organisations, which is a proponent of peace; namely, UNESCO. I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on re-joining UNESCO and for the modest progress that has been made subsequently. It is clear why there is no commission as there is in other countries. The reason is that the Secretary of State for International Development is committed to conquering poverty. In place of a

187
commission a more modest exercise was proposed which would be cheaper to run. It would be a network within the various ministries plus a secretariat.
However, the great gap in the membership of UNESCO is the USA. It is a gap in terms of the English-speaking world being a part of the United Nations scientific, cultural and education organisations. The President of the United States, Bill Clinton, wrote,
"Today, the work of UNESCO plays an ever more valuable and meaningful role in shaping global peace and security. UNESCO's contributions to the free flow of information across boundaries, natural and political. are integral to the success of global democratization. It continues to play a critical role in breaking down obstacles to information sharing, enabling citizens an equal opportunity to take on the responsibilities and reap the rewards of international citizenship".
He wrote that to Frederico Mayor, the Director-General of UNESCO on 3rd November 1995. But he has not made further progress despite the fact that the US recently fielded its largest and most senior delegation to UNESCO last month in the context of the World Conference on Higher Education. There was an Assistant Secretary of Education; senior representatives of USAID, the US Department of State; a civil society delegation including the President of the University of Minnesota; the President of the International Association of University Presidents who is himself President of the California State University; the President of Iowa State University and other major education leaders. I believe that they have the full support of the US Secretary of Education, Richard Riley, in sending a message to the President now to bring the United States back to membership of UNESCO.
Will Her Majesty's Government press President Clinton to rejoin UNESCO for the sake of the culture of peace which UNESCO promotes and for the sake of the English language, which is part of UNESCO's remit? We need the United States of America in UNESCO. The United Kingdom was the penultimate country to rejoin UNESCO. It is best placed with the continuing special relationship with the US, particularly at this moment, to press the US President to rejoin UNESCO now.
Finally, I ask the Government to work hard in the United Kingdom and in the European Union to forestall the culture of war. The White Paper on strategic export controls has not yet been put into legislation. There is much that our Government should and can do to enhance the European Union code of conduct. We are in a special position now in that we have opened the debate on European defence. I quote the Government's own phrase. Surely that is an end to the isolation and it is effectively Britain's breakthrough. The negative has become the positive, offering a step towards a European defence agency and common European defence programmes. I believe that that is a true and proper integration pointer for the European Union. The previous policy, promoted by successive governments under the Conservatives, was against the WEU and in favour of NATO. It is now more broadly understood that Britain is at last in a position to significantly affect
188
the European Union defence policy including arms control. Will the Government agree to take up that cause more firmly?
6.50 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, it is not fashionable—nor even considered rational, perhaps—to continue to see Russia as one of the serious threats to the peace of the world. It will be said, with truth, that she now has a working relationship with NATO, through the Founding Act, she is an active supporter of the OSCE, she is part of the NATO operation in Bosnia, she works with the G7 and so on. There is, too, the sad fact that Russia is in a severe and continuing economic crisis. The soldiers have not been paid, but there is no electricity to supply the bases. And, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, rightly and movingly said, the people face hunger and privations this winter on a tragic scale. How can such a country be a threat?
What makes Russia, as a state, a threat and dangerous is her major and continuing contribution to proliferation. I was very pleased to find that proliferation was one of the main themes of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert. The SDR recognises that the greatest risks to international stability lie in the Gulf. Although the use of biological and chemical weapons is banned by international law, there are some opponents who may be tempted to regard their use or threat as a counter to superior conventional forces, and there is worrying evidence of wider proliferation. The Minister gave us some telling statistics. The paper on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction recently circulated to us by the two Ministers speaking in this debate, gave us some idea of the potential threat from Iraq alone. I look forward to receiving the summary of the conclusions on our national defence response to proliferation.
So where does Russia come in when we are considering the growing menace of proliferation, ranging from missile delivery systems and weapons of mass destruction to biological and chemical know-how? Russia is Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, a noble people and a state apparatus which has changed very little in the past 10 years. Jekyll, on the 27th October, was discussing with President Clinton's representative for non-proliferation the Russian Security Council's active role in creating an effective mechanism in Russia for control over dual-purpose technology export. The relevant law was to be reviewed by the Duma. In passing, I may say that the Duma is still considering the Start II Treaty, years down the line, and Russia's signature of the Chemical Weapons Treaty was only ratified this year by the Duma and has not yet led to the destruction of most of her chemical weapons despite extensive financing by the West. Her signature to the Wassenaar Agreement, replacing COCOM, was promptly reneged upon.
So what is Hyde doing meanwhile? One of Mr. Primakov's first acts was to appoint his First Deputy as head of the newly-created interdepartmental council for military-technical co-operation with foreign countries and to require that the new head of the state arms company should be a former member of the

189
Foreign Intelligence Service—his service. Primakov's longstanding relations with the Middle East make it unsurprising that, since he came to power, Gaddafi, who has been trying to resume co-operation with the Russians on atomic matters, has had a message from President Yeltsin discussing the prospects for bilateral relations. Syria, whose forces are 90 per cent. equipped with Soviet and Russian weapons, has been visited by the Russian Defence Minister, who regards her as a reliable partner with whom Russia will develop military and military technical co-operation. The Algerian Army has been receiving training in Russia, including missile exercises using the Smerch missile system.
The Russian Atomic Energy Minister is to visit the Bushehr-1 nuclear power station being built by the Russians in Iran. The Ministry is also hoping for a contract from the Kudankalam nuclear power station in India. There is of course no reason whatever why Russia should not tender for civil nuclear contracts. But we should not forget that, without the cryogenic rocket motors which Russia sold to India some years ago, after giving a commitment not to do so, India would not have the means of delivering her nuclear missiles and becoming a nuclear power. It is scarcely reassuring that, according to a Russian official discussing the export drive for the X-35 anti-ship missile, Russia may adapt for carrying X-35 missiles all the 40 SU-30 MK multi-role fighters that India is to receive before the year 2001—with an increased range of 300 kilometres, and the prospect of a shore-based version for use in the tropics.
Last month the Russians demonstrated their improved Grad and Smerch missile systems to the attachés of 30 Middle Eastern and Far Eastern countries. They are still building Topel missiles. However, what must and should concern us most perhaps is what has been delicately described in Russia as,
"Deliveries to a number of countries that traditionally categorically object to the divulging of information regarding their arms purchases".
Russia, despite having signed the treaty banning biological weapons, went on producing them—and may still be doing so—and selling them. Despite the fact that much foreign aid has been given (200 million dollars from the US alone) for the destruction of chemical weapons, which include nerve gases—and we too have offered help, as the Minister told us—little has been destroyed. It is presumably still highly saleable, as is Russia's military nuclear know-how, to which we owe the threat from North Korea. This is why I welcome the recognition throughout the SDR that proliferation and arms control, as well as the training of highly-skilled personnel able to produce and conduct an effective defence are vital areas for action. I was delighted to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, had to say.
I hope, incidentally, that support will be given for the dangerous, difficult and sophisticated intelligence-gathering operations that will be needed. Intelligence in this area will be one of the most important weapons in our defence strategy.
But I have something more positive to say about Russia. Mr. Primakov has great influence with Saddam Hussein and in such other potential areas of trouble in
190
the Middle East as Syria, Algeria, Libya and Iran. Russia, as a state, has always given priority to supporting its defence industry, and that industry remains a vital money-earner and a weapon of influence. Soldiers may not get paid, but the research laboratories, working on Smart technology, will be supported and there will be new nuclear weapons and the new SU-37 aircraft, as well as the new generation of nuclear submarines.
But the Russian people have changed, more than perhaps Mr. Primakov and the nomenclatura may have realised. The Russian Government will need help to confront the terrible human problems that the country will face. We should give that help—but with a price. Instead, therefore, of proposing—as I believe has been suggested to the Iraqi so-called dissident groups in London—that the UN should set up a tribunal to try Saddam Hussein, we should, I suggest, be exerting the strongest possible pressure behind the scenes on Mr. Primakov to make Saddam comply with the UN resolution on inspections, and to ensure that the inspections are carried through to the end. Russia has a particular responsibility in this area because of her disregard of non-proliferation. I believe, with regret, that to call Saddam to a tribunal—satisfying as it would be in many ways—would unite his people behind him and give him the status of a martyr in the Arab world. Do we want that? Primakov needs our help. This should be the quid pro quo.
I would have liked also to see a Berlin airlift-type UN humanitarian operation mounted in Iraq, Kosovo and Sudan. But I recognise that the issue of territorial sovereignty would ensure that neither the Russians nor the Chinese would ever support it. What is important is that we should use Russian leverage to the full rather than dissipate our overstretched forces in another Gulf war which might not end quite so quickly or cleanly as the last. I feel great concern about the way in which our forces are used as a kind of political football, which we do not seriously intend to kick.
I have another, quite different, concern about which I would like briefly to speak. That is the war in the Congo, where I served from 1959 to 1961. I was there when the mutiny happened and when the country fell into disorder and turmoil. I am concerned about the part being played there by the unfortunate Zimbabwean troops despatched there by Mr. Mugabe. The troops must be absolutely disoriented. They will have no common language; they are far from home without logistical support; they are demoralised, and they may well find themselves fighting other Commonwealth troops from Uganda. Indeed, I believe that Mr. Mugabe wants that to happen. They will certainly be surrounded by totally undisciplined and unfriendly tribesmen, and this war, so far from Zimbabwe, is costing their country millions.
Meanwhile, at home, Mr. Mugabe is breaking his word to the IMF and to us and is seizing farms without compensation. He will very soon have utterly destroyed the economy of his country. Is there to be no Commonwealth meeting? I strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, in deeply regretting that the issue seems to be being left to a French

191
initiative. The French have very considerable interests in the Congo but I doubt that they are interested in looking after the welfare of our Commonwealth troops. South Africa has tried to bring good sense to the situation but has failed. We should surely take an initiative.
7 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I am encouraged to see that international development has taken precedence over foreign affairs, at least in the title of today's debate. Perhaps this demonstrates a new emphasis in Her Majesty's Government's policy.
This Government have taken a huge stride towards the United Nations GNP target in international development spending and intend to reverse the decline under the previous government. Last week saw the all-important IDA 12 replenishment in Copenhagen which is a significant increase in the World Bank's lending to the poorest countries. If, as I suspect, UK officials had a lot to do with that increase, this is a time for congratulation after many years of retrenchment.
As we inevitably become more critical of this Government over time, as policy is turned into practice, we must not forget that the present Secretary of State for International Development has won more Cabinet support and Treasury backing than any other aid Minister. Long may she and her junior Minister continue to reflect many of the concerns which the NGOs and Churches have wanted to impress on the Government for some time. Let us recognise that Britain has a lot of influence on the course of international development and is in a strong position to lead the campaign against world poverty. Because of this, and because of the commitment of so many people in this country, I should like to see an even bolder public stance towards aid in general.
I should declare an interest as a new board member of Christian Aid and a confirmed supporter of CARE International and Save The Children. I was in Uganda recently on behalf of three local Ugandan charities and in a moment I will give an example of Britain's support for African development.
One important reason for celebration is that the ODA, now the DfID, as an agency of development, is held in high regard by the international aid community. With proper funding and direction it can wag the dog; it can influence aid and foreign policy harmonisation in the Community and among some of the more sluggish OECD donors, notably the United States which still seems to need geography lessons and in many respects has not yet even understood what the United Nations is for.
This does not mean, however, that Britain has got it all right. Some say that we are already depending too much on rhetoric—for example, of meeting the international DAC targets. Few NGOs are satisfied with the quality of British aid on the ground and its ability to reach the very poorest people. I am not clear how governments are going to respond to the new international criteria for aid effectiveness and good
192
governance. On this point, two things have happened in development finance. First, more IDA lending, perhaps even 50 per cent., is going towards poverty reduction, basic needs and micro-finance, all of which will be welcomed by the poor if the money is genuinely reaching them through popular institutions. Secondly, country performance assessments are going to be applied more rigidly from now on and so-called "bad" governments which fail to meet the criteria will not qualify for future lending. Perhaps the Minister can say whether this new policy is not penalising the poor in those countries and whether the World Bank has a formula for supporting good projects under "bad" governments which do not pass the test.
I am pleased that our Government will continue their support for NGO humanitarian work in Africa, especially to help women and children and the victims of AIDS, which, as we have heard from the UN this week, is on the increase in Africa. In Uganda I visited the Ugandan Women's Efforts to Save Orphans, headed by the First Lady of Uganda, the Women Prisoners Resettlement Project beside Luzira Prison, and the integrated health project near Jinja, which helps AIDS victims and works for prevention of the disease.
I believe that in our secular state we still underestimate the value of Churches in development. In many poor countries, especially those of Africa, the Churches are the most active in the campaign against poverty. My wife and I attended a service in Kampala's Pentecostal Church and were amazed at the attendance, commitment and content of the service. AIDS is still a greater enemy of the people in east Africa and southern Africa than any of the political or rebel movements, and people in Uganda are constantly exhorted by their clergy, teachers and health workers to take more health precautions.
British aid agencies are active in the campaign against AIDS, supporting a range of small initiatives to spread education and awareness, care for the sick and dying, and prevention of further outbreaks. I attended the opening by the Princess Royal of the new Mildmay International AIDS Centre near Kampala which will train health workers and give advice to up to 100 outpatients a day. The DfID is behind this as well as several initiatives by British NGOs like Christian Aid and Save the Children to combat the AIDS epidemic alongside the Ugandan health services.
Britain is also involved through UNAIDS, the Medical Research Council and local Ugandan charities in the monitoring and control of the disease, which is now actually on the decrease in Uganda. There has been a progressive decline in HIV prevalence rates in ante-natal clinics since 1995, especially in urban areas. This is good news which we do not hear from other parts of Africa.
On Uganda's western borders, the civil war in the Congo, which has been mentioned many times, still threatens to spread into east Africa and elsewhere, although for the time being it has been contained. The international agencies are sustaining new waves of refugees in Tanzania and Burundi. As Oxfam points out, the new fashion for "African" solutions should not be

193
an excuse for Britain and France to draw back from this region where we have had, and still have, so many interests. South Africa continues to play a trenchant diplomatic role but we must not leave it to them. I hope the Minister can confirm that we are still actively encouraging dialogue between the various parties in the Congo, restraint in other interested neighbouring nations, and the strengthening of internal civil structures in the Congo, including NGOs, which will increase the participation of the people in their own society. In a ravaged country like Kahila's Congo—I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, about the middle way between war and peace—this is easier said than done, but we can be sure that if it is not done we will be in for a more expensive humanitarian exercise.
Finally, I turn to Iraq. I firmly believe that, while standing firm on weapons' inspections, we should pay more attention to the plight of the Iraqi people. In an age of satellite communications it is perhaps more possible to keep humanitarian lines open to ordinary people than it was under Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. We should recognise more publicly that, in spite of the propaganda war on both sides, there is suffering in many sections of the community. British NGOs working there testify to the breakdown in many essential services and we must continue to demonstrate to them that on a human level we are doing what we can to help.
There are signs that sanctions are hurting the Iraqi people more than they are hurting Saddam. While it is true that food rations are being distributed more efficiently, nutrition levels are still low and protein foods are expensive. For example, a small chicken costs a monthly salary. Health services are declining and drinking water is often unsafe. Partly for these reasons, and also to earn extra income, more children stay away from school. I am not certain that we are hearing enough about this in government statements where it may be seen as weakness to feel too much concern for victims of Saddam's hideous tyranny. On the contrary it is a strength to demonstrate our continued support, whether through oil for food or charities, for a people who are at the mercy of such a dictator.
I ask the Government only whether they are doing enough to support British and Iraqi organisations which are genuinely working day and night to help the Iraqi people through this crisis, and to ask them whether they can do any more to improve the somewhat inadequate means by which the UN agencies are delivering aid.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Earl is widely respected for his sustained interest in the poor, the suffering and the starving in many parts of the world. I shall not follow him down that path partly because I do not know enough to do so and partly because I want to refer, if I may, to the comments of my noble friend Lord Gilbert. My noble friend opened the debate in his usual competent fashion. He said that as a result of remarks I had made to him he had altered his entire speech. I have had to alter my entire speech because of the remarks he made in response to my remarks.
194
I had asked him why there was no reference to nuclear weapons in the gracious Speech. My noble friend said that he would take that into account when he introduced the debate. He did so but he did not answer the question which I had put. I believe that my surprise at there being no reference to that matter was justified. After all, the Labour Party manifesto stated that we would pursue the elimination of the nuclear weapon. That confirmed what was stated in a previous gracious Speech. In replying to questions that I have put to my noble friend Lady Symons she has made it clear that this is a primary interest of the Government.
It is interesting to note that there has been much activity in this area but none of it is mentioned in the gracious Speech. Therefore we still ask ourselves why there is no reference to this matter. I rather believe that we are being prepared for a profound change in the wrong direction in the Government's policy. It seems to me that the elimination of the nuclear weapon is on the backburner. If the Government had wanted to mention anything about nuclear weapons in the gracious Speech, they could have suggested to Her Majesty the words, "My Government have decided not to take any steps to implement the manifesto policy of seeking the global elimination of nuclear arms. My Government demonstrated the firmness of their decision in this matter when on Friday 13th November the vote of the United Kingdom was cast against eliminating the nuclear weapon at the United Nations and against an attempt to move positively in the direction of elimination".
The new agenda coalition resolution calls on the nuclear weapon states to demonstrate an unequivocal commitment to the speedy and total elimination of their respective nuclear weapons, and to pursue without delay and in good faith, and to bring to a conclusion, negotiations leading to the elimination of those weapons. The resolution was put to the vote. It was carried by 97 votes to 19. We were among the ignominious 19 who voted against the elimination of nuclear weapons. This could hardly have been included in the gracious Speech, but it is what happened and it is what is happening.
This is a profoundly serious matter. If, indeed, the close association of our Government with that of the United States—which, of course, has never declared itself in favour of the elimination of nuclear weapons and is to all intents and purposes determined to remain the nuclear boss of the world—means that on all occasions when, as in this instance, a resolution for elimination arises, we follow the United States into the negative area, although we may declare ourselves to have an ethical policy, our position is far from ethical. That ethical policy was called into question a little earlier in a different context by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff.
What is to be done under these circumstances? It seems to me that we must ask the Government to pursue their own policy in this matter and not to be guided always by the question of what is big brother, the United States, going to do. It is time we set out on our own. We should have supported the resolution. The resolution has now to be resubmitted to the United Nations. It

195
would be splendid if, on that occasion, we decided that we would not only declare ourselves in favour of the elimination of nuclear weapons but would associate ourselves with the large majority of the nations in the General Assembly who want to declare themselves and to move physically and practically in that direction. Having said what I wanted to say, as there are other speakers to follow and time is getting on, I shall now sit down.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the gracious Speech gives us the opportunity to debate again what is perhaps the greatest issue facing the country today; our relationship with the European Union. After our debates last summer on the Amsterdam Treaty, this is an opportunity to take stock, to keep our feet on the ground and to ask the Government a few questions.
However before doing that, I want to put a point to your Lordships which has occurred to me only recently, but which I believe may be fundamental to our discussions on the future of Europe. I refer to the ambiguity in the word "Europe" itself. The word "Europe" has come to have two completely different, indeed contrasting, meanings and this is causing great confusion when we argue about the Treaty of Rome. On the one hand, the word "Europe" means the Europe of different nations, each with its different history, with its different and glorious culture, and each now—thank God!—with its own democracy. This is the Europe which we Eurosceptics know and love and which we wish to see continue and flourish, with the nations of Europe freely trading together. We would certainly see the United Kingdom as part of that Europe, inevitably and proudly.
But now comes the problem. Those who benefit from the Treaty of Rome have not only hijacked Beethoven's 9th Symphony to be the anthem of the superstate they plan to create. They have also hijacked the word "Europe", so it has now come to mean everything which stems from that treaty—all the stultifying bureaucracy and socialism and fraud which daily pour forth from the Commission and the other institutions of the communities. Thus the "European ideal" has become the whole terrifying plan to subject our national democracies to Brussels and the Luxembourg Court, conquering us by obfuscation and stealth.
So, we have to be very careful when we use the word "Europe". Do we mean the collection of different democratic nations which should be freely trading together, each inspired by its past, and free to guide its own future? Or do we mean the emerging superstate controlled by central bureaucracy in Brussels? I submit that it is this ambiguity which allows those who wish to see the superstate become a reality to accuse those of us who do not of being "anti-European" or even "Euro-phobic", or "dangerous nationalists" or "Little Englanders". For instance, it is surely the confusion created by this ambiguity which inspired the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, to describe my Starred Question about the proposed takeover directive on 5th October of this year,
196
as "Euro-phobic"; and the noble Lord is not alone. His noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, makes the same mistake whenever he gets the chance.
So, I urge all Eurosceptics, at least, to use the word "Europe" only when they mean the Europe of nations which we know and admire and to use the expressions "Treaty of Rome" or "EU" or quite simply "Brussels" when we mean the dangerous venture upon which our politicians have so foolishly embarked. Let us be quite clear: we love Europe, but we hate the Treaty of Rome.
This brings me to perhaps the central deception practised by those who support the treaty, which is to pretend that the EU has done anything significant to promote peace in Europe since the last war or that it is likely to do so in future. Of course, if that were true, it would be worth putting up with almost any bureaucratic interference and economic disadvantage. But, as I have tried to point out before, it is not true. NATO kept the peace in Europe throughout the Cold War, and NATO will continue to do so, provided that it is not elbowed out of Europe by a jealous and incompetent EU which now, I fear, is a real danger.
The trouble is that the EU longs to be a superstate, and one of the essential attributes of a superstate is a foreign policy. So the EU has to have a foreign policy which means that it goes round poking its nose into conflicts in which it has no genuine status or interest. and where it is not welcome either. Croatia, Albania, Cyprus, Liberia and the Middle East come to mind here. The truth is that if Germany and the other European nations can keep their democracies, their people are most unlikely to allow their leaders to provoke a war. Democracy is the guarantor of peace in Europe, not the EU, which is scarcely a very democratic set-up, as we know.
To put this vital analysis to the test and to find out whether the Government agree with it, I wonder whether I could ask the Minister two related questions. First, can she tell the House of any instance when a truly democratic nation has ever provoked a war? Secondly, does she agree that conflict often arises in forced conglomerations of disparate nations, especially when the lid is eventually forced off? I submit that the answers to these two questions go to the heart of the claim that the EU somehow promotes peace in Europe, which is by far the most important claim made by those who promote the treaty.
Perhaps I could give your Lordships just one example of how crucial the Eurocrats regard this claim to be. Your Lordships may remember when the Commission refused to reveal how much mere money each member state was contributing net to its coffers, saying that EU membership was so valuable that it should not be subjected to such vulgar questioning. When pressed on this response on 19th October, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, M. Jean-Claude Juncker, defended the Commission's stance thus:
"How can you put a price on one hour of peace in Europe? The cost of even one hour of peace is nowhere attributed in the Budget".
So I look forward to the Minister's replies, which I hope will finally expose the emptiness of the claim that the EU promotes peace in Europe or, indeed, anywhere else.

197
The gracious Speech reflected the Government's misplaced enthusiasm about several aspects of our relationship with Brussels and the Treaty of Rome. For instance, the Government appear still to think that enlargement of the EU is not only a good thing, but actually possible through adequate reforms of the crazy common agricultural policy and of the structural and cohesion funds. I would point out that there is a perfectly respectable case for saying that it is not in the central and eastern European countries' interests to join the EU, which would handicap their growing economies by forcing them to accept the 3,000 pages of the acquis communautaire and all the rest of the EU's red tape and waste, (but, of course, I admit that the CEECs like the subsidies they get while they are queuing).
However, I fear that there is not much point in asking the Minister how the negotiations to achieve those reforms are progressing, because I suspect that I will be given the same answer that I have always been given for the last eight years; namely, that the negotiations proceed hopefully. So, may I ask the Minister a slightly different question? Can the noble Baroness tell the House the date when we shall know whether those negotiations to reform the common agricultural policy and the structural and cohesion funds have succeeded or have failed? Is that date by any chance supposed to be March next year, 1999, or are we to spend another 20 years pretending that the voting structures of the Treaty of Rome will indeed allow the common agricultural policy to be reformed?
I know I must not ask the noble Baroness too many questions, but one more is important here. Can the Government confirm that they will not support the increased national contributions to the EC's budget, which will be requested to permit enlargement if agreement is not reached about these reforms? Other noble Lords have suggested that the alternative to such an increase in the money supply might be to delay the timetable for enlargement, which would, of course, be an excellent idea because it would probably mean that enlargement never takes place.
Apart from their support for enlargement, perhaps the Government's most glaring over-optimism about our relationship with the EU is contained in the following quote from the gracious Speech:
"My Government will continue to promote with their European partners the economic reforms which will help to create growth and higher employment".
This is a truly extraordinary statement. I can only admire the Government's nerve in trying to reconcile it with signing up to the "new European way" only last weekend.
As I move towards my conclusion, I would point out that there is another deceptive claim, which is put forward by those in this country who support the treaty, and which confuses our national debate about it. This is the claim that "the majority of our trade takes place with the EU". This untrue statement beguiles many people, including leading businessmen, into believing that there can be no escape from the treaty or from economic and monetary union, which is perhaps its most dangerous aspect.
198
So, I hope it is worth putting on the record once again that at least 70 per cent. of our trade, or of our economic activity, takes place within the United Kingdom itself. Up to perhaps 30 per cent. of our trade goes to export, and government figures show that less than half of our overall exports go to the EU. So, less than 15 per cent. of our trade takes place with the EU. That means that at least 85 per cent. of our trade is done outside it, either here or elsewhere overseas. That 85 per cent. is the dog which is constantly wagged by its 15 per cent. tail, and one has to ask yet again whether it is any longer worth it. Why should the 85 per cent. dog go on putting up with all the destructive bureaucracy of the EU's acquis communautaire and with all its fraudulent waste? Why should we continue to stand idly by and see dozens of British interests destroyed, from our fishing industry to our international art market, from our working week to our system of mergers and acquisitions? If the Government are going to blandly reply, as did the previous government, that our membership of the EU is self-evidently a good thing, then I have to ask again why they do not call for an objective cost-benefit analysis of that membership. The answer, one can only conclude, is that they do not dare to do so because the result would go against their political rhetoric over many years.
If the Government do not dare to order such an objective cost-benefit analysis, they might at least attempt to reply to the highly respectable academic and economic studies which show how the UK could indeed be better off outside the Treaty of Rome. I refer here again to such studies as There is an Alternative by Baimbridge and others at Bradford University, and Better off out? from the Institute of Economic Affairs written by Hindley and Howe. Both of these studies have been published for several years now, and as far as I know no one has disagreed with them in detail or in general.
If the Government refuse to follow either of those courses, I fear I must accuse them of joining the conspiracy of silence among our political and bureaucratic classes which obscures the truth about the purpose of the Treaty of Rome. That purpose is and always has been the economic and political union of Europe, to the detriment of our national democracies; but our political leaders have either not understood that, or have lied to us about it. To appreciate the accuracy of this accusation, may I suggest that the Government and noble Lords read the article in today's Daily Mail by my good friend, Mr. Christopher Booker, entitled,
"Our leaders, Europe, and damned lies".
Even if our leaders do not want to face what Brussels is really up to, several Eurocrats are at last now openly saying that tax harmonisation must follow economic and monetary union, and indeed is even necessary for the proper functioning of the single market. Only yesterday. the German foreign minister, Herr Fischer, confessed that his ultimate ambition is indeed the European superstate which successive British governments have always said is not the object of the EU exercise.

199
If the British Government are telling the truth about not wanting the United Kingdom to become subservient to such a superstate, I would have thought that the time has come when they must start to look seriously at the many attractive alternatives to the Treaty of Rome.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, will forgive me if I do not follow him on the European Union. I say that because I have noted with care what was said earlier from the three Front Benches and by some other noble Lords on the subject of Russia. I wish to continue where those speakers left off.
In recent months we have seen a sharp drop in the value of the rouble, default on some internal debt, the collapse of some banks, and attempts to renegotiate external debt. Many state salaries and pensions in Russia are in arrears. Currently, inflation is officially forecast at 5 per cent. or more each month and at 30 per cent. for the whole of the coming year. Commercial firms often pay their workers in kind and exist by barter. Isolated villages in the Arctic Circle are reported to be cut off, with no food and no helicopters to come to their rescue. In the big cities there are political and sometimes economic murders—one was mentioned earlier in the debate. Crime is rising, and with it the influence of the Mafia. A weak criminal justice system can barely cope, leading to long delays in the courts and overcrowding in the prisons. Those economic problems are adversely affecting neighbouring countries, notably Moldova, the Ukraine and the Caucasian republics. In addition, the harvest has been poor and serious food shortages are likely. There is a need to renegotiate substantial amounts of external debt. Meanwhile, the Russian armed forces are demoralised, perhaps understandably so, in the wake of failures in Afghanistan and Chechnya. It may well be that the conventional forces are weaker than they have been for a number of generations.
We are thus faced with a paradox: a weak state, yet one that is heavily armed with nuclear weapons; a country with a large space programme and some continuing development of advanced military equipment. Russia still has a seat in the United Nations Security Council and quite often sees itself as a world power. Yet on the very day that resolute and almost warlike words were used by Russia in relation to Serbia and Kosovo, she was applying to the European Union for food aid.
In these circumstances, I believe that the Western powers should adopt creative and imaginative policies towards Russia. Mutual arms reduction should be the objective, carried out in a balanced but not necessarily completely symmetrical way.
We should consider the cancellation of Russian external debt in exchange for verified destruction of nuclear arms and other weapons of mass destruction. That may perhaps bring some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. However, I would point out that such an approach is very much in line with ideas expressed from what is possibly the opposite end of the
200
political spectrum by Senator Lugar of the United States, who recently visited the Ukraine and Russia. If the size of Russian external debt, at some 160 billion dollars, is too small in exchange for nuclear weapons, then perhaps some extra cash payment could be made. All reductions in weapons of mass destruction should be matched by the Western powers in a balanced way. The risks of harm to the environment and possible misappropriation of existing weapons might thus be greatly reduced and a large measure of disarmament might be achieved.
Secondly, the question arises as to whether the European Union should provide food as a form of aid. Might it not be better to provide food now in return for long-term contracts for the supply of oil and gas from Russia. Such contracts might be at gently rising prices to encourage further exploration and new investment.
Finally, consideration should be given to reaching agreements limiting and controlling Russian arms exports to the rest of the world. Such exports can be very destabilising and thought may have to be given to how to convert and adapt existing arms factories within Russia. I hope that it will also be possible to include in future discussions the question of compulsory national service in Russia, so that we take into account the real needs of Russia and of the whole of the rest of the world. With goodwill on both sides, I hope it will be possible to work towards what might be called win/win outcomes which will benefit all the nations concerned.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Shaughnessy: My Lords, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was created by the Treaty of Washington, signed on 4th April 1949. Hence, next year will mark the 50th anniversary of its existence.
The alliance embodies the transatlantic partnership between the European members of NATO and the United States and Canada. The objectives of the partnership between Europe and North American members of the alliance are primarily political, underpinned by shared defence planning and military co-operation, and by co-operation and consultation in economic, scientific, environmental and other relevant fields.
Throughout the years of the Cold War, however, NATO focused above all on the development and maintenance of collective defence and on overcoming the fundamental political issues dividing Europe. Today its focus is on promoting stability throughout Europe, co-operation, and by developing the means of collective crisis management and peacekeeping.
It was encouraging to hear the reference to the close liaison with our American friends by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, when he opened the debate. I hope that his reference included Canada, a founding member of NATO and a participant in many of its peacekeeping operations. For example, between 1964 and 1988, 58 Canadian contingents served in the United Nations peacekeeping force in Cyprus. More recently, Canada has contributed peacekeeping contingents in central Africa, Bosnia and the Arabian Gulf. It also had a contingent in the Gulf War. Currently, the development

201
of the European Community commands a significant focus of British policy. Continued integration and development of the European enterprise will undoubtedly result in greater economic expansion and strategic stability for this country and world-wide.
However, I submit that our North Atlantic heritage will continue to remain the cornerstone of stability for the foreseeable future.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, in his acceptance of the nomination for President of the United States in 1936, said:
"This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny".
We in Britain, beyond doubt, have a similar rendezvous with the destiny of the unfolding development of the European enterprise. But I suggest that this goal will not be fulfilled without the preservation and extension of the enduring benefits, both economic and strategic, that derive from the North Atlantic connection.
7.42 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, it is a pleasure, as always, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shaughnessy, who dealt with NATO. The Minister, Lord Gilbert, informed us that there would be a debate on the Armed Forces and our role in NATO later. Therefore, I shall hold my fire on that subject for another day.
I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate on the humble Address and the gracious Speech, although it is late in the evening. Having listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, I feel no compunction on this occasion in drawing your Lordships' attention yet again to the Baltic region. We have heard of the direst problems of the Russian federation. I was in the Baltic states last weekend. My prognosis of the situation in the Russian federation is that it has collapsed. There is hunger and, although I do not relish it, I expect riots in the street this winter unless something happens. I expect the army to mutiny and civil war to break out shortly. I believe that the world is faced with the prospect of a collapsing Russia. I hope I am proved wrong.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, suggested buying up the nuclear arsenal. I advocated that eight years ago and so did others. It is a great pity that it was not done then because the money could have been put into capital investment to restructure Russian institutions. Others have advocated great food aid mountains going to Russia. Before that takes place, perhaps noble Lords and Ministers would bear this fact in mind: the collectivised farms collapsed, so did the privatised farms. The banks, controlled by robber barons, have foreclosed and bought up that food. Instead of selling it cheaply to the starving Russian people, they have exported it at higher prices across the borders into the Baltic states and elsewhere. They have seriously undermined the agricultural economies of those nations. So if we send food to Russia, I suspect it will be taken up by robber barons and sold outside the borders of Russia for profit.
202
I very much welcome the words in the Queen's Speech:
"My Government will play a leading role in preparing the European Union for the historic challenge of enlargement".
I listened with great care to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said that there was a touch of mockery in those words. I hope that is the case, because there are 100 million people still in eastern Europe, many of whom have not even started negotiating for entry into the European Union. Most of those governments—and I give the example of Estonia—are, first, trying to create stable, democratic and parliamentary governments in their nations. They find it difficult as some have not had a government and opposition like ours for 30, 40 or even 60 years.
Secondly, some of the nations such as Estonia and Latvia are trying to bring to fruition the long protracted and sometimes painful process of negotiating border treaties with a reluctant and broken down Russian federation. The signing of those agreements, which I think is imminent, will give great satisfaction to all. I hope that our Government will encourage both sides, Russia and the Baltic states, to sign the agreements. Estonia and Latvia need no encouragement. Thirdly, they need to pave the way for full accession to the European Union of the five plus one.
From these Benches, all seven speakers have consistently welcomed the Government's desire to play a leading role in preparing the European Union for the historic challenge of enlargement. But I suggest as a corollary that I wish to see the Government play a leading role in preparing those nation states who have sought accession to the European Union to help them with the historic challenge of enlargement.
The Government are a listening government. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is a listening department of state. I notice clearly the difference between the Foreign Office of 18 months ago and this one. I congratulate them. If they are prepared to listen, I believe that not only must they listen to us here, but their Ministers and top civil servants must, before Vienna in December or after Vienna in January, February or March, visit the capitals of central and eastern Europe. Sir John Kerr has already been to Tallinn. We welcome the appointment of the honourable lady in another place, the Minister for Europe, Miss Joyce Quin. I hope she will visit those nations as soon as her programme allows. I shall tell the Minister in this House why. They want to see her, they want to listen to her, question her and reassure her in person and not just the ambassadors out there, well served as we are by them. The nations want to tell her the problems so that when she meets her opposite numbers within the European Union she can explain that she knows the problems personally.
Perhaps I may offer a few points on the Vienna Summit. We wish to learn, this evening if possible, how the Government intend to act at the Vienna Summit. Will they give an assessment of how the negotiations, commenced on 24th March with what is known as the five plus one, are progressing? Will they give any clues as to when the nations not in the five plus one may be

203
allowed to start negotiations? Will they press for that at the Vienna Summit? Far too often I have heard complaints from all sides of the House that certain nations have not reached the required standards in respect of citizenship laws, the environment, banking and financial and market systems et cetera. While those are valid criticisms, having lived in those countries and visited again and again the nations in the central and northern parts of the continent I can assure your Lordships that amazing progress has been made. I suggest that the Government should offer encouragement rather than just a blanket condemnation of what has gone wrong. Let us look at the good side. Although there is a downside, we must encourage them.
We are told rightly that we are not one of the superpowers and cannot achieve anything. On what should we concentrate? I believe that we should concentrate on what we do best. First, we have that priceless asset, the British Council. Recently I have received two Written Answers from the Minister on the British Council. I was saddened that its director-general, who began with such promise, resigned after nine months. I welcome the fact that a new director-general of the British Council is to be appointed. I am not happy that the British Council receives only £133 million per year which represents 30 per cent. of its budget. It has been cut to the bone. Can the noble Baroness and her colleagues in another place think again about whether the council can be given more? In central and eastern Europe the British Council is the lifeblood of our work in explaining to those nations our culture, heritage and language that they want to follow.
In conclusion, I believe that only second in importance to the British Council is the work of our military training teams. As the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, is aware, the nations of central Europe regard our military training and advisory teams as second to none. We have had the Strategic Defence Review. Let us consider this important service to central Europe for four reasons. First, it is an obligation. They remember the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact which I suggest would not have come about unless the Munich agreement had taken place. Therefore, we owe them an obligation. Secondly, this is a way of influencing their development along democratic paths. Thirdly—note the order in which I put it—it is a way of enhancing their security. Fourthly, we should do it for our self-interest.
7.52 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I welcome the explicit reference in the gracious Speech to the Government's commitment to the effective promotion of human rights worldwide. In so doing I wish to focus upon two areas of concern which stem directly from my work with the organisation, Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW). I should therefore declare my interest in CSW and explain briefly that it is an inter-Church organisation that works for victims of repression regardless of creed. We never proselytise. We try especially to reach people who are cut off from other aid and advocacy organisations. Rather like the advertisement for a certain lager beer we try to reach the parts that others do not
204
reach. Therefore we work in places where repressive regimes victimise minorities within their own borders and deny access to major aid organisations such as those that operate under the auspices of the UN or the ICRC.
These victimised peoples are frequently the target of military offensives, are completely isolated and suffer acute deprivation. They tend to be the forgotten peoples. Indeed, they have been largely forgotten in the debate in your Lordships' House so far. Our experience of working in these areas makes us aware of many problems of both principle and practice.
I deal first with Sudan. I begin by congratulating the Government on their robust position in support of the cruise missile attack by the United States on the chemical factory in Khartoum. The Sudanese democratic opposition parties who comprised the democratically elected government before it was overthrown by the military coup of the National Islamic Front are deeply concerned that the NIF is working closely with Saddam Hussein to develop chemical and biological weapons in Sudan and also with the notorious terrorist bin Laden to instigate new terrorist attacks in other countries in the not too distant future. There is considerable credible evidence to suggest that these anxieties are well-founded and that the American response was entirely appropriate. I welcome and support the Government's endorsement of the actions taken by the United States.
However, there are other respects in which I should like Her Majesty's Government to be rather more robust. As I hope to have the opportunity soon to table a Question on Sudan in your Lordships' House, I shall not dwell on details today. However I should like to raise in this debate a point of principle which relates to other situations as well as Sudan. I refer to the challenge posed by repressive regimes who victimise minorities within their own borders and simultaneously prohibit major aid organisations from taking essential supplies to those whom they victimise.
In Sudan this strategy is adopted by the NIF regime with its policy of declaring many no-go areas for Operation Lifeline Sudan and other major aid organisations working under its umbrella. A similar situation pertains in Burma where the SPDC, which, like the NIF, is a brutal regime that seized power by military force, victimises within its own borders ethnic minorities such as the Karen and Karenni peoples. The civilian minorities suffer military offensives, forced labour, use as human minesweepers, torture, murder or (for the Karenni) relocation in what are little better than death camps. Both the NIF and SPDC regimes refuse access by aid organisations to vast areas within their own countries and leave the victims of their military offensives and violations of human rights entirely bereft of aid and advocacy. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians suffer and die. They are cut off from any assistance that can alleviate suffering or save lives.
Will the Government pursue more robustly policies designed to require these regimes, and those in other countries with similar track records, to open up all of their territory to aid organisations? Additionally, or alternatively, will the Government adopt more vigorous

205
policies to support organisations that are prepared to go into these no-go areas to take essential supplies and save the lives of innocent civilians who are now dying from lack of food and medical supplies? Clearly, here I must declare an interest in my work with CSW which is one of these organisations. But as a point of principle I find it disturbing that the Government appear to defer to these regimes by accepting their dictates and/or defer to organisations such as the United Nations Operation Lifeline Sudan who work in conjunction with those regimes and accept the policy of no-go areas, thereby indirectly condoning those regimes' use of the politics of hunger.
I turn briefly to another area of continuing concern: the Transcaucasus. I refer in particular to Azerbaijan, Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. The ceasefire that has held since 1994 is warmly welcomed. There are many positive developments that give cause for optimism. However, the situation is still precarious and a number of unresolved issues cause suffering both to Azeris and Armenians. The occupation by Armenian-Karabakh forces of the buffer zone around Nagorno-Karabakh was necessitated by Azerbaijan's continuing violations of previous ceasefires, with renewed bombardment of towns and villages within Karabakh. I was present on one such occasion when Azerbaijan suddenly renewed bombardment of the Karabakh capital, Stepanakert, within days of signing a ceasefire agreement. Azerbaijan denied the bombardment; but I can testify to the reality. I was there and brought back fresh shrapnel to prove it.
While it is important to look ahead positively and not to re-open old wounds, I mention that incident to highlight the reason why it was necessary for the Armenians of Karabakh to occupy that buffer zone, and to emphasise that they did not wish to extend the war outside their own territory. Therefore they do not deserve to be condemned as aggressors, as they have been, for their occupation of those areas of Azerbaijan. It was a matter of survival for the Armenians of Karabakh.
It is of course a cause of great concern and regret that many Azeri civilians have been displaced from those areas and now live in very poor conditions in camps in Azerbaijan. But the Government of Azerbaijan are using their discomfort as political propaganda. It seems strange that Armenia, with an equal number of its own people displaced from Azerbaijan by pogroms and massacres in Baku and Sumgait, and by the war, can find accommodation for their own displaced Armenians, despite problems caused by the appalling earthquake in 1988 and the blockade still being imposed by Turkey and Azerbaijan.
By contrast, the Azeris, without earthquake or blockade, and with massive help from oil investing countries, are still keeping displaced people in tents. A pertinent question might be to ask what the Azeris have done with UNHCR money and other massive resources available to them from oil investing countries.
I ask the Minister three related questions. First, will the Government endeavour to prevail upon Turkey and Azerbaijan to lift the blockade of Armenia which they are maintaining despite the ceasefire? It is a serious
206
violation of the rights of Armenia and totally unjustifiable, especially as Turkey was never officially a party to the conflict between Azerbaijan and the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh. Secondly, will Her Majesty's Government use their influence to encourage United Nations organisations such as UNHCR to provide assistance to the Armenians of Karabakh? Karabakh was devastated in that war. I used to count 400 grad missiles every day pounding in on the capital city of Stepanakert. Other towns and villages were similarly pulverised by missiles and aerial bombardment. The infrastructure of Karabakh was destroyed. The Armenians there are trying to rebuild their land and their lives. But United Nations organisations are still not doing anything to help them, despite the fact that the UN works in other disputed territories. That discrimination in deference to Azerbaijan is unjust and unjustifiable. I hope that the Government will endeavour to correct this asymmetry of principle and practice.
Thirdly, can the Minister say whether there is any truth in the reports that the next OSCE summit meeting may be held in Turkey? If that is the case, will the Government vigorously oppose the suggestion? Turkey's role in the conflict between Azerbaijan and the Armenians of Karabakh, and its continuing blockade of Armenia, a fellow OSCE nation state, make Turkey an entirely inappropriate location. Also, Turkey's continuing record of gross violations of human rights of its own people who oppose it politically, and of groups within its borders such as the Kurds and the Assyrian Christians, should rule Turkey out of court as a host to the OSCE summit at which a security model for Europe is to be discussed. Therefore, can the Minister either reassure your Lordships' House that there is no substance in the concern that Turkey may be hosting a future meeting of the OSCE; or, if it is true that Turkey is being considered as a host, will the Government give an assurance that the United Kingdom will strongly oppose the proposal?
I hope that the issues I have raised which have direct implications for the relationship between foreign policies and human rights will elicit positive responses from the Government. Such responses would demonstrate the Government's seriousness of intent in promoting human rights worldwide and would simultaneously save the lives of countless people in Sudan, Burma, Karabakh and many other countries where repressive regimes are getting away with murder behind closed borders with impunity.
Therefore I hope that the Minister will be able to give those principled assurances for the credit of her own Government and for the comfort of many of the most deprived and acutely suffering people throughout the world.
8.4 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, as a new Member of the House, perhaps I may say what a privilege it is to take part in such a varied and reflective debate, packed as the House is with experts in the international

207
modalities. I shall limit my remarks to two aspects of the European references in the Queen's Speech: enlargement and the introduction of the euro.
In Her Majesty's most gracious Speech, our new constructive leadership role in Europe was reaffirmed. In saying "leadership", I look toward the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, whom I remember as an excellent commissioner in the European Commission. He made slightly heavy weather of the word "leadership" in Her Majesty's Speech. I remember distinctly that the noble Lord played a leadership role in introducing the European single market, for which we are grateful. Therefore, I am glad and proud that my Government have talked about a new constructive leading role in the European Union.
Since coming to power 18 months ago, and more recently since the successful completion of the British presidency, the Government have been determined to be a full player in the new Europe of the 21st century. Not any more the rehashed, reheated point scoring of the 1970s referendum platforms, or the massive attack of xenophobia that strained to breaking point our European Union relations in the 1980s. Nor any more the political impotency of the 1990s, of being afraid of our own European shadow while the rest of the world wanted us to be a force to be reckoned with in Europe.
This Government are fully aware of their responsibilities in mapping out the new European agenda which will encompass up to 27 countries—not that far into the next century—declaring central and eastern Europe open for business, open to democracy. Only 10 years ago the prospect of the countries of central and eastern Europe being in a position to prepare for accession to the European Union would have been pure fantasy politics.
Successful enlargement of the European Union will stimulate economic growth and competition by boosting the single market through the addition of 100 million consumers. European Union enlargement has been seen as a great opportunity for British businesses because it offers the tantalising prospect of truly continental economies of scale, enhanced by technological transfer and improvements in the organisational skills of British businesses. Those are all derived from the creative pressures of expanding markets.
The more sobering financial consequences of enlargement—they were referred to by my noble friend Lord Tomlinson and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas—exist and have to be met full square. They relate to how the structural funds, in particular the CAP, are reformed and how those structural funds are spent within a tight budgetary framework. And while many regions of Britain have benefited enormously from those European structural funds, including my own region in the West Midlands, we have now to plan for a new Europe with reordered priorities while continuing to lobby for the best deal we can achieve for those in greatest need.
In Her Majesty's most gracious Speech, reference was also made to the Government's determination to encourage preparations in the United Kingdom for the introduction of the euro in other member states. As
208
noble Lords will know, there are barely 25 shopping days to the introduction of the euro. Eleven of the 15 countries of the European Union will soon be locked in common cause and common currency. A whole new euro zone will be created. Even though Britain, along with Portugal, Denmark and Sweden, will not join the euro, British businesses will find seriously irresistible the force of what has become known as "euro creep".
Very soon, within many of our most important business sectors, firms will begin to issue invoices and make payments in euros. Whether as a business person you own a small company with one or two continental customers or a large multi-national with subsidiaries across the whole of Europe, the euro is definitely coming to a bank near our British businesses.
I have never hidden my view that the euro can potentially bring great benefits to British business and jobs but it will represent a test of our willingness to adjust and to exploit new opportunities. The euro will inevitably make the whole European market-place more transparent and more competitive. That will be good news for British consumers as more downward pressure is put on price. It will be good news too for those businesses which invest wisely, train consistently, prepare diligently and innovate constantly.
Many of us will rightly argue that the macro-economic benefits of the euro are clear enough: ending exchange rate risks and costs; strengthening the single market; driving down inflationary pressures; encouraging investment and growth. But we must adjust to the new commercial climate and culture which will define our presence in Europe over the decade to come.
The European references in Her Majesty's gracious Speech make possible a further progressive stage in our new constructive relationship with all our European partners. I am sure that that will be welcomed by all far-sighted noble Lords.
8.11 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I shall start with Africa and two conflicts there and some of the reaons that I believe are the causes of those conflicts. I shall then go on to my hopes for a way forward in relations between the government of the Sudan and Her Majesty's Government. Finally, I shall look at progress with some of the intentions which the Government made explicit in the White Paper on international development.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby both made reference to the conflict in the Congo. It is necessary in studying the origin of the conflict to look at the recent history of the region. After the chaos of the post-Amin and post-Obote period the world breathed a sigh of relief when President Museveni came to power, anticipating a period of stability.
But stability is what we have not had. President Museveni has actively played a conspicuous role in destablising both the Horn of Africa and the Great Lakes region. In fact the only country where, as I understand it, he has not done so is Tanzania. He overthrew the government in Rwanda and was implicated in putting a leader of his choice in Burundi. He has also been

209
implicated in border incursions against Kenya and I have been told, fairly reliably, that lieutenant-colonels from the Ugandan army have been killed on Kenyan soil.
It was against this background and despite that record, or perhaps because of it, that in 1996 the American Government publicly announced that they were giving 20 million dollars of military aid to President Museveni with encouragement to continue destablising the biggest country in Africa; namely, Sudan. How much covert assistance accompanied this public display of generosity it is impossible to gauge. I do of course accept that mutual destabilisation is an age-old tactic of unfriendly neighbouring states but it is irresponsible of a powerful country to meddle in the politics of an already unstable part of the world.
It is true, however, that the present conflict in the Congo follows on from the situation I have just outlined. President Kabila came to power with the help of President Museveni. Once in power, President Kabila made it clear that he would not do the bidding of his sponsor. The resulting conflict has involved the forces of President Musevini and Rwanda, on the one hand, trying to unseat President Kabila and on the other, in support of President Kabila, the forces of Zimbabwe, Namibia, Angola and, I believe, Botswana. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell the House how far she agrees with this analysis of the origins of the conflict in the Congo.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, suggested we try to help the Americans out of the morass into which their voracious sense of mission leads them. I wholeheartedly support that sentiment and my comments about American foreign policy are made in sadness rather than in anger but this is not the only time that the world has reaped the harvest of the dragon's teeth sown by our powerful ally. The United States used Osama bin Laden as their conduit for funds to the mujehadeen fighting to remove the Russian-backed regime in Afghanistan and have presumably come to regret their choice of partner in that endeavour.
I do not need to rehearse the events of Friday, 20th August, but the effects of the American attack with cruise missiles are not only felt in the unfortunate but predictable interruption to British-Sudanese relations. The Al Shifa plant was, at the time of the attack, supplying, I believe, a large proportion of the human and veterinary medicines consumed in the Sudan. The attack was thus an act of unbelievable, and cynical, cruelty against a country struggling to achieve development for its people, a country struggling, with valuable assistance from the people and Government of this country, to cope with famine superimposed upon and made worse by the effects of civil war.
Nobody seriously believes, now, that the Al Shifa factory was producing chemical weapons. The Prime Minister's reaction to support President Clinton was unwise, as I am sure he was informed in communications from the FCO to the Prime Minister's Office. A friend in need is a friend indeed as the saying goes but if, to alter the wording slightly, the deed is insupportable and designed merely to divert attention
210
from—shall we say?—more domestic concerns, then such expressions of friendship should be tempered by a greater awareness of the broad sweep of policy issues for which the Prime Minister is ultimately responsible.
I have, since my first visit to Sudan in September 1994, hoped for the peace and development that are a precondition for good human rights practice for that country and also to help achieve improved understanding between our two countries. I was therefore saddened by the reaction of the Sudanese Government to the Prime Minister's statement and I am ready to help in whatever way I can to re-establish full diplomatic relations and to continue the improvement that was already occurring in our relations with that country before 20th August of this year.
The United States still condemns the present government of the Sudan as one who supports international terrorism. My Lords, this policy position should be studied in the context of the report in an American publication that the State Department has withdrawn a hundred reports that support this contention. Ex-President Jimmy Carter asked the State Department in 1993 or 1994 to show him the evidence. He had the necessary security clearance and was able to discuss the situation in detail with officials. Afterwards, he said that he had seen no evidence. The State Department had no evidence, only "strong allegations".
In concluding my remarks about the Sudan I turn to the Department of International Development and, like my noble friend Lady Williams, I welcome the inclusion of international development in the title of today's debate. The Minister for International Development has started well. She has shown compassion and concern for the people of Sudan. Food aid is reaching Bahr al Gazal by a number of routes, according to the answer to my recent Written Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Amos.
In the development White Paper the Government state that they,
"will seek to build on the skills and talents of migrants and other members of ethnic minorities within the UK to promote the development of their countries of origin".
I believe that there are about 300,000 African professionals of all disciplines and about half of those are in Africa. The other half live in other countries and many would like nothing better than to be involved in the development of their countries of origin.
I have to declare an interest here as a patron of the Black International Construction Organisation. BICO, in its acronymic form, is a non-profit organisation dedicated to exactly the aim I have quoted from page 68 of the White Paper. I am concerned to see that intention come to fruition. BICO consists mainly of African professionals in the construction industry—architects, surveyors, quantity surveyors, civil engineers and so on—all extremely keen to play a part in developing the developing countries in Africa. Its members are planning a conference on Good Governance in the Construction Industry in Ghana for February of next year and hope to encourage British civil engineering companies to participate in the conference.

211
I should like the Minister to tell me what progress has been made in giving effect to the undertaking in the White Paper and what more the department feels it could do to strengthen the involvement of migrants and ethnic minorities in the development process.
Finally, after previous personal remarks I should like to say how pleased we are on these Benches at the Government's initiative to end racial discrimination in the Armed Forces, particularly the Army. My noble friend Lady Williams told me that she was present at a seminar addressed in forthright manner by Colin Powell, the American General (perhaps he has now retired; I am not sure). I understand that General Guthrie responded in equally forthright terms that from 0800 hours the following day there would be no more discrimination in the British Army! That is excellent news and I hope it means that the mind of the MoD is now even more focused on this matter than it was already.
8.21 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, my brief remarks should not be interpreted as trespassing on yesterday's Law Lords' decision. Indeed, I sought sound advice this afternoon and will keep within approved parameters.
That said, almost every point made will have major consequences; not only the relationship between United Kingdom and international law, but matters in relation to the international criminal court and beyond to the immediate conduct of relations on a global scale. It will now be essential to distinguish carefully between crimes committed against humanity, sanctioned at the highest level of the state, and those crimes which might be of a similar scale committed within a state but without sanction from its head.
Britain has recognised principles of immunity and in so doing addresses international human rights—
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I feel that at this point I must remind your Lordships of the statement made at the beginning of the debate today by my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn when he clarified to the House the fact that the matter of the requested extradition of Senator Pinochet continues to be sub judice and, under the rules of the House, no reference should be made to the case in the debate. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, has not in fact mentioned the case; but he will admit that he is sailing in waters dangerously close to it. I know that he will bear in mind carefully the sensitivity of the whole area in which he is speaking.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I concur with the noble Baroness.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. I realise that I am touching on delicate ground and because of that I took the opportunity of the advice of the Chief Clerk today and am keeping well within the parameters of an already approved text. I am delighted to go no further if that is the will of the Chamber or to halt at any time if any
212
noble Lord in the Chamber so wishes, if that is acceptable to the noble Baroness. I take the point and I realise the sensitivity of this matter, but I wish to address it in a responsible and sensitive fashion.
If I might continue, Britain has reconsidered principles of immunity and in so doing addresses international human rights, crimes against humanity and torture commitments. While this area of the law is embryonic and the principle of international prosecution exists, the machinery to provide international jurisdiction at present does not. I trust that we can now hasten the establishment of the international criminal court and that the United States will come alongside as a team player and stop looking for iron-clad guarantees for US soldiers and policy makers.
The ruling might have an effect on General Banzer of Bolivia and possibly Alberto Fujimori who visited the UK this week.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, the noble Viscount has referred to rulings in the case he is not supposed to mention. Can he not observe the position outlined several times today by those in charge of the House?
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I take the point and shall continue no further. I have been trying to keep within the parameters in the best spirit, but with the greatest pleasure I will go no further.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, the noble Viscount has caught me quite unawares. I begin this debate by echoing a sentiment expressed by my noble friend Lady Williams and by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, in saying that it is superb that international development has been added to the title of this debate. However, it must be pointed out to the noble Earl that alphabetical considerations rather than the importance of international development as opposed to foreign affairs might have influenced the matter, though many of us in this place rather feel that international development should come first.
I am particularly pleased to speak in this debate because the gracious Speech introduced the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill. That is a remarkable step forward, as the CDC has done a great deal to increase investment in developing countries, especially in countries which rarely received investment from private sources, particularly in Africa. It was believed that it was going to be a privatisation measure. I take the point that the Government put forward that it is not a privatisation; it is a public-private finance initiative with private investors. I admit that the last government caused some surprise when they privatised the Crown Agents rather than taking the course that this Government have taken; that is, to move the Commonwealth Development Corporation more into the private sector.
The Commonwealth Development Corporation is the jewel in the attic. I understand that there was some difficulty in valuing the assets of the CDC but I was interested to see in the Bill the figure of £1.5 billion

213
given as the investment portfolio. One of the interesting factors about the Bill is that there is no indication that the name "CDC" is to be changed. That is extremely valuable because it has been in existence since 1948 and is a well-known commodity. It also shows the worth of the word "Commonwealth" and the value that that institution, especially over the past few years, has been gaining.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, mentioned that the Irish Prime Minister is considering whether or not Ireland should join the Commonwealth. That is a generous gesture to the Unionists. It also shows that Ireland sees the Commonwealth not as a British institution but as an institution that encompasses many countries that span the world.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, in the interests of accuracy, it certainly was not I who raised the issue of the Irish joining the Commonwealth.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I believe it was me.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I offer apologies to the noble Lord.
The content of the Bill is also well received. In the provisions, one of the great worries of any privatisation of the Commonwealth Development Corporation is that it would be at risk from changes in the situation in the emerging markets. I particularly welcome the provision which states that the best and most profitable time for this move to take place will be judged and that no action will be taken until that time.
The CDC Bill is one that is uncontroversial. Indeed, it was so uncontroversial that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, failed to mention it in his speech. In the interests of this measure, I hope that the Government will agree that it would benefit from the Grand Committee procedure—that is, that its proceedings can be conducted in the Moses Room. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, would agree that this is the perfect Bill for such a procedure—
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I would just point out to the House that this was a Conservative measure.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I had not heard that. I am grateful to the Conservative Party for their action. I am obviously far behind the times as regards this measure and I will say no more about it, having been completely caught off guard there.
This second day of debate on the gracious Speech gives the opportunity for those of us who are particularly interested in international development to look at the position of the former ODA—now the DfID, following the promises made in the White Paper. I hope the Government will accept the praise that we on these Benches give them on converting the ODA into a department and on reversing the cuts that had been made
214
to its budget. I believe I am right in saying that DfID was given in the last Budget a proportionately higher percentage than any other department.
This has been an interesting debate, which has spanned many countries around the globe, including Iraq—I will come back to that country later—Nicaragua, Honduras, Japan, the Middle East, Russia, Kosovo, Cuba and even the Caribbean. I hope the House will forgive me if I do not touch on all those areas. However, one aspect was particularly interesting. It is gratifying to these Benches, where we are all confirmed and committed Europhiles, to hear that hardly any of the speeches—very, very few indeed—were actually Eurosceptic in nature.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I wonder if I may point out to the noble Lord that the best wine does not always go into the biggest bottles.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, rather than following the drinking analogy, I would say that I believe it to be a positive step that for once a Europhile voice could be heard far more loudly than the far more vociferous minority view which is often expressed in this House.
I did say I would return to Iraq and I would wish to congratulate the Government on their handling of the situation. In a Statement which was given to the House recently but before the events of the last few days, the Government took a particularly hard line and I believe that we on these Benches were seriously concerned about the aftermath of the actions. However, the Government have been proved to be successful and I am particularly pleased that the success was achieved without actual bombing. The success of the policy can be judged by the fact that the monitors are back in Iraq. Indeed, I should like to pay tribute to the courage of those monitors, who found themselves in a particularly difficult position.
One of the aspects of the situation in Iraq which particularly concerned us was the "morning-after syndrome". I believe that, by taking the hard stance that they have, the Government have achieved the compliance of Saddam Hussein. Although he is obviously still causing difficulties, he has actually backed down from his previous position. However, I want to go on to say that the position taken by Britain and the United States in moving to implement measures to remove Saddam Hussein caused some concern on these Benches. It is not that we do not believe that he is probably one of the most dangerous individuals in the world—a threat to his own people and to all his neighbours—but that the precedent set by such actions by the West might be misinterpreted by other countries who do not share our political stance.
Many other issues have been mentioned, including natural disasters. I know that Nicaragua and Honduras were brought up in the context of aid. In a Statement made recently, the Minister pointed out that moneys were to be made available through the NGOs and through the EUAs. I would ask the Minister to say whether this money has been spent, because there is some talk about moneys that were desperately needed

215
being impeded by bureaucratic delays. I hope that the Minister can give us some assurances that the money will reach those countries as soon as possible.
I would also say that, as the Government were very forthright about debt payment relief in respect of those countries which have been hit so badly, I wonder whether they have any comment to make on France's call to suspend debt repayment.
Many noble Lords mentioned Africa and the noble Lord, Lord Gillmore, mentioned Angola in particular. However, the Congo is one area which has been—
Lord Gillmore of Thamesfield: My Lords, I did not actually mention Angola.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I will rewrite my notes immediately! I was about to say that the situation in the Congo, and, in particular the presence of the Zimbabwean troops, is one that I believe should cause us a great deal of concern. I spent some time in Zimbabwe and I do not believe that the troops are there for any other reason than because of the political turmoil that President Mugabe is facing at home. When we discussed the issue of the Great Lakes two years ago, the dangers that could be associated with the former country of Zaïre were mentioned. I wonder if the Government will feel able to back any call by the South Africans for peace talks. I hope they will give that project all the support that they can.
Before leaving the issue of the DflD, I should like to mention the British Council. Good government programmes are one optimistic area of conflict prevention that are being funded by DflD through the British Council. In this respect, I mention particularly such programmes as the Palestinian Legislative Council. It is quite clear that funding such projects, however expensive they may be in the short term, may prevent major difficulties and destabilisation from arising in the future.
My noble friend Lord Carlisle—I believe I have got his name right—mentioned that the British Council is facing restricted funds. However, I recently visited the British Council and for the first time in a number of years its outlook seemed far more optimistic because there had been quite an increase in its budget. I believe that for the first time there was optimistic talk about the future rather than the possibility of shedding posts.
One issue that was left out of the gracious Speech was the mention of legislation to ratify the statute of the international criminal court. I wonder if the Minister can give any indication as to whether that legislation will be brought forward. I am not sure whether it can be brought forward if it has not been mentioned in the gracious Speech. In view of recent events, I very much hope that that can be brought forward.
I should very briefly like to mention the area of defence. I know that the subject has been mentioned in many speeches. I should like to focus briefly on the Territorial Army. The SDR has gone through and I believe that that has been quite a successful move. The TA has survived in a better format than might have been
216
the case. However, I should like to raise one issue which is the cause of much concern. I have been a serving officer in the TA for the past seven years and have served overall for 10 years. I am on the point of resigning my commission. The reason for my resignation is due to nothing other than that actually arriving at the TA centres entails so much travelling that it is becoming almost impractical.
That is one of the big problems which arises with the closure of many TA bases. I know that the changes have gone through, but I have the following plea to make. As someone who has actually had to prepare his unit for the closure of a base which did not ultimately take place, I very much hope that the Minister can give us some assurance for the future that the need for a period of rest and consolidation will be taken into consideration. Having been in a position of actually telling people that they have to move out of their TA centre, I know that there is nothing more damaging to morale. Now that the cuts have taken place, I hope not only that the units will feel more secure but also that they will be able to undertake proper training.
8.41 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, after Prayers this afternoon, which seems about a week and a half ago, I entered the Chamber side by side with the Minister. He said that he would not pay much emphasis in his speech to the Strategic Defence Review due to the fact that we will be having a debate on the subject in 10 days' time. I totally accept what he said. However, I have to say that it has led to a good deal of wasted paper as regards some parts of my speech which I wrote over 24 hours ago and long before I knew that we were likely to have the debate next week. Nevertheless, I think that I may have occasion to touch upon the subject.
Although we have heard a great many speeches today on foreign affairs, a number of speeches on international development, and a few on defence, we have, to my very considerable surprise, had hardly any on the inter-relationship of foreign affairs and defence, subjects which seem to me inextricably linked. Defence policy must be based on an appreciation of foreign policy requirements. While it is true that internal security and Northern Ireland, where it cannot be taken for granted that the need for a substantial defence commitment has yet been totally eliminated, are purely domestic matters, the need is for defence policy to be based on what is happening or what is likely to happen abroad. It is therefore very good news that we will get the opportunity to discuss the SDR on 8th December. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, that this is not the appropriate time to talk about the SDR in any detail.
The noble Lord pointed out that there was nothing in the gracious Speech on nuclear policy. But in response to what he had already been told, and because he knew that there would be a further reaction from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, he commented upon it. The noble Lord complained about the fact that there was nothing about the elimination of nuclear weapons and said that it was in the Labour Party manifesto. I should not have thought that such a distinguished, senior and

217
experienced Member of your Lordships' House as the noble Lord would have expected anything that was in the Labour Party manifesto to be stuck to so closely.
On defence matters, the gracious Speech merely says:
"My Government will ensure strong arrangements for defence based on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation".
It is very necessary to take a careful look at the role of the United Kingdom within NATO. Undoubtedly and properly Britain has stood behind the United States, but it should not do so too automatically. This is an alliance of allies and not of clients of the United States. President Clinton has shown that he wishes to move the body bag shifting out of America's hands and concentrate on the use of long-range missiles so that the risk of causing death to American citizens can be as nearly as possible eliminated.
This country and the rest of Europe must be prepared to play their part but they should not play more than their part. In order to play its part the United Kingdom must be in a state of constant readiness. The Treasury, among others—although chiefly the Treasury—must understand that we no longer have any time for planning when a problem is upon us. We must be ready at all times. By being ready at all times we will avoid the danger of crisis fatigue. There remains a faint memory of the infamous 10-year rule of the 1920s and 1930s, but with the immensely increased sophistication of weapons, the danger is, or can be, immediate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, underlined the evils of Saddam Hussein and his reign, and was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and others. However, with the true instincts of a converted Tory on to the Liberal Benches, the noble Baroness was prepared to underline evil without knowing what to do about it. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I am much obliged. I should be fascinated to hear the perfect solution from the noble Lord to the problems that Saddam Hussein's threats pose to the outside world, as well the cruelty to his own people, given the fact that it was a Conservative government who, without telling the House of Commons, lifted the guidelines on selling weapons to Saddam Hussein in the late 1980s. That was a shocking thing to do. I do not believe that the noble Lord has a leg to stand on in that respect.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I have two. However, I must confess that I do not know the answer. As regards Iraq, I would be grateful if the Minister in her summing up could clarify what appears to be a contradiction in government policy. Ten days ago she told the House:
"I ask your Lordships to believe me when I say that [overthrowing Saddam Hussein] is not our objective"—
I emphasise that—
"I am not suggesting for a moment that tears would he shed if he were toppled from power, but it is a question of whom the Iraqis want to be their leader … I stress to your Lordships that ultimately the leadership of Iraq is a matter for the Iraqis themselves".—[Official Report. 16/11/98; col. 1029.]
218
However, on the very same day the Prime Minister told another place:
"Of course we want to see the Iraqi people governed by a regime other than that of Saddam Hussein. We are looking with the Americans at ways in which we can bolster the opposition and improve the possibility of removing Saddam Hussein altogether.— [Official Report, Commons, 16/11/98; col. 611.]
I share entirely the sentiments that President Clinton has expressed on that point. When she comes to reply, I ask the noble Baroness, who has much to respond to, to tell us which of those inconsistent statements best reflects government policy.
It is not only what happens in Iraq. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, touched on a vital point when she referred to the desperate economic situation in Russia. The Cold War is over, but, as other speakers have said, the situation in Russia today may lead to a desperate political reaction. Indeed, a civil war was mentioned at one point and reference was also made to some form of aggression. The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, sees "no threat". No, not now, but will there be in a year, two, or three, years' time when the situation in Russia is even more desperate than it is now? The political situation seems to carry very much the same metaphor as the share index. Over the past three to four months it has been roaring up and down, but no one today can be happy at where it stands, whether it is up or down.
All this underlines the case for a defence budget higher than may seem to be immediately necessary. The long-term nature of our defence commitments and planning is shown by the delivery date of the two new aircraft carriers, given as the year 2012 or possibly 2022, depending on whether one has looked at the advertisement asking for tenders for the refit of the existing carriers. But in a much shorter time than 2012, all three services must have the equipment to carry out operations on more than one front at a time. None of this comes cheap, but it is not acceptable to cut corners based on the argument that the money will be better spent in other ways. The long-term future of this country lies in its ability to defend itself at all times from any conceivable danger.
In a few days we shall have the opportunity of discussing defence policy. I was heartened by the categorical assurance given to me in the summer by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, that the two aircraft carriers would be built. The summer was a long time ago. We have heard many, admittedly totally unofficial, suggestions that so categorical a statement cannot be justified. I appreciate that noble Lords on the Government Front Bench answer for the whole Government. It is possibly a little unfair of me to expect an answer on that point from the noble Baroness, but no doubt in due course, and certainly in the debate on the Strategic Defence Review, I shall be grateful for an answer.
By and large in the Strategic Defence Review, the Navy has suffered less severely than the Army, but it has suffered and it has been harsh. It is being asked to do more with less, which is bound to have an effect on morale, recruitment and retention. It is rather worrying

219
that in the past two years 12,000 men and women have left the Navy out of a total strength of 44,000 and only 8,500 have joined.
There is another question to which we shall be looking for an answer. It is the curious matter of HMS "Spartan", whose refit is due to cost £200 million. One must bear in mind that the savings from the Territorial Army are £70 million. HMS "Spartan" will cost £200 million with, at most, four years extra service. I am sure that that has nothing to do with the fact that she is to be refitted at Rosyth, which is Gordon Brown country and where many of the workers are his constituents.
On the assumption that the Navy will get the aircraft carriers, what is it going to put on them? It seems it is not likely to be the Eurofighter because the degree of change to the design, particularly the main frame, would make it a difficult and costly exercise. The noble Baroness courteously gave me a full reply in a letter, assuring me that the fire power currently able to be exercised in Iraq is the same as it has been in the past. It is undoubtedly different. It is more fire power from fewer aircraft. One of the problems we shall have to face is that with fewer units of whatever it may be, if one of them is out of action for any reason, it is then much more difficult to make it good from reserves or anything else that one has. More than that, there will be the problem of transport aircraft where we are largely dependent on the United States. Going back to my statement that we should not be too much in the hands of the United States, to rely on that country too heavily for procurement is to play into its hands if at any time Her Majesty's Government disagreed with American policy.
To many the cuts which we are seeing, particularly in the Territorial Army, seem shortsighted. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, to repeat in the debate on the Strategic Defence Review his reasons for leaving the Territorial Army. I am sure that it is true and sad that the cuts in the number of TA centres will have the most serious effect on the efficiency of that service. But that again will be a matter for the debate. Many of the cuts seem shortsighted, if not blinkered, even if they may be logical in the light of immediate needs. Each year 1,000 recruits from the TA join the Regular Army and 3,000 come from the cadet forces. These are significant figures, but more important is the ability of the TA to constitute a reserve for the Regular Army in time of trouble.
My noble friend Lord Cope has pointed out that he does not believe that the Territorial Army will be very efficient around Bristol with half the battery in Bristol, half in Croydon and the headquarters in Luton. The noble Lord, Lord Owen, made a remarkable speech in which his great expertise on Yugoslavia showed itself to very good effect. He pointed out the dangers that we have there. I am sorry that he is not here and that he had to go to a Thanksgiving dinner. I went to one last night. I have to tell your Lordships that I would rather listen to 30 speeches in your Lordships' House than eat pumpkin pie.
220
Kosovo, Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and other matters, are very serious problems for defence. At the moment there is not an immediate danger, but it is short-term. We may have an explosion at any moment. The Treasury must be made to understand that we are no longer faced with the possibility of a neat little war—or is it a neat big war?—with a convenient and conventional declaration of war. There will be no warning time in which to build up our strength. It would be disastrous to fail to recognise that despite the end of the Cold War we are still in a state of continual conflict, the intensity of which may increase or diminish at any time. Ministers have been constantly reminded of that by their military advisers with emphasis on the fact that inadequate investment in preparation, including war maintenance reserves, will result in the response, when it comes, being belated and therefore much more expensive. False economies are the icons of the Treasury mind. It lives in a blinkered world of its own. The school report on the Defence Ministers at this end of term will include the phrase, "Tries hard". They will have the full support of the Opposition in insisting on preparedness and in trying even harder.
When we come to discuss the Strategic Defence Review, noble Lords will insist on a reasoned exposition of foreign policy in the modern world. It will be necessary to set out more decisively and precisely the input which the United Kingdom is to make to the efficient working of international organisations. NATO and the United Nations in particular. It is necessarily expensive, but the long-term benefits will justify money and effort spent now. We believe that we are ready for one crisis, but it is quite possible that we shall have two or three at a time. For that we are not ready. This country is not yet in a position where it can put its head in the sand and let the storm rage about its other end. I look forward to comment and reassurance on these points from the noble Baroness.
9 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, it is a privilege for me to close this foreign affairs, defence and development debate on the gracious Speech. It is also a very great pleasure. I am very grateful to noble Lords for the valuable contributions that they have made on very many different subjects. This has been a very rich and a very wide-ranging debate. I will try to respond to the questions which noble Lords have posed during the debate. Where I am unable to do so, I assure the House that my noble friend Lord Gilbert or I will write to the noble Lords concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, has, of course, been taking a note of the very many points raised on defence issues—particularly those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, and others—and I know that he will make a point of trying to answer those in the debate which will be forthcoming in your Lordships' House.
Since taking office, this Government have been determined that the people of the United Kingdom should share in the benefits of a soundly based foreign policy, in increased security and prosperity, and in

221
respect of issues of mutual concern throughout the globe—our environment, the fight against crime and the promotion of fundamental humanitarian principles and rights, including democracy and the rule of law. The Government have delivered and are delivering on these areas which were set out in the FCO mission statement.
On security issues, we were among the first to sign and ratify the Ottawa Convention banning landmines. We succeeded in securing a new EU code of conduct on arms sales which sets high common standards governing the export of conventional arms. Perhaps I can remind my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney that the United Kingdom and France were the first nuclear weapons states to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I assure my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, that the Government do not depart from our election manifesto promises on nuclear disarmament. We believe that these initiatives have helped to lay the foundations for a more secure Europe in a more peaceful world.
On the question of nuclear disarmament, we have made clear on many occasions our commitment to the goal of total global elimination of nuclear weapons. When we are satisfied with verified progress towards that goal, we will ensure that British nuclear weapons are included in multilateral negotiations. We look for further bilateral United States and Russian reductions through the START process. We would welcome Russian ratification on START II and we hope to see progress towards reducing the thousands of Russian shorter-range weapons.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne, raised the question of arms export controls. I should point out to the noble Baroness that Her Majesty's Government have an excellent track record in this area. New arms export licensing criteria were announced in July 1997 and they represent a clear strengthening of previous criteria by specifying that a licence will be refused if the proposed export might be used for internal repression or international aggression. I hope that the noble Baroness will not forget that point when she raises the very important issues that she raised during the course of her contribution.
We have also banned the export of certain types of equipment, such as electric shock batons, where there was widespread evidence that such equipment had been misused for torture, and the export of anti-personnel landmines and their component parts.
When we took office, we committed ourselves to enhance Britain's prosperity. We have put this commitment into practice with our economic reforms and policies at home. We have also pursued prosperity through our diplomatic missions abroad, with over one third of our front-line diplomatic effort now devoted to trade and investment.
As many of your Lordships have pointed out this evening—notably the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby—we recognise that the world economy has of course been slowing in 1998. But some of the more alarmist concerns over recent months now appear to have subsided. We will continue to play a leading role in
222
managing any new problems as key members of G7 and the international financial institutions. We have played, and will continue to play, a full part in the efforts of the IMF and the World Bank to assist countries which are facing financial difficulties and contagion.
It is important to note that the Asian crisis economies are showing some signs of external stability. They have stable exchange rates and rising international reserves. But their domestic economies do of course continue to contract. The risk of the contagion spreading to Latin America has fallen with the announcement of the 41 billion dollars of IMF support for Brazil. I will say a little more about Russia later in my contribution.
I would like to pick up on the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Gillmore of Thamesfield, in relation to Japan. In large part I agree with the noble Lord's analysis of Japan's role in the Asian economic crisis. I assure him that we are working with Japan as a member of the G7. We are talking bilaterally to the Japanese Government about the role Japan can play in alleviating the region's problems, which so many noble Lords have referred to in their contributions.
The Government's foreign policy has also concentrated on improving the quality of life of people, both here and abroad. We have signed the European Union Social Chapter, as we said we would in our manifesto. People who work in Britain now have the same rights as those enjoyed by workers elsewhere in Europe. At the Buenos Aires conference on climate change, Britain, led by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, played a pivotal role in the cliff-hanging final hours of negotiation. The successful outcome of that meeting kept the climate change negotiations moving forward.
The Government believe in the importance of mutual respect between the peoples of the world. They are spreading the core values of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. We have taken forward these principles bilaterally in our discussions with other governments, and multilaterally through our work in the United Nations, the OSCE and within the Commonwealth. I agree strongly with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, that the United Kingdom must continue to stress the importance of our membership of the Commonwealth. Our objectives of promoting prosperity, human rights. democracy, good government and the rule of law are part of that dialogue with the Commonwealth. We successfully hosted the Edinburgh CHOGM in October last year, which was chaired by the Prime Minister, where the heads of government confirmed their commitment to the 1991 Harare principles on democracy and good government. I agree very strongly that the Commonwealth provides, through literally hundreds of different associations, extensive links covering all sections of society—education, legal, scientific, environment, sport and the arts. It is a very important part of the Government's foreign policy. I say to those noble Lords who raised the question of Ireland's possible interest in joining the Commonwealth. that that of course is a matter for the Irish Government.

223
Her Majesty's Government welcome expressions of interest from suitably qualified countries and, indeed, Ireland would appear to meet the membership criteria.
The Government have also worked hard since taking office to press ahead with our new vision for international development and, very importantly, to turn that vision into reality. I thank noble Lords, particularly the noble Lords, Lord McNair and Lord Redesdale, for their kind remarks. But the fact is that too many people in the world—1.3 billion too many people—live in extreme poverty. We have published a White Paper on international development, the first White Paper on international development for some 22 years, setting out our key objectives and placing the elimination of poverty at the heart of our efforts on international development. As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said, the Government have delivered on our manifesto commitment to start to reverse the decline in aid spending. We have announced an increase of £1.6 billion over the next three years. Programmes have been reviewed to ensure that resources are focused on the Government's over-arching goal of eliminating poverty and the promotion of sustainable development.
The Government are working closely with multilateral institutions, developing countries and other donors committed to the international development targets, not least the halving of the population of the world living in extreme poverty by the year 2015. The Government are placing greater emphasis on our work with the multilateral institutions—the UN system, including the World Bank, the IMF and of course the EU. We are working to ensure that the grinding poverty suffered by so many people is a key focus in their programmes. But we also recognise the greater need to ensure real coherence across governments and internationally on issues affecting developing countries, issues such as debt, agriculture, investment, the environment and trade. The Government are also working to build greater awareness of the need for international development and the issues involved. We are actively engaged in dialogue in the public and private sectors.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that we have been trying to raise the awareness of global interdependence over these issues. We recently held a series of policy forums across the United Kingdom, culminating in the national forum in Birmingham on 9th November. There was a very wide participation in those forums, including consultation with the ethnic minorities. We will be producing a public report and hope to learn lessons from that valuable exercise.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for the welcome he gave to the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill. We hope that the Bill will pave the way for the creation of a public-private partnership which will benefit from its association with government and of course its participation with the private sector.
In the FCO we, too, are pushing forward with our programme of modernisation. It includes greater openness, better information technology and better communications between the Foreign Office and our overseas posts. We must concentrate on professionalism
224
and improved efficiency. We also want to see more family-friendly policies. We are increasing our resourcing in key areas. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that these include the EU applicant countries, as well as in China, the Caspian area and in our priority export markets.
Many noble Lords raised issues around Europe. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, said, this Government have made a step change in Britain's commitment to Europe. Our relationship with the rest of Europe has gone from self-imposed isolation to real co-operation. I make no apology, not even to the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, for saying that we are making Britain's voice count as a clear and strong one, a voice which really counts now in Europe.
In this parliamentary Session we shall continue to work to achieve a Europe which delivers for the people of this country and for the people of our partners too. It is an agenda we shall be taking forward at the European Council in Vienna in two weeks' time. I assure the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, that the Government will work with our partners to improve our economies and deliver better economic performance. We shall also work for a successful euro. We want to make the preparations to ensure that Britain is in a position to join a single currency, should we wish to do so, in the next Parliament. As my noble friend Lady Crawley said, the fact is that the single currency will affect Britain, whether we join or not, and it is in Britain's interests that that single currency works.
Let me turn to enlargement. EU enlargement is on track. We have now opened substantive negotiations on the first seven chapters of the acquis with Cyprus, Hungary, Poland, Estonia, the Czech Republic and Slovenia. The Commission has also published progress reports on all the candidates. We shall continue to press for early successful enlargement. We are firmly opposed to artificial delays. But we have to be realistic. We are not setting target dates and certainly not blindly optimistic deadlines which will not help any of the candidates in the EU. That said, the working assumption underlying the Commission proposal for Agenda 2000 is that accessions will take place in the year 2002. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and others who raised the question of financial resources for enlargement, that current spending is well below the own resources ceiling. There is already some margin available for enlargement and that margin will, we believe, grow as the own resources ceilings increase.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, also raised questions about the Baltic states. The UK is playing an important role in promoting integration of the Baltic states in the EU and indeed in NATO. We launched a new phase of EU enlargement during our own presidency and we are backing EU accession not only for Estonia but for all three of the Baltic states. Latvia and Lithuania will begin accession negotiations as soon as they are ready to do so. In answer to another point the noble Lord raised, we support WTO membership for all three Baltic states on terms which give genuine market access and which strengthen the multilateral trading system.

225
Her Majesty's Government have also been keen on CAP reform. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, that 1 do not really think he expects me to give him a date for reform from the Dispatch Box now, but I give him the assurance that this is an issue which Her Majesty's Government have taken, continue to take, and will continue to take, seriously.
Of course we also have the issue of strengthening the EU common foreign and security policy. The fact is Europe needs a coherent voice in world affairs. I am pleased to tell the House today that we have put forward Sir David Hannay as our candidate for the positions of CFSP High Representative and Deputy Secretary General of the Council.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am glad to hear that measure of support from around your Lordships' House. He is indeed a worthy candidate.
A number of points were raised on the WEU by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, who I see is not in his place at the moment, and therefore I shall deal with those points in correspondence. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister launched the debate on European defence at the Poertschach meeting a few weeks ago when he said that he wanted European foreign policy to be more effective. The important thing for us to concentrate on here is that this is an issue that concerns policies and not institutions. Furthermore, I assure the House, as indeed did my noble friend Lord Gilbert, that my right honourable friend made it clear that NATO will continue to remain the cornerstone of our collective security.
Many noble Lords—too many to mention—referred to Iraq. I must say something about that. On 14th November Iraq gave an unconditional undertaking to resume full co-operation with UNSCOM and the IAEA. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that we now expect Iraq to fulfil this undertaking. We are prepared to take military action if Iraq does not. Iraq has refused to hand over certain documents requested by UNSCOM. This is a bad start as the Security Council assesses Iraq's behaviour. While they are there the monitors are reporting back. The provision of information, including these documents which have been requested by UNSCOM and the IAEA, is an important part of the demonstration of Iraq's commitment to the undertakings made on 14th November. The Government of course share international concern at the suffering of the people of Iraq. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said that sanctions were hurting the poor more than they hurt Saddam Hussein. It is Saddam Hussein who is hurting the poor in his country. That is not rhetoric. It is, alas, a demonstrable fact. As the UN special rapporteur has said, Iraq holds the primary responsibility for the precarious food and health situation in that unhappy country.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, asked about support for the opposition. Her Majesty's Government would shed no tears if Saddam Hussein were no longer the
226
leader of Iraq. No doubt Iraq would be better off without him. However, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, that the position remains that Her Majesty's Government believe that it is up to Iraq who its leader should be. We have consistently supported the Iraqi opposition since the end of the Gulf War. It is important that the people of Iraq and indeed the rest of the world hear an alternative voice from Iraq. I am sure that the noble Lord did not mean to be a little mischievous. I advise him that there was no contradiction between what I said and what my right honourable friend said in another place. I was dealing with the objective of military action, or potential military action, in Iraq. I said then—
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I was present when she made that reply. I recognise that she was answering a specific question—it was a perfectly good answer to the question—but I respectfully suggest that it conflicts with what her right honourable friend said.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, time is getting short and I do not want to waste your Lordships' time with what I believe is a fairly tangential point. I was answering a point then about the objectives of military action, but I reiterate that nobody would be sad to see the end of that regime.
Questions were asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, about the Middle East peace process. The UK position on settlements is well known. We regard the settlements as illegal under international law. However, I believe that we should concentrate on the important point raised by the noble Lord, that the Wye River Memorandum, signed in Washington on 23rd October, offers the best prospect for peace. The UK, both bilaterally and through the EU, will do everything in its power to ensure that we facilitate implementation of that very important agreement.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, I apologise for intervening at this late stage. Before the noble Baroness leaves the question of Iraq, as she is clearly not able to answer my question on the marsh lands of Iraq and the conditions for lifting sanctions, will she agree to grant me a meeting to consider that case, given that there are no marsh people outside the Gulf to put the case themselves?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Baroness knows that I am always delighted to see her. I cannot give her any undertakings. I expect she realises that this issue is outside my immediate ministerial remit, but I should be delighted to see her and to talk through the important points that she raised.
Many noble Lords raised the issue of Kosovo. The agreements reached in October following the negotiations between US Ambassador Holbrooke and President Milosevic have created a new climate in Kosovo. There is now a real opportunity for a peaceful settlement offering the people of Kosovo genuine self-administration including, crucially, control of local police.

227
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that we fully support the continuing efforts of Chris Hill and Wolfgang Petritsch, the US and EU Special Envoys, to mediate a political settlement.
To answer the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, about the negotiating track, we believe that it is vital that the cease- fire is observed. The record over recent weeks has been worryingly patchy, with faults on both sides. We have called on both sides for compliance and the utmost restraint to avoid provocations.
We have committed £3 million to the international aid effort in Kosovo. The EU has separately committed over £13 million. The OSCE Kosovo verification mission is now gearing up and will soon be fully operational. I am pleased to tell noble Lords that the first 50 British monitors are already in Kosovo. We expect the deployment to approach full strength over the next few weeks. I hope that that answers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.
We welcome the significant improvement in the humanitarian situation, particularly the return to shelter, if not yet in all cases to their homes, of those displaced by the conflict. We fully support the continuing efforts of the UNHCR and others who are bringing much needed relief to those affected. We have called on both sides to co-operate fully with the humanitarian relief effort and to allow displaced people to return home in conditions of safety.
I turn to some of the important questions asked about Russia. We will remain engaged with Russia and with the Russian Government. It is in our interests that Russia continues to support reform. We are ready to give help when that can support real reform in Russia. Parliamentary contacts are very important. Russia must do its bit, however, including having sensible economic policies.
We recognise that there will be localised food and medicine shortages in Russia, but we do not believe that there is likely to be any famine. We have given extra humanitarian assistance and we are considering food aid further with our EU partners. That aid has to be well targeted. It must not damage market structures in Russia or indeed among Russia's neighbours. And it certainly must not create any sort of dependency culture.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised important questions about military conscription. As part of a programme of reform currently in progress, Russia aims to move to a more professionalised army by the year 2000. But the programme is behind schedule, not least because of the acute economic and budgetary difficulties in the country. The UK is assisting with various aspects of Russia's military reform through the MoD's excellent diplomacy programme. The MoD programme retrains 2,000 redundant officers each year and helps in finding civilian work.
The noble Lord also raised a question about warhead swaps for what might be called aid and debt forgiveness. Using loans, debt forgiveness or aid to buy warheads would cut across our efforts to link assistance to economic reform. It would play to Russian suspicions that we want a nuclear advantage. Together with our
228
G7 partners, we are looking at how we might alleviate Russia's debt burden. We are also contributing to an EU programme to provide technical assistance. With our EU partners we are considering providing the food to which I referred. We have of course already provided a certain amount of assistance.
Perhaps I may also say before I depart from this question on Russia that we share the outrage expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, as I am sure all noble Lords do, about the assassination of Mrs. Starovoitova last week.
Many noble Lords raised questions about the position in Africa. In the Great Lakes region Britain is working hard for peace, actively encouraging all regional states to pursue a negotiated settlement based on acceptance by all parties of sovereignty and territorial integrity, particularly in the very troubled area of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We are taking into account the security concerns of neighbouring states and the right of all sections of the Congolese people. The UK has already committed approximately £500,000 in emergency assistance to relieve humanitarian suffering. We are ready to look at further United Nations appeals.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised particular questions about what is happening in Sierra Leone. The aid to which he referred, the £6 million grant for rehabilitation, is not yet disbursed. We await the appointment of an agent to manage the financial and procurement unit, and that agent will be responsible for the accounting of those funds.
My noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside raised the issue of Angola. We remain concerned by the impasse in the peace process and the deteriorating security situation in that country. As my noble friend pointed out, UNITA, under the leadership of Savimbi, must take responsibility for the present crisis. Only unconditional implementation of its obligations under the Lusaka principle, in particular full demilitarisation and the extension of state administration, can resurrect the peace process.
My noble friend raised other questions relating to Angola and some relating to South Africa. I hope he will be satisfied if I write to him on those matters.
I now turn to questions raised in relation to a completely different part of the world by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I assure the noble Baroness that my right honourable and honourable friends and I have supported the arguments of our friends in the Caribbean in relation to bananas at every possible turn. We do so in Europe and, importantly, we do so in America. I discussed the matter most recently in Jamaica, and in this country with members of the United States Administration. I am acutely conscious of the possibility of diversification of those fragile economies in the Caribbean into exactly the kind of trade mentioned by the noble Baroness in relation to drugs trading and money laundering. We lose no opportunity to make those points to our friends in the American Administration.
As for Cuba, the noble Baroness rightly referred to my visit which was, I think, the first visit of a Foreign Office Minister since the Cuban revolution. It was

229
followed by the visit of my honourable friend the Minister for Trade and Industry. We are discussing the important issues which the noble Baroness raised in relation to debt. I hope that we shall be able to follow through those points and I thank her for the positive contribution she has made, particularly in relation to commercial debt with regard to Cuba.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is not in her usual place, but is nonetheless welcome in the Chair. She raised questions about the Sudan. We continue to stress to the Government of Sudan and to opposition groups our concern to see a negotiated end to the civil war. We want a negotiated end that respects the right of all Sudanese people. A peace settlement is the only long-term solution to that humanitarian crisis. We are working to strengthen Operation Lifeline Sudan in order to give it a more powerful voice and to ensure access to areas where there are acute humanitarian needs. I hope that that answers the point made by the noble Baroness about access.
The noble Baroness also raised issues in regard to Nagorno-Karabakh. We fully support the efforts of the three co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk group, the United States, Russia and France, to seek a just and lasting settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. We are concerned at the lack of progress to date. We urge all parties to show their good will. The noble Baroness is also right that there is a proposal for the 1999 OSCE ministerial meeting to be held in Turkey. We have discussed the issues with the Government of Armenia who have announced today that they will raise no objection to the meeting taking place in Istanbul. I hope that to a certain extent that will calm some of the fears raised by the noble Baroness in relation to Armenia.
I have trespassed on your Lordships' time for longer than I had intended, but I have tried to cover the waterfront without doing too much of a travelogue
230
round the globe. Noble Lords raised important and interesting points and I hope I have been able to deal with most of them at least to your Lordships' satisfaction.
The Government intend to show leadership in the international community and in international organisations serving that community. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, felt it necessary to be a little derisory, a little sneering, about the Government's efforts to make British foreign policy count. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister told the United Nations General Assembly in September, we believe in the United Nations. We believe in a modernised United Nations. The Government will build on the success of the Edinburgh Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting last year as well in regard to our relationship with the Commonwealth.
I hope that I have been able to cover most of the important points raised in your Lordships' House today. I hope too that I have been able to describe to the House how we are putting into action the Government's commitments, the commitments we made in our manifesto and the commitments we made in the FCO mission statement which my right honourable friend made after taking up office. I am proud of this Government's record, a record of real achievement, a record that we shall continue throughout this parliamentary Session.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Blackstone, I beg to move that this debate be adjourned until Monday next.
Moved, That the debate be adjourned until Monday next.—[Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale.]
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly until Monday next.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before ten o'clock.

  Afghanistan: Arms Embargo
  Afghanistan: Arms Embargo
  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme
  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme
  Animal Procedures Committee
  Animal Procedures Committee
  Commercial Dog Facilities
  Commercial Dog Facilities
  Medway Secure Training Centre
  Medway Secure Training Centre