Sitting of 19 April 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  HFC BANK BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SECURITY
  The Secretary of State was asked—

  Pensions
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: What estimate he has made of the proportion of the working population who have provided only for the basic state pension and have incomes between £9,000 and £20,000. [79728]
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): All employees who earn above the lower earnings limit automatically accrue pension rights above the basic state pension level, through the state earnings-related pension scheme or a contracted-out equivalent. So all employees in the earnings range mentioned will have made some provision above the basic state pension.
  Second pension provision is not compulsory for the self-employed. About half the self-employed are making secondary provisions and some of the rest may have accrued rights from earlier employment.
  Mrs. Lait: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply, but it implies that he is not prepared to set a target for the sale of stakeholder pensions. Given the derision with which individual savings accounts were greeted on their introduction because of their complexity, does he agree that the prime purpose of introducing a new pension system—including stakeholder pensions—is to reduce complexity and not add to it, which is what stakeholder pensions have done?
  Mr. Darling: I answered the question that the hon. Lady asked, but she is now asking a different one. The Government believe that some 4 million to 5 million people will benefit from stakeholder pensions. The difficulty is that if an individual is not eligible to join an occupational scheme, which is usually the best possible option, the only alternative is a personal private pension. That is not appropriate for someone on low earnings or,
  552
  arguably, for many on moderate earnings. It is to those people who do not have adequate cover that the stakeholder pension is geared. The consultation period having now ended, the structure of our pension reforms, and the introduction of the stakeholder pension in particular, have been almost universally welcomed.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Some 65,000 pensioners are newly eligible for the minimum income guarantee, but they must have an income of less than £75 and capital of less than £8,000. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the Government are doing enough through the pilot projects in hand to ensure that those who are now newly eligible for the minimum income guarantee will get it?
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. We want to ensure that all pensioners who are entitled to support get it, and that is one of the reasons why we have run pilot projects to encourage take-up, such as the telephone take-up campaign, which has proved very successful. We want to ensure that those who are eligible for the minimum income guarantee of £75 a week for a single pensioner and £116.60 for a couple get that help. I readily accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the capital and income limits, which is why we said that we wanted to consider that issue—which can cause problems—when we published the Green Paper in December. For the sake of completeness, I should add that all pensioner households will get the five fold increase in the winter fuel payment this winter of £100, which will be paid before Christmas.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: It speaks volumes that not a single Labour Member wishes to take part in the major question about pensions on the Order Paper today. Is not it unbelievable and nauseating that this Government, who affect concern for pensioners, and poorer pensioners in particular, find a way to force poor pensioners to pay tax on their savings income, even if their total income is below the income tax threshold? Not content with that, the Government have also found a way to prevent pensioners with savings income from benefiting from the 10p rate.
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that my hon. Friends support the Government's actions on pensions and are only too happy on this occasion to leave the field clear for Conservative Members to ask their questions. That is what Question Time is all about. I repeat the point, which I made a few moments ago to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), that the structure of the pension reforms that we have introduced, including the minimum income guarantee for the poorest pensioners, has been widely welcomed. We are spending some £2 billion more on the poorest pensioners—money that was not there under the Conservative Government—through the minimum income guarantee and the increase in the winter fuel payment, which will greatly help many of them. The l0p starting rate of tax will affect all taxpayers, which will be widely welcomed by pensioners and others. The Government are happy to be judged on what they are doing for today's pensioners and for ensuring that, in the long term, pensions are at long last based on a sound and stable footing.

  Social Security Policy
  Mr. John Wilkinson: When he last met the Commission of the European Union to discuss social security policy in the European Union. [79729]
  The Parliamentary Under"Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I met Director-General Larsson on 1 March 1999.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Did the Secretary of State and the Minister discuss with Mr. Larsson the potential effect of a withholding tax on savings incomes of European Union nationals in other countries on the profitability of financial institutions, which has already been hit by the Government's changes to advance corporation tax? Should not Ministers have impressed on Mr. Larsson the importance of supporting privately funded pension schemes, especially as many of the countries in euroland have an unfunded liability for pensions of more than 100 per cent. of gross domestic product?
  Angela Eagle: Mr. Larsson is aware of the United Kingdom opinion on the withholding tax, but it is clearly for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, via ECOFIN, to present the main arguments on the issue. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the bulk of the meeting with Mr. Larsson was spent in discussion on employment, employability and equal opportunities in the European Union.

  Means-Tested Benefits
  Mr. Peter Viggers: What percentage of amounts paid out by his Department are subject to means testing. [79730]
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): In 1997–98, 34 per cent. of social security expenditure went on means-tested benefits. In 1979, the figure was 16 per cent.
  Mr. Viggers: Is the Minister aware that, in a recent debate, I pointed out that the combination of the means-tested guaranteed minimum pension, housing benefit and council tax benefit meant that people had to save a staggering £80,000 to be better off than those who had done nothing at all to save for their retirement provision? The Minister has not previously replied to that point, but will he comment on that figure? Will he confirm that what the Government now propose is the greatest ever extension to means testing and the greatest ever disincentive to saving for one's retirement?
  Mr. Timms: The figure that the hon. Gentleman quotes is inaccurate. It is important that people get the full benefit of their work and savings when they retire. That is why we have designed the state second pension as we have.
  I do not agree that the minimum income guarantee, which took effect last week, should rise in line with prices only—the implication of what the hon. Gentleman said. Although that would lead to there being fewer people on means-tested benefits, it would also mean lower incomes
  554
  for 2 million low-income pensioners, of whom there are 1,500 in Gosport. If that is Conservative party policy, I hope that one of the hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench will seek an opportunity to explain it. The Government's policy is that even the least well-off pensioners should be able to share in the benefits of rising national prosperity.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: The Conservatives do not have a leg to stand on when it comes to means testing, but the left wing of the Labour party has two solid legs. Will the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill and various other proposals before the House at present extend means testing? Some Labour Members would be very disappointed by a move in that direction.
  Mr. Timms: I have said that the state second pension has been designed to avoid means testing. People should be able to look forward in retirement to an income that is above the means-tested threshold. The state second pension has been designed so that all people who work and contribute throughout their lives will have, on retirement, a retirement income above the minimum income guarantee level.
  Furthermore, carers—people who have been out of work as a result of caring responsibilities—and the long-term disabled with broken work records are for the first time being credited into the state second pension. As a result, they, too, will have an income in retirement above the minimum income guarantee level. I hope that my hon. Friend will warmly welcome those proposals.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The Minister has failed to answer a point raised, strangely, by hon. Members from both sides of the House. The Government say that they want to raise pensioners' incomes and to break dependency, but the minimum income guarantee, which is linked to the means test, will drive more and more otherwise independent people down into dependency.
  Independent figures show that one person in five is dependent on income support at present, and that the number will rise to one in three by the early part of the new century. Is not that a travesty and a defeat for a Government who say that they are going to break dependency, but who in fact will make more people dependent and raise the cost of welfare?
  Mr. Timms: The figure would be one in three if we continued with the policies that we inherited from the Conservative Government. That is where we are heading, and that is why we made our proposals for reform. The state second pension will reduce the proportion of pensioners who are in receipt of means-tested benefits. The hon. Gentleman should explain to the House and to all those pensioners on income support why his party apparently wants to increase the minimum income guarantee only in line with prices. What does he have against people on income support? The Government's view is that even the least well-off pensioners—those on income support—should be able to share in the benefits of rising national prosperity.

  Disabled People (Benefits)
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: What assessment he has made of the effect of benefits payable to disabled people on their ability to find employment. [79731]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): Removing barriers to work is a key strand of our strategy for helping disabled people. Since last October, we have protected disabled people's benefit position for one year after starting a job and allowed unlimited voluntary work. Last week, we launched the incapacity-to-work pilots: a package of four measures that will improve opportunities for disabled people who want to move into or return to work.
  Dr. Starkey: Does my hon. Friend accept that a significant number of disabled people have been unemployed for so long that they have lost the confidence that they will be able to sustain employment if they find it, and are not fully aware of the new benefits? What is being done to ensure that local Benefits Agency offices work closely with local Employment Service offices to ensure that disabled people are guided through the transition from out-of-work benefits to in-work benefits?
  Mr. Bayley: My hon. Friend makes some extremely important points. We have changed the linking rule, extending it from eight weeks to 52 weeks, precisely to give people who have been out of work and on benefits for a long time the confidence that they can try work without putting the security of their benefits at risk, should they need to return to them. It is extremely important for the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency to work closely together to explain to people in that position that they have everything to gain from trying employment and that if it does not work out, they will not have lost their benefits. That is precisely what the single work-focused gateway is intended to do and what the new deal for disabled people pilots are doing already.
  Mrs. Theresa May: Whatever the Minister says, does not he realise that the changes in incapacity benefit will drive many disabled people out of work? Disabled people with progressive conditions who are able to be in full-time work for some years, but then reach the point at which they can work only part-time could be deprived of the right to claim incapacity benefit when, eventually, they are unable to work at all.
  For many disabled people, the policy will be an incentive to leave work. Does the Minister accept that, on top of the introduction of the means-testing of incapacity benefit, which reduces the incentive to save, the policy will drive more disabled people into dependency?
  Mr. Bayley: No, I do not accept that point for one minute. It is a misleading misinterpretation of the Government's intentions. The hon. Lady ignores the fact that the incapacity-to-work pilots launched last week provide four new measures to assist disabled people to take work, including the job match payment of £50 a week to enable disabled people to try part-time work, and the job start payment of £200 to enable people going into
  556
  a job after a gap to meet the initial costs. Those are benefits for disabled people that will make it easier for them to move off incapacity benefit and into work.
  Dr. Brian Iddon: I want to raise again the way in which people with mental illness are treated by the Benefits Agency. On Friday, I came across the case of a woman who has been suffering from agoraphobia for a long time. Last week, she lost her benefit and she now has to live on £29 a month. She was expected to attend an interview tomorrow with respect to going to work. This morning, I have discovered, through examining her medical record with the practice concerned, that the medical evidence has not been considered with any seriousness, which has been very disturbing for her. Will my hon. Friend ensure that all Benefits Agency offices treat people with mental illnesses with much more sympathy than they appear to do at present?
  Mr. Bayley: If my hon. Friend writes to me with details of the case, I shall investigate and write back to him. We can visit benefit claimants in their homes where it is unreasonable or inappropriate to invite them to come out for a medical. That may be the answer in this case.

  Fraud
  Mr. Simon Burns: If he will make a statement on the level of fraud within the social security system. [79732]
  Siobhain McDonagh: What targets he has set for reducing fraud in the benefits system. [79739]
  Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will report progress in tackling fraud in the social security system. [79745]
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): The Government published their strategy for combating fraud and reducing error on 23 March. Copies of the document, "Safeguarding Social Security", are available in the Vote Office. Our object is to get claims right from the start and to keep them right thereafter. The National Audit Office has welcomed this new approach.
  Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. What action is he is taking following the Audit Commission report that showed evidence of housing benefit fraud by officers and locally elected councillors in 25 per cent. of local authorities that it visited?
  Mr. Darling: The Government are taking several steps, both with regard to specific incidents reported to us and generally. The hon. Gentleman may know that we have announced additional funding to ensure that claims are properly verified and that proper checks are put in place in offices to prevent fraud or error. We have also arranged for all local authorities that want it to have remote access to local Benefits Agency offices to cross-check material held there. I firmly believe that if we get the systems right, and take a little more time to ensure that the information is correctly processed and the correct procedures

  557
  followed, that will cut fraud and error and provide a disincentive to those who might be tempted to try to defraud the system.
  Siobhain McDonagh: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important to ensure that benefits are correctly applied in the first place and to look for fraud afterwards? As someone who has worked in a Department of Social Security office and in housing benefits, I am well aware of how the system can make fraud possible. Is he sure that we have changed procedures enough to ensure that the level of fraud and poorly processed claims is reduced from that under the previous Government?
  Mr. Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend. The previous Government's practice was to instruct Benefits Agency staff to process claims as quickly as possible. The result was that when we came into office, we found that two out of five decisions were wrong. That meant that we had to spend much time chasing round and picking up the pieces. We have cut that rate, with the result that in this Parliament alone, we shall save £1 billion by ensuring that we get claims right in the first place. It is such savings that have allowed us to channel money away from fraud and error into doing far more for pensioners and families, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his Budget.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the number of arrests made by the Benefits Agency fraud investigation service fell dramatically in February after a month where it was half the average of preceding months? If so, how does he square that with assurances that he and one of his Ministers gave as recently as 11 January? The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), said:
  "Far from watering down the campaign to combat that fraud, we are gearing it up".—[Official Report, 11 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 16.]
  Is not the opposite the truth?
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. The Government's record on prosecuting people is very good. He referred to a particular month in which, for various operational reasons, there was a slight downturn in activity, but that followed a month in which there were a record number of arrests. That shows that the Government take the detection of fraud and the prosecution of those who commit it very seriously. What is new is that for the first time, the Government are determined to ensure that all members of our staff not only prevent fraud and error in the first place but, if it is discovered that things are wrong, take the necessary action through the benefit fraud inspectorate or our special investigation services to ensure that people are detected and brought to justice. The nonsense that the hon. Gentleman talks can only encourage those who attempt to commit fraud.
  Ms Gisela Stuart: I am sure that my right hon. Friend welcomes the initiatives taken by local authorities such as Birmingham, whereby remote access terminals, allowing housing benefit entitlement to be checked by the local authorities, are used. Does he not think that there should also be a system that would alert
  558
  local authorities when people have come off certain benefits and no longer have housing benefit entitlement? At present, the system seems too proactive; we could cut down on benefit fraud by alerting local authorities when certain entitlements have ceased.
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. Far more needs to be done to ensure that staff in local authorities—through the housing benefit offices—and Benefit Agency officers can speak to each other, so that they know what they are doing and share information. We are piloting certain gateways to improve the system; I also believe that the new IT equipment with which the Department will be provided during the next two to three years will make a big difference. Frankly, one of the problems is that we inherited a system in which there had been almost no investment in IT, modern technology and techniques. We are determined to tackle that; if the DSS and the Benefits Agency have up-to-date technology and proper working procedures, much more money can be saved—money that would, for example, be better spent on supporting families and pensioners.
  Mr. Eric Pickles: The House will not be surprised that the Secretary of State seems to blame everyone but himself for the failure in dealing with fraud. Under his leadership, the Department's record has been less than impressive, with a considerable deterioration from the position left by the Conservatives. Does he agree that the one thing that he could do would be to encourage greater transparency? With reference to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), the report does not name the councils in which fraud was taking place. Will the Secretary of State now name and shame those councils? Will he have the Audit Commission's terms of reference changed so that future reports give us a complete perspective on what is happening?
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman refers to a report prepared by the National Audit Office, not one provided by the Government. It is for its officials to decide what is in the report; they are perfectly capable of making specific criticisms in it. I firmly believe that local authorities that fall below an acceptable standard should be exposed, and the Government will ensure that local authorities are given every possible encouragement to drive up their standards. That is the whole purpose of the best value reforms that we are introducing.
  As for the Government's record on fraud, I repeat the point that I made earlier in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh); when we came into office, two out of five claims were wrong and, as a result of the action that we have taken, £1 billion has now been saved. That £1 billion is being spent on pensioners and families; it would not have been available under the previous Government.

  New Deal for the Disabled
  Ms Christine Russell: What training his Department plans to give to personal advisers working for the new deal for the disabled. [79733]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): The new deal for disabled people is a joint initiative between the Department of Social Security and the Department for Education and Employment. The Benefits Agency is providing training to help advisers give accurate advice about benefit issues and to provide "better off" calculations for clients who are thinking of taking up work. That supports the wider range of training that is being provided by the Employment Service and the Department for Education and Employment, which are responsible for delivering the service.
  Ms Russell: Is my hon. Friend aware of the level of expertise that exists already in the voluntary sector? Those with such expertise have already done good work in helping to break down attitudinal barriers to work and to create better access to the workplace. What plans does my hon. Friend have to harness the good work done by the voluntary sector to help in the new deal for getting disabled people back to the workplace?
  Mr. Bayley: My hon. Friend raises an important point, with which I have a great deal of sympathy, having worked in the voluntary sector myself. The voluntary sector has made a huge contribution to the Government's welfare reform proposals through its membership of the disability benefits forum, and has provided advice on the training programme specifically for personal advisers. My hon. Friend will be interested to learn that the Department has just agreed the secondment of a director of one of those voluntary bodies to provide advice in this area.
  Mr. Tony Baldry: I understand that, in future, people with disabilities, if they want to claim benefit, will have to attend a work-focused interview with a personal adviser. Will the Minister explain the subsequent procedures relating to entitlement—one goes for the interview, but what happens then? I suspect that we shall all have people coming to our constituency surgeries asking for advice, so it would be helpful if the Minister explained the processes relating to this and other benefits in respect of which people will have to attend a work-related interview.
  Mr. Bayley: The point of the single work-focused gateway is to provide a common point of access to the benefits system, whereby members of the public will receive advice on both benefit entitlement and the assistance that the Government can give to help people into work. Benefit claims will be processed in the normal way, which varies from one benefit to another. The idea is to provide a service that is better, clearer and easier for the public to use.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Ms Oona King: If he will make a statement on the operation of the habitual residence test following the Swaddling judgment. [79735]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): The Swaddling judgment has provided useful clarification of the factors to be used in assessing habitual residence, and guidance has been issued to adjudication officers. Work on the
  560
  review of the habitual residence test is almost complete and we expect to bring forward our recommendations for its future soon.
  Ms King: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Given that the Swaddling judgment will not be relevant or bring relief to those who, like the majority of my constituents, travel beyond the European Union, can my hon. Friend give a more specific date for the outcome of the review, or at least undertake that it will come at the earliest opportunity? Will she explain why the Government's estimated savings as a result of the HRT have increased significantly over the past year and a half, especially because, at least in my constituency, much money is paid out to families made destitute, either under the National Assistance Act 1948 or the Children Act 1989?
  Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend makes a good point about switching resources rather than making savings; we are investigating that issue as part of the review. In fact, the estimated savings have nearly halved because of a different way of assessing them: originally, the average time that people who failed the test were assumed to have been denied access to benefits was calculated as being 26 weeks. We believe that that is too long and does not reflect reality, so that calculation has been reduced to 13 weeks. That is why the estimated savings from the habitual residence test have gone down rather than up.
  As part of the review, we are considering the effect of the test on UK nationals, which I suspect was a wholly unintended result of the little pantomime performed by the deputy leader of the Tory party, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), at the Tory party conference. From today's papers, I learn that he has also changed his mind on other fundamentals and decided that privatisation has nothing to do with public service—hallelujah, we welcome converts.

  Pension Reform
  Mr. John Bercow: What assessment he has made of the effect of his pension reform plans on the level of means testing in the benefits system. [79736]
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): The proposals in our pensions Green Paper are designed to ensure that an employee contributing for a full working life will receive a pension on retirement above the minimum income guarantee. We estimate that, by 2050, the number of those receiving the minimum income guarantee will be about one in four, or fewer. That proportion would have been one in three if the policies of the previous Government had been maintained.
  Mr. Bercow: The Minister's reply to my question is lamentably inadequate. Why can he not accept the point—which is so transparently obvious that only an extraordinarily clever person could fail to see it—that, by penalising those who save and rewarding those who do not, his pension reform proposals will discourage thrift and encourage dependency?
  Mr. Timms: Last week, some 1,400 pensioners in Buckingham who are in receipt of income support secured a substantial boost to their income of at least £160 a year as a result of the minimum income

  561
  guarantee. The Chancellor has announced that there will be a further earnings-related increase in the minimum income guarantee next year. If the hon. Gentleman thinks his constituents should receive a lower income than the Government propose, I believe his constituents would like an explanation as to why that is so.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the issue of pensioners who have saved modest amounts. We are examining the saving limits for the minimum income guarantee—which were a feature of the previous Government's income support regime—and considering the option of a modest income disregard. We want to improve the incentives to save—the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that that is very important—which is why we are proceeding in this manner.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: I greatly welcome the Government's proposals on pension reform, which will remove many people from dependency on means-tested benefit. May we be assured that the Government will assist those who will continue to depend on means-tested benefit, both in the shorter and long term, by replacing the many application forms with just one? Many people applying for income support and benefits—such as council tax benefit and housing benefit—lose out because they do not understand the present complex system.
  Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are considering several ways in which the Benefits Agency and local authorities, in particular, can work together. For example, a very successful pilot scheme in Lewisham allows people to claim local authority benefit, council tax benefit, housing benefit and Benefits Agency benefit simultaneously. My hon. Friend is correct to say that the present system is too confusing, and we aim to make it easier for people to access.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Is it not a fact that the Government have broken two clear pledges? First, they pledged to cut the cost of social security which has risen under their proposals and will continue to rise by more than £40 billion over the next three years. The Government's second pledge was to break the dependency culture and, although the Prime Minister referred to it endlessly, they have not delivered that promise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, the Government are driving more and more people on the margins away from an instinct to save and into dependency on the state. In so doing, the Government will increase the cost of social security. The people who will meet that cost are those on the margins who will pay more tax as a result. The Government have failed totally. Will they now apologise?
  Mr. Timms: No. Ours is a record of success. We are spending significantly less on social security than the projections of the previous Government suggested. We have halved the rate of benefit growth—which is a significant achievement—and we are tackling the problem of dependency that we inherited from the previous Government. Most importantly, we must have an active welfare system that helps people instead of the passive system that we inherited, and the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill will achieve that transformation. We are tackling the causes of poverty and dependency.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: When he expects to bring forward proposals to reform housing benefit. [79737]
  The Parliamentary Under"Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): We intend to publish a housing Green Paper later this year that will discuss options to reform housing benefit within the context of housing policy. Any fundamental reform would be a long-term project likely to take a number of years to progress. In the shorter term, we will continue to consider changes that make housing benefit fairer, better administered and more secure and that promote work incentives.
  Mr. Prentice: News of the Green Paper is very encouraging, especially in Pendle. At the beginning of the decade, my constituency spent about £1 million on housing benefit and, some nine years later, we are spending £9 million—which is a ninefold increase in less than a decade. I and many of my constituents are concerned about rogue landlords who pick up properties for a song—sometimes paying as little as £3,000 or £4,000. It is not unusual for landlords to achieve a yearly return on their capital investment of about 35 per cent, so huge sums of public money are being tipped into their pockets. I urge my hon. Friend to address that issue urgently and introduce proposals as rapidly as she can for a root and branch reform of the entire system.
  Angela Eagle: I thank my hon. Friend for that observation. He is correct: there are some difficulties. I refer him to a consultation paper on the regulation of houses in multiple occupation that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing published recently. He must also be aware that the reform of housing benefit involves many complex issues and concerns the very roof over people's heads, so we must proceed carefully. The changes that we shall make will be for the better.

  Pensions
  Mr. Simon Hughes: How many responses he received by 31 March to his consultation paper on pensions. [79738]
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): We had received more than 550 responses by 31 March, and several more have arrived since. Wide support has been expressed for the objectives set out in the Green Paper and for our approach, which is based on the three interlinked pillars of the minimum income guarantee, the state second pension and the stakeholder pension scheme.
  Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister accept that there has been strong representation, not least by Age Concern, about the fact that the Green Paper says nothing about raising the basic pension? Age Concern, on behalf of pensioners, takes the clear view, as do all the pensioners in my constituency who have spoken to me, that at the very least older pensioners must be given a higher basic state pension—we had that debate last month—or all

  563
  pensioners should have a higher basic state pension. Is there any point in Age Concern or any pensioners' organisation putting those views to the Government, or are Ministers saying that there will be absolutely no increase in the state pension and that it will be topped up only if pensioners' other income makes it necessary for them to have an additional, means-tested benefit? Will people receive an increase only if they go through the means test?
  Mr. Timms: About 170 of the responses that we have received commented on the level of the basic state pension. Our pledge neither to means-test nor to privatise the basic state pension has wide support, but as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, many people would like the state pension to be linked with earnings. Our commitment is to uprate the basic state pension at least in line with prices; we have honoured that commitment, and pensions will continue to increase according to that method.
  The cost of increasing pensions in line with earnings would be an additional £750 million every year, and within 10 years it would cost an additional £8 billion a year. That is not economically realistic. Rather than give the impression that the link with earnings might be restored, it is better to be honest with people and instead devise a credible strategy, as we have done, for improving pensioner incomes.
  Mr. Howard Flight: With reference to consultation, what advice do the Government give to employers, employees and those providing pension fund schemes on the arrangements to be made in the next two years before the new stakeholder arrangements come on-stream? The Government have demonstrated their moral disapproval of personal pension schemes, even though many of them now offer full transparency. People will progress upwards in the work force, so if they do not want a personal pension, what are they to do in the next two years?
  Mr. Timms: People should be saving in a pension. That is why the Financial Services Authority has issued advice about the terms under which personal pensions should be sold in the next couple of years. Stakeholder schemes will be available from April 2001, and if people then choose to switch into a stakeholder pension, they will suffer no penalty. We welcome that advice. The assurance about what will happen in two years means that it is entirely appropriate for people to start saving in a personal pension scheme now.

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Mr. Frank Roy: What arrangements he is making for paying the winter fuel allowance for 1999–2000. [79741]
  The Parliamentary Under"Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): Next winter, we plan to make all payments before Christmas. That will ensure that, when the winter starts, the money is in pensioners' hands and available when they need it.
  Mr. Roy: I thank the Minister for her reply, which will be welcomed by pensioners during the long, cold winter, particularly in Scotland, where winter lasts longer and is
  564
  colder. Does she agree that the fivefold increase in the winter fuel allowance is evidence that, step by step, the Government are delivering for Scottish pensioners and those throughout the United Kingdom?
  Angela Eagle: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is right to point out that the fivefold increase in the winter fuel payment is an extension of the universal benefit principle to all pensioners. By the end of this Parliament, that will result in almost £3 billion being spent to ensure that no pensioner has to worry about turning up the heating during spells of cold weather. That increase will make a genuine contribution to the quality of life of all Britain's pensioners.

  Carers
  Mr. Norman Baker: What recent assessment he has made of the availability of benefits for carers. [79744]
  The Parliamentary Under"Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): Benefits are available for carers who are unable to work full-time because of heavy caring commitments, and for carers on low incomes. Expert benefit advice for individual carers is available at district offices of the Benefits Agency and via telephone helplines. Our proposals for the state second pension will benefit carers who are unable to contribute to a second pension because of their responsibilities. Our proposals for single work-focused gateway interviews will provide information and benefit advice to carers.
  Mr. Baker: On a genuine and serious note, may I tell the Minister that carers in my constituency have contacted me and are very concerned about proposals in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, particularly those relating to the abolition of severe disablement allowance and restrictions on incapacity benefit? They are concerned that carers will be pushed into poverty by having to rely on means-tested benefits. What reassurance can the Minister give the constituents who have contacted me that the Government's proposals are not simply a cost-driven exercise but will be fair to carers?
  Mr. Bayley: The first reassurance that I can give the hon. Gentleman, and hon. Members throughout the House, is that the exercise is not cost-driven. Indeed, expenditure on disability benefits will rise by about £1 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament.
  On carers specifically, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we intend to apply the changes to the contribution conditions for incapacity benefit in such a way that people in receipt of invalid care allowance will not be disadvantaged. If they were eligible for incapacity benefit through national insurance contributions when they started caring, that eligibility will remain throughout their receipt of ICA.

  New Deal for Disabled People
  Mr. Brian White: What assessment he has made of the performance of the new deal for disabled people's innovative schemes. [79747]
  The Parliamentary Under"Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): We are funding a number of innovative schemes under the new deal for disabled people to test new ways of helping people with disabilities who want to work. Ten schemes are currently in operation, and we announced funding for a further 14 last month. It is too early to assess the effect of the schemes. An independent research organisation has been appointed to evaluate them formally, and preliminary findings will be available towards the end of this year.
  Mr. White: The Minister will be aware that, although the schemes will be welcomed by many people, many disabled people will be cynical because the benefits system operated by the previous Government led to many of them being put on the scrap heap. Many disabled groups are finding that their members' top level disability living allowance is being removed. Will he outline how he intends to deal with the cynicism among disabled people and target people who need those welcome schemes but who, at the moment, may feel that they will not help?
  Mr. Bayley: The purpose of the personal adviser pilots in the new deal for disabled people is to provide advice to disabled people who want to work on the benefit entitlement of seeking a job, which in-work benefits they would receive if they took a job and on their long-term entitlement to out-of-work disability benefits if the post did not work out. Help is also provided with the job search and any training that those people might need to get the job that they seek.
  There are 1 million people out of work and on disability benefits who say that they wish that they had the opportunity to work. Under the system that operated before the election, they were simply consigned to a life on benefits. Our new deal for disabled people will give them the opportunity to fulfil their aspirations and to get the jobs that they want.

  Social Fund Payments
  Mr. David Winnick: If he will make a statement on whether he will consider a further application by Miss H. McNulty for a social fund payment; and if a home visit will take place in this case. [79748]
  The Parliamentary Under"Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): An application for a social fund payment can be made at any time, but, in the case of a repeat application for either a community care grant or a crisis loan, a social fund officer cannot consider making an award for the same need unless more than 26 weeks have elapsed since the previous decision, or there has been a change in the applicant's circumstances.
  In the case to which my hon. Friend refers, a home visit took place on 22 March.
  Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am far from satisfied about how this case has been processed? My constituent, a very elderly person who is virtually house-bound, should have been treated very differently, and the application should have been granted. As I understand the position, no home visit took place prior to the refusal of the application. May I ask my hon. Friend,
  566
  therefore, whether she will look further into this matter? I have already advised my constituent when she should make a further application.
  Angela Eagle: I am quite happy to consider the situation further. I am aware of the case and it is not a surprise to me that my hon. Friend has such views, because he has not been backward in coming forward, if I may put it that way, to tell me about them. I do not want to discuss that case on the Floor of the House, but if he wants to see me, we can discuss it in more detail.

  Welfare to Work
  Mr. Nigel GriffithsWhat support is being given to people with disabilities who wish to move from welfare to work. [79749]
  The Parliamentary Under"Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): Our strategy for helping people with disabilities who want to work involves a number of initiatives. We are providing active help and encouragement for people to move towards work; we are addressing barriers to work in the benefit system; we are taking steps to make sure that work pays; and we are promoting radical change in the workplace to ensure equality and opportunity.
  Mr. Griffiths: I welcome that answer from the Minister, but does he share the concern of disabled people who move into work that if they are not successful in retaining their place, they may be forced to suffer a reduction in benefits, which they feel to be wrong? What proposals do the Government have to tackle that fear?
  Mr. Bayley: I share the fear that my hon. Friend has expressed. It is an important point, and it is one of the reasons why, last autumn, the Government extended the linking rule for incapacity benefit from the eight weeks that we had inherited to 52 weeks, so that people may start a job in the knowledge that, if it does not work out—because their health does not permit them to carry on working or for any other reason—they can return to the higher rate of incapacity benefit without waiting for the normal qualification period.
  We are introducing on a pilot basis—in the Lothian region among other places—several other measures to make it easier for disabled people to come off benefits and go into work with confidence, not least a work trial of up to three weeks in which someone can enter the labour market, undertake a job but remain on benefits for the first three weeks to see whether that job works out.

  Child Care Costs
  Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: What plans he has to assist parents with the costs of bringing up children. [79752]
  The Parliamentary Under"Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): From April 2000, child benefit will be worth at least £15 for older children and £10 for subsequent children. These are above-inflation increases, which will help all children and build on this year's largest ever increase in the eldest child rate, which is already benefiting nearly 6.5 million families.

  567
  Recipients of income-related benefits will also get nearly £6 per week extra for each child under age 11—an increase of almost 30 per cent., which will help nearly 1 million families.
  Mr. Fitzpatrick: I am grateful to the Minister for her response. She obviously agrees that the best way to help families is to help children. I am sure that she is aware that there is wide support for the recent increases in child benefit, and child premiums for income-related benefits. Will she ensure that when the Government's proposals for the reform of the Child Support Agency emerge, they will continue the theme of offering practical help to children?
  Angela Eagle: One of the most pernicious legacies from our predecessors was the very large number of children growing up in poverty—something which the increases that I have just mentioned will have a real effect on tackling. I thank my hon. Friend for his question and assure him that at the forefront of our mind in planning for changes to the organisation of the CSA is the important notion that children deserve the support of both parents, whether they live together or separately.
  Mr. David Prior: Can the Minister confirm that single parents with young children who wish to return to full-time education are entitled to child care for a period of one year only, and that that effectively precludes them from taking two-year courses, such as A-levels?
  Angela Eagle: That is more a matter for Education Ministers. We do what we can to co-ordinate policy across Government Departments, but it is certainly not the case that social security benefits exist to pay for education.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Prime Minister has undertaken to eliminate child poverty within 20 years. How many children were living in poverty when the Government took office, and how many are living in poverty today?
  Angela Eagle: One in three children were living in poverty when the Government took office. We have estimated that as result of the policy changes and benefit increases to which I have referred, 700,000 children will be lifted out of poverty by the end of this Parliament.

  Fraud
  Ms Gisela Stuart: What plans he has to improve co"ordination between the Benefits Agency and local authorities in combating fraud. [79753]
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): By working in partnership, councils and the Benefits Agency can fight fraud more effectively, as well as give a better service to the public. That is why we have earmarked funding in each Benefits Agency area to develop stronger links with local councils. Detailed agreements are in place which give each party a clear statement of how co-operation should work in practice. We are installing terminals in council offices to give access to Department of Social Security computers.
  Ms Stuart: I thank the Minister for that answer. Can he tell me whether any councils have already applied to
  568
  use the powers which were given to them in February, to ask the Royal Mail not to redirect housing benefit, and whether the Department will monitor the success of the scheme?
  Mr. Timms: Yes. We certainly will monitor the success of the scheme. I do not have the information in front of me to enable me to tell the House how many local authorities so far have taken up the power to which my hon. Friend has referred. The power was introduced in sections 20 and 21 of the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997, to prevent fraudulent claimants using the Royal Mail's postal redirection arrangements to submit benefit claims from false addresses. It is clearly in everybody's interest that that practice ceases, and we would like to see the power taken up widely. I should tell my hon. Friend that it is possible to data-match our systems and local authority systems with those of the Royal Mail redirection database so that we can see where redirection is taking place and intervene if it is not appropriate.

  National Carers Strategy
  28. Mr. Ivor Caplin: If he will make a statement about his Department's contribution to the national carers' strategy. [79756]
  The Parliamentary Under"Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): The report of the national carers' strategy is an important document for all Government Departments. We are supporting the strategy's main aims and objectives in a number of ways.
  Mr. Caplin: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. The strategy has been greatly welcomed by carers in my constituency. In particular they welcome seeing Departments working together. I seek my hon. Friend's assurance that Departments will continue to do so over many years so as to provide carers with what they need in our society.
  Mr. Bayley: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. To provide the support that carers need requires a response not only from one Government Department but from many, and from local government and the health service. That is what the carers' strategy, "Caring about Carers", seeks to do. It is designed to provide a cross-Government response so that carers receive more help, and £140 million of additional Government money will back that strategy.

  Pensions
  Mr. David Amess: What recent representations he has received on the level of retirement pensions. [79757]
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): About 170 of the 550 responses to the pensions Green Paper consultation exercise comment on the level of the state retirement pension.
  Mr. Amess: Is the Minister aware that I am inundated by representations from senior citizens in my constituency who tell me that they are now living in poverty as a result

  569
  of this rotten Government's policies? Will the Minister address the point that he failed to take up earlier on the level of savings? Will he also tell the House how the Government will fund the second state pension?
  Mr. Timms: On the hon. Gentleman's final point, the Green Paper sets out fully how the Government will fund our pension proposals. They are affordable, they are durable and they have been widely welcomed. I hope that when he receives representations from his constituents he draws their attention to the minimum income guarantee, which took effect last week. That has already led to several hundred people having a boost in their incomes.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the beginning of Question Time that we are looking again at savings limits governing the receipt of income support for those pensioners with modest savings who are at present just outside the scope of the minimum income guarantee.
  570
  We are considering the possibility of bringing them within it by changing the limits that we inherited from the previous Government.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: The combination of the minimum pension guarantee with council tax benefit and housing benefit will ensure that an individual must save £80,000 to be better off than someone who has saved nothing at all. The Minister said earlier that that figure is inaccurate. Can he say what is the accurate figure?
  Mr. Timms: It is an inaccurate figure, because it does not allow for the income that people will receive anyway in retirement, but we are still waiting for an explanation from Conservative Members about why they want the minimum income guarantee to be uprated only in line with prices. What do they have against people on income support? That is what their constituents will want to know.

Fiona Jones
3.30 pm
Madam Speaker: I have a brief statement to make. The House will recall that on 22 March, following the conviction of the hon. Member for Newark in the Crown court on a charge of making a false declaration as to election expenses, I stated that the seat had been vacated in accordance with law.
The House will also be aware that the Court of Appeal has since quashed that conviction. The Court of Appeal, however, considered that it had no jurisdiction to go on to rule on whether or not the hon. Lady recovers her seat following the success of her appeal.
This is an unprecedented situation. On the one hand, there are considerations of natural justice. The conviction has been quashed; should not the vacancy also be overturned? On the other hand, whatever the outcome of the appeal, it is the interpretation of the Representation of the People Act 1983 which is crucial.
It is for the courts, not for the House, to interpret the law. I have therefore asked the Attorney-General, on behalf of the House, to seek an authoritative declaration from the High Court on the true construction of the 1983 Act. The court will be invited to make a declaration that, following the decision of the Court of Appeal to quash her conviction, Fiona Jones is entitled to resume her seat.
I understand that the application is being made today. I hope very much that it may be disposed of as speedily as is consistent with fairness and with certainty.

May I add in the interests of Members in all parts of this House that, once this matter has been resolved, I think it would be desirable for this part of our statute law to be reviewed to see whether it cannot be expressed more clearly, so as to avoid this kind of situation in future.
Mr. Joe Ashton rose—
Madam Speaker: Is it a point of order?
Mr. Ashton: Yes. I should like to ask a question. You have obviously laid down a precedent today, Madam
572
Speaker, and I am not disagreeing with it or raising any matter arising out it, but can you tell us whether the issue is still sub judice? The Tories have said publicly in Newark that they have withdrawn their candidate; so have the Liberals, and they do not want a by-election.
There is obviously a great deal of stuff to be debated, which the media and everybody else are interested in, but we do not know where we stand with the sub judice rule. The appeal took only 12 minutes and the Lord Chief Justice said—as you said, Madam Speaker—that, now that the conviction is quashed, so are the consequences, and he sees no reason why this case should be different from any other. Is the issue debatable anywhere or is it still sub judice?
Madam Speaker: It cannot be sub judice until a date for the hearing has been set down, but I think that, in the best interests of the hon. Lady, Fiona Jones, and of the House, the application to the High Court, which was made on our behalf by the Attorney-General about an hour and a half ago, should now proceed. We should leave it to the High Court to come to us with its decision.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I fully endorse your ruling on this issue? However, I understand from the ruling of the court—as I read it in the newspapers—that the court does not wish to confuse its role with that of Parliament. While I fully endorse your ruling, would not it be appropriate for this House to express an opinion, after a brief debate?
Madam Speaker: I understand that view, but I suggest that now that those steps have been taken on behalf of the House and in accordance with the rule of law, which we must uphold, we should await the High Court's decision. I am sure that that is in the best interests of all of us at this time.

Kosovo
[Relevant documents: Minutes of Evidence taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee on 14th April 1999 (HC 188-ii).]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
Madam Speaker: In view of the number of hon. Members who want to speak in this important debate, Back-Bench speeches will be limited throughout to 10 minutes.
3.35 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Before I turn to the matter of today's debate, may I offer the House the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who had wished to be present at this debate but is currently attending to the Northern Ireland peace talks? I am sure that the whole House wishes him success in that effort.
As we meet for this debate, a second wave of refugees is crossing from Kosovo into the neighbouring countries. Like all those who have made it into Macedonia, Albania or Montenegro in the past three weeks, none of them wanted to leave. All of them have been forced by fear to flee the terror and the brutality that has been visited upon Kosovo by President Milosevic.
Thousands of them have now been interviewed by the remaining members of the Kosovo verification mission, or by one of the United Nations agencies working in the refugee camps. Consistently they tell the same story: of Serb special police ordering them at the point of a gun to leave their homes within five minutes; of villages being burnt as they left; sometimes, of young men being separated from their families and disappearing; occasionally, of young women separated and subjected to systematic rape.
Some made their way on foot over the hillsides. Among them were pregnant women, some of whom gave birth on the journey under the sky. Others were forced on to the shuttle trains that plied back and forth from Pristina to the Macedonian border—2,000 to 3,000 per train, all standing, all too close to breathe in comfort, for a slow, seven-hour journey without water or sanitation.
We are witnessing in Kosovo the largest forced deportation in Europe since the time of Stalin or Hitler. This exodus is not the result of spontaneous acts of brutality; it was planned in Belgrade and is co-ordinated from Belgrade. That does not acquit those in the field from their own responsibility for the crimes that they commit. It is no defence against a war crime to plead that one was only following orders.
Tomorrow, I shall meet Judge Arbour, the chief prosecutor of the International War Crimes Tribunal. I shall promise her Britain's full co-operation in bringing to justice those who have stained Kosovo with ethnic cleansing and genocide. I shall be handing over a dossier of material with information on multiple atrocities from the past three weeks of killing and ethnic cleansing. I shall pass to her all the names that we have of the commanders of the army and police units who have been present when those crimes took place. I shall share with her our
574
photographs of the recently disturbed earth where we fear mass graves may be found. I shall offer her any information that we have that could help her to pursue the chain of command for those crimes all the way to the top in Belgrade.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: My right hon. Friend's words are all very well, but what will they do other than make the tough Serbs fight to the death in the knowledge that they will have to appear before a war crimes tribunal?
Mr. Cook: First, they are not just words. I have outlined the action that I shall take tomorrow and the action that I am taking to enable the International War Crimes Tribunal to do its work. My hon. Friend has repeatedly stressed the need to consult the United Nations. May I remind him that the war crimes tribunal was set up by the United Nations and is on the authority of the United Nations? There is an obligation on all of us, especially the permanent members of the Security Council, to make sure that the war crimes tribunal can do its work.
These are no idle threats. As a result of the rigorous and robust policy that we have taken against war crimes in Bosnia, we now have in The Hague awaiting trial half of all the war criminals currently indicted in former Yugoslavia. We will pursue those guilty of war crimes in Kosovo with the same vigour and the same results.
Mr. Roger Gale: For the last month, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have been talking in euphemisms: something turned into an art form by President Clinton. The Foreign Secretary has referred to the International War Crimes Tribunal. Is he now ready to admit that this country is involved in a war?
Mr. Cook: We have not declared war on Serbia. I say to my hon. Friends that, as I keep repeating, the people who represent and work for Serbia in this country are perfectly welcome here because we have not declared war on Serbia. Nor do we seek a war in which—[Interruption.] I am not entirely sure what the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) finds funny in this subject; it is a serious matter on which the lives of thousands of people turn.
We are not seeking a war against Belgrade, or to defeat Belgrade in war. We are seeking, through our military action, the limited—but nevertheless essential—task of enabling those dispossessed from Kosovo to return to their homes under international protection.
In the meantime, Britain and our allies have responded to the terror in Kosovo on two fronts. The first and most pressing of these is meeting the urgent humanitarian need of the victims of the terror. I hope that I can speak for all in the House—whatever their views on the conflict—when I record our appreciation of the magnificent efforts by our troops in Macedonia to meet the needs of the tidal wave of refugees. In just two days, British troops constructed capacity in camps for 30,000 refugees. Throughout both day and night, soldiers coming off defence duties volunteered to help with the relief work.
The House will be aware that the Government of Macedonia are concerned about the impact of the tide of refugees on the stability of their community. However, I am pleased that the Prime Minister of Macedonia was able

575
to respond within twelve hours to our plea for a refugee sanctuary in Macedonia under the protection of the international community.
I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who was the first Development Minister to visit the region after the exodus, and whose vigorous intervention helped to get things moving on the ground.
The extraordinary and swift generosity of the British public in response to appeals for donations to the refugees demonstrates the profound degree to which our constituents have been moved by their plight. They have already given well over £16 million.
As a Government, we have committed £20 million to the refugee programme —one kof the largest national donations. We will also be contributing £27 million as our share of the £170 million which has been agreed by the European Union. The UK contribution to the air bridge into skopje has alone flown in over 1,300 tonnnes of relief supplies.
We are exploring with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees whether there are injured or seriously ill refugees who cannot be cared for within the countries where they have sought refuge. We have today asked the UNHCR for a list of the first twenty people whom we can bring to Britain for intensive medical care. However, there is little suppport among Kosovar Albanians for a policy of dispersing the refugees to the different corners of the world. The overwhelming ambition of the refugees is to return to Kosovo and to rebuild their own homes.
Mr. Christopher Gill: The Foreign Secretary has twice mentioned the Government's policy of enabling the population to return to Kosovo. What interests the House more than anything at present is what plans the Government have for making that possible. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House — and to the country, for that matter —how the Government plan to enable the population to return to Kosovo?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that he anticipates the very passage in my speech in which I turn to the military campaign intended to secure the return of the Kosovarsto Kosovo, the necessary parallel to our humanitarian work.
May I say to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), and to the House, that not one refugee who has made it over the border has said that they fled to avoid the NATO bombing? Not one of them has blamed the bombing for the behaviour of President Milosevic's forces. The view repeatedly and vigorously expressed by their leaders is that the NATO campaign must be pressed home so that they can return home Earlier today, I met a dozen Kosovar Albanians. Every single one gave the NATO action their full support.
One of those people had been forced to leave Pristina only two weeks ago. He had been one of the last to leave. He described how the city had been emptied by armed men, many of them masked, ordering people to leave their homes. If they thought that the household had and money, they would demand payment of DM 5,000 to allow and elderly father to accompany a family; or they would demand to know what price the family would put on being allowed to take their elderly mother with them. He ended
576
his description by saying that the Kosovar Albanians only felt any regret about the NATO operations when bad weather prevented them from attacking the forces of ethnic cleansing.
That sustained campaign is having a real impact on the war machine. We know that President Milosevic's commanders in the field have increasing difficulty in maintaining contact with headquarters because of damage to their communication systems. We know that we have destroyed much of his fuel reserves, and that field officers have to watch the fuel gauge with increasing worry. We have also destroyed half his high-performance aircraft, and the rest have not dared to take to the skies for a long time. As a result, the biggest worry of his army commanders in the field is knowing that they do not have effective air defence, and are vulnerable if they move in the open.
As President Milosevic's war machine becomes weaker, NATO's forces in the theatre are becoming stronger. The number of attack aircraft available for the campaign has doubled since it started, and continues to grow. Time is against President Milosevic. He cannot replace the equipment that he loses, he cannot now refine fuel for his vehicles, and we know that his attempt to call up reservists for the fight in Kosovo has been ignored by more than half those whom he has summoned. Time is our ally. We must have the resolve to take the time, and the measures, that are necessary if we are to complete the task to which we have set our hand.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Over the past four days I have spoken to scores of people in Inverclyde and elsewhere in Renfrewshire, including the mother of a young lad who is serving with the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. It would appear from those conversations that the Government have the overwhelming support of people in my constituency and the adjoining one; but again and again I was asked, "How long will the bombing continue?" Is it not likely to last for a considerable time?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend underlines what we all know to be true: that support for intervention has not weakened but grown over the period of the intervention as people have been confronted with the horror that is now taking place in Kosovo. Having met all the NATO foreign ministers, I can tell the House that that experience is repeated throughout the NATO countries, for exactly the same reason.
I cannot give the House a date by which the bombing will be over. I would welcome the opportunity to do so, but to do so would be dishonest. Moreover, it would be to miss the main point, which, as I have said, is that we must secure our objectives. When the bombing stops will be determined by when we secure the critical objective of being able to return the people of Kosovo under our protection. President Milosevic, however, could stop the bombing today if he called a ceasefire, withdrew his troops and allowed the Kosovars to return under the international protection that is now demanded by every international body.
Mr. Tony Benn rose—
Mr. Llew Smith rose—
Mr. Cook: I will give way when I have made some progress with my speech.

577
We have tried hard to avoid civilian casualties, but it simply is not possible to conduct a military campaign of the intensity that is needed while at the same time guaranteeing that no civilians will be killed. To pretend otherwise would be dishonest. NATO forces have worked around the clock trying to save the lives of refugees by providing them with shelter and food. We are therefore deeply concerned if any refugees have perished as a result of NATO action, and if there has been a misjudgment, we deeply regret it. However, I will not accept criticism of NATO's action from the very Government in Belgrade who have brutally and deliberately murdered thousands of Kosovars.
The tragedy poses questions not just for NATO, but for President Milosevic. Who was it who made those refugees homeless? What was the terror that made them flee their homes and country? Having burned those homes and forced their occupants to flee the country, it is breathtaking cynicism on the part of President Milosevic to manipulate their deaths as propaganda for his cause.
Mr. Llew Smith: The whole House will be aware of the tragic consequences that follow when missiles fail to hit the intended target. Has any assessment been made of the likely consequences if one of the missiles should miss the target and hit the nuclear power plant at Vinca, near Belgrade? Has any assessment been made of the environmental and ecological damage resulting from the bombing of oil and chemical plants?
Mr. Cook: Of course, we are aware of where the nuclear plant is. Of course, we will take every possible measure, we have succeeded in avoiding it and we will certainly take care that it is nowhere near any missiles. I understand the concerns about the effect on the environment from the petrochemical plant, but if we are to be resolute, and if we are serious about halting the war machine, the best way in which we can hurt and inhibit it is to ensure that it is denied the fuel for tanks and heavy artillery to move around in Kosovo. While I fully understand my hon. Friend's long and honourable concern for the environment, what is happening on the ground in Kosovo to the environment of the Kosovo population dwarfs anything that NATO has done to the environment anywhere in Yugoslavia.
Our objectives are clear: a ceasefire and the withdrawal from Kosovo of Milosevic's army, special police and paramilitary thugs, without which any ceasefire will now not be credible; the return of all refugees and unconditional access for humanitarian relief; and acceptance of the international military force, without which no refugee will have the confidence to return in security, and without which few humanitarian agencies will enter Kosovo.
When the Heads of Government of the European Union met at the end of last week, their text concluded that there could be no compromise on those objectives. Any compromise would be a betrayal of the refugees and would leave them a dispossessed people without a home, without a state and without hope. Any compromise would be a reward for President Milosevic's brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing.
Mrs. Angela Browning: The Foreign Secretary says that every effort will be needed
578
and that the campaign of bombing will continue. Will he confirm that page 23 of last year's strategic defence review sets out clearly the fact that our existing commitments in places such as Northern Ireland, and an air, sea and land force campaign such as the one that is now needed in the Balkans, could be sustained for only six months? If the campaign needs to continue beyond six months, will what has been printed in the strategic defence review be seriously revised upwards, so that there is no question that, if the six months were up and the campaign needed to be sustained, there would be no further jeopardy to our armed forces?
Mr. Cook: I assure the House that our defence staff are confident that we can sustain our present campaign. Indeed our plans for the deployment of a ground force within Kosovo do include the assumption that we will be able to wind down our presence in Kosovo after six months because, after that period, it is anticipated that the rapid reaction headquarters will be able to leave Kosovo.
I say to the hon. Lady and to any other Opposition Member who is thinking of getting up on the same point that criticising us over whether we have the resources sits ill with the fact that the previous Government cut the defence budget by a third and cut the number of personnel by a third. It is no good complaining now that there are insufficient resources to do the task that the House wishes the Army to do.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cook: May I continue?
I have heard it argued by hon. Members on both sides of the House that the problem should have been resolved by dialogue and not by military action. I can only say to them that every opportunity was given for dialogue to work. At Rambouillet and then again at Paris we put six weeks into negotiation to create a democratic, self-governing Kosovo within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
The Kosovar Albanians signed up to the peace accords in full. The accords fell short of their demand for independence and required the Kosovo Liberation Army to disarm. Nevertheless, they had the courage to make a compromise to reach peace.
The talks broke down solely because of the refusal of Belgrade to negotiate in good faith towards an agreement. No one surveying the ruthless brutality that they have practised since then in Kosovo can now believe that they were ever serious about reaching agreement.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Foreign Secretary explain why between the end of the Rambouillet talks and the start of military action no effort was made by the British and United States Governments to take the issue to the United Nations Security Council and ask the Secretary-General to undertake a diplomatic mission, or to gain its authority before any action was taken?
Mr. Cook: Britain has sponsored three resolutions at the United Nations on the Kosovo crisis. The last of those was the resolution that endorsed the October package to which President Milosevic signed up. That October

579
package endorsed commitment to a ceasefire in Kosovo and the withdrawal of his tanks, heavy artillery and most of his troops from Kosovo. Every point of that resolution has now been comprehensively broken by President Milosevic. It is Belgrade, not Britain, that is challenging the authority of the United Nations.
When the United Nations Security Council discussed our military action, it supported our objectives by 12 votes to three and supported the action that is being taken. We did not pass straight to military action after the collapse of the Paris talks. Richard Holbrooke went to Belgrade and sought a last-minute conclusion from President Milosevic. If we are now engaged in military action, it is because at every possible point in many opportunities President Milosevic refused to accept dialogue and demonstrated that the only thing that he recognised was the use of force.
At Rambouillet we envisaged the Serb army maintaining a presence in Kosovo. It is implausible that the refugees would now be willing to return while those who have persecuted them remain in occupation of Kosovo. For that reason, we now require a full withdrawal of the Serb army. It will also be necessary for the international community to accept for an interim period a more direct responsibility for Kosovo than was envisaged at Rambouillet. What makes that necessary is the sheer scale of the brutality directed from Belgrade against the Kosovar Albanians. While Milosevic remains in power in Belgrade, it is inconceivable that the Kosovars can accept Belgrade exercising any intervention in their internal affairs.
Until we have rebuilt democratic institutions in Kosovo, its administration will need to be placed in the hands of international bodies, including the UN, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the European Union. The task of reconstruction both of the shattered villages and of a democratic society in Kosovo will take the combined efforts of all those organisations. It would be our preference that a mandate should be provided by a Security Council resolution setting up an international administration for Kosovo.
Mr. Benn: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is outlining a long strategy. Why have not the Government felt it necessary at any stage to invite the House to endorse the policy that he describes? We are left as a sort of press conference, in which we listen to Ministers but have no opportunity to register our views in the Lobby.
Mr. Cook: My right hon. Friend understates the capacity of the House to debate the issue and his own capacity to question me on the issues, if he describes what we are engaged in as some kind of press conference. In the present Parliament, all the leaderships of the major parties support the action that the Government are taking. It is traditional in such circumstances for the House to debate the matter on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. This is the second debate that I have opened on this subject since the campaign began. The Prime Minister has made two full statements to the House, and in addition my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made an emergency statement one night at 10 o'clock, after a vote. At every successive stage since military action commenced—and at every stage of the peace talks that preceded that action—we have consulted the House
580
and reported back to it. I do not believe that the House can reasonably complain that its interests have not been fully taken into account.
Mr. Benn: Madam Speaker, may I register a point with you?
Madam Speaker: Order. Is it a point of order? The right hon. Gentleman cannot register a point with me, but must use a form to which I can respond and on which I can take action.
Mr. Benn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have been very courageous in defending the rights of the House and of dissent. However, I ask you to give consideration to the idea that Parliament must be unanimous if party leaders agree because, were that to be the case, the history of the House would be quite different.
Madam Speaker: It is an interesting point, but it is certainly not a matter for me.
Mr. Cook: I was also interested to observe that my right hon. Friend's observation drew particular cheers from Opposition Members.
It is right that the international community should take responsibility for the people of Kosovo because, overwhelmingly, the nations of the world share the same revulsion as our people at the atrocities that have been committed in Kosovo. Last week in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, there was a vote on a resolution condemning the atrocities, demanding that the war crimes tribunal be allowed access to Kosovo, and that Belgrade withdraw its troops and agree to a settlement based on the Rambouillet accords.
The resolution was drafted and proposed by the Muslim states in the UN Commission. We should remember that the countries of the Islamic world, and our own Muslim citizens in Britain, are watching to see whether Europe will respect the rights of a European Muslim community and act vigorously to restore their security.

That resolution was carried in Geneva with 44 nations voting for it and only one nation—Russia—voting against. It was a forceful measure of the balance of international opinion in support of our objectives.
I am sorry that Russia isolated itself on that occasion and on others when Kosovo has been debated. Russia played a full part alongside us at Rambouillet in drafting the peace accords and in trying to broker agreement to them. We want Russia to be a partner in securing a settlement that delivers on our objectives.
There is the same wish on the part of the Government of Russia. I spoke to the Russian Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, following his meeting in Oslo last week with Madeleine Albright. He confirmed that they had found a wide area of common ground. Indeed, Russia has only one substantive area of disagreement with the NATO objectives. Although Russia accepts that there must be an international presence in Kosovo at the end of the conflict, it is still not prepared to say that it must be a military one.
Frankly, I do not believe that it will be possible to persuade the refugees to return without a credible military presence. I hope that Russia will agree to take part in it and work alongside our troops, as Russian troops do at

581
present in Bosnia. In the meantime we will continue close dialogue with the Government of Russia to see whether we can close the remaining gap between us.
If we can secure agreement with Russia, that would unblock the path to progress through the Security Council. Already, as I have told the House, 12 of the 15 members of the Security Council share our objectives and support our campaign.
The statement last week by the UN Secretary-General helpfully restates our objectives as the necessary basis of any political settlement. I share the view of Kofi Annan, who dismissed the claim that the international community has no business intervening because Yugoslavia is a sovereign state. As Kofi Annan firmly expressed it, the rights defended by the UN are the rights of people, and no Government should be able to take away those rights by force simply by claiming that it has the sovereign power to do so.
Yugoslavia is ringed by seven countries. Since the campaign began I have spoken to the Foreign Ministers of each of them. All their Governments are firm in the view that NATO is right to make a stand against President Milosevic, and they share our objectives.
A positive feature of the past month has been the growing co-operation among the other countries of the Balkans, and between them and western Europe. That development must not cease when the immediate crisis in Kosovo ends. NATO is examining how we can reinforce security for those countries by intensifying our co-operation through partnership for peace.
The European Union has proposed a stability pact with the other countries of the region. It proposes that we help to build a civic society and promote political reform through widening the programmes that we fund in the region, and that we boost these countries' economic and trade links with Europe by accelerating their agreements on association with us.
Serbia is ringed by countries which are all now deepening their links with modern Europe. All those countries enjoy the perspective of broadening political freedom and eventual economic progress.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke rose—
Mr. Andrew Robathan rose—
Mr. Cook: I will give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but this must be the last intervention that I take.
Mr. Clarke: If I understood the Foreign Secretary correctly, he said that the Government's policy is that the territory of Kosovo should be administered internationally for an indefinite period. Is that the Government's settled policy? Has it been agreed by all the allies taking part in the operation, and by the neighbouring states to which he referred? If there is to be international administration, is it to be by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, by the United Nations or by the European Union? If that has not been settled, how will progress be made?
Mr. Cook: I said that all those organisations must be involved. Frankly, it will take the resources of all those
582
organisations to take on the task of reconstruction in Kosovo, including not only physical rebuilding but the creation of democratic institutions. The model for that is foreshadowed in the Rambouillet peace accords, which foresaw exactly such an operation, with the OSCE, the European Union and the United Nations working together to create a democratic, self-governing Kosovo; although in the wake of the past four weeks it will have to be a much more hands-on operation than we envisaged at Rambouillet.
That is the view of Her Majesty's Government, and it is a view on which we have close discussions with our major allies. From my conversations with the Ministers of Germany, Italy, France and the United States, to whom I speak every night, I believe that it is widely shared among our allies.
I was describing to the House how the countries of the region are developing their links with the European Union. The contrast with the fate of the Serbian people could not be clearer. In the 10 years in which President Milosevic has been in power, the average income of the people of Serbia has halved, and their freedoms have been extinguished with the successive closures of the independent media. Ultimately, the greatest threat to President Milosevic is that even he cannot hide for ever from his people the truth that he and his politics stand between them and the modern Europe.
We want the Serb people also to be able to join us in that modern Europe, but it is built on the principle of respect for the equal rights of all citizens, regardless of their ethnic identity, and on recognition that cultural diversity is not a weakness but a strength.
Mr. Robathan rose—
Mr. Cook: I said that I would not give way again.
We cannot embrace Serbia in that modern Europe so long as Belgrade pursues policies that are based on a doctrine of ethnic superiority that the rest of Europe rejected half a century ago.
At the end of this week, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister and I will represent Britain at the NATO summit in Washington. That summit will commemorate the birth of NATO 50 years ago, in the aftermath of the second world war. At that time, the free nations of the world surveyed the horrors that they had discovered in occupied Europe and said, "Never again"; yet in the past weeks we have again borne witness to forced deportation by train, thousands of refugees starving in squalid huddles and pathetic masses shorn of their homes and their papers for no reason but their ethnic identity. Had we taken no action we would have been complicit in those evils.
NATO was born out of the defeat of fascism. Fifty years later, we cannot tolerate the rebirth of fascism in our continent. That is why our service men are in action over Kosovo and why the House must support that action until we have reversed the ethnic cleansing and enabled the people of Kosovo to return to their homes in safety.
4.10 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: When the House last met to debate the fate of Kosovo, our mood was sombre. In the two and a half weeks that have elapsed

583
since, the mood both in the House and in the country has darkened. It is, of course, true that we all continue to be deeply moved by the intense images of suffering that fill our television screens and newspapers. Each day brings forth accounts of human misery and inhuman cruelty more vivid and violent than the day before.
The Opposition continue to support the men and women of our armed forces, to whose skill, courage and devotion to duty we owe so much. We recognise the efforts of those whose back-up work is so crucial, and, of course, the anxieties of the families of those engaged in front-line action. We pay tribute to them all, and to those military and civilian personnel who have done, and are doing, so much so selflessly and so heroically to help the refugees. For anyone who may have been tempted to think that mankind, at least in Europe, has put behind it the sort of atrocities that so defiled our continent 50 years ago, these events have been the most dire return to dreadful reality.
We continue to support the Government. We continue to believe that it was right to take action against the regime that has inflicted so much terror on those whom it regards as its own citizens. As I said in our last debate, now is not the time to go over the history of NATO's involvement and its nature, though there will come a time after the fighting has stopped when that task will need to be undertaken. However, there are questions which can and should be asked, and answered, now.
Mr. Tony McNulty: I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's opening statement of general support. In that context, will he totally dissociate himself from the remarks of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), who called for the sacking of Sir Charles Guthrie?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman should know that there are different views in all quarters of this House. This House is not a rubber stamp. It is its duty to scrutinise the Government. Those whose views differ from those of the Government and Opposition Front-Bench teams are entitled to be heard with respect. I am making my views absolutely clear, and the hon. Gentleman should understand that those with different views are perfectly entitled to have their say. The existence of this conflict does not relieve the House of its duty to scrutinise the Government's actions and to seek clarity in the explanation of those actions: clarity about their objectives; about the methods that the Government seek to employ to achieve them; and about the progress, or lack of it, that is being made.
When the Prime Minister first came to the House, he said that the primary objective of NATO's actions was
"to avert what would otherwise be a humanitarian disaster in Kosovo."—[Official Report, 23 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 161.]
Three weeks later it is clear—regrettably, most unhappily, but clear none the less—that that objective has not been achieved. Of course, it is true, as Ministers rightly tell us, that the responsibility for the humanitarian disaster that has occurred rests with Milosevic. Of course, it is not the case, with the exception of those ghastly accidents that are the inevitable companions of military action, that the responsibility is NATO's. Of course, it is also true that there were atrocities and a humanitarian disaster before the NATO bombing commenced, but no one could describe the events on the ground during the past three weeks as anything other than a humanitarian disaster.
584
Although I have no doubt that much damage has been done to Milosevic's military machine, and although I would be the last person to minimise the impact of the NATO campaign, we must nevertheless face facts, and one of those deeply unpalatable facts is that NATO's primary objective—to prevent a humanitarian disaster—has not been achieved. That must be the starting point for any honest examination as to how we should now proceed. There is nothing to be gained in confusing aspiration with achievement, or in mistaking what is desirable for what has been done.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. and learned Friend is right, because, although the moral culpability for the cleansing of Kosovo lies with Milosevic, is it not also true that, by withdrawing the monitors and commencing the bombing action, NATO gave Milosevic an opportunity and an excuse? Had the bombing not started, the probability is that we would not have seen the cleansing that has taken place; the culpability rests with Milosevic, but surely we also need to recognise the facts.
Mr. Howard: We shall never know quite to what extent Milosevic would have continued with the ethnic cleansing that he had undoubtedly already started before the NATO bombing commenced. As I said, that ethnic cleansing—those atrocities, that humanitarian disaster — had begun and was clearly under way before the NATO bombing commenced.
Mr. Clive Soley: I am anxious that we should deal with that point, because a number of Members—not least those with constituencies such as mine where many refugees have arrived during the past eight to 10 years—also remember that, before the events in Kosovo began, there were 1 million refugees from that area. One of the reasons why we are having difficulty at present is that previously the ethnic cleansing happened slowly so it was easy to ignore it. Now it is happening fast and we cannot help but see it. However, ethnic cleansing happening slowly is just as bad as ethnic cleansing that happens fast.
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point.
As I said, we must have clarity. First and foremost, we must be clear as to what NATO's objectives now are. On 23 March the Prime Minister said that, to avoid NATO action,
"Milosevic must do what he promised to do last October—end the repression, withdraw his troops to barracks, get them down to the levels he agreed, and withdraw from Kosovo the tanks, heavy artillery and other weapons he brought into Kosovo early last year. He must agree to the proposals set out in the Rambouillet accords, including a NATO-led ground force.—[Official Report, 23 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 162-63.]
We must be clear as to the extent to which those remain NATO's objectives.
I welcome what the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon about the need for a total withdrawal of Serb forces. That differs from those original objectives, but, in my judgment, that difference is entirely justified. I welcome, too, what the right hon. Gentleman said about the status of Kosovo after the cessation of the fighting. However, he fell far short of answering the questions put to him by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member

585
for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). We need to know to what extent what the Foreign Secretary told us this afternoon about that post-fighting status of Kosovo has been agreed with the other 18 members of the NATO alliance and with the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the European Union and the United Nations. My right hon. and learned Friend asked some reasonable questions and they deserve to be answered. We should be told, too, how what the Foreign Secretary told us this afternoon is to be squared with the arguments deployed by President Clinton yesterday in his article in The Sunday Times, in which he put the case against independence for Kosovo after the fighting is over.
Mr. John Wilkinson: My right hon. and learned Friend is making a most important point. Will he seek an answer from the Foreign Secretary to the fundamental question of whether there is not a real danger that, if we enable the Kosovar Albanians to return to their homes and then frustrate their political aspirations thereafter, we shall incur their long-term odium, which might perpetuate conflict in the region?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend's question is a valid one and is implied in the point that I have just made.
We need to know more about the nature of the force that would ultimately monitor and police the situation in Kosovo. The Prime Minister has said that any force would need to be NATO-led, but the NATO statement of 12 April said merely that Milosevic must accept the
"stationing in Kosovo of an international military presence",
and similar words were used by the Secretary-General of the United Nations and by the Foreign Ministers of the European Union. Indeed, the French Defence Minister has said that it is possible
"that a future peacekeeping force for Kosovo may not be under NATO's direct control."
That is a matter of the greatest importance. Does the British Government agree with the French Defence Minister's statement? Is it now the case, as the Prime Minister appeared to suggest yesterday, that the removal of Milosevic is now an explicit objective of NATO policy? There are also questions about how the objectives are to be achieved.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Following on from that last point, could that not be the kernel of a peace settlement, given that, at Rambouillet, the Serbs were prepared to accept autonomy, but not a NATO-led peacekeeping force? Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that we should be prepared to compromise on that point and have a peacekeeping force that is, at least in part of Kosovo, led by neutral nations? Is that a point worth considering?
Mr. Howard: Things have moved on since Rambouillet and I share the view that the Government have expressed, that, for example, partition of Kosovo would not be a satisfactory outcome. The Prime Minister was absolutely unequivocal in the answer he gave in the House to that question only a few days ago, and I agree with his views on that point.
586
We need answers to questions about how the objectives which the Government have set themselves are to be achieved. The fact that there has been a substantial reinforcement of NATO's air strike capability must be taken as an indication that the original assessment of what was likely to happen was too optimistic. I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence will comment on that when he winds up the debate.
I also hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bring clarity to the crucial question of ground forces, where there is much scope for confusion. I suspect that there would be widespread support for the intervention of ground troops to keep a peace that had already been agreed, but both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have repeatedly ruled out the use of ground troops to fight their way in to impose a settlement. Yet, even in that respect, the reasoning is not as clear as it should be. It is one thing to reject that option, as the Prime Minister did, because of the scale of the force that would be needed and the very high risk of substantial casualties. However, it is quite another to suggest that the reason why ground troops are not being used is, in the words of the US Defence Secretary last week, that
"There was not a consensus in the NATO alliance to do anything but an air campaign",
or, in the words of the Foreign Secretary yesterday, that
"it would take months to assemble"
the necessary number of ground troops, and we
"don't have two or three months to wait."
Yesterday, the Secretary-General of NATO gave a fourth different justification when he said:
"At this point we think the air campaign is enough. The military authorities who are leading the campaign think that it is enough. Therefore we are not going to change the policy now. But if the moment comes and it is necessary I am sure that the countries which belong to NATO will be ready to do it."
We must have clarity.
We must also be told more about the concept of intervention in what the Foreign Secretary calls a "permissive environment". That did not feature in the Government's original objectives. Are any preparations now under way to assemble a larger force? Would not such preparations need to be made now if the force were to be used any time this year? I hope that the Defence Secretary will tell us more about that tonight.
Mr. Dalyell: As to clarity, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman in favour of contemplating introducing ground troops? The port of Thessalonika has denied access, as has the port of Piraeus following the statements by the mayor of Athens on this subject; there is complete opposition from Macedonia; and the Hungarians, for their own reasons involving Hungarian minorities in Yugoslavia, are not willing to contemplate such a move. How will one get a ground army into Yugoslavia without crossing mountains that are 6,000 ft high using the incredibly useless infrastructure of Albania? How will that operation be achieved?
Mr. Howard: I do not underestimate the difficulties involved. I have said clearly that ground troops could be employed in a variety of different circumstances. I think it is simplistic of the hon. Gentleman to refer to that remark and then pose a series of questions about the deployment of troops in only one set of circumstances.

587
I hope that the Defence Secretary will tell us more this evening about how the Government—
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody rose—
Mr. Howard: I have taken many interventions, so I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I continue.
I hope that the Defence Secretary will tell us more about how the Government now view the role of the KLA. The United States Defence Secretary was reported as saying that, as a result of the bombing campaign, the military balance would shift
"decisively in favour of the KLA."
He said that, over time, the KLA would be in a position to defeat Milosevic's army. Do the British Government share that view and do they seek to facilitate that development?
As to the length of the campaign, it is, alas, the case that the prediction made by the Defence Secretary on 25 March, when he said,
"As the situation improves, we will look to reduce numbers."—[Official Report, 25 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 617],
has not been borne out by events. The United States Administration have accepted that the campaign will be very lengthy. Do the Government agree? I believe the British people are both realistic about the possible time scale of the campaign and resolute about the need to see it through. However, the Government should be open and honest about their expectations.
There has been some confusion about the diplomatic dimension of recent events. I hope that the Defence Secretary will tell us a little more about the German peace initiative. What consultation took place with other Governments before that initiative was announced? Was the Foreign Secretary consulted? He did not mention the initiative in his speech. What is the current status of that initiative? How do things stand with Russia? Does the Foreign Secretary plan to meet Mr. Chernomyrdin, who has been appointed Russia's peace envoy?
Above all, what more is planned to help the refugees and those countries that are at present receiving them? Are the Government satisfied with the current level of effort demonstrated by the international community? What can be done to reinforce that effort? What more can be done to help Macedonia, Albania and Montenegro? Last week, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister particularly about the continuing pressure on Macedonia and he was assured that we were doing all that we could. Since then, there has been a further influx of refugees across the border. The Macedonian Interior Minister has predicted:
"In six months there will be a total collapse of the economy"
with
"a lot of side-effects for national security, law and order and society."
He accused other countries of doing far too little to shoulder their share of the burden. What has been done to respond to those concerns? After all, the Foreign Secretary acknowledged last week that the Government anticipated Milosevic's spring offensive and knew that it would be accompanied by ethnic cleansing and murder of the civilian population, so they had the foreknowledge
588
required to plan and prepare, in part at least, for the avalanche of human misery that we have seen in the past three weeks.
I shall not deal with the separate, specific details of any of the dreadful events that have so recently occurred, save to emphasise the importance of providing, as soon as possible, full and honest accounts of the incidents in which NATO has been involved. I understand that those accounts are now being given at a NATO press conference, and if that is the case, it is very welcome. Such tragedies are almost inevitable, but that does not make them any less tragic or ease the pain and suffering of any of the victims or their families. However, those events must not undermine the essential justice of NATO's cause and they must not be allowed to weaken its will.
We remain convinced of the justice of that cause. We remain of the view that NATO was right to intervene to try to prevent the horror that is taking place. We must continue to ensure that its action is based on clear, consistent objectives and will be judged against clear criteria. We must ensure that, having embarked on that action, we now see it through.
4.31 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: To have embarked on this intervention is a serious, solemn course of action, but intervention is always a question of choice. It would have been possible to say that these are matters with which we shall not concern ourselves.
In deciding whether we should intervene, we surely have an obligation to give serious consideration to what appear to be the relevant and compelling factors. I suggest that the first of those factors is the degree of wrongdoing with which we are seeking to deal. The second is the extent of our ability to take action. The third is the nature of our interest: is it moral, pragmatic or both? The fourth, which is, perhaps, as compelling as all the others, is the prospect of success. In analysing those factors, it is inevitable that we shall be engaged in value judgments.
In this case, when we ask ourselves what is the degree of wrongdoing, we are surely able to say that it is the most brutal and despicable ethnic cleansing. When we ask ourselves about our ability to take action, surely we can say that the most successful military alliance in history, which has annual defence expenditure of between $350 billion and $400 billion, has the capacity to take action. When we ask ourselves what is our interest, I say that we have both a moral and a pragmatic interest in preventing a flagrant abuse of humanitarian standards and inhibiting instability and preventing bloodshed on the very edge of Europe. What are the prospects of success? The objectives that we have set out can be attained, but it will not be easy and we should not pretend otherwise.
On an earlier occasion, when the Prime Minister made a statement to the House, I said that this was a bad business and might turn out to be a bloody one. I said also that those of us who have advocated the use of military force must live with the responsibility of the consequences and that, once the use of military force had begun, it would require political will to continue when, as there inevitably would be, there were setbacks. Those conclusions are as valid today as they were then.
Liberal Democrats have contended that an air campaign alone would not suffice and that military presence on the ground would be essential for the return of the refugees

589
so that they would have the confidence and courage to return to the communities out of which they have been burned, looted and shelled. However, such a military force could not be achieved by agreement between Rambouillet and Paris, and is even less likely to be achieved by agreement now. NATO must therefore be willing to impose its will.
That is why I believe that it was wrong for NATO to rule out the option of ground forces in such an apparently unequivocal way. That allowed the Milosevic regime to exclude from its calculations an option which it would at least have found disconcerting and potentially painful—which might well have made an effective contribution to deterrence. Milosevic should have been left in confusion and doubt about NATO's intentions.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: It may not have been the stated intention at the beginning of this conflict, but there are certainly noises now about using ground troops, so it must obviously be a consideration with the Serbs. If the whole of Kosovo were occupied by ground forces and the Serbs continued nevertheless to resist, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman contemplate the full-scale occupation of Yugoslavia, including Belgrade, by NATO forces, with the likely guerrilla warfare lasting not months but perhaps years?
Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman intervened on me on the previous occasion on which we debated this topic, and I was less than gracious in my response. I wrote to him privately afterwards to apologise, and I am happy to take the opportunity to apologise publicly for the fact that I was less than gracious in dealing with his intervention. I shall deal with the intervention that he has just made on the merits on which he made it. I do not believe that anyone here would contemplate the occupation of Belgrade, but the threat and, indeed, perhaps the use, of ground forces will be an essential component in achieving any settlement. I cannot conceive of circumstances in which the threat of use or, indeed, the actual use will not be necessary.
Public opinion has been much more robust on this topic than Governments have estimated. In seeing the terrible scenes that flash across our television screens, which occur with such frequency that we have become almost dulled to their effect, the public understand that, without credible military protection, people who are driven out of their homes will have neither the confidence nor the courage to return.
I wish that it were possible to say that that presence would be obtained by consent, but I do not believe that it will. Whether troops are deployed will of course depend on the strength of the opposition—the success of the air campaign—and the political cohesion of NATO. Those of us who advocate this as a course of action would be very well advised to remember that there came a point in the Gulf war at which the issue before us was whether there should be an assault on Baghdad. That became regarded as impossible to mount because the political cohesion of the international alliance, which had been created in order to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, would not have survived.
Mr. Benn: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right that ground troops will be needed—that view is
590
widely shared, and the Americans are now dropping leaflets saying, "We will attack you from land, sea and air", so the process has begun—does he at least share my view that something as grave as that should be put specifically to a vote in the House of Commons? Does he also share my view that to cite his party leader as a supporter of the policy is not a substitute for the House reaching a judgment on such a grave matter?
Mr. Campbell: It may come as something of a surprise to the right hon. Gentleman, but I have some considerable sympathy with his point of view—not only in relation to my party leader, let me hasten to say. The right hon. Gentleman makes a sound point. If we are to ask our young men, and increasingly our young women, to risk their lives in the furtherance of political objectives, surely they ought to know that they have the endorsement of the House of Commons.
Mr. Hogg: On a substantive motion.
Mr. Campbell: On a substantive motion, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has, of course, a long history of endeavouring to reform the prerogative power, and I have some sympathy with that point of view. It seems to me that, at a time when we are engaged in remarkable constitutional reforms in relation to Scotland and Wales, the adoption of the European convention on human rights into our domestic law and perhaps—if we are fortunate—in due course, freedom of information, there is time for a proper examination of that issue. Although the right hon. Gentleman and I disagree as violently as it is possible to disagree on the merits of this case, I believe that he should have the right to record his vote in relation to that matter on a substantive motion in the House.
Mr. David Winnick: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell: I am not subject to the 10-minutes rule, but I know that very many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate so, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall make progress.
We should not underestimate the fragility of public opinion—even although I believe that it has been more robust than Governments have estimated—and we have a duty to explain that, if we were to embark upon a ground campaign, it would not be for a matter of a few weeks, and it would carry a substantial potential for casualties.
We have another duty, and that is to be frank. If NATO makes mistakes, it should say so and publish all the evidence, including the video evidence. No matter which side of the argument one takes in these matters, none of us can have been entirely satisfied with the way in which NATO dealt with the events of last week. As this debate began, a press conference was being held at which more information was being put into the public domain. I doubt whether NATO will ever be blamed for delay, but it would certainly be blamed for disinformation, even if that arose innocently. NATO's values must demonstrably be different from those of the Milosevic regime.
On another point, I do not believe that the rubbishing of correspondents by unattributable briefing serves the cause. Mr. John Simpson is not a candidate for sainthood,

591
but it seems to me to betray a conspicuous lack of confidence in the justice of the cause to be so ultra-sensitive to his broadcasts from Belgrade. I firmly believe that we should let people make their own judgments. The Prime Minister rightly says that this is an issue about values. One of those values is freedom of expression. How shall we justify our determination to bring that freedom of information to Kosovo when we seem to fight shy of it ourselves?

It is possible to discern the pattern of the air campaign. With the tragic exceptions that have been mentioned, it has been largely successful in the avoidance of civilian casualties. It is clear that the pattern is to block the exits from Kosovo for the forces of the Milosevic regime. The purpose of the destruction of bridges and fuel dumps is obviously to cut lines of supply and the line of retreat. It will be a long way back to Belgrade for the paramilitary police and soldiers who have been such enthusiasts for ethnic cleansing; a long way back for those who have used rape to terrorise and humiliate women of the Albanian community; a long way back for those who may have done in Kosovo what they most assuredly did in Srebrenica. The Milosevic regime, it is clear, is ready to sacrifice its own foot soldiers for its survival.
I ask myself constantly, "Are we right to be there at all?" We are there out of painful necessity. We are there for values, not for money's-worth or resources—there are no natural resources to be plundered there. But we should ask ourselves that question constantly, because the course of action upon which we have embarked is a serious and solemn one; and, as has been said, we should be planning for what happens when the peace is won.
We should be planning for the strenuous effort that will be required to assist the long-term reconstruction, the economic revival and the political integration of the states of the former Yugoslavia into the mainstream of Europe, including Serbia and the Serbians, under a Government other than that of Mr. Milosevic. The Serbians, too, must be absorbed back into the mainstream of Europe. Rape, destruction, looting and brutality have become commonplace in Kosovo. The people of Kosovo are entitled to expect better and we should now be preparing to give them better.
I have never been comfortable with the expression "a just war". I have never been convinced that we do justice by waging war, but, rather, that sometimes it is necessary to wage war to allow the opportunity for justice. This is such an occasion. However, we delude ourselves if we think that military action can be conceived and implemented immaculately. With no irony, I say that military action is always a blunt weapon. The expression "a surgical strike" contains its own inherent contradiction. Sometimes, however, the blunt weapon is the last painful resort when diplomacy has failed and the defiance of civilised values is unabated. This is such an occasion.
When military force is contemplated or used, Governments cannot expect—nor are they entitled to expect—a blank cheque, not even from their own supporters. However, when the cause is a humanitarian one and when all other remedies have been tried and have failed, Governments such as the present Government are entitled to the support of the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that there is now a 10-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches until the end of the debate.
4.45 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Before the House of Commons commits troops in a democracy, it has a special responsibility to think about not only the terms of engagement, but why it is prepared to support such a move. Once that adventure has started, it is important that the House should give total support to those of our citizens who are involved. It is therefore, on occasions, extremely difficult for those of us who feel some unease about the way in which the situation is developing to express our fears without appearing to be undermining the efforts of those of our forces who are progressing this movement or of the Government whom we support. None the less, I feel that it would be wrong simply to ignore many of the implications of what is happening.
As a 20-year-old, I went with my parents to stay with Marshal Tito on the island of Brioni. It was soon after the break from Russia and Yugoslavia was expecting an invasion of the Russians. Tito was therefore extremely clear and forceful in his views about the needs of his nation and the difficulty of keeping the various nationalities and religions together. He had with him a couple of his generals—both of them Serbs—who explained to me how they had armed their troops during the war.
The generals said that they had no weapons and that the Germans had tanks. They explained that the Germans were precise and that, when they arrived on mountain roads, the Serbs laid a series of dinner plates in front of them. As the Germans could not believe that they were dinner plates, they opened the tops of their tanks and got out to inspect what was on the road. At that point, they were killed, and the Serbs then had tanks. It was a lesson that I took on board and understood.
At the beginning of this exercise, many of us feared that the Serbs' commitment and the way in which they normally fight for those things that are essential to them were perhaps underestimated. However, it is important now, given the appalling savagery that has been visited on Kosovo, for us to discuss the implications openly.
I believe strongly that the air attacks must go on and must be allowed to continue. I also believe that the House of Commons has a right to know what will happen if that campaign does not continue and is not successfully concluded. Unlike some other Members of Parliament, I will certainly find it difficult to support the commitment of ground troops if they not only have to fight their way into a province whose geography makes that kind of war difficult, but have to fight against tough, committed opponents. The House of Commons—which will have the responsibility of deciding not only the cost of such a war, but the cost in human lives—must think carefully before it allows that to go ahead.
I want to register my view briefly. I believe that, in the defence of democracy, we have a right to ensure that those who no longer maintain the standards of democracy are opposed in every way possible. However, I also believe

593
that, so far, we have not clearly quantified or clarified what we are asked to do. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary says that we are not at war. If we are not at war, I have some doubts about some of the things that are happening.
Nevertheless, I believe that the intentions of Her Majesty's Government are good and honourable. I would, however, say one thing to them: those of us who commit other women's sons to fight on our behalf must be very clear that we are not doing so in the wrong way, in the wrong terms and at the wrong time. I hope that we will be given the opportunity, if any such thing is even contemplated, to express the views of many of the people of the United Kingdom. Knowing the savagery and viciousness with which politics is frequently progressed in the Balkan states, people nevertheless want to know that we are not committing our people to a frightening long-term adventure that may not, in the final analysis, be in their interests.
4.52 pm
Mr. Nicholas Soames: In my judgment, there is no going back now, and there will be a substantial force of troops on the ground in Kosovo within a few weeks.
I do not think that there is any particular need for the House to have a collective nervous breakdown about the fact that there will be troops on the ground; what matters are the circumstances under which those troops are to be deployed. Whether the situation is benign or malign, it will—under whatever circumstances one can possibly foretell —certainly not be permissive. Therefore, British troops will be called on again to discharge a very hazardous operation.
As the Foreign Secretary said, British troops in Macedonia have done a remarkable job in building shelter for and looking after nearly 30,000 refugees. That extraordinary achievement on their part showed the humanity and sympathy for which the British fighting soldier is rightly highly regarded; indeed, it is one of the few bright beacons in this ghastly mess.
The House will wish to congratulate British and allied pilots, who have pressed home their attacks with great determination and skill in difficult conditions. Indeed, it has done so. May I, across the House, congratulate the Secretary of State for Defence and others on the way in which they have effectively used the Ministry of Defence press conferences, to try to get over the information about exactly what is happening? That has paid great dividends —the support for the campaign and these activities is running at a high level in this country, which is very important—and I hope that that good innovation will continue to be used.
I shall make just a few points in the brief time that I have and start by looking back. This whole event has come about because of what is, I am afraid, a tragic failure of international diplomacy. There is no doubt that the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues did their very best to prevent what was happening, but the fact that the Russians were not engaged earlier in a far greater way is a great strain. After all, they are the only people who could have delivered the Serbs.
Once the great rush of these events has passed, we need to consider carefully how to engage the Russians in a more meaningful way in the many areas of the world in
594
which they have a vital role to play, for example, in the middle east. However, as the Foreign Secretary said, it is important that the political side is seen to march with the same vigour as the military side, and that as much is done to bring about a political conclusion as to bring about a military one.
Secondly, NATO will have learned what many people told it: that there was not the slightest possibility of Milosevic and the Serbs crumbling under sustained bombing. Indeed, the first 10 days of a pretty limited campaign have unleashed a wave of Serbian nationalism which will be extremely difficult to deal with. The beginning of the air campaign was conducted, for a number of reasons, at far too slow a tempo. Three weeks on, the central fact remains, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said, that the objective of the air campaign has not been achieved. Although much damage has been done to President Milosevic's military machine and much of his military infrastructure has been severely degraded, we have not yet managed to resolve the continuing humanitarian disaster by the use of air power.
Thirdly, it is clear that British forces are now under considerable pressure. The strategic defence review will have to be revisited, especially decisions taken about the reserve forces. I have just come back from America, where the Defence Secretary and I witnessed the launch of USS Winston Churchill. While I was there, all the main news stories in all the newspapers made it clear that President Clinton was about to sign an order calling up 30,000 reserves in order to be able to continue prosecuting this campaign. We shall be woefully short of people such as sappers, in particular, who will have to play a major role in the reconstruction of Kosovo, when that day eventually arrives. The whole House will be aware of the enormously distinguished role that the engineers played in Bosnia, and we shall be very short of people to do that work.
Fourthly, modern political leaders of a different generation pose a grave danger, for entirely understandable reasons—two biological reasons: they were born too late to experience world war two and have grown up mesmerised by technology—so impressed are they by their ability to kill from afar with almost no risk of retaliation against those firing the weapons. President Clinton has launched cruise missiles at Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq and Serbia in the past six months alone. The lesson to be learned is that limited actions get limited results.
May I ask the Defence Secretary what consideration has been given to the use of air drops of supplies to refugees still in Kosovo? Have the Government considered with their allies the establishment of safe havens, which were used to great effect in Iraq in 1991? After all, we have the punitive air power to support such an initiative. I should be grateful if the Defence Secretary would say what ideas have been taken into account in that regard.
Have the Government considered the use of airborne forces linked with commando forces? It is clear that there will have to be a major commitment of ground forces. That is the only way for NATO to impose its will.
4.59 pm
Mr. Bruce George: I welcome the support given by Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, which reciprocates the support given by the then Opposition to

595
the then Government on the Gulf and the Falklands. It is important that a consensus be sustained. I would welcome the opportunity of going into the Division Lobby to show how large the support is for the Government and Opposition line. Perhaps, at some stage, we will be given the opportunity to allow those who dissent to show how many they are. I await a speech from the Scottish National party on the matter. However, from the looks of it, I suspect that its members have gone back to their constituencies, preparing for opposition.
It is critical that the Government sustain the consensus. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence have made statements in the House, and there have been debates and briefings to both the Select Committee on Defence and the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs; there was a joint presentation today to the Committees. Any criticism that the Government have ducked presenting their case or eliciting the views of the House is unfair.
Lessons must be learned, although not by the Government. I recall the Defence Committee's undertaking an inquiry into the handling of the media during the Falklands war. The Government and the previous Government learned the lessons, but I suspect that the lessons have yet to be learned by NATO. A Victorian general's comment about the "newly invented curse" to armies—media interest—has a modern ring to it. NATO's problems—despite the sterling endeavours of civilian and military briefers, particularly Jamie Shea—show that it needs to learn some of the lessons that had to be learned by the Ministry of Defence on the presentation of its case.
Clearly, a war is being fought in the air and on the airwaves. In our 1983 report, the Defence Committee said:
"The Government were generally successful in the information war but not all adversaries will be overcome so convincingly."
That was prophetic. NATO has yet to learn the lesson that adequate staffing levels are required—not just to present information, but to indulge in the inevitable cause of information warfare. Are there the proper connections between the military and the civilians?
Last week was called a black week for NATO—not because we lost any aircraft or personnel, but because of the danger that we were not winning the information war. I am referring to the disaster of the civilians who were killed.
In the conclusion to our report of almost 20 years ago, the Defence Committee said:

"There can be sound military reasons for withholding the whole truth from the public domain, for using the media to put out `misinformation', and for believing that particular rumours will redound to one's own side's advantage. These tactics, however, present risks to future credibility and should be used only after serious consideration."
NATO should not replace existing personnel at its information office, but supplement them with additional staff and ensure that the military and the civilians are singing, more or less, from the same song sheet.
Three weeks ago, the legitimacy of NATO's action was endorsed by the House. My enthusiasm and support for that legitimacy have been undiminished, despite criticisms of errors of judgment, an inability to prophesy, a lack of objectives and purpose and problems in executing decisions. There have been crises, but I am yet to be aware
596
of any war where mistakes are not made. I do not wish to create any dissent, but those of us who sat through debates on the Falklands war can recall many errors; yet we won in the end, and public opinion rallied behind the Government. Ships, aircraft and lives were lost, and mistakes were made, but we must regard that as an inevitable consequence of war. When people vent their spleen on NATO or on Governments in the alliance, they must exercise a degree of realism in regard to the conduct of modern warfare. Warfare is not a football match broadcast on Sky Television, in the aftermath of which dissection and analysis are possible. It is not amenable to such analysis.
I believe that the House will continue to support NATO's policies, and will realise that, although Milosevic has played his cards with some skill and although we may have failed to appreciate his resolve, his fatal mistake is to underestimate our resolve. It is vital that we pursue our objectives with more rigour than we may have done hitherto.
When I was in the United States, it was said in some newspapers—unfairly, in my view—that this was a war prosecuted by the anti-Vietnam war generation who thought that no casualties should result and that people should feel guilty about killing even their opponents. Clearly, those who want to win a war must play tough. If the lesson of last week's public relations disaster is that risks should not be taken, I fear that we shall be bombing indefinitely—bombing empty woods, and dropping bombs in the middle of the Danube. If we want to be successful militarily, some difficult decisions will have to be made. Indeed, I suspect that they have already been made, and will be implemented.
There has been some debate about costs. It is perfectly legitimate to ask the Ministry of Defence what the costs are. The Secretary of State has said that, as of April, the cost
"is some £17 million; this does not include the costs of replenishing stock of ordnance expended."—[Official Report,15 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 324.]
Many, although not all, who have questioned the costs oppose the concept. Let us not use a cash register to work out the cost of every gallon of fuel used or every shell fired. The morality of the cause is such that we should not apply accountants' principles four weeks into the conflict. The time will come when we can engage in more detailed analysis. On Wednesday, the Defence Committee will be asking the senior finance officer about the methodology used in the calculations.
In fact, such is the justice of the cause that we are pursuing that it would have made no difference if the Secretary of State had given the figure as £170 million, £1,000,700,000, or even more. Let us not use the techniques of the accountant to undermine that cause. Should we be saying that our cause is just up to the point of £15 million, but should not be pursued beyond that?
Last week, the Defence Committee produced an excellent report on the Washington summit. There was a danger that the Kosovo issue would divert Heads of Government and those on the sidelines from the many things that needed to be done, but, fortuitously, the summit was well timed. I believe that those who attended it will support the decisions that have been made, and hope that NATO will emerge stronger. Let us make no mistake: if NATO cannot succeed in its objectives, one

597
wonders whether it will have a 51st anniversary. One wonders whether prospective members will wish not to be associated with an organisation that cannot defeat the warlordism in the Balkans. I only hope that the bombing strategy is successful. I believe—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
5.10 pm
Mr. Alan Clark: I must start by saying that it is my opinion that this war is clumsy, wasteful and shambolic. I accept that the intentions of many of those who have signed up to it are honourable, but I can see neither clearly defined objectives nor any measurable progress in attaining them. Our Prime Minister appears to be making things up as he goes along.
It is indisputable that the situation of all civilians living in Yugoslavia, be they Albanian Kosovars or the inhabitants of Belgrade, has greatly worsened since the NATO operation started. I recognise that to state that leaves one open immediately to two charges. The first is that of wilfully condoning, or appeasing—as the Secretary of State for International Development said in answer to a question from me last week—the cruel and barbaric atrocities that have been perpetrated in parts of Yugoslavia. The second is that of wilfully, by implication, undermining the morale of our armed forces.
The first of those charges is, of course, absurd. General accusations that are neither justified nor applicable are no way to address the complexities, the centuries-old feuds and vendettas of Balkan tribesmen. As for the second, it is certainly an uncomfortable charge to lay at the door of any Conservative Member—not least a former Minister at the Ministry of Defence—that he has undermined the morale and effectiveness of our fighting men.
Personally, I hold the Secretary of State—I am sorry to see him leaving the Chamber; I hope that it is not in protest to what I am saying—in high regard. At every stage of his occupancy of this key post, he has acquitted himself with both firmness and decorum. During the crisis, he has always been listened to with attention.
I should remind the House that, unlike some of the players in this drama, I have never been a member of CND. Nor am I a draft-dodger. When the second world war was still on, I enlisted on the earliest day that it was physically possible—on my 17th birthday. Two of my sons, one of whom was decorated with the Gulf medal, have served in the Army. That gives me a strong entitlement to say that British service men are not recruited to kill non-combatants. Were they ever to do so, it is no more than our electorate would expect for us in this place to protest. Let me say that, although the camouflage of the NATO flag is used to divest and to spread responsibility for what has happened in recent days, I am entirely satisfied that the events are in no way attributable to the Royal Air Force.
The United States air force is another case altogether. Over many years, its record has been abominable, whether we are talking about Iranian air liners, British soldiers in personnel carriers, bridges, trains, factories or, apparently, refugee convoys in Yugoslavia. That air force is the worst
598
instrument, the House might think, to let loose in a conflict where the distinction between combatant and non-combatant is often variable and elusive.
It will not be lost on the House that it is an order from the Pentagon that has prevented the somewhat muddled and inchoate NATO press office from showing the video of the attack on the refugee convoy. My heart sank when I heard that a contingent from the No. 10 press office was being sent to Brussels to help NATO to put a spin on things. One does not spin details of accident and bloodshed.
Ministers have told us that the war is about NATO's credibility. Few things are more likely to reduce its credibility—what is left of it—than sending the head of the No. 10 press office, whose attempts to bully the senior diplomatic editor of the BBC have done much damage to the cause of which he is an advocate, to process NATO communiques. Mr. Campbell would be better advised to stick to coaching the Prime Minister on how to respond. At present, that response consists simply of waving his hands about and repeating the name "Milosevic" at every possible opportunity. That is not like saying "boom and bust" all the time: it is a refusal to address the complexities or the alternatives, or even the cost of the operation and any notion of its equivalence in terms of humanitarian aid. That is a kind of dumbing down and is not worthy of the high office that he holds. I do not believe that his predecessors, Mr. Harold Wilson or Mr. James Callaghan—still less Mr.Attlee —would have ever responded in that unthinking and soundbite style.
The House should consider the interaction of national and military complexities and susceptibilities. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was howled down for reminding the House of the criminal element, terrorist conduct and many undesirable aspects of the KLA, but that has been confirmed by many, including in a long article in The Wall Street Journal. Mr. Jeremy Bowen, the BBC correspondent, was stopped by members of the KLA and all his money and equipment was stolen. The KLA are exactly the sort of people British service men should never fight alongside. It has been suggested that we should undertake to arm the KLA. Labour Members may recall the Contras, the Sandinistas and other groups who were armed by the CIA. That is the company that we will be in if we arm the KLA.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clark: If I give way, is it taken out of my time? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] In that case, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I will proceed. I wish to make two points that I hope will be answered when the Minister winds up. First, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that our post in Belgrade told him what the consequences of a NATO bombing attack were likely to be and that that was also reported to the Prime Minister's office? [HON. MEMBERS: "And the monitors."] My hon. Friends remind me to include the monitors and their reports in that question.
Secondly—this point should be answered by a Minister from the Ministry of Defence—there are significant gaps in the military information that should be disclosed. What were the separate recommendations of the Chief of the Defence Staff and against what remit were those made? What principles direct NATO targeting? Is it subject to a

599
ground or an airborne warning and communication system controller, as in the Gulf war, or is it on the much more perilous basis of targets of opportunity? Is it true, as reported in some of the newspapers that the RAF warned the US air force against attacking the refugee convoy and that in the past 24 hours a senior officer of the RAF Strike Command has resigned? Perhaps that could be confirmed this evening. Why is there so little information about the results, which must be known to the Yugoslays, being disclosed to the public in the NATO countries? I put those points not from any position of prejudice concerning the atrocities that different elements in Yugoslavia perpetrate upon each other or from any lack of absolute confidence in our armed forces—although I could wish that they were being deployed in a more rewarding role—but because those are the sort of questions that a Back-Bench Member of Parliament is entitled, and should consider himself or herself obliged, to raise at a time like this.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right in thinking that the Select Committee on Modernisation suggested that latitude should be allowed for interventions and they should not be included in the 10 minutes allowed for speeches?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The initial intervention is subtracted from the 10-minute limit, but the response is not.
5.19 pm
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: If, two months ago, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had asked me to recommend a way to bolster support for Milosevic inside Yugoslavia, I think that I would have said, "Have you tried bombing Belgrade?" If, as a result, my right hon. Friend were to come to me and say, "Thanks very much, it worked. What would you recommend now?", my response would be that he might consider putting in ground troops.
I believe, however, that the use of ground troops in Yugoslavia would not be confined to Kosovo. The Serbs would continue to fight, and ground troops would have to be deployed in Serbia too. Despite what the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, the use of ground troops could lead to the occupation of Belgrade and other cities.
Of course, the deployment of ground troops might lead to the end of Milosevic. No hon. Member wants a person who involves himself in the brutal ethnic cleansing of Albanians to remain in power any longer than necessary. But we must not kid ourselves that there is a democratic alternative, as we know it, in Yugoslavia. In fact, Milosevic himself does not even have a majority in the Serbian Parliament. He depends on Vuk Draskovic, one of the deputy Prime Ministers, who the previous Tory Government believed to be such a rival to Milosevic that they invited him to London, at British taxpayers' expense, to do some sort of deal.
Yugoslavia's other deputy Prime Minister is Vojislav Seselj, whom I mentioned in a speech in October 1991. No one knew then who he was, and Hansard sent me a note asking how to spell his name. I knew who he was: he was the leader of the Radical party and, to be frank, an out-and-out fascist.
600
None of us has any time for the ethnic cleansing that has taken place, but the bombing is creating a spirit among the Serb population akin to that which we knew in the blitz. Unlike so many of the Ministers making decisions in this matter who have never heard a bomb drop in anger, I know what the British people felt during the battle of Britain and the blitz bombings of London and, especially, Liverpool. We concentrated our support on the figure of our leader, Winston Churchill. I come from a solid Labour family. Every night, when Churchill spoke on the radio, my father would say, "Hush. We must now listen to what Mr. Churchill has to say."
As the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) rightly said, we must ask whether the situation is better than it was before 24 March, when the air raids began. The answer is, patently, no. Of course the situation is not better: it is worse. When a policy is designed, and before it is implemented, the question should always be, "Will this course of action make things better or worse for people?" The air raids have made it worse, and the use of ground troops will make it worse still.
We hear a lot of stories about mass graves. All those guilty of murdering people and putting their bodies in mass graves must be brought to account. I have a specific question for the Government, the answer to which is always refused. If we are against ethnic cleansing, as I am, should we not be against all ethnic cleansing? We are, rightly, going to attack Milosevic over what is happening in Kosovo, but what about Franjo Tudjman in Croatia, where 280,000 Serbs have been driven brutally out of Krajina? Not a finger has been raised by the NATO powers about that.
Mr. Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wareing: I would love to, but I do not think that I would get injury time.
We must also be careful about the propaganda from our own side. I remember, at the time of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, that the New York firm of Hill and Dowson put out a story that Iraqi soldiers were throwing babies out of incubators. We now know that the story was absolutely incorrect: it never happened. My mother told me about a rumour in the first world war that the Germans put Belgian babies on their bayonets.
Let us be very careful and not indulge in propaganda that is obviously nonsense. To tell the people of Pristina that they bombed themselves—that it was not the RAF or the Americans—is like telling the people of Coventry that they were bombed not by the Luftwaffe but by the RAF.
For God's sake let us reconvene the conference and involve Russia, because Russia holds the key and must not be ignored. The parliamentary elections in December could be a disaster for the west if we push Russia to one side. Let us also bring in Croatia. Let Franjo Tudjman, as well as Milosevic, answer for his crimes.
I hope that the Government will begin to listen and will not be taken in by opinion polls. If a disastrous ground war is conducted the opinion polls will not be so easy on the Government as they are now.
Mr. Julian Brazier: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not it a grave discourtesy to the House that, at not yet 5.30, there is no Cabinet Minister here to listen to our deliberations?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Who decides to sit on the Front Benches on either side is not a matter for the Chair.
5.26 pm
Sir Peter Tapsell: The terrible atrocities in Kosovo can be explained, but in no way excused, by the bloodstained history of the region, stretching back over centuries. The answer that the Secretary of State for Defence has twice given me in the House, that something must be done and that we cannot do nothing, is not satisfactory. Foreign policy and the making of war must be judged by results and not by intentions, however admirable those might be.
It has been obvious from the start that the Government's plans have not been thought through. They have certainly not saved the Kosovo Albanians. In terms of achieving its strategic and political objectives, this Balkan air war is likely to go down in history as the most incompetent operation in which Britain has been involved since the Crimea, making the planners of Gallipoli and Suez look like professionals.
One recalls Disraeli's comment on a similar Balkan situation in 1876. He said:
"Mr. Gladstone and his friends will avenge the Bulgarian atrocities by the butchery of the world."
Without wiser statesmanship, that is where we may be headed.
The French, fortunately, are keeping in close touch with the Russians. It would be folly to disregard President Yeltsin's warning not to push Russia too far. He is a moderate in this context. One of the consequences of the present policy will be to reverse the move away from the cold war, with incalculable consequences that may in time far outweigh all other considerations for our own people.
The authors of this folly are increasingly frightened of informed criticism as their policy is seen blatantly to fail. Mr. John Simpson is denounced as a Serb dupe. Ministers who were flaunting CND badges when there was a real threat to Britain now dismiss General Sir Peter de la Billiére and General Sir Michael Rose as armchair journalists. One does not need an armchair to see where the Government's policy has gone so tragically wrong; a nursery stool will do.

When, as an 18-year-old national service man, I was ordered to officer training school, the first War Office pamphlet that we were given started with the following four paragraphs:
"1. Identify an achievable objective.
2. Plan how to reach it.
3. Do not move until you have decided how to deal with the likely problems that may arise.
4. Give no advance indication of your intentions."
That War Office pamphlet must now be out of print because it clearly was not shown to the Prime Minister or his advisers before he announced an air bombardment of Serbia while firmly ruling out any aggressive use of land forces to support it. A more fatuous statement of war policy could hardly be imagined, as I pointed out from my nursery stool as forcefully as I could when the Prime Minister first made it on 23 March, the day before the bombing began.
There has been confusion from the start about the objective. Originally, and for the first few days, the declared objective was to impose the Rambouillet accord on Serbia. There never was an agreement and the accord is now a dead letter. The local Serb population in Kosovo would react to any NATO occupying force, whether it
602
arrived in permissive or aggressive form, just as they treated the Nazi SS. Neither Milosevic nor Tito before him taught the Serbs how to fight a guerrilla war; it is bred in the bone.
Within days, the declared NATO objective was changed. The new objective was to prevent a humanitarian disaster. That has totally failed, as even the American NATO commander in chief, General Clark, has now publicly admitted that air power alone cannot stop paramilitary forces on the ground committing atrocities. One might have thought that that would have been obvious in advance, but it seems to have come as a surprise to our Ministers and their military advisers, as have the facts that the Balkans at this time of year has cloudy weather and that the Serbs are an indomitable race.
To what extent the sending of troops to Macedonia precipitated the Serb decision to drive the Albanians out of Kosovo we must now leave to the historians, but it is certain that the bombing has in no way prevented or ameliorated the appalling suffering of the refugees, and has probably made it worse, and has positively accentuated the intensity and brutality of the so-called ethnic cleansing.
Mr. Nigel Beard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Peter Tapsell: No, I cannot because of the maddening time rule. It ruins all debate, but one must press on.
The Prime Minister likes striking moral poses. I do not question his sincerity, but the practical effect of his policies on ordinary people is what he must be judged by. So far, his policy has been a disastrous failure. He has united the whole Serb nation behind Milosevic and not saved the life or home of a single Albanian refugee. We are now told, as though we did not anticipate it, to prepare for a long war. Within a few weeks, there will be precious few Albanians left in Kosovo and we may be sure that, despite the fine words, most of them will never go back.
There is now even lunatic talk of using Hungary as a possible base for a ground invasion of Serbia, despite the many ethnic Hungarians who live in Serbia and the fury that it would arouse in Russia. We seem to be governed by Ministers who think that foreign policy should be determined by opinion polls, focus groups and television cameras. What is happening in Sierra Leone, about whose atrocities the Foreign Secretary was recently so excited? Is it all sweetness and joy in Freetown now or have the cameras just moved elsewhere?
Despite repeated pledges, repeated again by the Prime Minister over the weekend, that there will be no armed invasion of Kosovo or Serbia against hostile military resistance, all the signs are that preparations are being made to undertake just such an invasion by ground troops. Indeed, although I am wholly opposed to such a course of action, on 23 March, before the bombing started, I pointed out to the Prime Minister, in the clearest terms, that his announced strategy made no sense unless it was going to culminate in the use of ground forces on a large scale and that that would entail heavy casualties.
If the Prime Minister did not understand the truth of that, he is guilty of gross incompetence. If he did understand it, but wished at that stage to conceal the reality of his policy from the people of this country, by

603
using the weasel words of which I accused him, then shameful concealment must be added to the charge of gross misjudgment.
On my first visit to Vietnam during the Vietnam war, there were 300 Americans there in civilian clothing. On my third visit, there were 500,000 American troops in uniform, and General Westmoreland told me that, during the Tet offensive, they had dropped on the Vietcong a higher weight of high explosives than had been dropped on Germany, from all sources, during the whole second world war and that it would be only a matter of months before the Vietcong capitulated. That should be borne in mind before we go any further down that road.
5.36 pm
Ann Clwyd: I am not an uncritical supporter of this war. There are many questions that need to be asked and answered, although perhaps this is not the time to ask some of them. However, why did not those who planned this war—and it is a war, I cannot understand the use of any other word; if one bombs and fights people, then it must be a war—plan for the humanitarian problems that have been caused as a result?
During the Easter recess, like many people, I felt wholly frustrated as I saw the war unfold. I saw the result for the 145,000 people who were kept in no man's land in the most atrocious weather, during that period when they were not allowed to cross into Macedonia. Like many people, I wanted Parliament to be recalled because we do have views to express and these occasions produce some of the best debates in the House; people feel strongly about issues of life and death.
I have just spent three days in Macedonia. I went to Skopje on a Russian plane with a Russian crew, with a load of relief organised by Express Newspapers. Once again, that showed the generosity of the British people towards the refugees. I support those who have said how much the NATO troops are appreciated. Some of the camps that I visited had been set up by NATO; those were the best camps and one could see that the soldiers had built up a strong rapport both with adults and children. We delivered some footballs and saw the joy of the children as they played with them, and I am sure that the British public would like to know that their relief—their support and generosity—is much appreciated.
I toured the camps with representatives of the United Nations Children's Fund—UNICEF—and pay tribute to all the aid workers who do such a superb job. The camps were not the worst refugee camps that I have ever seen; unfortunately, I feel that I have seen too many refugees all over the world. However, we heard many individual stories and, because the people of Kosovo are European, they were the stories of a fairly sophisticated population. We heard about people who ran discos or owned three shops, who were university professors or intellectuals and who are now inside those camps surrounded by wire, where they feel trapped.
We heard the desperation of people who do not know where their 90-year-old mother is because they were separated on the border. We heard that when the soldiers came to Pristina and gave the population three minutes to get out of their houses, a small, 12-year-old boy picked up a baby left alone on the street as the soldiers came. As he carried the baby in his arms, he was beaten by Serbian soldiers and had to drop the baby and run for his life. His family have not seen that boy since.
604
I saw the desperation of people who were separated at the border—a man who had been separated from his wife because she was ill, but who did not know what had happened to her after she was taken away to a rest centre; for three days, he had not known where she was. It sounds ridiculous, but the best thing to do at the moment would be to set up some sort of communication centres inside the camps, so that people had access to telephones. People came to us with pathetic scraps of paper with two telephone numbers written on them; they wanted to contact people in Germany, Macedonia, Albania or Montenegro, but could not get to a telephone. Outside the Red Cross tents were long queues of people who were trying to link up with families from whom they had been separated. All those things are brought home to anyone who visits the camps.
Help is slowly beginning to get to the children. UNICEF has brought desks and chairs to some of the camps and teachers are helping to set up classes. They gave children sheets of paper and crayons and told them to draw whatever they wanted; of course, they all drew pictures of war. They drew maps of Kosovo with barbed wire around it, or a peace dove flying out of it; they drew pictures of guns pointing at people, soldiers with tanks, and houses on fire. I heard people describe how they stood and watched their house going up in flames and how they could not get to members of their family trapped inside—for example, one 12-year-old girl was unable to escape when her house was set on fire.
All those stories are tragic, which is why I appeal to our Government to do something more for the refugees. People told me that they had been asked to which countries they wanted to go, and I looked at the list of countries and saw that Germany, Iceland, Israel, Norway, Poland, Turkey and Switzerland have all taken refugees. Yet I heard my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary say today that we will take 20 refugees, if there is medical need. That is not good enough. People told me that their first choice would have been the United Kingdom, but one man told me, "You don't want us, so I put down Sweden instead." We should be more generous towards the refugees.
Macedonia has been criticised, but as one Macedonian MP told me in Brussels the week before I went, the Macedonians feel extremely angry about that. Macedonia, with a population of only 2.2 million, has taken nearly 200,000 refugees, which is the equivalent of sending 33 million refugees to the United States. To criticise the Macedonians is unfair, because they too have an ethnic balance to maintain. They simply cannot cope with the current situation, and I was not surprised when, the day I left, the Macedonians said that they could not take any more refugees.
When I reached the border, I saw a train load of 2,500 refugees arrive in the same area as the 145,000 refugees who had arrived over Easter; I stood there for two hours, but not one refugee came across the border. Two more trains were expected that day. I spoke to the OSCE major-general in charge of operations, who said, "I don't know how they're going to cope. This is going to be a real challenge to the system." In those circumstances, we should be more generous in offering refugees an opportunity to come to Britain if they want to.
With one exception, every refugee I spoke to said, "I want to go back to Kosovo—that's my home, it's the land of my fathers and I want to go back there." The

605
refugees will not return to their homes unless they are sure that they will be safe. It is ludicrous to suggest that the refugees will return home quickly, because they will not.
In 1991, I saw the Kurds cross the border into Iran in the face of Iraqi attacks. Some of those Kurds are still in refugee camps on the Iranian border. They have never returned home. Some of them are still living in temporary structures because their houses have not been rebuilt. The scale of the destruction in Kosovo is similar to that in northern Iraq where Saddam Hussein destroyed hundreds of villages, which have not been rebuilt. The reality is that many Kosovan refugees will not return home for years and, if they do, they will live in temporary structures.
I have spoken only once this year about this issue in the House. On 14 January, I said that ground troops should be sent in sooner rather than later. My view has not diminished, but strengthened. Until ground troops go in, Kosovo will continue to burn and Kosovan refugees will continue to flood over borders.
5.46 pm
Mr. Martin Bell: I wish to speak, so far as possible, from personal experience. This debate is being held in the shadow of great and tragic events and we must not forget that, as we speak, Kosovo Albanians are being murdered. They are being executed and buried in mass graves and their homes are being burned and looted. The survivors are being ejected forcibly from the territory in which they have lived for many generations.
It is time for clarity. We need clarity about what has or has not been achieved so far. It was hoped that the bombing campaign would somehow draw support away from President Milosevic. It has not done so. The people rallying to him now are those who were close to bringing him down in the mass street demonstrations of two winters ago. I know because I was there. It was hoped also that the bombing would alleviate the plight of the Albanians, but it has done nothing of the sort. I was in Kosovo six days before the bombing started and, in that week, 15,000 Albanians were driven from their homes. In the week after the bombing began, that number rose to 300,000.
We must be clear about the limitations of unsupported air power. In the House last week, I asked the Prime Minister to give me one example from any time or place when unsupported air power achieved a decisive military result. He could not do so because there is no such example. On that occasion, I quoted a serving senior military officer who said:
"Circumstances on the ground can be changed only by boots on the ground."—[Official Report, 13 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 27.]
That view remains true. I understand why the generals are advising Ministers that, for one reason or another—successive defence cuts, for example—we do not have sufficient troops for a ground operation. However, I cannot imagine them advising Ministers that air power alone would do it.
We need clarity about the information campaign—the propaganda war—because a modern war must be fought and won twice over: not only on the field of battle but on the air waves of the world. I deeply regret the fact that British reporters working under severe difficulties in
606
Belgrade—not only Mr. Simpson, but he is the most conspicuous example—have been attacked. They are having enough trouble being vilified and abused on the streets without facing sniper fire from Downing street.
We need clarity also about targeting. If we target a bridge, it is a civilian as well as a military target. If we target a Government building in a built-up area, that is a civilian as well as a military target. If we target roads where civilian and military columns may be mixed together or where Serbian armour may be obscenely protected by human shields, they are civilian as well as military targets. These are very difficult times, and one of the many arguments for the use of ground troops is that they can distinguish between a tractor and a tank.
It is time for clarity about the history of this situation. The House should understand that the Serbs live their history like no other people on earth, except perhaps the Jewish people. Kosovo field is their Masada: it is the place where they will fight and die if they have to. They have mythologised it. Kosovo affects the way in which they operate. It is as if we determined our policy by believing every word of the Arthurian legend. For example, one reason why Milosevic compromised on the future of the Bosnian Serbs was that in 1389, on the field of Kosovo, the then Bosnian Serb king, Vuk Brankovic, was the first to leave the battlefield, and the Serbs have blamed him for the defeat ever since.
An example from recent history is that during the second world war, whenever the Serbs killed a single German, the Germans would kill 100 Serbian civilians—but that did not deter the Serbs, and the present bombardment will not deter them.
We need clarity about the nature of modern warfare. All hon. Members know more about politics than I do, but I can claim to know a little about warfare. Modern warfare, especially as practised by the peoples of the Balkans, makes no distinction whatever between soldiers and civilians, and it violates the Geneva conventions every day. It is not cost-free. We have lived in recent years in an age of illusion, thinking that a military operation can be a cost-free way to settle differences. That view has been reinforced by the relatively easy victory of the Allies in the Gulf war and by the incredibly light British casualties in Bosnia.
Our view has been further reinforced by the actions of the television companies in self-censoring their pictures of war—I have been an accomplice in that—so that people do not understand the realities of war. That happened in Bosnia. We were invited to show the outgoing ordnance but not what happened at the other end: the maiming, the killing and the irredeemable loss of young lives, which is what warfare is about. We have to understand that if we are to proceed further with this course of action, the operation will not be cost-free.
I believe that we should proceed further and that we have no alternative but to do so. From the start of the crisis, our only alternatives were to stay completely out of the situation on the basis that we were not willing to risk casualties, or to become completely involved and decide, on moral grounds, to risk casualties.
I shared a television studio with the Minister for the Armed Forces last week, and I was interested to hear him remark that the Government were doing more than some had urged them to do and less than others had urged. It is as if the Government were piloting a great ship through a

607
large waterway with a channel on either side and a great rock in the middle. They will not take the left-hand channel because of the voices urging them to take the right-hand channel and vice versa, so they head straight for the rock.
We must take a clear course, which is morally defined because it will tell us what kind of people we are. Are we people who will sit back, wring our hands, bomb from afar and let the genocide happen? Or are we people who care enough to take risks that will not only bring peace to the Balkans in the long run but define the security structures that we shall have for our children and grandchildren well into the 21st century?
This is a question of how we react to genocide. It takes us back not only to Srebenica but to the second world war. I assure the House that genocide requires not only the brutality and hatred that make it happen but the indifference that lets it happen. Let not that indifference be ours.
5.53 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: If ever there were a case that justified the House of Commons, it is today's debate. There is disagreement—I shall try to vote against the war tonight—so we should be clear about what we agree on.
There are no apologists for Milosevic in the House. Nobody here could conceive of endorsing, supporting or accepting ethnic cleansing. There are people who are concerned about not only the refugees in Kosovo but the 300,000 Serb refugees from Krajina, who are now being bombed in their refuge in Yugoslavia, and the Serbs who have left Kosovo because of the Kosovo Liberation Army. The Foreign Secretary told us in January that the KLA had killed more Serbs than the Serbs had Albanians.
The argument is not even about force. I favour the use of force, but not by NATO. I want to be specific and clear about that. As I have said in earlier debates, I am of a generation for whom the United Nations charter was the great hope of the world. The charter said clearly that force could be used but only by the Security Council. When NATO was formed, article 1 of its constitution— I looked it up to remind myself of its words—said that its members
"shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force …in any …manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
NATO is breaking its own constitution. I shall turn in a moment to what hope NATO might have of achieving anything. The House is, if I may say so, ill informed by the media and the Government.
The annex of the Rambouillet agreement says that
"NATO personnel would be permitted to enter into Yugoslavia from any border—Bosnia, Croatia, Hungary, Macedonia, with machinery, arms ammunition and men. Furthermore they have to be given all assistance from the military and civilian authorities throughout Yugoslavia, and would be able to leave their arms in Yugoslav Army depots, or where they so choose."
That was not an agreement; it was an ultimatum. It said to the Serbs, "If you don't accept this, we will bomb you."
What was the Serb response? We are so ill informed that I only discovered it in an article from The New York Times of 8 April, which somebody sent me in one of the thousands of letters that I have received. In that article, Steven Erlanger from Belgrade said:
608
"Just before the bombing the Serbian parliament rejected NATO troops in Kosovo…it also supported the idea of a United Nations force to monitor a political settlement there".
The argument is about whether the answer is NATO troops or an international force.
We all speak from experience. I was a Member of the House at the time of the Suez crisis. The only other Member who can say the same, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), was then the Government Chief Whip. I was advising Hugh Gaitskell, who did not, as Leader of the Opposition, have a television set. He came to my house to watch Eden's broadcast. I sat with Gaitskell at his house in Hampstead for the whole of Sunday 4 November 1956 and helped him, as a young Member would help a party leader, with his broadcast about Suez. He said:
"There is no doubt about it that the large-scale invasion of Egypt was an act of aggression…We should have been acting on behalf of the United Nations with their full authority…It is not a police action; there is no law behind it. We have taken the law into our own hands. What are the consequences? We have violated the Charter of the United Nations. In doing so we have betrayed all that Great Britain has stood for in world affairs."
The sound and other technicians were listening, riveted, to that broadcast. That represented my commitment, which is that force can be used only the UN.
We are facing a long war; there is no doubt about that. The war has already spread to Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania, and for all I know, it will spread beyond that. I do not know what the Russians will do. I am told that earlier this afternoon, Yeltsin said that Russia would not allow Yugoslavia to be defeated. We cannot rely on Yeltsin—he may be seeking a foreign crisis to get him off a hook, but so may President Clinton.
How will the situation end? With ground troops? The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), who speaks from great media experience of war, is right—bombing will not work. Troops will therefore be sent in, but if we do that, will it be an occupation, a partition or a protectorate? How will the refugees return? The Opposition properly asked those questions. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) exercised his responsibility as a party spokesman to ask questions that simply have not been answered. Who will pay for the villages to be rebuilt? Those questions are simply brushed aside.
Who wants the war? President Clinton wants the war because he runs NATO. The Prime Minister is continually repeating his commitment to the war. We see pictures of him in the cockpit of aircraft which make clear his intent. NATO wants the war because it will make it credible. Many times I have heard people say, "NATO must be credible," and I realise that the war is not so much about the refugees as about NATO's credibility. The KLA wants the war because we are arming it. We joined in a civil war, and armed the KLA. I will not say that the arms trade wants a war, but there is big business to be made from replacing the armour that has been used.
As for the media, there are daily press conferences. I personally think that it is an insult to our intelligence to personalise all conflicts as if, somehow, shooting Saddam Hussein and Milosevic would return peace to the middle east and the Balkans. What folly to engage in such schoolboy politics. There are complex historical conditions. If Milosevic were shot, somebody else would come along who is just the same, because the Serbs are united. The history is ignored.

609
The Serbs are demonised. There is demonisation of the enemy in war; we must make out that every Serb is a criminal and it is therefore our duty to kill him. The Serbs are people; people know that they may not like their own Government. The hon. Member for Tatton said that many Serbs want to get rid of Milosevic, yet they are all demonised.
Critics are denounced as appeasers—I have heard that before. I was accused by Bernard Braine, whom I dearly love, of being "Nasser's little lackey" during Suez. He apologised so many times afterwards that I felt quite sorry for him. Critics were always accused of being an agent of the Kremlin, a supporter of the IRA, in favour of Adolf Hitler. That is no way in which to conduct a conflict of this kind.
The peace movement is of course ignored. Last Sunday week, there were 10,000 people in Trafalgar square, but The Guardian did not even mention it because it had to report on the 5,000 people who were protesting in Kuala Lumpur at the arrest of Anwar Ibrahim.
What is the role of Parliament in this war? By chance—it was in the local paper—I know that two of my constituents are soldiers who may be sent to war. Are we just to be observers? Could Jamie Shea have made today's speeches? As far as we are concerned, he could just as well have done so. We are being told by the Government's two chief press officers what is being done, and then told that all parties agree. The right hon. and learned Member for North—East Fife (Mr. Campbell) was fair in saying that he shared my view about the role of Parliament.
There is to be no vote tonight. My Whip has told me, on this great historic occasion, "Your attendance is requested"—with one line under it. Is it not important to the Government to indicate their support? When all we can do is vote on the closure motion, I do not think that many will vote with us—they probably will not—but at least others will be given an opportunity to abstain. I am not so sure whether the Government do not want a vote because, although they might not yet find many against them, many, even from the Conservative party, might not want to go into the Lobby.
We are responsible people. Being a Member of Parliament is a great honour, but it carries responsibility: the responsibility for deciding whether one agrees with the Government of the day. This is an ill thought out policy. It is not legal in character; it is not moral in its implication. I do not make much of the convoy because war is bloody and indiscriminate—it always has been and always will be. Hon. Members who want to be spectators of their fate ought to consider very seriously whether even by abstention, and certainly by not voting, they are assenting to a policy which, in my serious judgment, will not succeed, but which will inflict terrible damage on the Balkans with which we shall have to live for many years to come.
6.3 pm
Mr. John Swinney: I begin with two primary points that set out my party's position. First, we express to the service men and women who are taking part in this action our full support and our good wishes for their security and safety.
610
Secondly, I am sure that, regardless of individual or party views of the bombing strategy in the Balkans, all hon. Members share the same deep concern for the displaced and terrorised Albanian population of Kosovo. Their tragedy is played out nightly in front of us, but their suffering can only be imagined as we hear of the appalling atrocities and inhumanity being wreaked by a Serbian army, which must be called to account before the bar of international opinion, as its commanders must before the international court. It is clear beyond any doubt, beyond any debate, that Milosevic and his regime are responsible for this slur on our humanity.
As we debate the gravest humanitarian catastrophe to befall our continent since the second world war, the number of expelled civilians continues to grow. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UN monitors in the region this morning estimated that the total number of refugees is 365,000 in Albania and 132,500 in Macedonia. An additional 73,500 Kosovars have been displaced to Montenegro. That is indeed appalling. We must use all the resources at our disposal to help those in extremity today, and we must find a way in which to make certain that the ordinary Albanian Kosovar population will return in peace to their homes. In doing so, we should not underestimate the scale of the challenge of persuading terrified Kosovars to return to their homes. At least one Labour Member has made that point clearly.
The bombing campaign is now the central challenge to us all in seeking a just and effective solution to the Kosovo crisis. The issue is whether the stated aims of the NATO campaign have been achieved, or can be achieved. I submit that they have not. Indeed, there are no signs of an ability to do so. The debate on ground forces, which has dominated many speeches so far, shows that, as does the increasing information from inside NATO, where grave concerns are being expressed.
Mr. Jimmy Hood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Swinney: I have only 10 minutes and I wish to make my comments.
This is not a party political issue. The issue is being debated in houses and workplaces throughout the country. It is a matter for the views and consciences of those in all parts of the political spectrum. Concerns about the current NATO strategy that have been expressed by members of my party have not been voiced in isolation. Some of the strongest remarks have been made by serving and former members of the military, who know that this campaign is not working and cannot work.
That view is informed by the gradual publication of the real views of military planners, politicians and decision makers around the world. Last week, the chairman of the United States joint chiefs of staff gave evidence to the Senate armed services committee. General Henry Shelton told Committee members that the air war might fail to achieve the prime objective of compelling Milosevic to withdraw from Kosovo. He was expressing a view that was given to Madeleine Albright before the campaign started, yet she and her advisers persisted in the belief that 24 or 48 hours of bombing would conclude the matter. The evidence of four weeks shows that judgment to have been unsubstantiated.

611
General Shelton's view is amplified by the former commander of United Nations forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina, General Sir Michael Rose. Writing in one of the Sunday newspapers this weekend, he said:
"air-power is a blunt weapon, wholly inappropriate for use by itself in this form of conflict".
He went on to suggest that air power cannot win and that, as a full military campaign seems impossible to organise on any reasonable time scale and would in any case simply escalate international tension, some diplomatic solution needs to be found.
It strikes me that, when an individual of the military experience and calibre of Sir Michael Rose makes such an assessment, it should be listened to. The Government may of course choose to express repugnance at such comments, as they did at earlier interventions along similar lines. It would be wise, even now, for better sense to prevail.
The concerns of military experts such as Sir Michael are also shared by many in the House. Today, I read with interest—I also listened with care to his speech—the comments of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), who wrote:
"We are continuing to bomb as if bombing alone would produce the result we wish. But it has not and it will not."
That view is also taken by many outside the House—distinguished churchmen, innumerable journalists and military experts—and was taken from the beginning by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) in his broadcast three weeks ago.
Mr. Hood: Is the hon. Gentleman reaffirming the Scottish National party's official policy that it is against the action that has been taken in Kosovo? Is he reaffirming his leader's view?
Mr. Swinney: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my comments, he would know that that is abundantly clear. There is a basic right in a democracy to be free to express views sincerely held and well argued, and to show mutual respect for divergent views. That mutual respect is not always shown in this House, as we have seen today.
The key issue now is what comes next in this conflict. I draw hon. Members' attention to today's edition of The New York Times. Under the headline,
"U.S. is asking NATO for Sea Blockade of Yugoslavia's Oil",
one of America's most respected newspapers reports on the need to apply full sanctions to Yugoslavia. Incredibly, oil is still being delivered to the former Yugoslavia. There is incredulity in some parts of NATO that, while oil refineries and storage tanks are being bombed, oil is still being bought by a war machine that could be slowed and stopped by the shortage of that one commodity.
Apparently, the oil blockade has not been implemented owing to doubts about its legality. It would, say some, require a UN resolution. Is it conceivable that there can be a bombing campaign for almost four weeks without UN sanction, yet an oil blockade cannot be implemented for lack of one? It is beyond belief.
I believe, my party believes and many people in this country and overseas believe that the bombing campaign has failed in its objectives. Now is the time for new thinking—for moving forward to find solutions that do not further escalate the situation.
612
Now is the time to make the Russians part of the solution, not part of the problem. Now is the time to put every ounce of effort into humanitarian aid—at least as much as the $2 billion that has rained down from the sky on the poor country of Kosovo. And now is the time to start working out the ways in which we can help the very people for whom, in the name of peace, we may have created a desert in their own country.
6.10 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: The House is overwhelmingly behind the Government, but that has not been evident from the series of speeches that we have just heard. That is because this is a democratic House, because there are many uncertainties, and because it is very proper for colleagues in our democratic assembly to make the sober and sobering speeches that they have made. Four weeks into the campaign, the picture remains very gloomy. Progress is not as great as we had hoped, and there is frustration about that, in the absence of clear evidence that the war aims with which we set out are being achieved.
There is a new wave of atrocities, and new evidence that many hundreds of thousands of people in Kosovo are now in the hills, close to starvation. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence say what air drops are being contemplated to alleviate the plight of those people in the hills? The war is escalating. We hear that United States reservists are being called to the front.
There is a risk of political collapse throughout the Balkans, so the stakes are very high. This conflict is very different from the Falklands conflict, in which the aim was clear—to get the Argentines out of those islands. It is very different from the Iraq conflict in 1990–91, in which the aim was clear—to force Iraq to leave Kuwait. In the Balkans, the aims must necessarily be far muddier.
It was very proper for the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), in a very good speech, to ask for clarity on several aspects—for example, concerning the future constitutional status of Kosovo. We have moved on from Rambouillet, which is dead in many respects. We now talk about some international status, but there is no clear precedent for that. We know about the position in Namibia, in Cambodia and in eastern Slavonia, but each differs from that in the Balkans. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary airily talks about a mixture of international bodies. Surely there should be a United Nations trusteeship, with others helping as appropriate.
There is uncertainty as to how we regard President Milosevic. Is he—as President Clinton now apparently says—to be regarded as a war criminal, who must be hounded out of office, or is he a possible negotiating partner in the endgame in Kosovo? As colleagues have properly said, there are other potential war criminals who are leaders in Balkan states.
What about the role of ground troops? Is it plausible that, at some time, President Milosevic will run up a white flag and say, "I surrender," without any ground forces entering his territory? There would need to be a case for troops to enter in an aggressive posture, rather than by consent. If we insist that ground troops will not enter unless by consent, we must scale down our war aims and realign those aims to the resources that we are prepared to deploy.

613
It is important for us to point out all the complexities from our armchairs—from the comfort of the Chamber—but the Government had to take decisions, and act decisively. This is a conflict which NATO—whose 50th anniversary is this week-dare not lose, and ultimately cannot lose, because it has vast resources at its disposal, whereas the Serbs have limited resources, rapidly depleted, at their disposal. It is a conflict that Milosevic must not win, because of the precedent that that would set for others who might also be intent on ethnic cleansing in that highly fragile region.
In the immediate future, therefore, we must maintain the military pressure and build our available forces in theatre. We must give President Milosevic a clear signal that we will go as far as is necessary—that we are in earnest, not bluffing. NATO unity is precious, and it is vital that that message be passed to President Milosevic, so that he is in absolutely no doubt.
We must build up our military capacity incrementally. It is true that United Kingdom forces are now in Macedonia, but there are only 14 Chieftain tanks there. That is absurd if we wish to show credibly that we have the will, if we need to, to enter with ground forces. We must give a signal to President Milosevic of greater co-operation with the KLA—at least in terms of intelligence and non-lethal co-operation—and we must show a commitment to the International War Crimes Tribunal, by offering to give it greater help in the form of personnel and resources. By acting in all those ways, we shall give a clear signal.
However, we must adopt a two-track approach—both military and political. We should pursue the military strategy energetically, but we must be ready, in the fairly near future, to rebalance the political and military strategy. That means increasingly consulting Russia as a partner and seeking to work with the United Nations, ever to be ready to accept an outcome that may be less than total victory, if the broad objectives that we seek can be achieved—such as that of avoiding a wider Balkans war.
We should leave the door open for compromise, and avoid that absolutist language which, alas, is used by some retired US generals and even President Clinton. To make an eventual negotiated settlement possible, we should avoid using words such as holocaust and genocide.
If possible, we should avoid making Serbia a wasteland, ruined and humiliated. We should think of the example of Germany in 1918, and the ghost that haunted Europe later. We should remember the complexities of the history of the Balkans—the fault line of Europe. A multi-ethnic empire is unravelling, with all the consequences that might flow from that. We should remember that, before Racak, the KLA had killed more civilians than the Serbs—and there is the memory of Krajina.
However, compromise must come from strength, not from weakness. It may include keeping an open mind about the nature of the military—yes, military—force that will have to enter Kosovo to ensure that the refugees may return in safety and stability. The OSCE and NATO may play a part, but they will have to work very closely indeed with Russia—and, as far as possible, do so under the umbrella of the United Nations. Compromise would not
614
rule out partition if greater goals could thereby be achieved. Remember that the boundaries in that area are often very ill-defined, as we saw in Bosnia.
Mistakes have been made. One was to ignore the warning on the road sign which read—like those that we see in London and elsewhere—"Do not enter box unless your exit is clear." In my judgment, intervention was necessary, however. That cannot be over-emphasised.
Now NATO must look long, and look at the big picture. The big picture is in part humanitarian—the need to help that great sea and mass of suffering people who have been forced out as a result of ethnic cleansing, and who were in the process of being forced out before bombing started. Let us not forget that. However, politically, we must signal to Milosevic that we are prepared for the long haul if necessary, and that we are prepared to enter Kosovo aggressively, without his consent; but that, if our humanitarian and political aims, including those regarding the future of the Balkans, can be substantially attained without the total ruin and humiliation of Serbia, we would be prepared to settle for less than total victory.
6.20 pm
Sir Raymond Whitney: There is a long and honourable tradition in the House that in times of conflict right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber give unqualified and wholehearted support to our forces. I am glad that the Conservative party has offered that support since the beginning of the crisis. As a former Regular soldier, I have every reason to understand the importance of that support. However, that does not mean that the Opposition or hon. Members on both sides of the House should renounce their right and duty to examine carefully the performance of the Executive. Indeed, at times of war, the monitoring of the Government's performance is even more crucial than it usually is.
Over the past day or two we have had some extraordinary examples of the extent to which the Government are at sea—a matter to which I shall return. A balanced examination of the way in which the Government have handled the Kosovo crisis can conclude only that we are witnessing a fiasco on a scale that this country has not seen for generations. I think that we should have to go back to the Boer war to find a military situation where the enemy has been so thoroughly misunderstood, where planning and foresight have been so glaringly absent and where the strategic concept on which our campaign appears to be based is so greatly at variance with the great majority of military thinking and the experience of our armed forces.
Never can a collection of Ministers—in interviews on television or radio and in articles in the press—have seemed so completely at sea, so entirely unable to control events and so uncomprehending of what is going on. It may be offered as a plea in exculpation that the Government have been dragged into this situation by the United States. As a long-standing admirer of America and much of what that country stands for, I have to say that that is a valid complaint and a valid point to make. However, the US contribution to Europe's security has always been, and continues to be, tremendous, and crucial to Europe, and we Europeans must do more in future to deserve a continuation of American support. The Americans sometimes miscalculate, however; and when

615
we think they are on the wrong track, we have a duty, as their close friends and allies, to tell them so. Conservative Prime Ministers have done so in the past. The present Prime Minister clearly has failed to do so.
Perhaps both Governments are in the dock, therefore, but the performance of the US Government is a matter for the American Congress and the American people. It cannot be used in a plea of mitigation for the British Government.
The list of charges is lengthy, so I can offer only a selection. For a year the Government blustered with Milosevic hoping to browbeat him into acceptable behaviour. When that failed, they turned to aerial bombardment, apparently hoping that that would achieve his rapid submission. They have been surprised that the use of air power has not brought the success they were after. Yet, as we have heard so often this evening, the vast majority of military commentators could have told them, and did tell them, what would happen.
The use of air power alone hardly ever works. The Government have been surprised not only that Milosevic is still there but that he now enjoys more popular support than he did when the bombing started. They have been surprised that once the action began Serb atrocities against the Kosovars increased, so that since 24 March thousands more have been killed and hundreds of thousands have been turned into refugees. The figure offered today by the United National Development Programme is that 600,000 refugees have been created in recent weeks. The Government gratuitously told Milosevic that NATO would not use ground troops, thus giving him more reason to hope that he could secure a satisfactory settlement of the terrible situation that he had created. The Government told Milosevic that he would be tried as a war criminal, giving him a further incentive to hold out against the bombing and to refuse to negotiate. The list is much longer.
Even this Government, having reached this situation, must surely accept that we cannot merely continue with the bombing month after month after month. The Foreign Secretary has given us no idea of when the bombing might achieve any sort of success. There are now only two choices facing NATO Governments. They could call off the bombardment and patch up whatever accommodation they can manage with Milosevic, perhaps hoping that the Russians will come to see it as being somehow in their own interest to play a constructive role. Or they could recognise what they should have understood before they started to threaten the Serbs and before they started the bombing, which is that they will achieve their aims only by backing up the aerial bombardment with the use of land forces.
I believe that things have gone too far for the first option to be acceptable. Quite apart from the messy situation that it would leave in Kosovo and the neighbouring states, it would represent a massive and humiliating defeat for NATO. Such a defeat is something that we and all western nations simply could not afford, for many reasons which I think most Members will appreciate.
Of course, the ground force option has great difficulties, not least because it has been so emphatically ruled out by the Government until quite recently. However, I refuse to accept that the most successful military alliance ever created is unable to tackle the
616
Yugoslav army, particularly once the military infrastructure pounding takes its effect, bearing in mind what we have seen over the past three or four weeks.
From this Government-created fiasco we must learn important lessons for the future. We must never again be sleepwalked into this sort of mess by a Government who are bemused by spin doctoring and who understand so little of the military and strategic realities that modern Governments have to face. In this post-cold war world, are we and our western allies prepared to intervene in sovereign states for humanitarian reasons? I am inclined to think that the answer to that question will be—and perhaps should be—yes, if only because of what they refer to in the United States as the CNN factor. If we are to intervene, it must be on the basis of clear thinking and careful planning. Those factors have been totally absent from the Government's handling of the Kosovo affair.
We must examine what role there will be for the UN and the Security Council. What will this mean for the common foreign and security policy of the European Union and for the European defence and security identity? How will this affect our relations with the US? All those questions are for another day. The Government must now say to their NATO allies that the Kosovo affair must be brought to an acceptable conclusion, and that can be done only with the use of land forces.
6.28 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I share with colleagues an abhorrence of ethnic cleansing and condemn unreservedly any atrocities committed by either side. If evidence is available, the perpetrators should be prosecuted. I condemn also the war that is waged by NATO against the people of Yugoslavia, which is why this weekend I visited Yugoslavia to learn at first hand the people's views about how the bombing is affecting their lives and what they see of the future.
I visited Novi Sad on Saturday and stood with citizens of that multi-ethnic city on the one remaining bridge across the Danube. Twenty-six ethnic communities live peacefully in Vojvodina and they were all represented on the bridge. I and the journalists who accompanied me were allowed to mix freely with the people. We were under no restrictions as we talked to the people about the refugee crisis and the bombing. We heard many expressions of sympathy from the ordinary people on that bridge. They overwhelmingly blamed NATO for the escalation of the problem in Kosovo; that united them. [Interruption.] They referred to the Kosovo Liberation Army as people who had perpetrated serious acts, and compared the position with other situations in the world involving the Kurds and the IRA.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) felt fit to laugh when the people about whom I was talking live under nightly bombardments. They have a right to express a view. Such cheap behaviour does not do anything to enhance the debate.
The people in Novi Sad know what is happening. They watch CNN and BBC television. They know what happened to the Zastrava—
Mr. Ben Bradshawrose—
Mrs. Mahon: I will not give way.

617
The people in Novi Sad know what happened to the Zastrava car and tractor factory, where the workers staged a sit-in. They faxed the co-ordinates to NATO and Clinton, but NATO still went ahead and sent 25 cruise missiles to bomb that factory. If hon. Members visited the factory, as I did, they would think it a miracle that nobody died—160 were injured—and they could still go into the centre, where the sit-in was, to see the blood splattered over the makeshift beds and chairs.
When the sirens went, there was no chance to evacuate everyone and people saved themselves by getting under the main structure, carrying the injured with them. Somehow it held and lives were not lost. The bombing that night shattered the heating plant that serves a large residential area—it was completely destroyed—and a large area is without any heating whatever.
The workers whom I met and talked to quite freely were pretty angry. They wanted me to give a message to the House. They said that they had harmed nobody. Many of them had demonstrated against Milosevic, but they asked me to say, "We will fight for our country in every town, every village and every house and behind every tree. If the Americans use defoliants, as they did in Vietnam, we will fight from tunnels. We are not going to give up." That is the message from the Zastrava factory and from the bridge at Novi Sad, which is the only one standing. The bridges have been bombed. As any civil engineer would tell the House, when a bridge crosses a river it carries the water supply—in this case, to the main hospital. That has gone, and so have all the cables.
As has been said, bombing bridges harms civilians; in this case, it has. Tremendous damage has been done to the civilian population. An hour after we left, the heaviest bombing yet took place in Novi Sad. These bombs are hitting civilian targets.
Early on Sunday morning, I heard the sirens. A bombing attack was taking place on Pancevo, where petrol tanks and the chemical factory went up. Pancevo is about five or six miles outside Belgrade. I stood looking out my hotel bedroom window, wondering what to do and watching clouds of noxious fumes go up, as the plant took a direct hit.
On Sunday, I visited a small town called Chubria. I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary would not let me intervene earlier, because I have brought a message from a citizen of that town. It was bombed in the early hours of 8 April: one woman was killed, five were injured and 400 residential homes were either flattened or badly damaged. This is not propaganda; I witnessed it with my own eyes. In the town centre, a school of nursing, a department store and the sports hall—500 m from where the seven bombs fell—have been badly damaged.
I talked to a dentist and his wife who referred to themselves as "collateral damage". Their home was completely destroyed above their heads as they hid for shelter in the cellar. The wife was injured and they are deeply traumatised. The so-called military target was a long-time disused barracks 2 km from the residential area. That attack was on civilians, as were the attacks on the train, the factories and the refugee column. It is no good telling these people, as they run each night into their bomb shelters, that NATO is not attacking them. They know that it is. That town opposed Milosevic; it is now 100 per cent. behind him.
618
On Sunday evening, we visited Pancevo, where the oil refineries and the chemical plant were blazing out of control. Restrictions meant that we were not allowed to film and talk to the staff, but workers died there during the previous bombing raid, and I got the feeling-which can be translated into any language—that there was no way that they wanted to talk to us. I could taste and smell the fumes and I was glad to get out of there. Of course, there is nowhere for those people to go.
I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who has taken a great interest in refugees and knows a lot about them. I firmly believe that, if we are to help those miserable refugees, we need a political solution—not an ultimatum. NATO can wreak massive damage and destroy Yugoslavia, but that will not get a single Kosovar refugee home. The Yugoslays will negotiate, but they will not accept a foreign occupation by NATO.
Those who now beat so euphorically the drums of war for ground troops to go in would soon be despairing, when the body bags started coming home. President Clinton might have the reassurances of the Heads of Government in Macedonia, Montenegro and Bulgaria, but what about the support of the people—the majority of whom are Serbs? In Montenegro, Djukanovic hangs on by a thread, threatened not by Milosevic, but by his own people.
Mr. Alan Simpson: Would it be helpful for my hon. Friend to know that she has the support of the Montenegrin Education Minister, who faxed me at home this weekend? He simply said that it was quite clear that there could be no winners in such a war and appealed to this Parliament to recognise that the Montenegrin people—who do not support Milosevic, but are deeply opposed to the bombing—want the peace that the bombing stands in the way of.
Mrs. Mahon: I thank my hon. Friend. I am glad that I gave way; that was a useful intervention.
Meanwhile, the Russians are sidelined. Russia is already aiding Yugoslavia—the Duma wants to arm it and send in troops. It could get much, much worse. The Russians say, "Why shouldn't we, because the KLA is helped by the Americans?" I have to tell the House that the Kosovo Liberation Army had 18 American advisers with it at Rambouillet, and everybody knows that weapons are coming in from there.
The United Nations and Russia could broker a peace. Yeltsin's warning today should not be ignored, in my opinion. Members of the House who laugh about that should remember that Russia still has many nuclear weapons and is in an unstable situation. It is in our interests to get the Russians involved. Yugoslavia would accept a large, unarmed multinational group and UN or Russian brokering, and they must be brought into the negotiations.
The international community could oversee such an agreement with massive aid for a settlement and for rebuilding—not only in Kosovo, but in Serbia itself, which has suffered millions of pounds of damage through the NATO bombing. The alternative—ground troops—is absolute nonsense. There would be massive loss of life and invasion would be very difficult, as we have heard from people who are far more experienced than I am.
The people of Yugoslavia feel deep bitterness and anger. I spoke to a veteran who housed a Royal Air Force fighter pilot during the war, at great risk to him and his

619
family. I cannot express how he feels. They have sympathy for the Kosovars. It is nonsense to say that they do not know what is happening. Many of them cannot do anything about Milosevic, but would like to if they could.
Are we seriously going to follow slavishly American policy that devastates another part of the world, after Afghanistan, Cambodia and many other places, or are we going to do the only thing that makes sense? We should start talking and stop bombing.
6.38 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I begin by making two parliamentary points. First, I agree very much with what the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has said. We should be debating a substantive motion. In a democracy, a Government who wish to pursue a campaign for explicit objectives should come to the House and get explicit authority, both for the war and for the objectives. I know that holding an Adjournment debate is in accordance with precedent; I regret that precedent and believe that a substantive motion should be before the House.
Secondly, and differently, I regret the underlying feeling in some parts of the House that it is wrong during a war to criticise the conduct of the Executive. The service men deserve our admiration and our support, but we, as Members of the House, have a duty to express our views as we have them. Frequently, we do best that way in serving the interests of the service men. Let us not forget that, as a result of the criticisms made of the Government in the Norway debate in May 1940, Mr. Chamberlain resigned and was replaced by Churchill. I do accept, however, that, when we express ourselves, we need to be careful not to encourage Mr. Milosevic in his obduracy.
I am one of those Members who oppose, and opposed, the decision to resort to bombing. I have expressed my reasons before, so I shall be brief, but in substance they are these. First, there are compelling arguments against becoming involved in civil wars. Secondly, I do not believe that Britain's strategic interests are sufficiently prejudiced by Mr. Milosevic. Thirdly, I do not believe that our declared objectives can readily be achieved by the resources being made available by NATO. The plain truth is that we are in this position because NATO painted itself into a corner by the threats that it made, so it had no alternative. That should not have happened.
First, it is a sad fact that, thus far, this campaign has not been well managed. NATO did not fully anticipate the ferocity of Mr. Milosevic's response in Kosovo. It should have done. Secondly, NATO does not fully understand the determination of Milosevic or the Serbian people. It should do. Thirdly, we have not made available to the NATO command sufficient air force. Where are the Apache helicopters now? Lastly, we deprived ourselves of the leverage that might have been available to us, had we decided to deploy more ground troops into theatre.
May I make one point with regard to what has happened in Kosovo? Of course, Milosevic intended to move against the Kosovo Liberation Army, and that would have resulted in much killing of Kosovars. The extent of what has happened is not the result of our action; but, in a sense, our action was the occasion of it, because Milosevic used the withdrawal of the monitors and the start of bombing as an excuse and an occasion for what happened. His is the moral culpability, but we should not say that what has happened would have happened in any event.
620
May I make two points about Milosevic and the Serbs? I have had at least four extended meetings with Milosevic and have been to Belgrade on many an occasion. Milosevic is an extremely formidable opponent. He is stubborn, ruthless, intelligent and devoid of moral scruples—the most dangerous kind of opponent. The Serbian people are determined to resist what they regard as an act of aggression. They are united by the fact of the bombing and, to endorse what the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) said, they place great value on Kosovo being part of Serbia.
The war objectives have been detailed today by the Foreign Secretary. I am bound to say that they are being developed as we go along. In truth, they are little more than a demand for unconditional surrender by the Serbs. So far as Milosevic is concerned, they are made even more unpalatable by the fact that his arraignment before the International War Crimes Tribunal is clearly being contemplated—as, in one sense, it should be. However, we shall not find those objectives easy to secure, and we shall not secure them unless we beat the Serbs on the field of battle.
We have three options: first, a unilateral decision to discontinue; secondly, to go for broke; and, thirdly, to come to some compromise. I am not in favour of unilateral discontinuation. We have gone too far for that and NATO's credit is too heavily pledged; nor am I in favour of going for broke, because either the bombing would have to be so intense as to become immoral, or ground forces would have to be deployed in an outright war, and I am not in favour of that. Therefore, we must go for a compromise, giving Milosevic what he most certainly does not deserve and giving to the Kosovars less than they merit. Partition will probably be the outcome of all that.
I shall make four concluding remarks because I have only four minutes left. First, I do not expect the Government to articulate support for what I have just said—at least, not in public. All that I ask of them is not to paint themselves into further corners. We do not want to over-extend our commitment. We do not want, in due time when we enter into a compromise, to have to make a feast of statements previously uttered. Secondly, we need to move swiftly to a compromise agreement. It will have to be made privately and will probably involve both the Russians and the United Nations. Thirdly, we shall probably be faced with a long-term problem of resettling many Kosovars because, even doing the best that we can, not all Kosovars will return to Kosovo, especially if there is a partition. This country, in common with all others, will have to be generous in that regard. Lastly, we shall require forces in Kosovo. Whether it is partitioned or not, there is a long-standing commitment ahead of us. We must ask ourselves whether there are forces sufficient to do that and contemplate whether more should be brought into theatre now.
The options are bleak. I wish that we were not in this position. Our policy should be to avoid action that gives Milosevic what he needs and wants. We should not involve ourselves in a policy of total war. At the same time, however, we must realise that a total fulfilment of the stated objectives will not happen. We must work for a compromise, and soon.
6.48 pm
Mr. Jimmy Hood: I cannot remember, in my 12 years as a Member of the House, ever taking part in a debate in which I am so opposed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I do not feel comfortable disagreeing with my right hon. Friend, but I have to say that I disagreed with much of what he said. His analysis was wrong and I was dismayed to hear of his blind faith in the ability of the United Nations to solve everything. Anyone who understands how the United Nations operates knows that Russia and China would have used their veto, and action would never have been taken against Milosevic had we depended on that. The blue beret argument is not, therefore, sustainable, which is why I cannot support it.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) asked why we were in Kosovo. Perhaps we should concentrate on that considered question. It is because of the evil behaviour of Milosevic. It is a humanitarian catastrophe, and I have no problem with being on the left of politics and supporting action to defend a humanitarian cause, as we are doing in Kosovo. I just wish that hon. Members who argue against the NATO action in Kosovo, which they have a right to do, would not slant their arguments against America. Their arguments lose credence when they are articulated in such a way.
Having said that, I, too, have criticisms about what has led us to this position. War is the result of diplomatic failure and/or the lack resolve to recognise evil when we are confronted by it. We were confronted by Milosevic in 1990 when he invaded Slovenia. It does not come well from the Conservative party to criticise what is happening now, given the inaction at the beginning of the decade, which allowed Milosevic to perpetrate his evil even further.
I sit at home the same as any other citizen and I do not necessarily express my view because of opinion polls in my constituency. However, when I speak to my constituents, I know what their feelings are. Nobody likes the thought of being involved in such a conflict, but it is difficult to find many people in my constituency who do not agree that there was a need to take some action.
We should not forget that Milosevic put 40,000 troops and 300 tanks in Kosovo to carry out his policy of ethnic cleansing. That precipitated the need for action to stop him. In fairness, the refugee crisis could not have been properly estimated. I find it difficult to get my mind around the concept of what leads people to be so evil to one another. I know that that is happening on both sides, but we know what Milosevic is doing.
I read a report last week about a 10-year-old boy who was sheltering in a house with 14 relatives. The two men of the house were hiding in the hills because, until then, Milosevic's murdering gangs had not killed women and children. However, they burned down the house, killing nine children and five women. The little boy was shot in the arm and faked death—the only way he survived. We must understand why we are in Kosovo.
I went to the NATO headquarters with the Defence Committee in January—and here is where I have some criticism. Let me be perfectly blunt: my criticism is not that action was taken, but that it should have been taken earlier. It certainly should have been taken when Slovenia
622
was invaded and the Bosnian war started. At the beginning of the year, we knew that Milosevic was getting his troops together. That is when we should have moved.
At NATO headquarters, a British general told us that there was a triangle of ways, means and endgame. I do not blame the military, which had the ways and means, but not the endgame. The vacillation on that matter has caused much of the confusion and many of the problems.
It was foolish to say that we would not send in ground troops; I do not see the sense or the rationale in that. I support the Government in not sending ground troops in at present; but, if we had had that endgame at the beginning, it might have affected the thinking of Milosevic.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hood: No, I am sorry. I will not give way, because I have only 10 minutes.
Mention has been made of Russia. I was in Moscow some weeks ago, and I met Russian politicians in the Duma. We understand that Russian presidential and parliamentary elections are pending. Hon. Members are right—I am sure that the Foreign Secretary, who is in his seat, and all Governments understand this—in thinking that the Russians are central to reaching a solution. My view is that the Russians told Milosevic to settle at the Rambouillet peace discussions, but that Milosevic did not believe that NATO would take action. To use an unparliamentary term, Milosevic told the Russians to get stuffed. The Russians are now in a difficult position.
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) talked of compromise; compromise is appeasement in these situations. I say, "Shame on that solution." To those who want to stop the killing—as we all do—I say that only action will stop the killing in Kosovo. To those who talk about UN solutions, I say that we have three UN resolutions. To those who are wavering, I ask them to look through the eyes of that 10-year-old boy in Kosovo who faked death while 14 members of his family lay dead beside him.
6.55 pm
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I recognise that the Government and NATO were faced with a sensitive situation following the breakdown of the Rambouillet talks. The choice was clear to many at the time; either we did nothing, or we intervened on humanitarian grounds to end the brutality of ethnic cleansing. I was not surprised, therefore, that the Government—together with their NATO partners—took the unanimous decision to support intervention by the use of force. Nor was I surprised that, faced with the prospect of a well-armed enemy in a hostile environment, the nations concerned were reluctant to risk the prospect of heavy casualties, and opted for an aerial bombardment.
The Foreign Secretary will accept that there was a desire to contain the conflict and to prevent it from spreading through the Balkans, leading to the involvement of Russia. There has been every attempt to try to keep Russia on-side. I recognise the political considerations, having been in the Army in the second world war and, subsequently, a Minister under Lord Carrington when we had to deal with the opening difficulties in Northern

623
Ireland. That reminds me that we must balance military force with military feasibility and political consideration if we are to bring public opinion along with us.
What worries me is that public opinion expects quick results and—invariably in today's atmosphere, and as a result of our history since the war—a bloodless war. It would be inexcusable if, in the course of listening to public opinion and looking at the difficulties, we allowed the reputation of NATO to suffer. That is the point on which I wish to concentrate.
As a member of the NATO parliamentary assembly, I—along with colleagues from the House—will be attending the NATO summit this weekend. I am concerned about the effect of what we say there and what we do now in Kosovo on people's present perception of NATO, and of the alliance itself. For 50 years, the alliance has kept the peace. I conclude that if the public are likely to grow more and more impatient about what is happening, they will look to NATO and say that NATO has failed. It would be inexcusable to allow that to happen.
Throughout the cold war, NATO was regarded as the most successful political and military alliance in modem history. It faced, on a fixed border, a tough enemy with a single front line. NATO bluffed it out; not just with words, but with a willingness and conviction that, if necessary, force would be used. There was no question that nuclear forces would have been used if there had been an attack by the then Soviet Union.
Since then, NATO has turned its attention to adapting the alliance to enlarge its membership. It has embarked on a new relationship with Russia, as a result of the NATO Russian Founding Act. It has made other arrangements through "Partnership for Peace" with former enemy countries. NATO is looking at the new threats to European security which could emanate from outside its previously established frontiers. NATO started on a formidable task of reshaping its strategy which was not complete when this situation blew up in our faces.
How do we give effect to the NATO strategy in a way that entails implementing changes in its modus operandi? The thinking is there, but it is not reflected on the ground. There is a recognition of the need for more flexible forces, which are capable of quicker responses and able to cope with sudden outbreaks of violence, terrorism, drugs, refugees, chemical and biological missiles, as well as with peace enforcement, peacekeeping and regional disputes that could affect the security of the NATO Euro-Atlantic alliance. It would be a tragedy if NATO's capabilities, and our confidence in it, were besmirched during the transition.
Talk of sending thousands of ground troops to deal with the Serbian crisis invariably leads to questions about whether NATO is up to the job. Indeed, such questions have already been asked. I think that we are all aware of the risks, which have been mentioned today. The ports of entry are inadequate, the airfields are limited and the terrain is hostile, favouring guerrilla warfare. In any event, the build-up of additional forces would take some months.
The following question than arises. If ground forces are to be used—and I think that they are needed—which country will bear the biggest burden? Obviously it will be the United States which hitherto has shown a marked reluctance to send troops to NATO to help us to discharge our duty. That is hardly a recipe for a more balanced and efficient alliance.
624
I think that this has emerged from the dispute. The European alliance cannot go on expecting the United States to pull the chestnuts out of the fire. The imbalance between our technology and that of the United States forces is one of the reasons why we are not more effective in the present struggle. We need better logistics, intelligence-gathering and communications; we need allies in high-tech systems. The gap between the European members of the alliance and the United States inhibits the development of a better and more respectable working relationship for NATO in the next century, as well as in the current crisis. Meanwhile, we cannot allow the Kosovo situation to undermine the harmony between the allies that has been such a cardinal principle of NATO's success, or to damage our confidence in its future and its ability to play its full part in the present crisis.
7.2 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Terrible things are happening now, and the only chance of preventing more from happening during the next few weeks will be through entering into talks with President Milosevic, unpalatable and unpopular though that option may be. What other way is there?
Let me ask the Foreign Secretary about war crimes. If he were to learn that, day after day, he and his colleagues were to be arraigned for such crimes, what would be his reaction? It would be to fight to the death. It must also be taken into account—although we may not find it easy to understand—that many Serbs now want to be heroes, as their grandfathers were when they fought the Wehrmacht and were Tito's partisans. That is the psychology. Any ground war would therefore be a formidable undertaking, rendered all the more formidable by the fact that the only point of entry is over Albania, which features an unsatisfactory infrastructure and mountains rising to 6,000 ft. Where else is there any entry?
Let me ask another question. Is it wise for western leaders to repeat time and again that the Kosovar Albanians have asked them to continue the bombardment? Let us suppose that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was a Serbian soldier in Kosovo, and knew that the bombings described by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) were taking place in his area, damaging factories and, inevitably, causing collateral damage. What would be his attitude to those who, we are repeatedly told, have asked for the bombing to continue, and to continue more intensely?
My right hon. Friend says that he has spoken to the Foreign Ministers of seven countries. What is the position of the Greeks? We read, for example, that the Mayor of Athens has asked for the bombing to end forthwith. I hope that my right hon. Friend, the Defence Secretary, will tell us something about that when he winds up the debate.
I also want to ask about the Kosovo Liberation Army. In an intervention that was not well received, I directly quoted from the report of the German federal police. Have Ministers seen that report? Have they seen the Europol report? I have seen extracts, but they may have seen the full report. If I am wrong, no doubt they will say so.
I am among those who were here in the late 1960s, during the arguments about Vietnam. If I go into the Lobby tonight with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), it will be partly because I feel that Parliament has been insufficiently considered in all

625
this. Thirty years ago, Harold Wilson—who took a rather different view on Vietnam from his party at the beginning—used to sit here hour after hour listening to what was said, as did many senior members of the Government. Harold Wilson—and it was not his party's large majority that made him do this—stood up to pressures from Lyndon Johnson that, because of the financial situation and the state of the pound, were far greater than those being exerted now by an American president. I think that it is a loss to the country that Parliament was not heeded much earlier, when the dissenters could at least have had their say.
During the last debate on Kosovo, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that there were no problems with the Russians. He had been having valuable discussions about Murmansk, the future of the Soviet Arctic fleet and the millennium, which could potentially lead to a very dangerous situation. Are those discussions continuing, or have they been broken off? The Russians are extremely angry about what they, and those in much of the rest of the world, see as cost-free militarism.
Let me return to the subject of Vietnam for a moment. Troop numbers are increased constantly in the search for the elusive light at the end of the tunnel: that is the situation that we seem to be in. Have we learned from Vietnam?
Let me ask specifically about pollution. What, in the view of Foreign Office Ministers, is the truth about what happened last night, and has happened before, in regard to chemical plants? What happens if a nuclear plant is hit?
There is also a Serbian point of view, which I want to put in the words of a Serbian citizen whom I would prefer not to name. She writes:
"I restate: the ignorance on which NATO based its attack constitutes criminality.
To explain by means of the simplest metaphor. You are kindly invited into someone's house. You are plied with cakes and tea. You take up residence. You produce a large, very large, number of children at great speed. You like the house and ask for it to be given you. When this is refused you take out a gun, having previously armed yourself illegally, and try to shoot me. The shot fails so you call in NATO, with its 19 nations, including the most powerful nation in the world, to shoot me for you."
I am not saying whether that should be endorsed. All I am saying is that it is a view that we had better take account of and that the Serbs are extremely determined people. NATO's bombs have blasted the germinating seeds of democracy out of the soil of Kosovo, Serbia and Montenegro and ensured that they will not sprout again for a very long time.
The solution that has been given by Sir Michael Howard should be considered. He is Chichele professor of the history of war. He says:
"The alternative is a negotiated settlement that Serbia can live with, even if it does not satisfy the maximal demands of either side. The danger is that public opinion in the West is now becoming so heated that any compromise settlement will be condemned as surrender or, worse, 'appeasement' and no Allied leader will dare to recommend it. But the longer the war goes on, the less likely it is that this option will remain open.
Sometimes making peace requires as much courage as waging war."
626
Making peace requires as much courage as making war: that is the point that I should like to leave the House with. We should have the courage to start negotiations as the only hope of saving the plight of those people in Kosovo and, indeed, saving much more.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I call Mr. David Heath.
7.11 pm
Mr. David Heath: I apologise to the hon. Members who have already spoken and to the House that I was not able to be present earlier. I hope that the House will forgive me when I explain that I left Skopje at 3 o'clock this morning and have been travelling ever since. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I heard some hon. Gentleman make a remark about why the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) was called. He was called because I called him.
Mr. Heath: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I was in Skopje because I was representing the House on behalf of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs at an important meeting of the Royaumont process, which was attempting to rebuild the structure of south-eastern Europe. I am pleased to report that, at the meeting, we reached a joint position. It was agreed by all the countries that were represented, including all the Balkan states, with the exception of Serbia, which was not present. The meeting was attended by many European Union states, including Greece. It condemned Mr. Milosevic's position and called on him to accept the NATO requirements for the withdrawal of forces and for the establishment of an international force.
My reason for rising to speak is to express in an inadequate way my reaction to having been at the Stankovac I camp, the Brazda camp, last night and to having seen for myself the pitiful position of the Kosovar refugees there. I wish to bring to the House whatever I can of their experience.
People say that one has to experience war truly to know what it means. Perhaps one has to experience the after effects of war to understand what that means as well. I feel humbled by having met people who are in that position. The stories that those refugees told me last night will live with me for ever. I do not think that I can properly express the brutality that they have suffered in Kosovo.
I heard stories of people being burned alive in their houses. I heard stories of babies being taken away from the arms of their mothers immediately after birth and thrown away, throwing away a young life. I heard from a six-year old girl who had lost all her family. She did not know where her sisters were, or whether they were dead or alive. She was alone in the teeming camp of refugees.
The most precious commodity in the camp was one that I could provide temporarily: a mobile telephone. With that, refugees could at least attempt to let someone know where they were. There was no other mechanism to do so. One of the most poignant things is the wall in the camp, where little notes suggest where people might he-where in Macedonia, Albania, Turkey, Germany or wherever else they might be taken—so that those families might, in time, be reunited.

627
It is a well-ordered camp because of the involvement of British troops, who have been instrumental in setting it up. I say that the camp is well ordered—there are tents and some structure—but there is inadequate sanitation. There are no cooking facilities. There are no facilities for children to play. That may seem a trivial matter, but it is not when we consider the age range of the people there. There is nothing to bring any sense of normality to those people's lives after the experiences that they have had in escaping from Kosovo.
The British soldiers whom I met there, some of them from the west country, were remarkable in their resilience and determination. One of the comments that I heard from an Albanian was how pleased he was to see the British contingent. He said that, however hard the British service men worked, they were always smiling and the refugees did not usually see people in uniform smiling. It made a big impression on him that there were at least some people bringing humanity to the situation. The one thing that the refugees wished to report was the Macedonian guards, to whom I will return. The position of Macedonia is important.
The refugees had two messages that they wanted me to give to the House. I spoke to many hundreds as I went around. One message was their determination to go home. That is their simple wish. They want to go home and to rebuild their lives. They do not want to be evacuated for good, or to stay in Macedonia or Albania. They do not want to create some new political structure. They simply want to go home and to continue their lives.
I asked the refugees the question that we have all asked: was the NATO action making things better or worse? Not a single person said anything other than, "Please continue to the end. The only hope we have is for NATO action to continue."
My fear is that those camps have great capacity to deteriorate. One matter has caused me concern. I ask the Foreign Secretary to take note of it and perhaps to take further action. Macedonia is in a frightful position in the war. I have the greatest sympathy for its Government. It is a small, fragile country that is having great difficulty in bringing the resources to bear that are needed to deal with the massive influx of people, which is out of all proportion to anything that we could imagine.
As those people are fond of telling us, the equivalent would be 5 million people turning up on the coast of Kent asking for succour. That is a huge burden for the Macedonians to bear. I salute them in their efforts and for the integrity that they have brought to the process. However, the views of some people in Macedonia are not as we would want them to be. They do not think in the way in which we would like. The Macedonian guards have been guilty of beating people up and of switching on hoses to flood parts of the camp.
The refugees are telling us that the only thing stopping the guards is the presence of foreign troops—that small contingent. It may only be 30 troops, the number may be nominal, but that is what is stopping the guards. We need to maintain a presence there of troops from Britain or some other NATO force to stop that happening. In the longer term, what needs to happen is for those camps to come under United Nations control and for UN troops to maintain the camps. There is no overall control at the moment. That is worrying.
628
On Saturday, I was told by Albanian Members of Parliament that they applauded everything that was being done and saluted the efforts of the western powers, but that only 30 per cent. of the aid that they had been promised had arrived and that they were getting desperate. I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary could tell us why that might be so.
When one is in the area, one cannot escape watching the Serbian satellite television and the diet of propaganda that the Serbs receive, which to us is horrifying. It is a constant repeat of what are termed NATO atrocities. There are pictures of people in Pristina and across Kosovo waving Yugoslav flags and holding up pictures of Mr. Milosevic, saying what a splendid fellow he is. We know that that is not the position in Kosovo. Every small grain of dissent outside Serbia against NATO's action is magnified to the point at which it is said that every capital in western Europe is up in arms against their Governments. We should recognise that and we should realise that words in this Chamber are heard and used elsewhere in a way that I am sure that no Member of the House would wish.
I do not believe that there is any longer a Kosovo solution. We must grasp for a wider solution and I believe that it will involve the use of ground troops. I beg the Government not to rule that out, and I hope that it will happen sooner rather than later. What I have seen in the camps makes me believe that the situation is untenable and will remain so for a long time.
7.21 pm
Mr. David Winnick: We have heard moving accounts from several hon. Members who have visited the refugee camps, including the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). I agree with the military action and I have made my views clear on previous occasions in the House. However, I understand the wish for a vote. After all, it is not a secret outside the House of Commons that there are those who disagree. My view is that if a vote were taken—and on such an issue, we should have a vote—we would see an overwhelming majority in favour of the action that NATO is taking.
Some of the criticism that is being made of reporting from Belgrade—apparently not by Ministers but by other sources—is misguided. The truth should be told. If certain feelings in Belgrade exist, as reported by John Simpson and other correspondents, let us know. Likewise, when a terrible mistake was made last week when the very people whom NATO were trying to save were killed, no one, not even Serbia, has since suggested that that was a deliberate killing. If such mistakes are made, with such terrible consequences, it is better that the truth be told, and as quickly as possible. If we have a just cause, that is all the more reason for the truth to be told.
If this debate were taking place last year, many of the critics would tell us that the action led by the United States was taken because President Clinton was trying to hold on to his job. We heard that argument on several occasions during the crisis over Iraq. That argument will not wash today, because the US President does not fear for his job. If there were some sinister conspiracy by the US to engage in military action for dubious reasons, why did it take the lead role in bringing about the Dayton agreement that ended the conflict in Bosnia? Was not bombing one of the factors that made that agreement possible?

629
If the Serbian leadership had shown serious interest in the talks in France earlier this year, even if they did not agree with every point, the military action would not have taken place, because it would not have been necessary. As I understand it, none of the critics here disputes the terrible crimes that have been committed by Serbian forces in Kosovo, such as the rapes, the murders and the ethnic cleansing that is a disgrace to Europe. In January, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a statement on the cold-blooded murder of 45 ethnic Albanians, committed for no other reason than their ethnic origin. I asked at the time whether Muslim blood was of such little concern that we should not take action to try to prevent further crimes and atrocities. Having said that, I am hardly in a position to criticise what is now being done.
I accept that Britain's interests were not directly threatened by what was taking place in Kosovo and that our safety and security were not in danger as a result of actions there. However, one could have made the same argument about the Gulf in 1990. Indeed, it was made by the critics, including Enoch Powell in an article in The Daily Telegraph in August 1990. He argued that the invasion of Kuwait was not a matter for Britain to intervene in. That argument could also have been made in 1939. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark)—I gave him notice that I intended to mention him—takes the view that we should not have gone to war in 1939 and, having done so, we should have negotiated for peace a year later. That is his view, and it is in the public domain.
I listened today with interest to the passionate outbursts against what is being done, but I remember the same passionate remarks—by Labour Members, if not by Conservative Members —being made against the action in the Falklands following the invasion. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) denounced that action on every possible occasion, but events have demonstrated that Britain was right to liberate the Falklands. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and my hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow and for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) were in full cry against the liberation of Kuwait and Britain's involvement with the allies. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield has argued that the action in Kosovo was not authorised by the United Nations, but when the UN authorised the liberation of Kuwait, he still opposed it. I do not criticise him for that, because he had every right to oppose it. I do not criticise any of those who criticise the action in Kosovo — this is a free Parliament—but we should be clear about the background of the past 10 years of some of those who are so passionately against it.
Although Britain's interest was not directly involved, it would have been wrong and dishonourable for the allies to stand aside and allow the ethnic cleansing to continue unhindered. We know what is being done. I have mentioned the deliberate murder of 45 ethnic Albanians, but that is only one of many crimes that were committed. As for the argument that the bombing has made the position worse, one could also say that about 1939. Hitler warned in the Reichstag that if the Jews were responsible for a new world war—the very war that he was planning to the last detail—they would pay the consequences. Are
630
we in Britain to be taken to task for what happened to the Jews? We know full well where the responsibility lies. What is happening now in Kosovo—the continued ethnic cleansing, the way that the people have been forced to flea in terror—is not Britain's fault or NATO's fault: it is the consequence of the actions by Milosevic and his thugs. Let us put the responsibility where it belongs.
I accept that the use of ground forces poses many problems. We should have the greatest reservation about sending in an armed force to fight its way into Kosovo. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) spoke about the pride of the Serbs and the fact that they will not give in to bombing. If they will not give in to bombing, it is not likely that there will be an easy way into Kosovo. The dangers include the widening of the war and having to fight in Serbia itself. I do not rule that out, but I hope that it will not be necessary. However, if the Serbian leadership refuse even to consider any of the peace plans, like the one suggested by Germany last week, then clearly an invasion on the ground becomes more likely. The British Government and other allied Governments criticised aspects of that plan, but the way in which Milosevic and his colleagues rejected it suggested that Belgrade in no way seeks a solution to the problem.
What is our basic minimum? What do we want? First, all refugees should be able to return to Kosovo: that is not asking too much. They should be able to return in safety, and that requires international military force. Whether that force is led by NATO or someone else is open to negotiation.
Ethnic groups have been mentioned, so I should make clear my concern for the safety of all ethnic groups in Kosovo—majority and minority, including the Serbs. I am not anti-Serb, and nor, I believe, are any of my hon. Friends.
Russia, in particular, and Greece can play important roles in trying to bring about an agreement that can end the bombing, allow refugees to return and result in a settlement. A settlement was on offer in France two months ago, and the bombing could have been avoided. I hope that such an agreement may be reached in the very near future.
7.31 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: When one sees the mediaeval horrors of what is happening in Kosovo, it is natural to say that something must be done. However, the purpose of foreign policy is to protect and promote the interests of the United Kingdom. We should, of course, desire a peaceful and prosperous world, but we must remember that basic principle.
In pursuing that purpose, the main plank of our defence policy for 50 years has been membership of NATO. As a member of the NATO parliamentary assembly, I have come into contact with Russian members of the Duma, and I have studied NATO's strategy within the context of European peace. The American senator, Sam Nunn, said that Russian co-operation in avoiding proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was our most important national security objective. We are causing stress in our relationship with Russia by expanding NATO with three new member countries. As Sam Nunn said, expansion makes Russia more suspicious and less co-operative.
The end of the cold war may have allowed us to become complacent about our relationship with Russia, but we should never forget the pivotal role of that huge

631
and influential country. Russia is internally confused. The collapse of the Warsaw pact and the exposure of the fallacy of communism mean that Russian communists have lost their sense of purpose and direction. It is as if Italy and Rome had been told that God did not exist and that the pope had been abolished. The Russians are confused by the seismic shocks running through their society.
Where once we thought about the balance of power between the Warsaw pact and NATO, it may be more appropriate to think now of the balance of power within Russia. In planning our diplomatic strategy, we should avoid acts that cause destabilisation in Russia.
I went to Moscow last month for a meeting of a joint committee of seven NATO parliamentarians and seven Russian parliamentarians, which monitors the actions of the permanent joint council of the Founding Act of May 1997, which is intended to promote better co-operation, harmony and understanding between NATO and Russia. Before the NATO attacks in Kosovo, the relationship was friendly and harmonious, although Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary were about to join NATO. The Russian parliamentarians expressed concerns about troop increases in NATO, and we reassured them, pointing out that no nuclear weapons and no substantial conventional forces would be taken into the territory of the new member countries.
Above all, however, the Russian parliamentarians expressed serious concern that NATO might, in the new strategic concept due to be unveiled in a week's time, take it on itself to intervene in sovereign nations and out of area. At that time, NATO parliamentarians were able to stress—as we always had—that NATO was a defensive alliance.
Article 51 of the United Nations charter specifies the inherent right of all countries to self defence. Military action can be justified if another nation develops weapons of mass destruction, as Iraq did, or is known to plot hostile intent, as Libya did. Article 51 could justify the attacks on those two countries. However, in the fuzzy world of international diplomacy, the normal rule must be respect for national borders. If we lose that pole star, all is lost.
NATO's action in Kosovo could not have been more well-meaning, unselfish or well-intended, but the results have been unexpected, and we are entitled to ask some hard questions. Under what head of international law were the NATO attacks on Serbia undertaken? Does that international authority cover air strikes against Serbia, or against the rest of Yugoslavia? One felt a sense of shock to hear that Montenegro, a neutral country, had been attacked.
Does the authority of international law cover all other possible military action? In deciding what action to take against Serbia, what view was taken of Russia's relationship with Serbia? To what extent was Russia consulted? To what extent did NATO take account of the reaction of Russia's Government, and of the internal reaction and its effect on the balance of power, authority and influence in Russia? It has perhaps strengthened the views and influence of hardliners, and weakened the influence of more progressive Russians.
To what extent was it anticipated that NATO action in Kosovo would disrupt co-operation between NATO and Russia under the Founding Act and "Partnership for Peace"? Certainly, co-operation has been disrupted.
632
I also have some more narrowly focused questions. Were the Government advised that air power, and air power alone, would achieve the objective of preventing ethnic cleansing and restoring harmony? I know that matters have moved on since I was a RAF pilot who, in a later manifestation, shot down another RAF aeroplane, but "clinical" and "bombing" are not words that sit easily together.
From my experience, drawn from four visits to Bosnia, I must point out that peacekeeping failed in Bosnia. The British troops in Vitez had to hunker down in barracks while Muslims and Croats fought all around them. UNPROFOR's peacekeeping failed. Only when a much larger stabilisation force, with American backing, went into Bosnia was peace imposed—not restored.
Unless agreement is reached with all concerned, we cannot imagine that a force going into Kosovo will be welcomed. In that extraordinary terrain, two men can hold up a regiment. It would take thousand upon thousand of men to impose peace in Kosovo. Without agreement, there would be many casualties, and for what?
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said earlier that the Government must be honest and open about their expectations. They must indeed be clear about their objectives, the manner of their implementation and the demands that will be placed on our armed forces if we contemplate action on the ground.
Commentators have repeatedly made the point that the credibility of NATO is at stake in Kosovo. I maintain that that is not so in respect of the main issue. Article 5 of the Washington treaty says that members of NATO will join together in self defence, defending each other against attack. That is not in dispute in any way.
What is a matter of contention, rightly, is that NATO is acting out of area with an ill-conceived strategy. We must move under the umbrella of the United Nations with the largest possible active Russian involvement.
7.39 pm
Mr. George Galloway: As a former chairman of the Britain-Albania Society and as one of the two people responsible for persuading the former National Heritage Secretary, Mr. David Mellor, to return Albania's stolen gold, I am second to no one in the House in my love for, and concern for the fate of, the Albanians. Neither am I a pacifist. Indeed, I would be ready to go five rounds with practically any hon. Member. There are a few with whom I would quite like to go five rounds. I hope that my views of the campaign will not be attributed to an animus against the Albanians or to spineless pacifism. As a former member of the Army Cadet Force Royal Artillery Battery 2, I could not credibly be accused of that.
On Saturday afternoon, a bomb went off in the centre of a European capital city, creating havoc and chaos. It brought traffic to a standstill. Hundreds if not thousands of people ran from the scene in terror. Sharp pieces of steel penetrated the bodies and the eyes of innocent civilian bystanders. It was, of course, not in Novi Sad or in Belgrade but in Brixton. It traumatised practically all London and scandalised the readers of Sunday morning newspapers.
That was the effect of one crude home-made bomb in Brixton. The same evening, NATO flew 500 sorties against targets in Yugoslavia. I, along with few others in

633
the House, have had the experience of being under aerial bombardment. With the distinguished war correspondent, Desmond Hammill, I lay with my face pressed to the earth in Eritrea, being bombed from on high by Russian aircraft of the Ethiopian air force.
The terror that I experienced was indescribable. Slices of razor sharp steel and fragmentation —they were fragmentation bombs of exactly the kind that we are dropping in Yugoslavia —tore alive the people who were around me, and I literally ate the earth to try to make myself a smaller target. Others were not as lucky as me, and Desmond Hammill was able to take some award-winning pictures of some of the casualties.
The purposes for which the Ethiopian air force was dropping those bombs were different from NATO's purposes: the Ethiopians were aiming for civilians, and we are not. I have no complaints about the conduct of our Defence Ministers and certainly none about the conduct of British forces in the action. From everything that I have heard, they have behaved with precision and professionalism. My case is that the massive failure is in foreign, not defence policy.
Neither the Eritreans nor the people of Brixton would remotely consider capitulating to the demands of those doing the bombing. The Eritreans did not and the people of Brixton will not. It does not matter how often we escalate the demands. Some hon. Members may have missed the point, but the war aims were deliberately escalated this afternoon, and the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, de facto and de jure, is now being demanded.
Anyone who thinks that the Serbian Government or, still less, the Serbian people and armed forces will voluntarily succumb to such dismemberment knows nothing about history or about the region. Even if, after a bloody invasion and wading through casualties on both sides, Kosovo is severed from Yugoslavia by force, that will be only the beginning of the problem. We will have engendered a depth of bitterness and hatred among a fighting people—the Serbs—that will haunt us for many years.
Everyone has seen the terrible suffering of the Albanian refugees being driven from their homes—yes, by ethnic cleansing enforced by paramilitary thugs and by police and soldiers and, yes, by fear of bombardment—but we have not heard much today about the civil war as a reason for refugees being on the move.
I have heard several odd references to the KLA this afternoon. Is the House aware that last year the KLA was on the US State Department's list of terrorist organisations? It was accused by the US Government of being bankrolled by the proceeds of the heroin trade and loans from characters such as Osama bin Laden. That was said in the Washington Post.
When did the KLA cease to be a terrorist organisation and become a partner for which we were ready to go to war? The reality is that the Serbs are not involved in some irrational, maniacal persecution of Albanians. Charles Krauthammer, again in the Washington Post, said:
"The reason for the killing in Kosovo is not mindless ethnic hatred but quite rational power politics. There is a guerrilla army of Kosovar Albanians who want independence and are willing to kill to achieve it. And there is a Serb army that wants to keep Kosovo in Yugoslavia and preserve the sovereignty of the state. And it is willing to kill for that."
634
That was the Government's perspective until a few short months ago. I believe that our failure has been to get carried away in the flood of rhetoric. This wickedness in Kosovo is appalling, but it is not the holocaust. Milosevic is a brute, but he is not Hitler. This is an appalling problem, but it is not the second world war. As the now much maligned correspondent, John Simpson, said in his admirable memoirs, which I read only last weekend, if we persist in treating conflicts as though they were Armageddon, we run the risk of getting in over our heads. That is what we have begun to do, especially with the escalation of our war aims this afternoon.
Let me say to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that it serves no one's interest to become so carried away that one resorts to hoax and to first world war-style propaganda. We warned him of that in relation to his boy prisoner story in Iraq, which turned out to be a canard. Addressing megaphone insults at the Government of Yugoslavia, with whom we will eventually have to deal, and insulting the family of the President—wrongly, as it turns out, if one reads the letter from Mrs. Milosevic to the Foreign Secretary published in the newspaper—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): It must be true then.
Mr. Galloway: I found her reply persuasive, even if my hon. Friend prefers the Foreign Secretary's version. I thought that Mrs. Milosevic's letter had a certain dignity.
The reality is that Milosevic has the overwhelming support of the Yugoslavian people and we will have to deal with the Government of Yugoslavia if we are to bring the conflict to an end. Addressing insults through megaphones, criminalising people and threatening them with trials is not the way forward.
7.49 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: This grim crisis has made us all realise that the Government's long honeymoon is finally over. We all imagined that destiny would at some time intervene but no one in their worst dreams could have envisaged a destiny as grim as the conflict which has beset Kosovo and threatens to engulf the region. How I wish that our deliberations were illuminated by people of the character and knowledge of Julian Amery and Billy McLean for Albania, Fitzroy Maclean for Yugoslavia, and Monty Woodhouse and Carol Mather for Greece. Unlike theirs, our generation is unused to war, and many have not comprehended the totally determinant effect that it can have on human affairs, nor have they prepared sufficiently for it.
At the beginning of the crisis way back in October, I asked the Foreign Secretary two questions. The first was whose side are we on. Mr. Milosevic has now answered that. Secondly, I asked whether the ultimate solution to the problem of Kosovo was not to be found in self-determination for its people. The Government resolutely turned their face against that option. It is in the tradition of the Foreign Office to do so, and to recognise existing boundaries, but self-determination is often the right solution. It was right when the Soviet Union broke up and its constituent republics became free again. It is what sustains our position in Northern Ireland and our sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. In short, it accords with our democratic tradition, and in Kosovo it accords with the ethnic reality on the ground.

635
The tragedy is that the pain and grief that we see on our television screens are the consequence of weakness. We must always remember that the consequence of weakness is usually suffering. Both militarily and diplomatically, we have been weak. Our bluff was finally called. The phoney war is over, though at home people might not believe it because the war which we see on our screens is of the sort that people play in amusement arcades. As those who have experience of war know, this is quite different, and painful in human blood and suffering.
This is not a phoney war. I use the word "war" advisedly although the Foreign Secretary does not like it. It is certainly a war for the people of Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia and for the aircrew of the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, who have now joined the conflict. Day after day, night after night, often in appalling weather and difficult conditions, they go out to prosecute the combat, seeking out difficult targets in difficult circumstances. If it is not war, we are prejudicing the treatment of our aircrew if they have to bale out over what we know to be enemy territories because they would be regarded as common criminals and would not enjoy the safeguards of the Geneva convention. We should strip away the illusions.
Once our country is engaged upon war, there is only one acceptable outcome, and that is victory. We must see it through to the end whatever it may take. The consequences of failure are too dire for the people of Kosovo, who have suffered enough already; for the neighbouring nations and states; and for our alliance, because other dictators and aggressors will take it to heart that our alliance is not prepared to stand up for its rights and for the liberties of its citizens, and ultimately has not the strength and courage to win.
The air offensive is crucial at every stage of the conflict. First, it has to secure the air superiority without which nothing can be achieved on the ground. Secondly, it has to isolate the Kosovo battlefield and conduct a strategic effort to degrade the Serbian war machine and economy and take out its fuel supplies and transport, communications, command and control systems.
There is also a tactical air campaign to be won. This is perhaps even more difficult. It is mainly in Kosovo, against Serbian armour, transport, communications, troop concentrations and headquarters facilities. Such targets are difficult to locate and for air crews are extremely professionally challenging. The key will be the will to sustain those operations and maintain the offensive.
The United States, to its credit, is calling up its air reserves. I wish that we had more. The Opposition have argued for them for long enough. I wish that we had the strategic airlift capacity of the C-17s promised in the defence review but not yet ordered. They could have enabled us to take main battle tanks and heavy armour to the theatre in hours rather than weeks, but we have to fight with what we have got.
In my judgment, I perhaps differ from other hon. Members, but the best people to fight are the Kosovans themselves. It is their land that will be liberated. They know that, and they have the will. They want to see it through to regain possession of their homelands and get their families settled in peace. The history of Balkan conflict has always involved assisting people who, ethically speaking, may seem to us, in the cosiness of our
636
armchairs, not ideal; but the Kosovo Liberation Army is the only force available to do the job. It needs to be trained, supplied and given intelligence support and all the backing that we can provide. We have the expertise to do so, and we should use it to the full.
Now that we have engaged in this war, we cannot fail. If we did fail, the consequences for our alliance and armed forces would be awful beyond measure. We have not faced such a challenge for a generation. We do not want another Suez or Dunkirk. We want the alliance to work as it was intended to, as a coalition of free, democratic nations working for a humanitarian purpose but also to create a peace that can be sustained in the longer term. This can be done only if dictators are shown not to win and if we can restore democratic principles based on self-determination to areas such as Kosovo where they have been so violently taken from the people.
7.58 pm
Mr. Roger Casale: I add my name to the list of Members on both sides of the House who support the military intervention in Kosovo. I say that without banging war drums, without any self-righteousness, and also without feeling any contradiction between that view and being a man of the left; however, I say it with a sense of great fear and terrible anxiety— the fear and anxiety that I felt on hearing news of murders in Vukovar, Srebrenica and Racak. I believe that it is right that we are directly involved in the terrible events that are happening in Kosovo.
I do not believe that we are engaged in an act of war against Serbia; nor do I believe that the bombing of military targets and installations in Serbian Kosovo can in itself be described as a humanitarian act. However, having the capacity to act in the face of such butchery, we are right to do so. We are right to do all that we can to stop the killing in Kosovo; we are right to take a stand.
Historical parallels are dangerous at the best of times, and no more so than in the context of the current conflict in the Balkans. However, for those who claim that the current intervention must be justified, despite the obvious fact of the killings, perhaps we can cast the moral dilemma in this way. We knew that Hitler was rounding up the Jews, placing them in camps and murdering them. We knew that, to do that, he was taking them to the camps by train. Would it not have been right to try to destroy by aerial bombardment the railway lines that led to those camps? Could a moral case be made today for not taking such action? I believe not only that it is right to act in such circumstances, but that we have a duty to act. Moreover, the people of Kosovo have the right to expect NATO to act in order to save and protect them, and those acting on behalf of NATO in the field are entitled to expect and receive the support of this House.
The questions that we must ask are not so much to do with why we are in Kosovo; I believe that we know why we are in Kosovo. Tonight, we must ask how far the Kosovan people can expect NATO to go in attempting to protect them. What are the limits that we, as a nation, should set in pursuit of our objectives? We know that those objectives now include the determination not only to stop the killing of Kosovar people, but to return the people of Kosovo to their homes.
A further fact becomes clearer every day: that without ground forces in addition to air strikes we cannot stop the killing. How are we to stop the killing when small groups

637
of Serb militia go from house to house murdering and mutilating people, armed not only with Kalashnikovs but with pistols and pocket knives, and hunt down refugees in the countryside? By means of aerial bombardment, how are we to stop the systematic rape of Kosovo women? Partitioning Kosovo is perhaps an objective of Milosevic but cannot become the aim of NATO. How are we to drive Milosevic's troops and militia from the territory without the intervention of troops on the ground? If we decide to send in troops, in what circumstances shall we do so and at what human cost?
We have not found answers to those questions in today's debate, but we must at least raise the issues that may be relevant to finding answers. First, if we do not take the next step, there is a real and present danger that the killing will simply go on and on. There were 100,000 lives lost in Croatia and 250,000 were lost in Bosnia. How many hundreds of thousands of lives must be lost in Kosovo before we decide that it is no longer possible for us, on moral, pragmatic or any other grounds, to hold back the troops?
Secondly, it is now clear that Milosevic's aim is to expel the Kosovan Albanian population—90 per cent. of the total population—from the territory of Kosovo. Not to send in ground troops will be to allow that to continue. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is right to say that the relatively fortunate people who escape across the border into Albania or Macedonia do not blame their exile on NATO. Milosevic tells the refugees, "Go to NATO, they will help you," and we would do well to heed those words. However, protecting and caring for the displaced—almost the entire population of Kosovo—whether in the neighbouring countries or in our own countries, represents a massive challenge not only to our military strength but to the resourcefulness of our entire civic societies. If there are no troops, it means that we will have taken on the responsibility of caring for the Kosovan refugees of the diaspora—perhaps for many years to come.
Thirdly, the conflict in Kosovo is not only a conflict between different ethnic groups or a battle of wills between a murderous psychopath with a monopoly of power and the rest of our civilised world; in a fundamental way, the conflict in Kosovo is about ourselves, our values and the world that we have built up around us in Europe since the second world war. Milosevic's actions stand in direct contradiction to the values of freedom, equality and justice that we have built into our systems of domestic legislation and into the conduct of international relations in the modern world and which have so often inspired the left. On the threshold of the 20th century, can we allow one man on the borders of Europe to take the decision about who should live and who should die? We should not believe that we can fail in our attempt to stand up to Milosevic and break his monopoly of power and wake up to find ourselves in the same world as before.
During the past 12 months, we have incorporated the European convention on human rights into British law and celebrated the 50th anniversary of the United Nations universal declaration of human rights. At the end of this week, we shall celebrate the 50th anniversary of NATO—an organisation whose birth was induced by the determination of western powers never again to allow the ravages of fascism.
638
That is why we must take all necessary steps to stop Milosevic. Not to do so would be to pay too high a price, in terms not only of the Kosovan people, but of the universal values on which we have built our modern world. We must stand up to Milosevic. His actions threaten to deny post-war peace and stability in Europe; they contradict and take away the contemporary relevance of those universal values and deny their validity in the future, not only in Kosovo and in Europe, but throughout the modern world.
8.6 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: We have heard some excellent, varied and interesting contributions today, and many points have been made that I do not intend to reiterate. However, I hope to make some points that have not yet been made and to ask some questions to which all our constituents would like to understand the answers.
The Foreign Secretary said that we are not at war. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) said that that was nonsense and of course it was; if we are invading people's territory from the air, dropping bombs on people and killing them, surely that is war. If we do not think that we are at war, how can we talk about war crimes and trying people for war crimes? The Pentagon is the biggest player in this war, and one of its press releases states that the Yugoslav soldier who is being held
"is being treated as a prisoner of war (POW), and has been afforded rights as a POW under the provisions of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949."
Of course, that is relevant only if we are at war.
In 1991, when we went to war in the Gulf, I volunteered to rejoin the Army because I considered the cause to be just. I could see clear national interests, and clear political and military objectives. This time, our national interests are not in play; I think that everyone would accept that. However, I accept that there may be a humanitarian justification for going to war that does not involve our national interests. I could also see that in the cases of Rwanda, Tibet and Chechnya. I accept that there is a just cause that may require our intervention. However, I do not accept that there are clear military or political objectives. If there are, perhaps someone can explain them. I have heard them mentioned, but they have changed a great deal. The Prime Minister said that we were bombing Serbia to prevent a humanitarian disaster. That did not seem to work. Was it to prevent ethnic cleansing—an admirable aim? If it was, that does not seem to have worked. Was it to establish peace in the Balkans? If it was, that does not seem to have worked. Was it the perfectly fair aim of undermining the Milosevic regime—a pretty ghastly regime? If it was, according to John Simpson, it appears to have had the opposite effect.
Today, we read in The Daily Telegraph that the Prime Minister says that Milosevic must go. If that is the case, it is perfectly fair. However, if we have a clear, achievable aim, we must know how we should achieve it. Of course we all agree that we should never have started here, but, after more than a year of what appears to be failed diplomacy—indeed some suggested nine years of failed diplomacy—threats that have been made but not fulfilled and bluffs that have been called, it appears to me that we are at war. Where will it lead? I do not give the answers: I am only posing questions, but where next?
If the war is to continue, we must be pursuing clear and achievable political and military objectives. Various people have pointed out that logic dictates that we shall

639
have to employ ground troops. I do not want to do that and I know that President Clinton and the Prime Minister do not want to do so either, but that must be where the logic leads. Unfortunately, the biggest player on our side in this war is the United States. President Clinton has said that he will not employ ground troops and he means it, because he remembers Vietnam and knows how many troops might be sucked into an action in the Balkans. Therefore, I regret to say that ground troops might not be an option.
It is the business of the House to ask questions and, last week, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister a question. I quoted his own words back at him—namely, that the demands were reasonable, being, among other things, an autonomous Kosovo within Serbia. His response was that I should wind my neck in, lest I
"undermine the clear aims that have been set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister." —[Official Report, 14 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 219.]
However, the aims are not clear: they are not clear to me, or to friends and former colleagues in the armed forces to whom I have spoken. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) asked why Kosovo should not be given autonomy if that is what is needed, but it is not up to us to determine who rules Kosovo.
Mr. Wilkinson: Self-determination.
Mr. Robathan: It is up to the people of Kosovo to determine who rules Kosovo, be they of Albanian or Serb extraction.
We must ask questions, not to undermine the armed forces, but to ensure that the United Kingdom Government pursue the right policies. There is a paradox in this war, in that former soldiers such as myself, who are occasionally accused of being somewhat bellicose, are asking the questions and expressing concern, whereas old CND hands such as the Prime Minister appear to be enthusiastic in their pursuit of war. I do not say that to score a cheap point—it is important. People who have denied the capacity of war ever to bring about a just solution are now pursuing war. People like me, who know a little about war, have questions that should be answered and it is not in any sense unpatriotic to ask those questions.
One of the questions I want to ask is about allies. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark), the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) and others have talked about the KLA. I am sure that the KLA contains many Kosovar Albanian patriots, but it has a pretty dodgy record. The Foreign Secretary speaks about restoring democracy in Kosovo, but it seems to me that there has never been any democracy in Kosovo and, furthermore, the KLA is not a democratic organisation.
What other suitable allies are there? I am not sure whether Albania is a suitable ally in the pursuit of human rights and humanitarian causes; and the Tudjman regime in Croatia is, in the opinion of many, as bad as the Milosevic regime in Serbia. Does anyone remember Vitez, which was mentioned earlier? Does anyone remember the beautiful bridge in Mostar that was destroyed by Croatians who fought the Bosnian Muslims and ethnically cleansed them from the west bank of the river? Does anyone remember how, in Krajina, more than
640
a quarter of a million Serbs were ethnically cleansed? It is interesting to note that arms and training were supplied to the Croatian forces by the United States.
That brings us to Clinton. I do not know enough about domestic politics in America to criticise President Clinton, but I shall quote what an American said to me two weeks ago. He said, "I can understand why President Clinton is doing this—it is to establish himself as a war leader after his domestic problems." [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh.] I am only quoting what was said to me by an American, who then asked me, "Why is Mr. Blair doing it?"
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must use the right terminology in the House.
Mr. Robathan: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was quoting an American, who asked why the Prime Minister should have done what he has done.
The action we are taking is US-led, but it appears to me that the US Government do not fully understand what they are doing in the Balkans, and nor does President Clinton have much idea what he is doing. Various articles in the American press have pointed that out. I regret to say that the Prime Minister appears to be following, without questioning as he should. Neither the United States, nor Her Majesty's Government—exemplified by the Foreign Secretary's performance today—know what they are doing; nor do they know what exactly they are trying to achieve. We need to state our clear objectives and pursue them single-mindedly until they are achieved. Even though I might not agree, if those clear objectives included invading Kosovo, fair enough.
In closing, I should like to quote Bismarck. Writing about 100 years ago, he said,
"If there is ever another war in Europe, it will come out of some damned silly thing in the Balkans."
I do not say that a million people being cleared from Kosovo is a "damned silly thing", but Bismarck was right in 1914 and, regrettably, the Balkans have not changed much in the past century. We need to be careful and clear about our aims as we continue down the path that we have chosen.
8.16 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: I wanted to speak in this debate, not only because I feel strongly about the subject, but because, for the past eight years, I have watched refugees come to Hammersmith and Ealing from all parts of the former Yugoslavia. I have called for us to act before, as have hon. Members on both sides of the House, and, if we are in a mess today, it is partly because we did not act more effectively earlier.
There were 1 million refugees from the former Yugoslavia in Europe before Kosovo was even thought about. I have met people at my surgeries and visited hostels in my area to see the damage inflicted on those individuals. One can pretend, as one or two hon. Members have chosen to do today, that the horrors that are occurring are not quite as bad as has been reported. One can try to tell the woman who was raped several times that she was not really raped, or that she was not really told that she could now have a good Serb baby—although why a woman who has been raped should have a Serb baby and not a mixed-race baby is beyond my

641
understanding. That is the reality and, when we talk to ethnic Albanians or see them on the television screen, we know what the war is about.
Some people have said that the situation in Kosovo is not the same as in Germany between 1939 and 1945. Some people have said that Milosevic is not Hitler. In a simple sense, they are right, but let me tell them this: the meaning behind the phrases "racial purity" and "Greater Germany" now trades under the guise of "ethnic cleansing" and "Greater Serbia". The fact that President Milosevic is now doing the ethnic cleansing faster does not mean that he was not doing it before. Ethnic cleansing done slowly is no better than ethnic cleansing done quickly. Some of the people who now wring their hands at what they see on the television set did not wring their hands enough when it was happening out of sight of the television camera, which is why they feel discomfited about what is happening now. We are not doing the best we can in the circumstances; we are taking the least worst option. That is what this action is about. We cannot afford to let evil triumph.
I did not expect this action to be quick, easy or clean, but I did expect the Serbs to become more nationalistic. Part of the problem of Serbia is that it is locked into Balkan history, whereby history is not learned, but relived. We have seen the same problem, on a far smaller scale, in Northern Ireland, where people prefer to relive their history rather than to learn from it. People say that we shall never change the Balkans and that the people there will go on killing each other, but I remember the same sort of thing being said to me back in 1979, when I became involved in the politics of Northern Ireland. I was told, "Don't bother, Clive. They'll always go on killing each other, because it's the only language they understand." Well, we did get involved in Northern Ireland and we did something about it, and we need to do something about Kosovo now, because the situation is unacceptable.
What are the alternatives? The hon. Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) put his finger on the one option that might work in the short term, which is to arm and train the Albanians. Such action worked once before, when we armed and trained the Croats. That was done at terrible cost to Serbia, for it produced several hundred thousand Serbian refugees, many of whom were raped—and, yes, I agree that Tudjman ought to be tried as a war criminal. That solution worked in respect of the Croats and it might work in Kosovo. However, we must think through the consequences. It would make Greece very vulnerable, and we all know that Greece would not allow the development of a Greater Albania in those terms. It is in our national interest to sort out this mess.
Several of my hon. Friends claim that we should talk some more; we have been talking for eight years. They say that we must bring in the United Nations; but we have done that. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is not in the Chamber. He said that we can forget or not hear things. Have people forgotten that the United Nations was involved? Have they forgotten the photograph of the soldier from Ghana who was chained to a post with his rifle taken from him? Do they remember the Canadian, British and Swedish troops who were locked up?
642
Of course Milosevic wants the United Nations involved again. However, we have learned that the United Nations—which I dearly love and want to see successful—cannot succeed unless it is reformed to deal with this sort of crisis. The reality is that we need a clear and enforceable military strategy. If I thought that the United Nations was a real option, I would go down that road like a shot.
I accept that some form of land occupation may be necessary. I am not sure whether that is the complete picture or only part of it—we are all at a disadvantage in this regard, because the matter requires military planning. Some form of land involvement—ideally, it would have the co-operation or at least the acceptance of the Milosevic Government—would be the best option. However, there are other alternatives which I hope are being explored.
Russia's role is crucial. Russia has moved on from its initial reaction of shock and horror and become more involved in the crisis. It recognises that it is part of the solution. It is in our interests to ensure that Russia is involved, because we do not want nationalism to develop in that country or to see it withdraw support from the new world order which has emerged following the collapse of the cold war. Russia needs to adopt some concept of international law that prohibits activities such as ethnic cleansing. After all, the Russian people suffered, perhaps more than any other peoples, as a result of ethnic cleansing in the 1940s.

We must assure the Russians that we are not against the Serbs. I have more Serbs in my constituency than probably any other hon. Member. I have talked to my Serb constituents — who have become more nationalistic—and told them over and over again that I admire those Germans, such as Willy Brandt, who stood up and said, "My country is wrong." Such people could hold their heads up high, and I want my Serb constituents to do the same.
Some Serbs think it is terrible that Britain should attack them when we helped them fight the Germans in the second world war. I tell them that we fought the Germans not because they were Germans, but because they were in the grip of a regime that was into ethnic cleansing with a vengeance. We supported the Serbs because they were the victims of that policy. The boot is now on the other foot and we are on different sides in this dispute.
We must recognise that we are moving into a different world. This war is not about oil or any of the other issues that have been alleged from time to time: it is an humanitarian war. The world is not prepared to live in the 21st century according to the appalling standards of the 20th century. Some of my colleagues have said that we should put Pinochet and others on trial and whip them away. I want that, too. However, I want also to deal with this situation because the 21st century must not be dominated by tinpot dictators such as Milosevic. We must prevent such people from gaining power and, if they are in power, we must use whatever measures are at our disposal to remove them. Ultimately, they must be put on trial. There must be no double standards in this respect.

643
Some people have suggested that a double standard operates because NATO is not bombing Turkey because of the Kurds or China because of Tibet. During a period of rapid and dramatic change, there are bound to be double standards. I urge people to visit Westminster Hall and to look at the plaques in the floor. They should read about that period which was a watershed in political history not just in Britain, but in Europe and the rest of the world. Of course, there were double standards in those trials, but a concept of the rule of law was evolving separate from politics. That is our challenge for the 21st century and that is why the United Nations must be reformed.
We are obviously at war on one level and some hon. Members have complained this afternoon that we have not said so. I understand why we choose not to say that we are at war: it benefits both the Serbs and us if our ambassadors remain in each country. We must keep the channels of communication open. However, if one is on the receiving end, it is a war by any definition.
Following the cold war, different behaviour has emerged whereby groups and regions have tried to sort out particular problems, leading to inconsistencies and double standards. However, I know where I stand when I talk to people who have been involved in such disputes for eight years —which is two to three years longer than the duration of the second world war. I am on their side—and some of them are Serbs. We must understand that crucial point. There is nothing in Serbian culture or history—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his 10 minutes.
8.26 pm
Mr. Crispin Blunt: We have just heard an emotional and powerful speech from the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley). However, I fear that it—and particularly his remarks about the actions and aims of the United Nations protection force —is based on rather woolly thinking. UNPROFOR had to meet limited political objectives using limited military resources. Ministers have been victims of the same emotional, woolly thinking that the hon. Gentleman has demonstrated.
We are in a mess, as are our international allies. Like every hon. Member, I want us to extricate ourselves successfully from this mess with NATO intact, and I support the fulfilment of the Government's objectives. However, we cannot escape the fact that the past four weeks have been an unmitigated disaster. In the words of a previous Foreign Secretary, the results of the air strikes have been "appalling". We knew what the consequences of our actions would be. On 25 January, the Italian Prime Minister warned the Secretary-General of NATO that, if air strikes were carried out in isolation, Italy would face a flood of Albanian refugees.
British Ministers told us that Milosevic was ready either to begin a spring campaign of ethnic cleansing or to take advantage of NATO air strikes. That offensive started after the monitors left, and they left because we intended to commence air strikes. That suggests that Milosevic took advantage of NATO's plans. Nothing can gainsay the conclusion that we knew what would happen when the air strikes began.
644
The Prime Minister came to the House before the bombing started and told us that our objectives were to prevent a humanitarian disaster from occurring, to contain the conflict and to make good our promises to the Kosovar people. The Secretary of State for Defence will remember describing to the Select Committee on Defence the military strategy to fulfil those objectives. He said:
"Our military objective—our clear, simple, military objective—will be to reduce the Serbs' capability to repress the Albanian population and thus to avert a humanitarian disaster."
I simply do not understand how he can have said that. The result has not been a humanitarian disaster; it has been a catastrophe.
The objective of containment has not been met. There are crises in Macedonia, Greece and Albania. The consequences are evident here, too. On Friday, I spent a mere two hours on the parliamentary police scheme with a police patrol on the Mll and I saw four Albanian refugees escorted from the back of a lorry. I then met a constituent at my parliamentary surgery that evening who had seen six Kosovar refugees getting out of a lorry. Clearly, the situation affects us as it affects the whole of Europe.
It is specious, to say the least, of the Foreign Secretary to hide behind the Kosovars' wish for the NATO bombing campaign to continue. Every Kosovar whom I have met wants a ground intervention. That view was unanimously endorsed at a meeting of Kosovars and others that I attended in the Grand Committee Room before Easter. The Kosovars want NATO to win, as I do, but how did we allow ourselves to pursue a military strategy that has so far fallen so disastrously short of achieving its objectives?
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Blunt: No, I do not have much time.
The sad truth is that the consequences of our military action were predicted and predictable. The Defence Secretary has made it clear that he was acting on the advice of the Chief of the Defence Staff, who has enthusiastically made the case for the current strategy in articles and at daily press conferences. However, I have not found a serious analyst who believes that our military strategy will achieve its original aim. It was an irresponsible gamble, with horrendous, immediate humanitarian consequences for the Kosovar people. There has been a dreadful failure in the political-military relationship in this country and in NATO as a whole. The failure in Britain is particularly unfortunate.
The Clinton White House has attempted such a strategy before against the Pentagon's advice, as it has on this occasion against the advice of General Shelton. The previous Government were able to deflect the US from the strategy of lift and strike. We had to put up with critics, not least the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). We knew the difficulties and consequences of the air-only option, and we were not prepared to put in the necessary ground forces to fight to ensure that we could continue that strategy to the end.

645
The current options for action have been under consideration for some time. On 6 March 1998, the Contact Group said in a statement:
"In the light of the deplorable violence in Kosovo, we feel compelled to take steps to demonstrate to the authorities in Belgrade that they cannot defy international standards without facing severe consequences."
Last year, the ground option was analysed and, because of the difficulties involved, buried by politicians.
I accept that the ground option involves horrendous difficulties: the numbers of troops required; the time that it will take to assemble the forces; the ground on which they will have to fight; the infrastructure that will have to built to support the invasion force, as well as the difficulties connected with the conduct of the campaign. However, I share the views of Haris Silajdzic on the likelihood of significant Serbian resistance, rather than those of some of my hon. Friends who believe that the Serbs will go on fighting for ever.
The Government and our allies faced a hard choice. They funked it, chose what could be described as the third way and hoped that their military strategy would work. They continue to hope, but there is no reason to hope and no expectation that the strategy will work. I would call it the "wing and a prayer" strategy. NATO officials sound shriller and shriller as they say, "We shall prevail." They do not convince me; they do not convince my mentor, John Keegan, who taught me at Sandhurst, and they certainly do not convince President Milosevic.
Our military leaders should have pointed out the consequences of their strategy. As the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) pointed out, the Chief of the Defence Staff has failed in his responsibilities, not least because of the enthusiastic position that he has taken on the merits of the current strategy. I worked with him when he was the Chief of the General Staff and I liked him, but in a war one cannot continue with a failing strategy. We must have the courage to face up to the difficulties of achieving our objectives and start to argue with our allies for our aims. Our allies must share the burden necessary to achieve our shared objectives.
Our objective now seems to be the liberation of Kosovo to allow its population the right of self-determination. Our objective should not be the replacement of Milosevic—that is a matter for the Serbian people—but we should prepare for that objective on our own terms and in our own time. It may take a year before we are in a position to cross the starting line—next spring, when we are ready—but, if we can find the will, the view from Belgrade will immediately change. The leaders in Belgrade will know that they will lose Kosovo. If they are to retain any interest in Kosovo, it will be in their interests to come to the negotiating table. The lesson is that we shall not will the end if we are not prepared to will the means.
8.35 pm
Mr. Ben Bradshaw: My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) is absolutely right: we have been paying, and will continue to pay, an extremely high price for appeasing President Milosevic for far too long.
646
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) took to task those of us who personalise this matter. His comment might have carried a little more strength if, in the very same breath, he had not himself personalised it by naming President Clinton and Tony Blair as those most responsible for this conflict—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member that he must use the correct terminology.
Mr. Bradshaw: I am sorry; I should have said the Prime Minister.
The recent history of the former Yugoslavia has not been black and white; atrocities have been committed by all sides. Yes, the ethnic cleansing of Krajina Serbs by Croats was wrong, but two—or many—wrongs do not make a right. Sometimes, in these situations, we must ask who started the conflict and whose motives and behaviour have been primarily responsible for it.
Those of us who have followed matters in the Balkans closely always knew that Kosovo would be the most dangerous flashpoint. From the moment Milosevic stripped the province of its autonomy and embarked on a state policy of repression of its 90 per cent. ethnic Albanian population, we knew that much worse was to come. For well over a year now, that policy has included ethnic cleansing, murder and terror. Kosovo may have featured only on some hon. Members' radar screens once the NATO action began, but Milosevic's terror has been going on for years.
To give this Government and the international community some credit, we moved with a great deal more urgency than in the Bosnia crisis, when it took five years, and ultimately bombs, before a peace was secured.
In an otherwise excellent speech, the hon. Member for Mid—Sussex (Mr. Soames) said that the single stain on the record was our failure to use the Russians to deliver the Serbs. The truth is that the Serbs were not deliverable. The Russians tried, for heaven's sake. The Russians were in the Contact Group; the Russians were as frustrated as we were that Milosevic would not see sense. Despite Milosevic breaking agreement after agreement, we and the Kosovars continued to negotiate in good faith right up to the Rambouillet talks—while Milosevic was building up his forces for a final solution.
Those who say that the international community should have built up its ground forces and foreseen the scale of the refugee crisis do so with the benefit of hindsight. No one could have foreseen the scale of the Serb assault on Kosovo. And, if we had built up our forces during the Rambouillet talks, what propaganda mileage that would have given Milosevic to accuse us of negotiating in bad faith.
The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) described the operation as United States-led. He is so wrong. The unity of the 19 NATO nations has been far stronger than many of us expected. That unity, and the public support in those democratic nations for the campaign, have increased as the conflict has gone on.
Those who say that the bombing has accelerated ethnic cleansing might be right, but they do not offer an alternative and ignore the fact that ethnic cleansing was going on anyway, and would have continued. Why do the critics never listen to the Kosovars themselves? Not a single refugee of the tens of thousands arriving in camps

647
in Albania and Macedonia has said that they want the bombing to stop—not one. On the contrary, they see NATO as their only salvation. Even those whose relatives may have been killed last week by a NATO mistake say that they want the campaign to continue and intensify.
I hope that the Prime Minister is right when he says that the bombing is having its desired effect, but degrading Milosevic's ability to repress his own people can no longer be the sole limit of our ambition. That ambition must be the safe return of every Kosovar who has been driven from their home, in long-term peace and security. It must also be to try before the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague all those—right to the top—who are guilty of gross violations of international law. Not to see that through would be to capitulate to genocide in Europe 50 years after we vowed that it would never happen again. That is unacceptable to the British people and to those of the 18 other democracies that are fighting with us. The credibility of NATO, the guarantor of peace and security in Europe, would be in tatters, and we would give a green light to despots anywhere that they may murder, rape and pillage with impunity.
The Prime Minister has said that we must finish the job. Indeed we must, even if that means using ground troops to do so. I share the viewpoint of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) that it was a mistake to rule out using ground troops when the bombing started. It cannot make sense to reveal one's hand to one's opponent at the start. However, I can understand why it was done. There was nervousness about what public opinion would stomach. But surely it is now obvious in this country, in America and in most of our allied countries that we underestimated our people's resolve.
On Saturday, canvassing in Exeter for the local elections, I asked every person that I met about the campaign, and I did not find a single one against it. One young man ran up to me and said, "Please tell Tony Blair we need ground troops in Kosovo now." Now may not be feasible—it may well make sense to destroy the Serb military infrastructure some more first—but we must at least now start to prepare for that possibility. Summer in the Balkans is very short.
As a former BBC correspondent, I conclude by saying something about the discussion on the media in this war. In a recent newspaper editorial, I was accused of doing the Government's dirty work in leading the charge against the BBC. Let me tell the House, nobody tells me what to do or say, especially about a former employer of mine, and I wish to place on the record the fact that I happen to think that the BBC has done an exemplary job of covering this war.
However, I made two limited and specific criticisms. The first was of the shortage of health warnings on reports from Belgrade at the start of the campaign. It is vital that listeners and viewers are reminded of the restrictions under which journalists operate in the Serb capital —in particular, the fact that there is no free access to Kosovo, which means that Serb action there goes unreported. Perhaps if my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) had been escorted to Kosovo by her Serb friends, her account might have had more credibility.
648
My second criticism is of senior BBC correspondents having regular columns in newspapers. That was prompted by John Simpson' s piece in the Sunday Telegraph in the first week of the campaign, under the headline,
"Why this war isn't working".
It was always a rule at the BBC that correspondents did not write opinionated pieces for the newspapers because that damaged their impartiality and credibility in doing the job that the licence fee payers pay them to do for the BBC. That policy was good for the BBC. It was in the interests of robust, independent public service broadcasting. If that policy has changed, the BBC should tell us.
The BBC built its international reputation in the second world war, quite rightly, because it—almost uniquely among the world's broadcasters—reported our mistakes and defeats as well as our victories. Long may that continue. But let us never forget that in Belgrade, independent journalists are shot.
It is for those values of free speech, democracy and pluralism, of which the House and the country should be very proud, that our brave service men and women are now fighting.
8.43 pm
Mr. James Paice: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. It is the first time that I have said anything about Kosovo, and I do so having spent a great deal of time—as have many colleagues from both sides of the House—talking to constituents on the subject, and listening to unprompted conversations.
I shall not take the House through the horror stories that have befallen the Kosovar Albanians, indulge in rhetoric about fascism or point out similarities with Hitler, not because many of those arguments are not well founded but because they have been made, far more fluently than I could make them.
I shall not speak about the tragedy of errors leading to civilian casualties in Serbia, but I do argue, as did the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), that it is essential that NATO is clear and honest about whatever has happened—I understand that it made some statements this afternoon—because if there is a feeling, as there has been in the past few days, that the truth is not being told, the media strategy of NATO is seen to move closer to that of the Serbians, and that is obviously unacceptable. Involving Alastair Campbell in NATO's media campaign does nothing to enhance its credibility.
I wholly support the need for our involvement in Kosovo. I go further than I know that some of my hon. Friends do. I agreed with the Prime Minister when he said last week that there was a humanitarian aspect that we could not ignore. In the modern world, with modern communications, we should not stand aside and watch atrocities take place, but I accept that there is hypocrisy. We can all point to examples where we have not become involved. However, that does not necessarily mean never becoming involved. I agree with those who think that we let things go on for too long in Bosnia. I tried from behind the scenes, but failed, to alter the stance of the then Government.

649
I do not doubt the Prime Minister's desire to achieve a satisfactory conclusion but I have serious doubts about the way he has gone about it. Before any involvement should take place, it is essential to examine all the eventualities. There should be an objective, an exit strategy and the forces to achieve the objective. It is becoming clear that the Government and the United States Government did none of these things adequately.
I do not doubt also that the Government are wholehearted in their desires, but they have been half-hearted in the execution of their strategy to achieve those desires. At the outset, both the Government and President Clinton said that there would be no ground troops. I believe that that was said on the basis of what they thought public opinion would accept. I believe also that Governments should lead public opinion, not follow it. The announcement from day one that there would be no ground troops gave a clear message to Milosevic to hurry up with his programme of ethnic cleansing before things became too difficult.
Mr. Savidge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Paice: No, I am not giving way. The hon. Gentleman should have learned by now that virtually no one gives way when speeches are restricted to 10 minutes.
I have little doubt that Milosevic's plans had been made. The atrocities had started before the air attacks. I have little doubt also that the speed of the expulsions and atrocities, with the resulting chaos in the border countries, is a result of our bombardment. It is entirely right, of course, to say that the crime of ethnic cleansing is the same whether it takes place quickly or slowly. However, the problem of resolving the refugee situation, which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) described, has been exacerbated because of the speed of the expulsions. As I have said, I believe that that has been the result of the bombing campaign, which is a bombing campaign on its own. It is not that we should not have done it, but we should not have pretended that we could get away with only a bombing campaign.
Shortly before the Easter recess the Secretary of State for Defence said that he could not give details of any of our tactics. That is right. We all understand that. However, why did the Government do so in spades with regard to ground troops? The Serbian Government know full well of all the difficulties that would face us. They know also of the reluctance that we would face in committing ground troops. However, for all the reasons that have been described, ruling out the use of ground troops from day one was a clear message to the Serbs to get on with their evil plans. Their use should have been left as an option and preparations should have been set in train. A month has elapsed during which preparations could have been well advanced. It may be that they are now advanced, and I am not necessarily asking to be assured or otherwise, but I think that it is an important point.
Ministers keep telling us that their military advisers say that air strikes alone will be sufficient. If they are saying that, they seem to be the only people who take that view. Even now, after four weeks, there is little sign of any step down by Milosevic. I do not believe that there will be, at least until Kosovo is cleared of Albanians. When that is the position, he may make some overtures.
650
So what now? In my view Rambouillet is entirely dead. Whatever the Prime Minister thinks, bearing in mind what he said last week, if he really wants the Albanians to return to Kosovo, I cannot conceive that they will do so now if Kosovo remains in any way Serbian. So the rest of the world, and in the context of the debate, the Government, must decide what the options are. There seem to be three. The first is to stop the bombing on some pretext once Milosevic has achieved his aims. That is not a real option and it would achieve nothing. Almost certainly it could lead to the end of NATO.
The second option is partition. I was astonished that the Prime Minister ruled it out so categorically last week, not because I like it—I do not—but because it may be the only option that can be achieved. It may not be sustainable, given the need for military force to maintain it, but it was unwise to rule it out at this stage.
The third option is some form of independent Kosovo, which, again, is by no means perfect. Kosovo's size and it remaining independent are problems, and this option ignores the importance of Kosovo to Serbia and the historic sense of linkage, which is the cause of so much of the conflict.
In the immediate future, we have only one real option—to win. Whatever the niceties of a declaration of war may be, they are technicalities which the ordinary men and women we represent do not understand. However, they understand that, if we start something such as this, we must commit all the forces necessary to achieve the victory that we set out to achieve.
We now read that President Clinton wants Milosevic himself to fall and, unsurprisingly, our Prime Minister appears to have followed suit. Is that one of our new objectives or not? That is yet another example of change; the crucial point is that the confusion over objectives and ground troops gives comfort to our opponents and creates uncertainty among our supporters. The Foreign Secretary said today that our objectives remain as they were, but he then said that Rambouillet was clearly not enough. At the outset, he and the Prime Minister were saying that the Rambouillet framework was our objective.
Frequently the Government have made specific statements—on ground troops, partition and many other subjects—and boxed themselves completely into a corner. This is not a reflection on the Government, but the reality is that we will almost certainly have to follow suit if the American Government decide that they will put ground troops in or will accept partition. Our Government will have to swallow their words.
No one can have failed to be moved by the sights that we have seen and the stories that we have heard. No words can adequately describe Milosevic and his morality, but simply removing him alone from power would not negate the actions of hundreds or thousands Serbian soldiers, police and militia. How many years will have to elapse before there is again any sense of trust between the Albanians and Serbians?
Our service men deserve our support, and they have it. They also deserve clarity of political purpose and the resources to enable them to fulfil their role. They have not had that. Ruling out the use of ground troops was a massive error of judgment. Launching air attacks in a low-key way—today, the Foreign Secretary said that their scale has more than doubled—did not convince Milosevic that we were serious about our purpose. If the attacks are

651
beginning to work, as the Foreign Secretary has led us to believe, it is too late. The expulsions are almost complete and the acceptable outcomes—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time.
8.53 pm
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: The crisis in Kosovo raises a number of profound questions. We have had a good debate in the House this evening and heard a variety of views on this difficult and controversial issue. One profound question raised by the crisis is, what circumstances in the modern world justify military action?
There may be a variety of answers to that question. One is that there are no such circumstances—the pacifist position; I have reason to respect it, but that is not my own position. A predominant view is that the national interest determines military action. Many Members of the House would take that view. The national interest can include many factors, from the defence of the realm and of these shores to economic or commercial interests—not least oil, in the modern world.
I want to challenge the view that a narrow definition of national interest is helpful in determining Britain's role in the world. We live in a new world. Following the end of the cold war, we cannot be relaxed about nuclear weaponry and many nuclear-armed nations have planet-destroying capability.
Nevertheless, many of the conflicts that we now face are of a different order. We live in a world where geopolitical disputes have always occurred, often ethnic in origin and atrocious in execution. Rwanda is a major example from Africa, and former Yugoslavia is a key example close by in Europe. We live in a world where sophisticated international media bring atrocities, through our television screens and printed media, into our living rooms to shock us as we eat our television suppers.
We also live in a world where, not least because of the media, a humanitarian response is developing among the public, summed up in the phrase, "Something must be done". While many use that phrase pejoratively, it is an expression of civil decency. That opinion is belittled by some military experts and patronised by some conventional politicians, but it is the majority view of our constituents. It is a view that overrides the conventional definition of national interest, but it is right that in Kosovo something must be done.
Politically, this issue is confusing. We have seen that in the House today, with many of us on the left appearing more enthusiastic about intervention than those on the right. This new world involves new and confusing politics, not least for the left. We now talk about Kosovo, but not long ago we talked about Bosnia. As a new Member in the previous Parliament in 1992, I was shocked by what I took to be the majority view of both sides of the House that we should be extremely cautious about intervention. The view was that, at best, we should go easy and, at worst, do nothing. The Foreign Office was led by the key appeasers.
I grew up in post-war Britain, and found it difficult to understand the appeasement of Nazi Germany that had taken place in the 1930s. It was only when I heard debates about Bosnia in this House in the early 1990s that I started to understand the appeasement of the 1930s. In a
652
parliamentary Session in the early 1990s, I visited Sarajevo-not at the height of the conflict, but nevertheless when the city was being shelled. I was there for just two or three days. Talking to people in Bosnia and Sarajevo helped me to understand what it was like to live in that civilised, cosmopolitan city surrounded by mountains from which Serb soldiers could look down the rifle sights of their sophisticated weaponry and decide which old lady, child or woman to kill that day.
In Bosnia, ethnic cleansing gave us a vile new vocabulary to add to the lexicon of international relations. The situation in Kosovo bears comparison, but is a more extreme case. However, no one could foresee or predict the scale of the tragedy of recent weeks. No one in the House would argue about that.
I strongly support the Government's commitment to NATO action. I am aware of the complexity and difficulties, not least for our armed services, but I can think of no other policy of this Government that I support so wholeheartedly. It is difficult, because in recent years the public have come to expect short wars. They have been seduced by smart weapons and quick remits. We are seeing things rather differently now. Old-fashioned weather—the wrong kind—is supposedly inhibiting high-tech weaponry. We are seeing slow progress, mistakes and terrible casualties. We are also seeing the difficulties of waging military action in the media spotlight. We must be sophisticated about that, not least in terms of our own actions and words. How do free democracies fight a war in public against a tyranny that censors its media, locks up its opponents and assassinates a key newspaper editor? I would be the first to defend those in the House who speak against the war, but they have a duty to think how their words will be replayed in Belgrade and about the comfort that they will bring to the perpetrators of aggression and atrocity.
I am no military expert—and, a few weeks into a war, I will not pretend to be one —but I believe that the use of ground troops will be necessary. We need an army in Kosovo. Milosevic must have no veto over that decision. I suspect, although I am no expert, that Kosovo should become a UN protectorate. I suspect that, one day, it may have to become an independent nation.
We must put more energy into the International War Crimes Tribunal. I do not minimise the difficulty of arresting Dr. Karadzic and General Mladic but had they been tried by now, things may have been rather different. Although we are aware of extravagant language, it is a decent use of English to say that Dr. Karadzic and President Milosevic are war criminals and should be tried.
Former Yugoslavia must somehow summon up the energy soon—like the rest of us—to enter the new millennium. It does so in the worst possible circumstances. For Europe, the 20th century was stained in its midst by Nazi genocide. Despite the caution of my colleagues, it is appropriate to say that the century is ending with genocide in Bosnia—we remember Srebrenica particularly—and genocide and the ethnic killing of young and old in Kosovo.
Do we say that there is no national interest? Our boundaries are not threatened, and no profits are at stake, but I believe that the people of Britain and the wider democratic world will not tolerate the slaughter of the men of Kosovo; the organised rape of its women and girls; the uprooting and terrorising of its elders; and the attempted expulsion of an entire people by military might.

653
Some may attack the idea as fanciful and innocent, but I say that action on the grounds of "Something must be done" is a modern, decent national interest. Something must be done — and this House is right to support the Government in trying to do it.
9.2 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells: I wish to concentrate on two of the war aims enunciated by the Foreign Secretary this afternoon. The first—as has been reiterated many times by the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister—is to return the refugees to their homes. I wish to examine the implications of that war aim. The second was not mentioned by the Foreign Secretary today, but has been mentioned briefly by the Prime Minister; to return stability to the whole region. That matter has not been dwelt on in this debate.
The hon. Members for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred to the terrible plight of the refugees in neighbouring countries to Kosovo. The camps in Macedonia, for instance—which were put up so brilliantly and so quickly by the British Army — have serious problems. There is no adequate sanitation, schooling or health provision. They are no places for any refugee to stay for a long time.
We have been told this afternoon that the war will go on for much longer, so we must look at how we provide properly for those refugees and how we make certain that we have sufficient provision for them. I have been trying to find out the number of refugees with whom we will be dealing. My inquiries have met with varied results. I have been told that about 500,000 refugees are spread between Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro. Those are the main areas in which the current refugees are to be found.
Those people are crossing the borders in ever-increasing numbers, and the longer the war continues, the larger the numbers will be. The population of Kosovo is approximately 2 million, 90 per cent. of whom are Albanian Muslims, Kosovans or Illyrians—as they would call themselves in some of their more historical reminiscences about their origins. If all those people are to be "cleansed", horribly as it may be, we shall be dealing with a much larger refugee problem than I think the international community has even begun to contemplate.
Certainly, the amount of money that we have contributed is insufficient to deal with the problem. I understand from ministerial statements that we have contributed £20 million, £10 million of which will come from the emergency provisions of the Department for International Development and £10 million from a source that the Prime Minister did not name to us. I hope that that money will not come from the budget of the Department for International Development; if that is the case, the question of our attacking poverty will rise. I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence will tell us where the money will come from when he winds up the debate.
There has been talk of a further £7 million, making a total of £27 million. There are also our contributions to the UNHCR, the International Committee of the Red Cross and UNICEF, and to the European Union fund, so the total is actually much greater than the public imagine. Nevertheless, it is not enough to enable us to deal with
654
the refugee problem that we shall face over a long period. We shall have to establish whole villages, which are likely to comprise more than 1 million people and which will need to be provided with proper sanitation, proper housing and shelter, schools and numerous services for women and children who have been parted from their families. There will need to be services to deal with the trauma that people will have experienced, as well as food and medical supplies. Nothing like that level of provision has been contemplated by the country, by the House or, indeed, by the international community, but I think that we must plan for it.
The war aim is to return the refugees to their homes in Kosovo after, say, six or nine months, but what does that mean? Their homes have been incinerated: they have been destroyed. We in NATO are busily destroying the infrastructure that controlled those homes, on the basis that those are military targets that we are entitled to bomb: roads, bridges, fuel supplies, water supplies and sanitation. People are not going to return. Refugees who have been established, properly, in camps of which we can be proud ate not going to return to conditions in which they have not the basic elements enabling them to live—including food: they will not have been able to plant crops or produce any kind of harvest for the next year. We must provide those people with food, housing, and all the infrastructure into the bargain.
Given our objectives and the opportunities that exist, a huge problem lies ahead of us. Meanwhile, we are destroying the Serbian infrastructure. There are already 600,000 refugees in Serbia who have come from Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, and who need help of the kind that is given to refugees. Our bombing is making many more people homeless, and giving them refugee status. If we are to pursue this war to its conclusion—which is demonstrated by a single objective—we must make provision for the Serb refugees and the homeless in Serbia who will be destitute, without jobs, food or shelter. We cannot ignore their problems. If we are to provide a stable regime for the rest of the region, we cannot allow the stationing in small countries of a number of refugees that would upset the ethnic balance in those countries.
Moreover, we cannot treat refugees better—give them better housing, better food, better shelter and better medical facilities—than the people who live in Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania. We have a massive problem with which to deal in those countries. We need to make provision for it now. We need to alert all the international agencies, particularly the UNHCR, to that great problem.
With the massive number of minorities and refugees in those countries, stability is not likely, particularly if we have to introduce troops to defend refugees whom we return to Kosovo. They will not return unless they feel that they will not be attacked again.
Therefore, the question is: how are we to provide that security? Is it to be through an international protectorate, sniped at by the Serbs? We know what their capacity is for guerrilla warfare. They will not accept an international protectorate in that area, particularly if it is not supported by the UN; I understand that it may not be. The protectorate may be imposed by NATO, which is the wrong way in which to approach the problem. We need to have UN and Russian support. Indeed, we have to go

655
for a negotiated settlement with the help of Russia and the UN to stop the crisis developing to a degree where we cannot deal with it either financially or logistically.
9.11 pm
Ms Tess Kingham: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to what is an important debate.
There is no doubt that the plight of the Kosovar refugees has hit to the very heart of the British people, who have responded with characteristic generosity to the disturbing scenes of streams of Kosovars driven from their homes, fleeing with few provisions across the borders into camps in Macedonia and Albania. In my own city of Gloucester, the public responded swiftly, establishing collection points in the city centre for clothing, blankets and children's toys. Over the past few weeks, as a result of that, I have spoken to hundreds of people in my city. The overwhelming response to the NATO campaign has been, "It's about time. Milosevic has had enough time to negotiate over many years. It's about time the international community acted."
As someone who spent most of her working life before being elected working in international aid agencies, often communicating the aftermath of war, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with that view. I strongly believe that the suffering of the Kosovar Albanian families will cease in the long term only if Milosevic's war machine is stopped now and if the NATO campaign does not cease until his military capability has finally been completely crushed. If the international community had dealt with Milosevic and his systematic campaigns of ethnic cleansing in that way almost a decade ago, we would not be witnessing yet again mass atrocities almost on our borders.
I became active in party politics quite late on and primarily as a result of my experience working in the international aid sector. Personally, I grew increasingly frustrated with lobbying politicians for action. 1 thought that I should like to play a more direct part in trying to influence political decisions. Certain international events during my career crystallised my thinkg—indeed, it changed it—on military intervention, in particular, the tragedies in Bosnia and Rwanda.
I remember clearly in 1994 the aid agencies and people on the ground warning politicians throughout the world that genocide was being planned in Rwanda. As in most cases of genocide, the Rwandan genocide was not spontaneous. It was not just an ethnic tribal conflict. The genocide was strategic, clinical and totally predictable.
I madly lobbied politicians to increase the UN presence in Rwanda and to get the UN to intervene to prevent the genocide, not just to stand by as a passive witness. It was a sad, frustrating and depressing experience. While politicians pontificated, the Rwandan massacres took place under their noses. Instead of intervening, the UN pulled out.
To our eternal shame, almost 1 million people were slaughtered under the noses of the inactive international community. We failed the Rwandan people and then the people of Bosnia too. The reports of death camps, mass executions and systematic massacres there in the early 1990s gradually exposed the situation. Then, too, there were cries that the reports might be exaggerated and should be a bit more evenhanded. After the event, when the mass graves were uncovered, it emerged that the truth was much worse than many of the reports.
656
I remember the frustration that many of us felt that the world had waited too long to act. In both those cases, arguments were advanced about national sovereignty and the rights of the nation state, but we had a responsibility as an international community and as signatories to the UN convention on genocide to prevent genocide wherever possible; we did not. In any case, the survivors of the Rwandan genocide did not care whose remit it was, or about the dot or comma of international law: they wanted action and they wanted their families saved from the massacres. For the sake of basic humanity, the genocide in Rwanda should have been stopped.
I feel the same sense of frustration now as a Member of Parliament, seeing the plans for genocide—I make no apology for using that word—unfold in Kosovo. I do not like war—I have seen its effects at first hand—but I am pleased and relieved that the Labour Government are not turning away from Kosovo and finding excuses not to act. We are acting now to prevent genocide and not to have the shame of standing by and prevaricating while hundreds of thousands of people are systematically ethnically cleansed. That is a brave decision and it is morally correct.
So far, either beforehand or this evening, I have not heard any convincing alternative to NATO's actions that would have protected the Kosovar Albanians. I have heard plenty of reasons — and felt a sense of déjá vu—why NATO should not intervene, but no credible, practical alternatives from those opposing the NATO actions. Some hon. Members have argued that the UN should be the lead force in the intervention and that we need more negotiations with Milosevic. If we expected the UN to arrive on a white charger to save the Kosovar Albanians from genocide, we would have had a long wait. We all know that the UN would never have intervened in Kosovo because of the veto system in the Security Council.
Last year, I was part of a delegation from the Select Committee on International Development to the Secretary-General and the UN head of peacekeeping. I asked both of them what the ultimate sanctions applied to any party in a conflict who did not abide by UN resolutions would be. I was thinking not of Kosovo at the time, but of Angola and Western Sahara. It was made clear to me that any wait for UN intervention would be a very long one, that there was no political will around the world to intervene, and that the ultimate sanction the UN had was to pull out.
I remember commenting to colleagues on the delegation that that was a charter for any expansionist dictator to invade anywhere, commit atrocities, have a few UN resolutions slapped at him, sit tight for a few years and the UN would pull out. Sadly, the UN would not have prevented genocide in Kosovo.
The UN must be the foundation of international law and our hope for the future, but its capabilities to intervene must be built up. We must also address the ridiculous veto system in the Security Council. That is an enormous task and the people of Kosovo could not wait for it to be completed. I have also heard it argued that we should not intervene in Kosovo because we did not do so in Rwanda or Bosnia. Surely that is the point. We did not intervene, to our eternal shame. What are we supposed to say to people in Kosovo now? "We are sorry, but you will have to wait and let genocide happen. We let a million die in Rwanda and we did not intervene in Bosnia, so it would not be fair." I do not think so.

657
It is also argued that we should negotiate, but we did and for more than a year. This time Milosevic is following a characteristic pattern. We have seen it before—the clearing of villages, the burnings, the torture and the mass executions. If Milosevic accepts NATO's five-point plan, the bombings will stop. It is that simple and straightforward. We must be clear that he is enacting a strategically planned programme of ethnic cleansing. Whatever the historical perspectives, that is what he is doing—and we must remember that fact throughout this debate. More than 500,000 people have been displaced, villages have been burnt and destroyed, men taken away and shot, and women raped.
The question of rape in Kosovo clearly illustrates Milosevic's true intentions in that area and across the region. It is at the heart of his genocidal campaign. The reports of rape from women refugees are not unfamiliar to me. I had heard them from Bosnian women and read countless similar testimonies during the Bosnian war less than 10 years ago.
The rapes are not spontaneous acts of violence by an uncontrolled military. Yet again, Milosevic's forces are using rape as an act of genocide. When Serb forces rape a woman as part of an ethnic cleansing strategy, they intend to do, and succeed in doing, several things. They humiliate an Albanian. Often, they rape a woman in front of family members—fathers, brothers and sons. They destroy the fabric of the family.
The trauma is shared by the family, and the trauma is a stain on the culture of a community in which virginity before marriage is greatly prized. I have read sad reports of Albanian women in refugee camps clutching so-called rape certificates so that, when they are looking for a husband, they can prove that they were raped. Gang rape is also common, with an obvious intensification of the trauma.
The ultimate in ethnic cleansing comes when a Kosovo woman bears a Serb child. That is what the systematic campaign of genocide is about. I strongly believe that we had a moral imperative to intervene. I should not have felt happy with myself or my Government if we had sat back, yet again, while nothing happened as genocide unfolded before us. If push comes to shove, we must send in ground troops. Unless Milosevic's killing machine is stopped, and his military strength crushed, he will return, yet again, to haunt us militarily, and we will stand here in the same position in 10 years' time.
9.21 pm
Mr. John Maples: Once again, we have had an interesting debate. Opinions have not changed much, but we have heard a good deal more frankness. Fundamental divisions remain on both sides of the House.
We have heard some excellent speeches. My hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney), for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), have given the Government broad support. I was sorry to miss the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), but I have heard that it was a powerful endorsement of the Government's position.
658
My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) dissented equally powerfully. Perhaps the best statements of dissent came from my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell), who reminded us of some basic military doctrine, and from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who was, as ever, brilliant. Whether one agrees or disagrees with him, he is always worth listening to. I hope one day to make a speech in the House that is as good as those that he always makes.
There have been several developments since last we debated Kosovo, but the atrocities continue, and there are more than 500,000 refugees, plus probably an equal number inside Kosovo. The ferocity and brutality of the Serb regime led by Milosevic continues to astound us. We still support the Government's policies to reverse the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo, to regain the whole of Kosovo and to allow the refugees to return to their homes—or, in many cases I fear, to what is left of those homes. We also support our armed forces and their efforts to achieve those objectives.
It has been gratifying during the past three weeks to see the NATO alliance holding together. It appears solid, although one or two members waver slightly more than others. We are glad that the alliance has remained solid, because in its unity lies its strength.
Three weeks ago, in his statement just before Easter, the Secretary of State for Defence said that Milosevic was cowering in his bunker. In retrospect, those words appear over-optimistic. As I said at the time, I thought that the action would take longer and prove more difficult than the Government had thought. I still hold that view, and it is probably shared now by a great many other people, possibly including the Government.
The Government are right to seek to regain the whole of Kosovo. They have our support in that. But difficult questions remain, and I should like to put them to the Secretary of State. I do not expect answers—public answers—to all of them. However, I hope that the Government have thought about these questions and have their own answers.
First, let us consider the original objectives—having Milosevic sign the Rambouillet agreement, and preventing atrocities. Clearly, we have not been successful in those aims. Our objective now is to return the Albanians to Kosovo, but whether we are talking about an autonomous or independent Kosovo is not certain, and the Foreign Secretary was not entirely clear about that when he opened the debate. Neither the Albanians nor the Kosovo Liberation Army are likely to accept anything less than an independent Kosovo, and that poses grave difficulties. We would like to know how the Government intend to address the question of whether borders can be adjusted.
The Prime Minister has ruled out partition, which would in any case be seen as a failure for NATO. The Foreign Secretary said as much today. Deposing Milosevic and indicting him for war crimes would have to go together, and that would be a big extension of the mission that NATO has set itself. Would Russia stand by and not react to that?
At the heart of the story of the terrible catastrophe of the past few days have been the refugees. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells)

659
illustrated the simply enormous scale of the effort that would be needed to deal with the crisis. We heard heart-rending stories from the hon. Members for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). When we hear about 500,000 refugees it is hard to understand how individuals are affected, but they helped us to understand their plight.
The problem needs massive resources of food, money, people and effort. Does the Secretary of State believe that enough resources are going in? At the beginning of last week, the Macedonian Government were saying that they had received no money. I am aware that money is not the only form of help that is going in, but a poor and relatively unstable country such as Macedonia clearly needs it. Reports from Albania are of chaos. Do the Government really think that the effort is adequate? Who is in charge of it internationally or in our Government?
There have been some mistakes in the military campaign. We failed to foresee the nature and extent of the refugee crisis and underestimated the scale of military effort that would be needed to secure Milosevic's co-operation. In retrospect, it seems that we activated the bombing campaign that was planned before the Holbrooke agreement was secured last autumn. That campaign was intended to get Milosevic to negotiate, whereas now we are trying to get him to stop his activities in Kosovo, which is likely to require military action on a wholly different scale.
We clearly overestimated our ability to stop Serb action on the ground in Kosovo. We are now stepping up the campaign but it is still very difficult to deal with small army units on the ground. Our ground attack aircraft apparently still feel compelled to fly at altitudes that make their task extremely difficult. I do not know what the Secretary of State's view is— clearly, it is a subject that he may not want to discuss in public—but it would be much better if they could fly at lower altitudes. Perhaps then such difficulties as the dreadful accident that occurred last week could be avoided.
We support the Government in the view that bombing can work, but it will not achieve the objectives quickly. There must be voices in the Serb Government asking whether all this is worth it and saying that there may be room for compromise. Once that process starts, there is some hope that NATO and the Government can achieve their objectives in Kosovo, but removing Milosevic from power will require a great deal more military effort.
If we remove Milosevic, there will have to be a completely new Government in Belgrade. We should not imagine that he is a lone figure. In fact, there is considerable evidence that many of the people behind him are worse than him and have personally committed atrocities in Bosnia. If our objective is to change the whole Government in Belgrade, that is a radical extension of our mission. We would all want to put Milosevic on trial, but to set that as a war aim would be a big extension of the mission, and I am not sure that it is sensible to do that at this time.
If the bombing does not achieve the objectives fairly soon, the Government and NATO are faced with three rather unattractive options. One is a compromise, involving partition of Kosovo, which the Foreign Secretary has ruled out; another is the introduction of ground troops; and the third is the continuation of the bombing in an attrition mode, destroying more and more
660
of Serbia. If we cannot bring the action to a swift conclusion, I hope at least that it will not drag on all summer.
To send in ground troops would be a big escalation of the conflict. We understand from the Government that there has been no change in their policy and that they do not foresee any need for one and are not planning for it. There is a lot of glib advocacy of the idea that ground troops can resolve the conflict and it is simply a question of clicking one's fingers, putting together an army of 100,000 or 150,000 and trucking them into Kosovo. That would be an enormous extension of the mission that NATO has set.
Will the Secretary of State answer the two questions posed by my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary? Have any preparations been made to assemble more ground forces in the area? Does he accept that preparations would have to be made now if there were to be a ground force that could fight its way into Kosovo this year?
Mr. Hood: When the Prime Minister first made his statement to the House, the Leader of the Opposition supported the air strikes but said clearly that he would not support ground troops. The policy of the Government and NATO at present is not to use ground troops. If that policy changes, will the Opposition support the Government and NATO?
Mr. Maples: If there is to be an enormous change of Government policy, I shall wait to hear it announced by the Prime Minister or a Secretary of State. I do not suppose that they will ask the hon. Gentleman to do it for them. As we have with everything else that the Government have said, we will consider that, but the Government have said that ground troops are not necessary and they have no proposals to introduce them. The Americans have made it clear that that is their policy. No one would dream of it without the presence of American ground troops. On that basis, we too have ruled out the use of ground troops.
There are great difficulties in getting a ground army into Kosovo that must be recognised by its advocates and by the House. Let us consider the borders of Kosovo. To go in from Hungary means going through Serbia. I suspect that Romania and Bulgaria would like to stay out of this, and their involvement would mean using a Black sea port. I cannot imagine that Croatia is keen to get involved in the conflict now that it has secured its independence. The use of Bosnian territory would risk undermining the delicate settlement there. That leaves Albania and Macedonia.
Using Macedonia would mean using a Greek port and Greek territory. The Greeks are the most pro-Serb of all the NATO nations. They have ruled out the use of their ports and territory for ground troops, as has Macedonia, although it might be easier to change the mind of the Macedonians than that of the Greeks. Even if Macedonia were used, I understand that there is only one rather narrow road into Kosovo. If we go through Albania, there is a port, but I understand that its infrastructure is rudimentary. The road from Tirana to the northern border is little more than a track and 6,000 ft mountains would have to be crossed. Those are the only two politically possible routes for getting an army into Kosovo, and

661
neither looks attractive. Those who glibly call for ground troops should tell us how they think it could be done because it would be a risky and difficult operation.
We must remember that it could be a long-term commitment. It is a question not only of how we get in but of how we get out. There are many other areas of potential conflict in the Balkans into which we could be dragged if NATO had a ground army in place.
Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman is identifying with great skill and clarity the available alternatives. Would he join me in saying that, at every stage, the House should be asked by the Government explicitly to support whatever the current policy happens to be?
Mr. Maples: I have much sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's view but there have been many statements and debates on the subject. There has been no shortage of opportunities for right hon. and hon. Members to present their views. I know that he thinks there should be a vote on a substantive motion but he is in a better position than me to take that up with his Whips.
NATO seems to be encouraging the Kosovo Liberation Army. We have heard remarks about a phoenix rising from the ashes but we must ask who is arming it. It is getting arms, some of which turned out to be NATO arms obtained from Croatia. There is a United Nations arms embargo. If we are to arm the KLA and use it as part of the forces involved, we must answer some difficult questions. How do we get rid of the arms embargo? How will Russia react? I shall come presently to my concerns about the Russian position and the way in which they might be involved.
What is our policy on that matter? What is NATO's policy? The Rambouillet agreement called for the disarming of the KLA. We must accept that, whether we like it or not, the KLA will be a force in the area. The army exists; presumably it is getting recruits; we know that it is getting arms and has a greater incentive to fight for that territory than almost anyone else. How we use or manage the KLA is an important issue and I shall be interested in the Secretary of State's views on that matter.
Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend makes a point of real significance. If we fail to support the KLA's aim to liberate Kosovo and to enable the Kosovar people—when they all return home—to exercise their fundamental right to self-determination, is it not true that the KLA will obtain its arms from Libya, Iran or other places? It would be much better for us to work with the KLA than for that army to work with malign forces.
Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend illustrates the difficulties of operating in that region. However, as I said, a UN arms embargo is in place and I do not think that we in NATO could be seen to be arming the KLA outside it. One of the dangers of the activities of members of the KLA is that they may feed the demand for a Greater Albania, which is part of the potential undermining of the stability of Macedonia and one of the reasons we originally became involved in this matter. There are great threats to the stability of Macedonia that we must consider.
Several of my hon. Friends raised the issue of NATO's credibility in seeing through this matter —my hon. Friends the Members for Ruislip-Northwood, for Reigate
662
(Mr. Blunt) and for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), for instance. The Government have put NATO's credibility at stake and that credibility must be redeemed, because our security relies on NATO.
Our relations with Russia have clearly been badly damaged and I am glad that they are being repaired. I am glad that the Foreign Secretary said that he was in touch with Mr. Ivanov, and also that Madeleine Albright has recently met the Russian Foreign Minister. It would be a good idea to consider including the Russians in the peacekeeping force. There is no reason why it has to be a NATO force; in fact, that is one of the things that is unacceptable to the Serbs. If it were an international force under the auspices of the OSCE or the UN, perhaps the Russians could be included. In the long run, the Russians must be part of the solution to this problem.
I have asked the Secretary of State to consider a moratorium on running down the Territorial Army. He has issued a call-out order under the Reserve Forces Act 1996, but we do not know how long that requirement will last. The whole strategic defence review will have to be reconsidered in the light of the long-term commitments that we make in this area. We cannot sustain such commitments for long under the current SDR. Will he consider reviewing the run-down of the Territorial Army, at least temporarily until we know where we are?
I have previously expressed my concern that there does not seem to be a long-term strategy or plan for the Balkan region as a whole. We seem to have dealt with it piecemeal and at present we are dealing with a particular, and fairly small, part of the problem in political terms —although it is huge in terms of human suffering. We need a Kosovo settlement that will allow the Albanian Kosovars to return with an international protection force. I agree with that. However, if we do not depose or get rid of Milosevic, we shall need an agreement with Serbia if long-term stability is to be achieved. That will involve dealing with the Serb Government, so we should not put ourselves in a position in which that becomes impossible. We need a policy for the sustainability and stability of the whole region and I am not sure that such a policy is in place. However, when it is, it will be clear that Serbia must be part of the settlement.
The atrocities about which we read daily in our newspapers and which we see on our television screens continually bring home to us all the scale of human tragedy unfolding in Kosovo and the sheer evil embodied in the Milosevic regime. The Government are right to want Kosovo's refugees to return to their homes in peace and security. We support the Government in those objectives and we support our armed forces in achieving them and wish them success. However, this is war—with all the uncertainties, dangers and bloodshed that are its constant companions. It is not surprising that events are not unfolding as planned; it would be surprising if they were. Not only is this a war, but it is a war in the Balkans, where instability and conflict have been a recurrent reality throughout history, and where great powers have feared to tread, or have come to grief before.
The Government have put NATO's credibility at stake in this matter, and that credibility must be redeemed. Many hon. Members have put the point forcefully today that our security depends on NATO and we cannot afford to see it fail. We hope that the outcome of these events will be not only a peaceful return to Kosovo by its population, but part of an overall settlement of the

663
post-Tito, post-communist Balkans. In pursuing the highly principled objectives which they have set themselves, the Government must ensure that we do not become permanently militarily engaged in that complex and dangerous part of Europe.
For all those reasons, we have felt it right to ask the questions that we have put to Ministers today and on previous occasions. We do not expect public answers to all those questions, but we hope that the House can be confident that the Government have addressed them and thought them through fully.
9.40 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): This is the second full debate on this subject in the House since the commencement of NATO air operations against President Milosevic's repression of the Kosovar Albanians. It is right that the House should have the opportunity to debate those momentous events. Today's debate, like the others, has allowed all shades of opinion in the House to be ventilated, which is in stark contrast to the situation inside Serbia, where dissenting voices are crushed by fear of an autocrat who will stop at absolutely nothing to preserve his power.
I should like to highlight several of the speeches that have been made today. As is inevitable —indeed, it is the very purpose of debate—hon. Members have asked questions, and I hope to be able to answer some of them and respond to some of the concerns that have been expressed. However, I watched the nine o'clock news, in which the BBC's political editor characterised the debate as one that showed "growing concern" about the Government and NATO's position, so let me highlight those speakers who have given general support to the Government's position.
The right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith); my hon. Friends the Members for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Walsall, South (Mr. George); the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell); the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames); my hon. Friends the Members for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) and for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw); my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham), who made a very eloquent speech; my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks); the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples); and the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) all gave support for the position adopted by the Government, while asking the inevitable questions on behalf of the community as a whole. I shall have insulted hon. Members on both sides of the House whom I have omitted, but that list of speakers emphasises the way in which the House has given general support to the Government during this debate. It is worth making that point, not only to those who would take a handful of soundbites from the debate, but to those on the other side of our continent, who will characterise dissenting voices as speaking for the majority.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for a moment.
664
Having identified those right hon. and hon. Members who have offered general support—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was about to join them—I turn to the other speakers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made his usual eloquent but predictable speech, saying that we should not get involved in any action. He called in aid the United Nations, but let me remind him of what Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, said last week. It is significant that Mr. Annan not only endorsed NATO's objectives in Kosovo but said:
"Emerging slowly, but I believe surely, is an international norm against the violent repression of minorities that will and must take precedence over concerns of State sovereignty."
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) again made his dissident speech, which he is entitled to do, although I consider him to be wrong. However, let me remind him of what he said on 12 July 1995, when he was addressing Malcolm Rifkind, the then Foreign Secretary. Then the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead, he said:
"What does the Secretary of State, who in his previous job had quite a line in bellicosity, say to the charge on the lips of millions of Muslims around the world this morning, that, if oil was flowing in the streets of Srebrenica rather than just blood, 29 countries would quickly have assembled a vast armada of armies and air forces to come to the rescue of a sovereign state and a member of the United Nations that is being invaded and subjected to brutal aggression?"—[Official Report, 12 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 960.]
Mr. Galloway: The Secretary of State's latter point is crucial. Bosnia-Herzegovina was a sovereign state that was attacked from the outside, whereas Kosovo is part of Serbia. That was our position until a few months ago. We have joined a civil war within Serbia on the side of an organisation which last year was on the US State Department's list of international terrorist organisations.
Mr. Robertson: So it is all right to attack, rape and murder Muslims so long as they are not in an independent state which is not Kuwait. That seems a very strange attitude to adopt.
On the eve of NATO's 50th anniversary, hon. Members should reflect on the origins of the alliance and its purpose. It was born out of a desire to secure a just settlement in Europe in the aftermath of the second world war. It preserved freedom in western Europe throughout the cold war and eventually triumphed over the dictatorship of the Soviet Union.
Today, in Milosevic, NATO faces a man who seems not to have learned the lessons of history and a man who believes that literally anything justifies his desire to cling to power. Europe at the end of the 20th century cannot accept that political problems are solved by recourse to the tactics of Hitler and Stalin. If we were to do so, we would put at risk the very ideals that NATO stands for: democracy and the rule of law.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—whose role in the current events has been exemplary and whose conduct has been praised widely—described NATO's response to the humanitarian crisis unleashed by Milosevic and our determination to force Milosevic to comply with the demands of the international community. I add my thanks and congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who has done much on the humanitarian front to move forward the great convoy that has saved so many lives in the Balkans.

665
I shall address some of the concerns and issues that right hon. and hon. Members have raised during the debate. Several hon. Members sought clarification—yet again—of the objectives of the military action. I thought that they were clear—they should certainly be clear in Belgrade because we have told them often enough; indeed, the Secretary-General repeated the military objectives last week when he was in Brussels with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, I shall repeat them again tonight.
The political objectives of the campaign are: a verifiable end to all Serb military action and the immediate ending of violence and repression; the withdrawal of Milosevic's military, police and paramilitary forces; agreement to the stationing in Kosovo of an international military peacekeeping force; the unconditional and safe return of all refugees and displaced persons and unhindered access to them by humanitarian aid organisations; and a credible assurance of a willingness to work on the basis of the Rambouillet accords in the establishment of a political framework for Kosovo in conformity with international law and the charter of the United Nations.
From the beginning, our military objectives have been the disruption of Milosevic's repressive operations and the weakening of his forces. They support the political objectives that we have set out, and NATO will continue its military actions until its objectives have been achieved.
Mr. Paice rose—
Mr. Robertson: I have a very limited amount of time in which to speak and I want to respond to some of the points that have been raised.
Many hon. Members referred to ground forces and the question of an opposed invasion of Kosovo. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon mentioned that, but, unlike other Conservative Members, he also recognised the comments of the Leader of the Opposition when the Prime Minister made his statement about this matter. It is worth remembering the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition on 23 March:
"Although we support the use of ground troops to implement a diplomatic settlement, we shall not support their use to fight for a settlement."
He asked the Prime Minister to
"confirm that those strikes are not a prelude to a ground war and that ground troops would be used only to implement a diplomatic settlement".—[Official Report, 23 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 163.]
It is worth Conservative Members' remembering what their leader said.
The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale), the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife all raised that issue and suggested that we should have deployed troops to engage in operations on the ground. They suggested that if we had done so, we could have averted the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. They are wrong to imagine that a ground campaign would have prevented the suffering of innocent civilians, but NATO's air campaign has succeeded in disrupting Serbian military operations in Kosovo.
666
Day by day and night by night, we are cutting into Milosevic's military capabilities. The air strikes will continue until NATO's objectives are met, and there is every chance that the Serbian leadership will soon see sense and decide that the game is no longer worth the candle. If it does not, and if the Serb forces maliciously continue to expel the Kosovar population and seek to hold the territory regardless of the strategic position, NATO will increasingly direct its fire against them.
So far as a ground force is concerned, NATO is of course committed to providing a force to go into Kosovo once the Serbs back down, and part of that force is already in Macedonia, ready to move at short notice. NATO will be updating its planning for that force to take account of the new situation in Kosovo, including the ravages inflicted by Milosevic, the effects of NATO air strikes and NATO's new demand since Rambouillet that all Serb forces should withdraw immediately.
The United Kingdom has already decided to send more of that force to Macedonia so as to be ready to deploy as soon as Milosevic backs down. We are determined that an international military force will be deployed in Kosovo once air strikes have done their job, so that the Kosovar people can return to their homes. At the end of the day, Milosevic will not have a veto.
A number of hon. Members referred to the humanitarian crisis that is now afflicting the countries in and around the Balkans as a result of the expulsion of the Albanians. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made a powerful speech this evening, following his visit to Macedonia. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley spoke with her usual power about the plight of those who have been left the casualties of these dreadful events.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, asked about humanitarian air drops to the thousands of displaced people left inside Kosovo. I say to him and others who have asked that question—it is a good question which demands an answer and we have spent a long time considering it—that air dropping of food and other supplies to internally displaced people in Kosovo is not an easy option.
The many insurmountable problems include accurately locating where those people might be hiding and seeking refuge, and accurately and safely dropping supplies to them. There would be hazards to NATO planes if they were to undertake such a mission, and there would be a potential for the supplies to fall into the hands of the Serbs, who might use them as a lure to the refugees. We would also face the sheer difficulty of moving the amount of aid required. We continue to examine the options on that.
I put this powerful point to the House: the responsibility for the human tragedy inside Kosovo, including the miseries being inflicted on those who have been displaced, lies purely with the Serbian leadership, and Slobodan Milosevic in particular. He will be held to account for what happens to those human beings. Frankly, those who are in danger will cease to be in danger only if the campaign of air strikes organised by the 19 Governments, the 19 nations, the 19 Parliaments of NATO is a success.
Hon. Members have raised the issue of the costs of the campaign, which I cannot pretend will not be significant. The estimated costs will be substantial, but I ask the

667
House to consider the cost of not acting. What would be the cost to all of us on our continent and, indeed, beyond, if we were to stand by, wring our hands, and allow such ethnic cleansing to go ahead and succeed? I estimate that, up until 8 April, the costs that have been incurred total some £17 million, excluding the costs of replenishing stocks of ordnance expended.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) mentioned the cost of humanitarian assistance partly being met by the Department for International Development. I say to him, as I say to those who ask about the defence budget, that, of course, access to the contingency reserve will be sought by the Ministers concerned in the normal way.
A very important issue has been raised both in the House and elsewhere: how NATO selects and clears the targets assigned to aircraft. At the outset of the air campaign, NATO Ministers collectively agreed to certain categories of targets—the first of which was, self-evidently, the Yugoslav air defences. We subsequently agreed to widen the range of targets to include strategic assets such as bridges, barracks and headquarters.
Within those broad categories, an assessment is made of priorities. One of the main factors in reaching decisions is the possibility of causing civilian casualties or damage to civilian buildings—known as collateral damage. More than in any other previous campaign we have used precision-guided munitions to ensure that such damage is avoided.
I personally approve some of the targets, but for most, I have now delegated the decisions to the operational commanders. That allows them to make decisions quickly and to respond to changing requirements. However, I retain the ultimate authority and responsibility for those decisions.
668
Following a number of tests, the Royal Air Force was able to demonstrate that it had the ability, with the use of dumb bombs, to bomb accurately through clouds with Harrier GR7s. It has subsequently undertaken a number of successful operations against particular targets. Such targets are obviously considered very carefully to minimise—
Mr. Dalyell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 11, Noes 0.

Division No. 145]

[9.58 pm

AYES

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Dalyell, Tam

Wareing, Robert N

Galloway, George

Wise, Audrey

Gerrard, Neil

Tellers for the Ayes:

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Mr. Bill Michie and

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Mr. John McDonnell.

NOES

Tellers for the Noes:

Mr. Mike Hall

Mr. David Jamieson.

It appearing on Report of the Division that fewer than 40 Members had taken part in the Division, MADAM SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative.

Medicines (Children)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
10.8 pm
Mr. Andrew Love rose—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Those hon. Members who are leaving will please do so or resume their seats. [Interruption.] How churlish! An hon. Gentleman has the Floor.
Mr. Love: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of licensing medicines for children, as I believe that it is a very important, if somewhat neglected, issue. I hope in a small way to put that right tonight. I know that the matter is of interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House, as more than 100 colleagues from all parties have shown their support for early-day motion 365, which I tabled a few weeks ago. That motion calls for the Government to
"take steps to strengthen the regulatory system in the UK, and establish a satisfactory system for testing and licensing treatments for use on children."
I repeat that call tonight.
I first looked into this issue as a result of a tragic case in my constituency. Through it, I made contact with the parents of other children who had died following medical treatment and also with Professor Choonara, of Derbyshire children's hospital, who has carried out much of the research into this matter. From his research, I learned, to my amazement, that 25 per cent. of all drugs given to children in hospitals are not licensed for that purpose and that 36 per cent. of all children in hospitals receive drugs in that way.
In addition, a more recent study showed that the figure for newborn babes admitted as patients is even higher: 65 per cent. of all treatments are either unlicensed for that purpose or prescribed off-label, and 90 per cent. of them receive such treatments. I remind the House that those drugs are either totally unlicensed for human administration or licensed solely for use on adults, yet they are still regularly given to children.
My amazement and concern were clearly shared by the Select Committee on Health, whose report "The Specific Health Needs of Children and Young People" was published in February 1997. The Committee's report states:
"the current system in regard to the testing and licensing of medicines for use by children is unacceptable."
The Department of Health is quoted in the report, responding to those concerns by acknowledging that that "unsatisfactory" situation exists. The report goes on to say:
"The Department and the Medicines Control Agency consider that children should have timely access to safe and effective medicines which have accurate, scientifically justified prescribing information".
I should make it clear that unlicensed and off-label prescribing can bring benefits to some patients, and I am not seeking to deprive children of beneficial treatments, but I believe that those treatments should be administered after a rigorous testing and licensing process. Off-label
670
prescribing may also lead to under-dosing of worthwhile treatments, thus depriving children of the full benefits of a drug.
In my attempt to raise this issue, I have received support from general practitioners and paediatricians, and I express my gratitude to them for that. The present system—or, rather, the lack of one—simply leaves doctors to sink or swim with their own clinical knowledge and judgment. Although that may be sufficient for many doctors to prescribe the correct drug and the appropriate dosage, for others it may not be. I have in mind particularly the GP who is not a specialist in child health, but is expected to take responsibility for prescribing a drug of which he has little knowledge. The point is that, without a proper licensing system, we have no way of independently and scientifically assessing those treatments.
I emphasise that I am simply calling for children to be treated in the same way as adults —as individuals entitled to the best medical treatment available. A doctor's clinical judgment must be based on the information available. A substantial part of that information is provided by drugs manufacturers, after full and rigorous clinical trials on a given treatment. If that is what we expect and receive as adults, why should we not expect and provide the same for children?
This is an issue of consumers' rights and, as such, it is of great concern to the Consumers Association, which has campaigned hard for some time. I believe that paediatricians and GPs should be required to inform patients and, in cases involving children, parents when an unlicensed or off-label drug is given. I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Minister's views.
A further consequence of unlicensed and off-label prescribing is the apparent inability to monitor adverse reactions to particular dosages of a drug. The Medicines Control Agency is able to track any adverse reactions as a licensed drug is used and, if necessary, amend the instructions on how it should be administered. When a product is used outside the licence, such monitoring and feedback simply cannot happen, as there is no on-going mechanism within which it can take place.
I would argue, therefore, that children are disfranchised in that process. They have to rely much more heavily than adults on unlicensed and off-label treatments and the treatments that they are given are not subject to the monitoring and on-going review of licensed medicines. Nevertheless, adverse reactions to off-label and unlicensed treatments exist, and I expect that in some cases they are reported to the Medicines Control Agency and the Committee on Safety of Medicines. When I asked the Minister about that, his response was:
"there is no centrally held record of suspected adverse reactions to medicines."
Perhaps he could tell the House tonight what happens to any information that is received. Is it filed, or simply disposed of because no mechanism exists to process it?
The Government are funding a pilot research project into adverse medical reactions in children in the Trent region. The project has been running for six months and funding of £38,000 has already been committed. However, I understand that Trent region is happy to back the research for a further three years, conditional on the Medicines Control Agency funding its share. So far, the agency appears to be unwilling to commit itself. Already,

671
however, the project has shown signs of success, with a 100 per cent. increase in the reporting of adverse reactions in the first six months.
It is also significant that, in June, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health will produce the first national formulary to include data on drugs prescribed for children. It will be funded by the Nuffield Foundation as a one-off edition and will be sold commercially to raise funds for future editions. However, it is hoped that the Department of Health will fund future editions, to be published and updated regularly. To date, the Department has not said that it wants to take on that role. Will the Minister comment?
The use of unlicensed and off-label treatments is not a new problem; it has been recognised and addressed by the United States and the European Union. From April this year, pharmaceutical companies in the United States will be compelled to provide information about the effects of their drugs on children if such a use is likely. Significantly, for such information to be required, the use on children needs only to be "likely". In written questions, I asked the Secretary of State whether the Government would look at the US system. I hope that the Minister will elaborate tonight on that basis.
In 1995, the EU established guidance on the clinical investigation of medicinal products in children, which came into effect in September 1997. I understand that the Government played a major role in developing that guidance, so I presume that the Minister is familiar and broadly sympathetic with its content. As it is guidance and not a directive, it does not compel member states or drugs companies to do anything. Nevertheless, I draw the House's attention to its opening lines:
"Children should not be given medicines which have not been adequately evaluated for use in that age group. There is a responsibility, shared by applicants and the competent authorities, to ensure that children have timely access to safe and effective medicines which have accurate, scientifically justified, prescribing information."
What steps are the Government taking to monitor the application of the guidance to establish which products are licensed in accordance with the guidance and from which drugs companies?
I understand that research will soon be published in The British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, which looks at practice in licensing at the time the EU guidance was formulated. That research highlights the need for pharmaceutical companies and enforcement agencies to undergo a change in attitude to effect the necessary change in the licensing process.
As compliance with the EU guidance is entirely voluntary, drugs companies have little incentive to apply to license their products in that way. However, a joint British Paediatric Association and Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry working party was set up and recommendations were made to address the unsatisfactory situation. My concern is that, although those recommendations are worthy in themselves, they are worth little without action to implement them. Experience of the commercial sector suggests that drugs companies ultimately follow the profit motive. Indeed, I understand that they are requesting extended intellectual property rights to encourage the industry to follow the guidance.
Significantly, the US Government have tried such a carrot-and-stick approach—compelling drugs companies to provide information about the effects of their drugs on
672
children, but also offering them the financial incentive of a six-month extension to their patents in exchange for comprehensive paediatric data. Have the Government evaluated the benefits of such a system in the UK?
There is a need for the Government to step in to regulate a situation where the other parties are unwilling or unable to act. The use of unlicensed and off-label treatments in children merits such intervention. I would add also that both the pharmaceutical industry and the medical profession could have addressed the issue some years ago, so any accumulated costs are due to years of inaction.
The reasons for a specific licensing system for children are clear. Physiologically, children and babies differ considerably from adults. I refer again to the EU guidance, which states:
"The effects of many medicinal products on children may differ considerably from those observed in adults, even when dosage has been adapted to body weight or body surface area."
Drugs affect children differently in terms of side effects and the way in which a child's body absorbs and processes a drug. That must be recognised in the licensing system. Evaluating the suitability of any given drug for children is, therefore, a far more sophisticated process than, for example, simply taking the adult dosage of a given drug and halving it.
The only sensible way forward is to follow the recommendations in the European guidance and to establish clinical trials for drugs that are likely to be used on children. Of course, the participation of any child in such trials would have to be with the full consent of the parents concerned and, where appropriate, with the informed consent of the child. Such a process would have to be carefully monitored at every stage, and any adverse reactions speedily evaluated and treated.
I recognise that the notion of testing on children can, in itself, be seen as alarming because the last thing that anyone would want is to put a child through any kind of hazardous process. However, I believe that this is infinitely better than what we have at present—a hit-and-miss system in which all children are potential guinea pigs without their knowledge or the knowledge of their parents. There is a responsibility on the Government to recognise the need for the education of parents and the wider public about the very good reasons for a proper testing process.
There is an irony here, in that the Medicines Act 1967—which introduced the licensing system—came as a result of the thalidomide disaster, a drug which directly affected children, yet the present system effectively excludes children from the licensing process. That cannot continue to be justified.
Finally, I draw the House's attention to the main reason for this debate—the human cost of not taking any action. Lexie McConnell was nine years old when she died in November 1992. Her immune system collapsed following a steroid overdose after she had been given doses licensed only for use on adults. Lexie was being treated by a specialist at the John Radcliffe teaching hospital in Oxford for a relatively minor eye injury, yet her treatment still went tragically wrong.
If a proper licensing system had been established, Lexie might have received the correct dosage, or she might have been prescribed a different drug altogether. Unfortunately, Lexie's case is not an isolated one. Action must be taken

673
to prevent this kind of failure from occurring in the future. I pay tribute to Lexie's parents, Art and Victoria McConnell—who are present in the House tonight—and to all the other bereaved parents for the dignified way in which they have campaigned on the issue. On their behalf, I strongly urge the Minister to strengthen the regulatory system for children.
10.24 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on his success in raising this matter for the House to consider tonight. The subject has been generating increasing interest and concern from both health professionals and the public. I welcome the opportunity afforded by this debate to consider the issue of medicines for children. I thank my hon. Friend for his thoughtful, considered and well-informed remarks.
I shall try to respond to all the points that my hon. Friend has raised, but first let me say that as a father myself, I sympathise deeply with the parents of all the children to whom he referred. No one expects to outlive his or her children, and there can be few more tragic events than the death, for whatever reason, of a dearly loved son or daughter. The pain and anguish in such circumstances I know, from my personal experience, to be immense, and I think that the thoughts of the House will always go out to those in that terrible position.
The treatment of children generally is an emotive issue, as well as an important area of service provision. The Government would be extremely concerned if any section of the public were exposed to treatment that was less well regulated or of poorer quality than that available to others, or denied treatment that should be available.
The role of the Government in ensuring that safe and effective medicines are available for the treatment of those of all ages is primarily regulatory, but the Government also have a role in providing industry and health professionals with advice and guidance. I shall say something shortly about the areas in which the Government can and do encourage those with the initiative to address this important issue, but the initiative for undertaking appropriate development work and conducting appropriate clinical trials rests with the pharmaceutical industry, which, once it is satisfied that a product should be marketed, submits its application to the regulatory authority for the appropriate licence.
It is worth pausing for a moment to note the historical perspective. Until quite recently —in the last 10 or so years—it was considered unethical to conduct the very clinical trials that would have helped to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of medicines for children, and ethical considerations remain an important factor.
For manufacturers seeking to license their products for use in the United Kingdom, the licensing authority currently consists of the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Responsibility for undertaking the appropriate assessment of new products and the monitoring of products already on the market resides with the Medicines Control Agency, which acts on their behalf. The agency is responsible for ensuring that medicines on the market in the United Kingdom are safe, of suitable quality and effective for the purpose for which they have been licensed.
674
The Government recently established the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which is designed to ensure that every national health service patient in the country is given the most effective treatment available. It will identify best practice and help to spread it quickly, and it will advise doctors and nurses on which treatments work best for patients and the NHS and which do not.
My hon. Friend has expressed concern about the extent to which children may be being treated with medicines not specifically licensed for such use. It would, of course, be a matter of great concern if that led to children being given medicines in circumstances in which their use proves to be hazardous. The safety of all medicinal products licensed for use in the United Kingdom is continuously monitored by the Medicines Control Agency, via a voluntary reporting scheme involving doctors and pharmacists.
Mr. Paul Flynn: In the last Parliament, I was informed by my hon. Friend's predecessor that the number of people dying from the effects of one widely available drug, paracetamol, had fallen from 57 to 48. Other sources—coroners' courts—showed that the actual number of deaths during the period concerned had been not 48 but 586. Is it not true that now, as then, there is huge under-reporting of deaths that have occurred as a result of the use of medicinal drugs, and that the present system does not depend on the reporting of side-effects and tragedies by doctors? It does not work: it vastly under-reports the number of tragedies.
Mr. Hutton: I am not aware of the parliamentary exchanges that my hon. Friend had with my predecessor in another Administration. I also remind him that we are discussing medicines for children. I am not sure how many of the deaths that he mentioned were children's deaths.
Mr. Flynn rose—
Mr. Hutton: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I make some progress, and deal with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton. However, I acknowledge the points that he made, and the seriousness with which he made them.
The yellow card adverse drug reaction scheme, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton referred, asks clinicians—both GPs and hospital doctors—as well as pharmacists and others to report any suspected adverse reactions to the MCA. Companies are obliged to submit individual reports of adverse reactions and periodic safety update reports containing information relating to suspected adverse drug reactions, drug usage and safety studies, as available, for MCA assessment at regular intervals throughout a product's lifespan.
The data are used to inform both the agency and the manufacturer of the safety profile of the product once it is in use in a wider section of the population than is possible under clinical trial conditions before licensing. Those reports are reviewed by experienced professional staff at the MCA before renewing product licences, a process that occurs every five years in the life of a pharmaceutical product.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton specifically referred to adverse reaction reports for unlicensed medicines and off-label use. I should like to reassure him

675
that the well-established systems for monitoring the safety of marketed medicines cover all patient groups, including children and off-label usage. Clinicians have been reminded of that fact in a bulletin from the MCA, which went to doctors, dentists, pharmacists and coroners; it was issued in September 1997. Nevertheless, a more targeted approach to surveillance of medicines that are used by children is without question fully warranted.
To that end, in addition to the regular reporting arrangements, we have supported an initiative in Trent region—my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton referred to it —specifically to encourage reporting of adverse drug reactions in the use of medicines in the treatment of children. That scheme has been operating for a little under a year. However, it is reassuring to be able to report that, within the time frame of the project, no major safety issues have been reported.
I am happy to be able to reassure my hon. Friend, and I hope he will recognise, that, in the very act of committing funding to the project, the Government have signalled their determination and willingness to find ways in which to improve the current system. If the scheme proves to fulfil that need in the best way, subject, obviously, to a full and proper evaluation, we shall continue to fund it.
My hon. Friend referred to the work of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health on a national formulary to include data on drugs prescribed for children. He asked a specific question about funding for future editions of the formulary. As far as I am aware, the Department has received no application to fund a future edition, but, if any such request were made, the Department would be very willing to consider the proposal.
My hon. Friend might be aware—I am sure that he is—that the formulary will cover some 300 medicines commonly used in the treatment of the paediatric population. It will include medicines specifically licensed for such use and medicinal products that are not currently licensed for use in the treatment of children, where advice on the appropriate indications and dosage use for different age groups based on other research findings and evidence has been compiled by the joint committee. It is hoped that the formulary will be issued to the health service by the committee in May or June. I am sure that that will be an important and welcome development.
I turn to the specific question of availability of licensed medicines for use in the treatment of children. It is true to say that a sizeable proportion of medicines is available and formally licensed for use in the treatment of many illnesses that can occur in the paediatric population. Indeed, some products have been developed specifically for such use.
There are other products for which specific clinical trials of a product have not been conducted in the paediatric population, but where the manufacturer and the licensing authority have no reason to suppose that its safety and efficacy will be such that it should not be used in the treatment of children. Such products cannot and should not be defined as "unlicensed" for use in the treatment of children.
A further category of products is those where the terms of the licence and the patient leaflet may state that use in children is not for use in the paediatric population. Those medicines can indeed be described as "unlicensed" for such use. Nevertheless, there are circumstances when the
676
use of such medicines may, in the view of a clinician, be justified and, indeed, necessary. In any circumstance where a doctor prescribes for a patient, he or she must assume the responsibility for that action.
In the case of treatment of children with unusual conditions, GPs will usually seek the advice of specialists before prescribing treatment with products that are unlicensed or will have to be used "off-label". Such specialists build up a body of knowledge and expertise in the treatment of children's illnesses and have developed treatment regimes to respond to them. There is also a significant volume of published and experimental data available and schemes are in place which make that information available to prescribers of medicines in the paediatric population.
The wide availability of so-called "specials" manufactured commercially and by the NHS has developed in part as a response to the needs of those specialists. Although such products may not have been subjected to assessment of safety, quality and efficacy by the MCA, manufacturers are required to hold a "specials" licence, to have suitably qualified persons responsible for production and quality control and are subjected to inspection by the agency. Their use is carefully monitored by prescribers, and much of the body of information and advice available to those prescribing for children has been compiled from experience gained in practical usage of those, and formally licensed, medicinal products.
I turn now to the question of what additional action could be taken to improve the availability of medicines licensed specifically for the treatment of the paediatric population. I know that that is a matter of especial concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton and the parents of the child to whom he referred. The Government share the view of those who have expressed their concerns that a wider range of properly assessed and licensed products for use in the treatment of children of all ages should be available.
My hon. Friend raised a point about the very real value of the use of some of those medicines and I agree with him that, important as this debate is, it must not deprive children of the benefits that use of such medicines can bring. We expect that the pharmaceutical industry shares this view. We would like to see them working constructively with the MCA to provide appropriate data to support inclusion of relevant information in the licence. That will ensure that clinicians have access to clear information about the use of their products in the treatment of the paediatric population. Such information also needs to be available in the patient leaflet for the parent or carer.
So far, I have spoken only of the UK's regulatory position. However, much of the legislation that underpins medicines control in the UK now derives from European directives. While that has contributed significantly to improved standards of regulation throughout Europe, it does also mean that any change to the legislation—for example, any proposal that increased the data required from the pharmaceutical industry on use of their products in the paediatric population—would need to be widely discussed and agreed Europe-wide.
Such discussions have already been initiated and there is already a European guideline which the UK played a leading role in developing, which makes it clear that if a product is likely to be used on children, the regulatory

677
authorities such as the MCA will expect data to be presented from clinical trials in the appropriate age group. The principles set out in the guideline are also being taken forward at an international level through the International Conference for the Harmonisation—the ICH—of technical standards for the registration of medicinal products. The aim is to have an agreed guideline to be adopted throughout the EU, Japan and the USA. However, that is only a guideline and does not have the force of law, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton
678
acknowledged. In the USA, a similar initiative has met with only limited success in encouraging the pharmaceutical industry there to conduct appropriate clinical trials. I can reassure my hon. Friend that we will be looking at the US experience very carefully.
We expect that the pharmaceutical industry will take heed of the European guideline and be prepared to work with us—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-two minutes to Eleven o'clock.

SCOTLAND

  New Opportunities Fund
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to reply to the letter from the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland of 5 February regarding the operation of the New Opportunities Fund in Scotland. [80933]

  Mr. Dewar
  A reply will be sent very shortly.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Macpherson Inquiry
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of the implications for his Department of the Macpherson Inquiry recommendations; and if he will make a statement.[80526]

  The Attorney-General
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 14 April 1999,Official Report, columns 239–40.

  Glidewell Report
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Attorney-General what decisions he has taken on the recommendations on file preparation, case management and witness warning in the report of the Review of the Crown Prosecution Service by the right hon. Sir Iain Glidewell. [81491]

  The Attorney-General
  The interim response to the Report by Sir lain Glidewell which I published on 30 November 1998 drew attention to the fact that these key recommendations (recommendations 13–16, 20 and 31) were being considered by a newly formed Criminal Justice Units Project Group, chaired jointly by the CPS and the Association of Police Officers. The Project Group, which also included representatives from other agencies and an independent member, has now completed its consideration of the Report's recommendations, and has made proposals for taking them forward.

  The Project Group has proposed that there should be a national model for joint administration, which incorporates the principles of flexibility and partnership and which builds on the arrangements currently being piloted to reduce delays under the Narey Reducing Delays initiative. It is important, as the Report recognises, that the new arrangements provide flexibility, so that Chief Crown Prosecutors and Chief Constables can develop local solutions jointly.

  The Government have decided to accept this proposal. This partnership approach between the CPS and the police, reflecting the principles advocated by Glidewell
  398
  and incorporating elements of co-location, common administration and integrated working, will provide the framework for better working relationships between CPS staff and operational police officers and ensure that the work of both agencies is more effective. It will further streamline casework and file handling processes, remove duplication and unnecessary burdens, and reduce delay.

  The new model for joint administration will also enable the police and the CPS to provide a better service to victims and witnesses, building on established arrangements and maintaining the co-ordination of victim and witness care.

  A feature of the new arrangements is that the police will retain their responsibility for file preparation and witness warning, and that accordingly these responsibilities should not be transferred to the CPS as recommended by Glidewell. The Government have decided that it would not be practical, or a proper reflection of the respective constitutional priorities of the CPS and the police, to require a transfer of responsibilities. The new arrangements will, however, ensure closer co-operation between the police and the CPS and improved file preparation.

  Chief Crown Prosecutors and Chief Constables will be asked to submit joint outline implementation plans by the end of November 1999 to a new inter-agency implementation group which we are setting up to oversee these new arrangements.

DEFENCE

  Civil Servants (Appraisal)
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the appraisal performance markings awarded to civil servants in 1998 for(a) each agency in his Department and (b) the Department broken down by (i) grade, (ii) gender, (iii) ethnicity, (iv) part-time/ full-time working and (v) disability; and for (1) each agency and (2) the Department whether the Cabinet Office's four fifths rule for detecting potential adverse impact was applied to the appraisal markings of civil servants in the 1998 report round. [78147]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Weather Stations
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the height above sea level of the weather stations at(a) Ashover, Derbyshire, (b) Buxton, Derbyshire, (c) Slaidburn, Lancashire, (d) Emley Moor, West Yorkshire and (e) Sheffield Dore; and what is the average height above sea level for the Oldham, East and Saddleworth constituency. [80278]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Meteorological Office. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Ann Tourle to Mr. Phil Woolas, dated 19 April 1999
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the height above sea level of various weather stations. This matter falls within the area of responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Met. Office. As the Chief Executive is on holiday at the moment, I am replying on his behalf.399
  The information you requested is given in the table.

  Weather station

  Height above sea level (metres)1

  Ashover

  178

  Buxton

  307

  Slaidburn2

  192

  Emley Moor

  259

  Sheffield Dore3

  206

  1 All heights refer to height above sea level of station rain gauge

  2 Station closed on 30 June 1996

  3 Station closed on 31 January 1985

  I took advice from the Military Survey Agency on the average height above sea level for the Oldham East and Saddleworth constituency. Based on the mean of the highest and lowest points in the area, which are at Blindstones (541 metres) and Wellihole Bridge (148 metres) respectively, this is 344.5 metres.

  Project Horizon
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on developments in Project Horizon. [81044]

  Mr. Spellar
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence plans to meet his French and Italian colleagues shortly to discuss the way forward for the Horizon programme.

  Location changes

  TA centre

  Announced occupants

  Revised plan

  Middlesborough—(Stockton Road TA Centre)

  Was to be base to full infantry company plus Pioneer detachment

  1. Stockton Road retains infantry company less a Plantoon detachment which will instead be based Coulby Newham TA Centre

  2. Pionner detachment to be based at Cramlington TA Centre

  Scarborough

  Was to be base to full infantry company

  Scarborough retains infantry company less a platoon detachment, to be based at Northallerton TA Centre (Which was to have remained open only for cadets).

  Telford

  Telford to retain two TA Centres (one with ammunition squadron, the other with yeomanry headquarters squadron and surgical squadron)

  Surgical squadron to go to Copthorne Barracks, Shrewsbury (to co-locate with infantry company). Telford still retains two TA Centres.

  Newcastle

  Debdon Gardens was to be base to whole of 219 Field Squadron

  A detachment of 219 Squadron to be based at Sunderland TA Centre. Debdon Gardens remains open for other units.

  Changed timings/rolls

  Unit

  Announced plan

  Proposed plan

  Headquarters Squadron 21 Signal Regiment (a TA sub unit in a regular regiment)

  Due to move from Trowbridge to Oxford become part of new radio support regiment

  Move from Trowbridge as planned but to be housed temporarily at Bath before moving to Oxfoes, upon formation of radio support regiment which is delayed.

  43 Squardron 21 Signal Regiment (a TA sub unit in a regular regiment)

  Due to move from Bridgewater to Bath to become part of new radio support regiment

  Move to Bath as planned but retain current 21 Signal Regiment air support role until later re-roled to radio support regiment

  Royal Yeomanry Squadron, Slough

  Due to disband 1 July 1999

  Retain until 1 June 2000

  Royal Wessex Yeomanry Headquarters Squadron Cirencester

  Was to assume Nuclear Biological and Chemical role

  Assume armoured role. The Second Nuclear Biological and Chemical squadron now to be Royal Yeomanary Headquarters Squadron in London.

  KPMG
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) consultancy and (b) other contracts his Department has had with KPMG since 1 May 1997; and if KPMG is a prospective candidate for future contracts his Department is intending to let. [81419]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) on 22 February 1999,Official Report, columns 31–32. I can confirm that the company are prospective candidates for future contracts.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes there have been to the plans for Territorial Army units and their locations contained in the Government publication, "Modern Forces for the Modern World: A Territorial Army for the Future". [81493]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Since the announcement on the structure of the Territorial Army on 17 November 1998,Official Report, columns 749–71, there have been a number of small refinements to the detailed plan. These involve some location changes and some changes in the timing of moves, and these are shown in the table. In addition, this opportunity is being taken to correct several typographical errors in the document and these too are shown in the tables.
  401

  Typographic errors

  Unit

  Printed text

  Corrected text

  105 Regiment Royal Artillery (Volunteers) Light Aid Detachment

  Co-locate with 207 Battery in Glasgow

  Remain with Regimental Headquarters in Edinburgh

  Infantry Detachment Castleford

  Announced incorrectly as a band

  Lowland Battalion

  Company Headquarters in Dumfries; Infantry detachment in Galashiels

  Company Headquarters in Galashiels; Infantry detachment in Dumfries

  256 Field Hospital

  Headquarters in Hammersmith Road Squadron in Braganza Street

  Headquarters in Braganza Street; Squadron in Hammersmith Road

  Aldershot for Cadet Unit Training

  Seeley House, Shoe Lane, Aldershot

  Seely House, Shoe Lane, Aldershot

  Kosovo
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the integration of the frigate Somerset into a French-led naval group off Kosovo, with particular reference to the role of (i) the WEU, (ii) NATO and (iii) the St. Malo Accords in the formulation of this policy. [81045]

  Mr. George Robertson
  HMS Somerset has been attached to the French Task Group, led by the French aircraft carrier FOCH, since 14 February and is scheduled to revert to national tasking shortly. The integration of Somerset was at the invitation of the French authorities immediately following the St. Malo Summit. Initially scheduled as a training mission to the Indian Ocean, the Task Group was diverted for operations in the Adriatic following the deterioration of the situation in Kosovo. The integration is purely a bilateral arrangement between the UK and France and has no particular reference to WEU or NATO.

  The concept of a combined deployment is very much in the spirit of closer military co-operation between the UK and France, reinforced by the signing of the Letter of Intent at the St. Malo Summit in December 1998. It also takes forward the navy-to-navy Letter of Intent signed in 1996, which tasked our two navies
  "to continue to investigate the possibilities for the attachment of units for extended periods".
  The integration is an excellent means to further strengthen our bilateral links and provides a practical dimension to the present debate on European security and defence.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the refugee camps built by British forces in Albania and the former Yugoslavia as a result of the current Kosovo crisis; and if he will make a statement. [80925]

  Mr. George Robertson
  British Forces have assisted in the construction of the Bojane camp 15 km west of the Macedonian capital Skopje and the refugee handling centre 10 km north of Skopje consisting of the Brazde, Stenkovac and Eurotrade sites.

  Service Personnel (Incapacity Benefit)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the eligibility for higher rate incapacity benefit of service personnel who are on sick leave when discharged. [80698]

  Mr. Bayley
  I have been asked to reply.
  402
  No such representations have been received

  On discharge from the forces, former service personnel who are sick or disabled can claim Incapacity Benefit. The short-term higher rate of Incapacity Benefit is payable after 28 weeks and the long-term rate after 52 weeks.

  Periods of sickness before discharge do not count towards the qualifying periods for the higher rates of Incapacity Benefit. Rules do, however, protect potential entitlement to the age addition payable with long-term Incapacity Benefit. For former members of the forces, it is the earliest date that the person became sick that is relevant in deciding entitlement to the age addition.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Football
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what requirements(a) exist and (b) he plans to introduce for staff who work with junior footballers to have qualifications in (i) first aid and (ii) vocational training. [79911]

  Mr. Banks
  The football authorities are responsible for the development of football in this country. The Football Association has developed coaching courses for coaches, teachers and those connected with junior football teams. These courses include in their curricula teaching and coaching techniques and principles of play, together with first aid training. The FA lays down specific requirements for those working in Centres of Excellence and Football Academies to hold the relevant qualifications. As part of the 'Charter for Quality', the FA will be introducing at the end of 1999 a national, voluntary, kite-mark scheme of 'Chartermark' clubs to recognise clubs in junior football that meet specific conditions, including the requirement that junior managers and coaches hold FA approved first aid and coaching qualifications.

PRIME MINISTER

  Social Chapter (Civil Servants)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those elements of the Social Chapter which have been covered by letters sent out by Government Departments inviting civil servants to waive their rights under them. [80449]
  403
  The Prime Minister
  There are no Social Chapter measures for which Government Departments have invited civil servants to waive their rights.

  European Commission President
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions the Government are having with the President-nominate of the European Commission on use of his veto in the selection of fellow commissioners. [81039]

  The Prime Minister
  The Amsterdam Treaty states that the nominee for President shall work with Member States to nominate other Commissioners by common accord. The Government will be happy to work with Mr. Prodi in the selection of UK nominees.

  Treaty of Amsterdam
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what measures the Government are planning to mark final ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam. [81040]

  The Prime Minister
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will issue a press release before the Amsterdam treaty enters into force on 1 May, outlining some of the key new elements. Other Government Departments may issue press releases highlighting areas where the Amsterdam Treaty will affect their departmental business.

  Euro Task Forces
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those UK-appointed members of euro task forces whose views on UK participation in the single currency are known to the Government.[81047]

  The Prime Minister
  In October 1997 my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set up a Business Advisory Group (BAG), headed by Lord Simon, to advise on the practical issues associated with UK membership. Representative organisations were invited to send their own nominated members. Subsequently, working groups were set up to look at sectoral preparations. In total over 100 individuals and representative organisations were consulted in producing the outline national changeover plan.

  BAG members were chosen as representatives of their organisations, not because of any particular view they hold on participation in the single currency. The organisations represented on the BAG are the Institute of Directors, Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, Council for Travel and Tourism, British Bankers' Association, Association of Payment Clearing Services, British Retail Consortium, Confederation of British Industry, Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accounting, Trades Union Congress, Consumers' Association, British Chamber of Commerce, Association of Corporate Treasurers, Computer Services and Software Association, Bank of England, Association of British Insurers, Building Societies Association, Forum of Private Business, Federation of Small Businesses, Law Society, Engineering Employers' Federation, Hundred Group of Finance Directors.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 13 April 1999,Official Report, columns 2–3,
  404
  for what reasons the determining factor on any Government decision underpinning membership of a single currency is whether the economic case for the United Kingdom joining is clear and unambiguous rather than the constitutional and political implications of that decision. [81147]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to my statement in the House on 23 February 1999,Official Report, column 179, where I said:
  "I do not dismiss the constitutional or political issues … If joining a single currency is good for British jobs and British industry, if it enhances British influence and power, I believe it is right for Britain to overcome these constitutional and political arguments and fears behind them. For the very reason of the sensitivity of those arguments, we have said very clearly that the Government can recommend, but the people will decide in a referendum."

  Macedonia
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister what measures he is taking to extend the mandate of the UN Preventive Deployment Force in Macedonia; and what assessment he has made of the effect on efforts to achieve this on the number of UK troops in the region. [81248]

  The Prime Minister
  The Mandate of the UN Preventative Force (UNPREDEP) expired on 28 February 1999 because there was no consensus within the UN Security Council to renew its mandate. Its role was entirely separate from that of the NATO forces in Macedonia. As there was no UK contingent in UNPPREDEP, its demise has had no effect on the build-up of UK forces in Macedonia.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to reply to(a) the letter from the hon. Member for North Essex concerning Reeves Transport Services Ltd and (b) the letters he has received from Reeves Transport Services Ltd. [81360]

  The Prime Minister
  I have replied to the hon. Member today. Similarly, my office has replied direct to Reeves Transport Ltd. today.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sierra Leone
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if discussions on possible questions were held between a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and(a) himself, (b) his other departmental Ministers, (c) his departmental parliamentary private secretaries, (d) his civil servants or (e) his departmental special advisers prior to his evidence sessions with the Committee in the course of its Sierra Leone inquiry. [76083]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer I1 March 1999]No.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the total number
  405
  of occasions when (a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity since 2 May 1997. [76829]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Between 2 May 1997 and 28 February 1999, my special advisers have made visits overseas on 28 occasions in an official capacity. All travel complied with the requirements of the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

  EC Budget
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if budget line A-3021 of the European Communities budget is open to organisations which advance the idea of a non-federal Europe. [80159]

  Ms Quin
  The Official Journal of the European Communities describes Budget line A-3021 as providing grants to organisations advancing the idea of Europe, in particular those working actively for European integration. There is no reference to the promotion of federalism in Europe.

  Séminaire Franco-Britannique
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the speeches delivered at the Seminaire Franco-Britannique sur l'Euro by representatives of the British Government. [80158]

  Ms Quin
  We are arranging to have copies placed in the Libraries of the House.

  St. Malo Accord
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in Franco-British co-operation since the signing of the St. Malo Accord. [80148]

  Ms Quin
  The St. Malo Summit identified a broad variety of areas for enhanced Franco-British co-operation: European defence, crisis management, common foreign and security policy, Africa, EU institutions, integrated transport issues, duty free, the entrepreneurship taskforce, the millennium bug, the Franco-British electronic village, dialogue 2000, Paris-London 2000, the audio-visual working group, and this year's British-French summit. The pace of progress will differ from subject to subject, but the summit gave considerable impetus to a closer relationship, and work is ongoing in these and other areas to ensure that there is the closest bilateral engagement.

  In some aspects this has already yielded concrete progress—for example, the proposed joint Foreign Ministers' visit and Heads of Mission Conference in Africa took place in February and proved the effectiveness of such shared contacts on African issues. There have been very productive bilateral meetings between Ministers, including myself and M. Moscovici, my French counterpart, on 14 January, as well as between senior officials, and more are planned for the near future, for example, meetings between the Ministers of Tourism.

  Falklands
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent 406
  representations he has made to the Government of Chile about the prospective removal of the Lan Chile air link to the Falklands. [80216]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We expressed our regret to the Chilean Government over their decision last December to ask Chilean carriers not to fly to the Falklands and said that we did not believe this to be justified. When we became aware recently that the Chilean Government were considering publishing a decree prohibiting Chilean carriers from flying to the Falklands, we told them that we would strongly regret such a measure. We are very disappointed that they have nevertheless published such a decree. Lan Chile have not been able to fly to the Islands since their contract with the Falkland Islands Development Corporation expired on 31 March. While we hope that they will be allowed to resume the flights, other options are under consideration. We are in close touch with the Falkland Islands Government on this.

  Maastricht Treaty
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list decision-making powers which have been restored to the United Kingdom from EU institutions " since the Maastricht Treaty came into effect. [80234]

  Ms Quin
  The issue of repatriation of powers from the EU to Member States was not on the agenda for either the Maastricht or Amsterdam IGCs.

  The Maastricht Treaty, however, introduced the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality into EC law, both of which were given further effect by the Protocol agreed at Amsterdam. The principle of subsidiarity aims to ensure that decisions are taken at the most appropriate level in areas of shared competence between the EC and Member States. Its application is one way of ensuring that decisions are taken as close to the citizen as possible.

  Written Answers
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for how many written parliamentary questions he has referred the interrogator to a previous answer since 1 May 1997; and if he will break this down by subject area. [80451]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The information requested is not kept centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate diversion of staff time.

  Treaty of Amsterdam
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list each of the new responsibilities which he will assume when the signed Treaty of Amsterdam takes effect and for each(a) the likely effect on departmental staffing, (b) the bodies or persons in the European Union principally concerned and (c) the relevant section of that treaty and the consolidated treaties of the European Union and European Community. [80416]

  Ms Quin
  I do not expect implementation of the Treaty of Amsterdam to add significantly to my Department's responsibilities.

  Peru
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the President of Peru on the release of prisoners found innocent by the Ad Hoc Commission. [80080]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have made no representations personally to President Fujimori. However, during my visit to Peru in January, I discussed the issue with both the Technical Adviser to the Ad Hoc Commission, Dr. Gina Costa, and the Human Rights Ombudsman, Jorge Santistevan. During 1998, the Commission continued to recommend presidential pardons for applicants, and won the release of an additional 102 detainees, bringing the total of those pardoned to 462.

  The British Embassy in Lima has raised this issue with the Ad Hoc Commission. We also intend to discuss this, and other human rights issues, with the Peruvian delegation in Geneva, in the margins of the Commission on Human Rights (22 March-30 April).

  Arms Brokering
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions took place on the issue of brokering in the meeting of the Council of Ministers COARM working group on 18 March; and what position was taken by the United Kingdom representative. [81103]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 16 April 1999]There was no substantive discussion of the issue of controls on arms trafficking and brokering at COARM on 18 March.

  We have already told EU partners that the UK welcomes the initiative taken by the German Presidency to discuss within the EU the question of uniform national controls on arms trafficking and brokering, and intends to participate constructively in the debate. We have also drawn the attention of EU partners to the proposals for national controls on trafficking and brokering as set out in the White Paper on Strategic Export Controls presented to Parliament by the President of the Board of Trade in July 1998 (Cm 3989), which differ in a number of respects from the initial Presidency proposals.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Macpherson Inquiry
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), representing the Church Commissioners, what assessment he has made of the implications for the Commissioners of the Macpherson inquiry recommendations; and if he will make a statement. [80536]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  Ensuring equal opportunity and the demonstration of fairness in all aspects of conduct within the Commissioners' office is something the Commissioners and indeed all the other central Church institutions take extremely seriously.

  The Commissioners have followed equal opportunity practice in their recruitment and promotion procedures for many years and equal opportunities training for those
  408
  operating these areas has been provided. Human resources departments across the national Church institutions were merged in 1998 in anticipation of the creation of the Archbishops' Council from January 1999. Equal opportunities awareness training has been offered to all of the central Church institutions' staff and this year we introduced a new Equal Opportunities Policy.

  The Policy states our belief that we benefit from a workforce drawn from a wide cross-section of the community and confirms our commitment to developing and supporting all staff. Particularly relevant to the question is the definition of and procedure for dealing with racial harassment; recruitment and selection procedures including advertisement in publications with a predominantly ethnic readership where those groups are under-represented in our workforce; and training in equal opportunity awareness.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Macpherson Inquiry
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the implications for his Department of the Macpherson Inquiry recommendations; and if he will make a statement. [80520]

  Mr. Meale
  I refer to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave my hon. Friend on 14 April 1999,Official Report, column 239–40.

  In addition, the British Transport Police Service is currently studying Sir William Macpherson's report. It will be implementing any appropriate recommendations in a process of consultation with the rest of the police service. A team headed by Chief Officers has already been appointed to identify areas from the report that can be taken forward.

  Vehicle Registration
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of vehicles below 1100cc were first registered before 1992. [79929]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  At the end of September 1998–the latest date for which information is available–72 per cent. of vehicles licensed in the Private and Light Goods class at or below 1100cc were first registered before 1992.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to increase the fixed penalty levied on vehicles which fail to pass MOT emissions standards; [81050]

  (2) what progress he has made on the implementation of roadside vehicle testing schemes; [81049]

  (3) what plans he has to allow (a) environmental health officers and (b) traffic wardens to undertake roadside emission testing without a police officer present. [81051]
  409
  Dr. Reid
  The trial scheme involving seven local authorities in roadside emissions testing has been running for just over a year. I am currently evaluating the results of their work and hope to make an announcement in due course about whether the scheme might continue.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the average level of emissions per mile from cars of(a) under 1100 cc, (b) 1101–1500 cc, (c) 1501–2000 cc, (d) 2001–3000 cc and (e) over 3000 cc. [81257]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department does not calculate the average emissions per mile for cars by engine size. Emissions of local air pollutants from all cars, regardless of their engine size, are regulated by the same mandatory emission standards.

  But cars with larger engine sizes tend to consume more fuel and emit more CO2 emissions, although emissions from different models with the same engine size can vary considerably, depending on fuel type, engine technology and vehicle weight. To illustrate this trend, the following table provides estimates by engine size of the average CO2 emissions per kilometre from all new petrol cars sold in 1997, based on official fuel consumption tests using a combined driving cycle.

  Engine size

  Average CO2emissions (g/km)

  up to 1100cc

  139

  1101–1500cc

  160

  1501–2000cc

  193

  2001–3000cc

  241

  over 3000cc

  301

  Air Quality
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice he has issued to local authorities on the use of equipment to monitor compliance with national air quality objectives for particles. [80783]

  Mr. Meale
  Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 requires every local authority periodically to review air quality in its area. The Air Quality Regulations 1997 prescribe air quality objectives for seven pollutants, including particles (PM10), to be achieved by 2005. Local authorities have to consider the present quality of air and the likely future quality of air, and assess whether prescribed objectives are likely to be achieved by the end of 2005. To assist local authorities the Secretary of State has issued a series of guidance under section 88(1) of the Environment Act 1995. One of these guidance notes, "Monitoring for air quality reviews and assessments" LAQM.TG1(98), includes guidance on monitoring particles.

  The Government recently published their proposals for review of the National Air Quality Strategy (NAQS), and, in particular, their proposals for revised and additional objectives for the pollutants. During the review process, as a result of the better understanding of the sources and types of particles in the UK provided by the work of the Airborne Particles Expert Group, it became apparent that the current PM10 objective would not be achievable in a number of local authority areas with any measures that are currently practicable. The Group's work also revealed
  410
  the importance of non-UK sources and the limit to which local authority action could control levels of PM10. The Government are therefore consulting on a proposal to replace the objective with the Stage 1 limit values in the EC Air Quality Daughter Directive, while retaining it as an indicative level. Discussions are also in progress with the UK's EC partners to explore ways of reducing the transboundary particle problem.

  Should the Government decide to proceed with their proposal, such a change would have significant implications for the scale of work local authorities would need to undertake on the review and assessment of PM10 and the conclusions they reach. To help local authorities, and without prejudice to the outcome of the consultation process, my officials have written to local authorities with further information on how they might proceed with the review and assessment process ahead of a decision on the Strategy review.

  Copies of the Secretary of State's guidance note and the further information provided by officials, both mentioned above, have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Ruddy Ducks
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice he has received from (i) English Nature and (ii) other agencies regarding the cull of the Ruddy Duck; what advice he has received as to the cost of the cull; if he has put the contract for the cull out to tender; and what plans he has to take powers of compulsory access to enforce the cull. [80796]

  Mr. Meacher
  In July 1998, I set up a Task Force to advise on the action required in the United Kingdom to conserve the globally threatened white-headed duck. This Task Force included representation from English Nature, other conservation agencies and non-Governmental organisations. In January this year I accepted the recommendations of the Task Force that a control trial should be undertaken to test the feasibility of eradicating the UK's population of ruddy duck.

  The cost of the control trial is approximately £800,000 over 4 financial years. The Central Science Laboratory has been contracted to undertake the work. An assessment of whether or not compulsory access would be required to ensure success in any future eradication programme is a key objective of the control trial.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the criteria which will be used to determine for capping purposes whether council tax rises are unjustifiable. [80788]

  Ms Armstrong
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 13 April 1999, Official Report, columns 50–51, that most local authorities have set sensible budgets this year and that we will not be capping any councils.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what
  411
  steps his Department has taken to implement the recommendation of the Bates report on the PFI that it should conduct an urgent review into planning procedures. [81122]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In the light of the conclusions of the Bates report in June 1997, the Department discussed with the Treasury Taskforce and other Departments, the instances that had led to the Report's recommendation. The conclusion reached was that review of the planning system was not required but that my Department would work with other Departments sponsoring PFI projects as necessary to seek to resolve any difficulties that might arise in respect of the planning process. We will keep under review the need for guidance to clarify how PFI schemes can be taken forward efficiently within the existing planning system.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the Channel Tunnel Rail Link to be completed in its entirety; and if he will make a statement. [81352]

  Dr. Reid
  I understand from London & Continental Railways, the company contracted to build the whole of the Rail Link under the terms of the CTRL Development Agreement, that the first section (from the Channel Tunnel to Fawkham Junction near Gravesend) should be completed in 2003. They expect the second section (from Fawkham Junction to St. Pancras) to be completed in 2007.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the qualitative difference in terms of impact on the environment between the growing of genetically modified crops(a) in farm-scale field trials and (b) on a commercial basis. [81268]

  Mr. Meacher
  There should be no difference apart from one of scale. The genetically modified crops in the farm-scale evaluations will be grown under normal commercial conditions following the suppliers' recommendations and requirements for the use of seed and herbicide.

  Rural Transport
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in respect of the £50 million allocated in the 1998 Budget for rural bus services, how much has been spent, how much has been allocated but not yet spent, and how many extra bus journeys have run as a consequence of this extra money. [81264]

  Dr. Reid
  Of the £50 million a year for rural transport in the United Kingdom announced in the 1998 Budget, £37.5 million a year was allocated for rural bus services in England. Final figures for actual spend in 1998–99 are not yet available but local authorities have previously estimated that they would spend £25 million in that financial year, reflecting the fact that less than a full year was available for spend.
  412
  Results from an interim survey of local authorities shows that by the end of 1998–99 over 550 new services are being operated as a result of the new finance, with a further 740 services improved in frequency or coverage. We are undertaking with local authorities a fuller survey of the results of the new funding. Data on the precise number of additional bus journeys are not available.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the rural transport partnership scheme. [81265]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government have provided £4.2 million per annum for the Rural Transport Partnership scheme. The overarching aim of the scheme is to promote social inclusion by enhancing rural transport services and securing a long-term improvement in the accessibility of rural people to jobs, services and social activity. The Countryside Agency is working to stimulate interest in the scheme and is providing advice to prospective partnerships. A number of schemes have been accepted for funding, and I look forward to seeing the fruits of these partnerships soon.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the steps taken since 1 May 1997 to reduce total carbon dioxide emissions from the transport sector.[81267]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Action to reduce CO12 emissions from transport is a key element of our approach to tackling climate change. Since coming into office, this Government have taken a number of measures designed to reduce transport CO2 emissions. These include the integrated transport measures detailed in last year's White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport", the proposed reforms of vehicle excise duty and company car taxation, and also raising the annual increase in fuel duty to 6 per cent. In addition, we fully support the European Union's strategy for reducing CO2 emissions from cars, including the voluntary agreement with European car manufacturers, which commits them to a 25 per cent. reduction in average new car fuel consumption by 2008.

  Sale West Race Course Estate
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which hon. Members have made representations to his Department in relation to the proposed transfer of the Sale West Race Course Estate, located in the Altrincham and Sale, West constituency.[81255]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In addition to the hon. Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston, (Ms Hughes), has made representations in connection with the proposed transfer of the Sale West Race Course Estate.

  Packaging Waste
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant o his answer to the hon. Member for Elmet, (Mr. Burgon), of 28 January 1999, Official Report, columns 335–37, by

  413
  what date consultation with EU member states relating to his proposed amendments to the packaging waste regulations is planned to begin. [81389]

  Mr. Meacher
  Some amendments have already been notified to the European Commission and others will be notified as soon as possible.

  Countryside Agency
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) the members appointed to the Board of the Countryside Agency, (b) the date of their appointment, (c) their salaries and (d) their other occupations. [81149]

  Mr. Meacher
  The members of the Board of the Countryside Agency are as follows:

  Ewen Cameron FRICS DL (Chairman)

  Cllr. Pam Warhurst (Deputy Chair)

  Kate Ashbrook Janet Bradbury

  Right Rev. Alan Chesters

  Martin Doughty

  Dr. Victoria Edwards

  Prof. Philip Lowe Catherine Mack

  Miles Middleton CBE FCA

  Frances Rowe

  David Woodhall CBE.

  All appointments run from 1 April 1999. The Chairman's salary is £41,620 a year; Ewen Cameron does not intend to draw the full amount. The Deputy Chair's salary is £12,950 a year. All other members will receive an annual salary of £5,975.

  I will write to the hon. Member about Board members' other occupations after confirming the details with those involved.

  Herbicides
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has commissioned on the effects on biodiversity of the increased use of herbicides in farming. [81253]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department, together with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, commissioned a report on the indirect effects of pesticides, including herbicides, on birds which was published in 1997. Further research on this topic is being funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food which funds a wide programme of research on the effects of pesticides. My Department intends to commission a complementary study this year.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he will take, pursuant to the publication of Railtrack's Network Management Statement, to facilitate fulfilment of the proposed investment programme. [81356]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We made it clear at the National Rail Summit in February that the Government are prepared to work in partnership with the railway industry 414
  to deliver a better rail service and increased investment. But Rai1track must play its part in creating a high quality, high growth, high investment railway. We have appointed Sir Alastair Morton to lead the shadow Strategic Rail Authority, and Tom Winsor as Rail Regulator, to ensure that that investment is delivered.

  Passenger Rail Franchises
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the key criteria for the renegotiation of passenger rail franchises; and if he will make a statement. [81362]

  Dr. Reid
  We announced at the National Rail Summit on 25 February that all requests for franchise re-negotiations will be judged against the following criteria: current performance; proposed accelerated or new investment; willingness to commit to a more demanding enforcement regime and higher quality standards; willingness to give passengers a greater say in the level and standard of services; willingness to commit to initiatives which would promote integrated transport; and value for the taxpayer.

  Rail Summit
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the purpose of the rail summit next Spring, indicating the date on which it will be held. [81354]

  Dr. Reid
  The purpose of the next National Rail Summit will be to review progress with the rail industry's commitment to deliver real year-on-year performance improvements and to maintain the momentum created by the Summit on 25 February. No date has yet been fixed for the next Summit.

  National Cycling Strategy
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will next publish an assessment of the National Cycling Strategy; and if he will make a statement. [81358]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Good progress continues to be made on achieving the objectives of the National Cycling Strategy (NCS). A second year report will be published shortly by the Department on behalf of the National Cycling Forum, which is co-ordinating and monitoring progress in implementing the NCS.

  Railways
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the growth in(a) freight and (b) passenger volumes on the railways since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [81355]

  Dr. Reid
  During 1997–98, freight tonne kilometres on the railway grew by 12 per cent. and total passenger journeys grew by 6 per cent. For the half year from April to September 1998, freight tonne kilometres grew by 7 per cent. and total passenger journeys by 5 per cent. over the corresponding period in the previous year. We are achieving our goal of winning more passengers and freight on to the railways.

  Council Tax Rebates
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce legislation to give council tax rebates to elderly people living alone. [81271]

  Ms Armstrong
  Elderly people who live alone, as with other single person households, are already entitled to a 25 per cent. reduction in their council tax. We believe that additional help with council tax bills should be given to people on low incomes through the means tested benefit system. There are already special provisions for pensioners which mean that they are entitled to council tax benefit at higher levels of income than most other people.

  Lake Windermere
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to make a statement on the review concerning the proposed 10 mph speed limit on Lake Windermere. [80810]

  Mr. Meale
  The Windermere Navigation (Amendment) (No. 2) Byelaws 1992 are before the Secretary of State for his decision whether or not to confirm them. We are considering representations from a large number of individuals and organisations and hope to make an announcement shortly.

  GJW
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the meetings his Department has had with the lobbying firm GJW since 1 May 1997. [81583]

  Mr. Meale
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 168.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply to his letter of 9 March concerning a constituent (HO Reference 4068/99). [80800]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 15 April.

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what environmental appraisals of policy his Department has(a) completed, (b) started and (c) planned. [79630]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on 13 April 1999,Official Report, column 66.

  Uninsured Vehicles
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many proceedings there have been at magistrates' courts for the offence of using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks in each of the past five years. [80471]

  Mr. Boateng
  The numbers of proceedings at magistrates' courts for the offence of using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks in each of the past five years, are given in the table.

  Proceedings at magistrates' courts for the offence of using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks England and Wales

  Year

  Number of offences

  1993

  446,568

  1994

  446,559

  1995

  441,241

  1996

  415,015

  1997 (provisional)

  396,912

  Macpherson Inquiry
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the implications for his Department of the Macpherson Inquiry recommendations; and if he will make a statement. [80527]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer to the reply which my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave on 14 April 1999,Official Report, columns 239–40. This referred to the Action Plan I published on 23 March containing the detailed response to the recommendations of the Macpherson Inquiry. That plan is a long term programme to deliver permanent improvements to policing in every area.

  The plan makes it clear that progress on policing must be part of a wider context and commits the Government to setting out, over coming months, how they will take forward their wider vision of an anti-racist society. I have already announced that the Government will legislate to extend the Race Relations Act 1976 not just to the police service as the Inquiry recommended but across all public services.

  I will take personal responsibility for oversight of this programme. I am, therefore, establishing a steering group which I will chair which will include members from the police service, other relevant organisations as well as substantial representation from minority ethnic communities. The steering group will meet for the first time next month.

  The Home Office Management Board has been working since early 1998 on taking forward at corporate level the commitment to race equality within the department. The Departmental Race Equality Action Plan includes commitments by the Board agreed following its first race equality training day in October 1998. Since publication of the Inquiry report, the Management Board held a further race equality seminar on 25–26 March and identified progress to date and further action points to take forward the Departmental Race Equality Action Plan.

  Treaty of Amsterdam
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each of the new responsibilities which he will assume when the signed Treaty of Amsterdam takes effect and for each(a) the likely effect on departmental staffing, (b) the bodies or persons in the European Union principally concerned and (c) the relevant section of that treaty and the consolidated treaties of the European Union and European Community. [80414]

  Kate Hoey
  The Treaty of Amsterdam will, in general, have minimal impact on the responsibilities of my Department and its staffing. However, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 12 March 1999,Official Report, columns 380–82, we are seeking to participate in certain areas of co-operation hitherto embodied in the Schengen agreements which are being incorporated into the European Union Treaty framework. These are new areas of co-operation for the Home Office. It will not be possible to assess the resource and other implications of such participation until the necessary negotiations are concluded.

  Consultations (Postal Costs)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will pay the postal costs of voluntary bodies and registered charities requested to respond to Government consultation documents; and if he will make a statement. [80921]

  Mr. Straw
  When voluntary bodies and registered charities are invited to respond to a Home Office consultation paper, postal costs are not automatically covered. However, each case is considered on its merits, taking account of such factors as the scale of the consultation exercise and the nature of the information requested.

  The Home Office does not pay postal costs incurred by organisations responding to consultation documents from other Government Departments. It is a matter for individual Departments to decide whether to cover these.

  Ministerial Meetings (US)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times Ministers in his Department met their counterparts in the US Administration between 1 January 1998 and 1 June 1998, indicating the dates and locations of each meeting, the Ministers involved and the name of the US counterpart. [80830]

  Mr. Straw
  I met the United States Attorney-General, Janet Reno, on 6 February 1998, during a visit to Washington, and have spoken to her by telephone from time to time.

  Between January and June 1998, there have been no other meetings between Ministers in my Department and their United States counterparts.

  Kosovo Liberation Army
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what staff under his control are 418
  engaged in monitoring criminal activity by elements of the Kosovo Liberation Army; what is the nature of that activity; and if he will make a statement. [81243]

  Mr. Straw
  The investigation of criminal activity is an operational police matter and responsibility rests with the Chief Officer of the force in the area concerned.

  I am not aware of any evidence that members of the Kosovo Liberation Army are committing criminal offences in this country.

  Mutual Legal Assistance
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 1998,Official Report, columns 726–27, if he will make a further statement on the Government's policy in respect of proposals discussed at the meeting in Brussels of the European Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance as they relate to the interception of communications. [81274]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on 23 and 25 March 1999,Official Report, columns 176 and 384 respectively.

  Prison Service (Portland)
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are employed(a) directly and (b) indirectly by the Prison Service in the three prison establishments in Portland. [81254]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Prison service staff employed at Portland prisons as at 31 March 1999

  Prison

  Number of directly employed staff

  Number of indirectly employed staff1

  Portland

  285.5

  71

  The Verne

  268

  47.5

  Weare

  200

  46

  1These figures include: education staff, probation staff, healthcare staff, chaplaincy staff, drug counsellors, ship's crew (Weare), hairdressers and librarians. The figures do not include works contractors.

  Braille Template
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made on developing a Braille template to enable blind people to vote in person and unaided. [81066]

  Mr. George Howarth
  It has not so far proved possible to develop a practicable proposal, but I am always ready to consider suggestions in this area.

  Polling Stations (Access)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how much his Department has spent in each of the last five years on the making of grants to local authorities for the purpose of improving access to polling places; and how much he expects to spend in the current year; [81067]
  419
  (2) how many local authorities in each of the last five years have (a) applied for and (b) received grants for the purpose of improving access to polling places; and what was the average amount of grant paid to a local authority in each year. [81068]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information requested is set out in the tables. These show grants from central exchequer for the purchase or hire of temporary ramps to improve

  Grants for purchase/hire of temporary ramps

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Number of local authorities applying

  27

  22

  20

  36

  18

  Number of local authorities receiving grants

  27

  22

  20

  36

  18

  Total amount granted for year (£)

  71,481

  34,500

  47,069

  62,043

  21,146

  Average per authority (£)

  2,647

  1,568

  2,353

  1,723

  1,175

  Grants for the purchase of adapted polling screens

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Number of local authorities applying

  27

  22

  Number of local authorities receiving grants

  27

  22

  Total amount granted for year (£)

  138,298

  109,855

  Average per authority (£)

  5,122

  4,993

  Augusto Pinochet
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to exercise his discretion regarding the proposed extradition of Augusto Pinochet following the most recent decision of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. [81365]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer to the reply I gave on 15 April 1999,Official Report, columns 311 –16, to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time spent in prison on remand by those(a) under the age of 25 years and (b) of all ages; what percentage of those people are found guilty and given custodial sentences; what is the average age of remand prisoners; what plans he has to review the system of remand; and if he will make a statement. [81260]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Provisional information on the estimated average number of days in custody for untried and convicted unsentenced prisoners held in prisons in England and Wales in 1998, by age, is given in the table. During 1998, the average age of all untried prisoners was 29 years, whilst for all convicted unsentenced prisoners it was 27 years.

  The available information on the numbers remanded to custody that subsequently received a custodial sentence is for 1997 and shows that 42 per cent. of all persons remanded were sentenced to immediate custody. This information is published in "Criminal statistics England and Wales" (table 8.8 of the 1997 edition), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Remand decisions are a matter for the courts in the exercise of their judicial discretion in accordance with the Bail Act 1976. We have no plans to alter the present arrangements.
  420
  access to polling places for the years from 1994–95 to 1998–99 and, separately, grants provided for polling screens adapted for use by disabled voters. These latter figures are available separately only for 1997–98 and 1998–99. There is no limit on the level of grants provided for these purposes and local authorities are actively encouraged to apply for them.

  Estimated average time spent in custody for untried and convicted unsentenced prisoners in prisons in England and Wales in 1998, by age1

  Estimated average number of days in custody2

  Age unsentenced3

  Untried4

  Convicted

  Aged under 25 years

  39

  37

  All ages

  46

  38

  1 Provisional figures

  2Estimated from number of receptions and average population Time spent in Prison Service establishments after conviction

  3Time spent in Prison Service establishments after conviction

  4Time spent in Prison Service establishments before conviction

  Home Office Business Plan
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a Home Office business plan for 1999–2000. [81479]

  Mr. Straw
  The Home Office Business Plan for 1999–2000 is being published today.

  The Business Plan complements the Home Office Annual Report—published on 26 March—and provides a comprehensive picture of Home Office aims, objectives, resources, performance measures and targets for 1999–2000. This includes the high level Home Office targets set out in the White Paper "Public Services for the Future: Modernisation, Reform, Accountability, Comprehensive Spending Review: Public Service Agreements 1999–2002" published in December 1998.

  Copies of the Business Plan have been placed in the Library and are available on the Home Office web site on the internet.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  National Overseas Debts
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list those countries that are classified as poor countries which have had national overseas debts written off within the last 12 months. [80641]

  Clare Short
  We classify poor countries as those listed in Part 1 of the Development Assistance Committee List of Aid Recipients. In the 1998–99 financial year the following countries benefited from debt write-offs for outstanding aid loans made by my Department.
  421
  Afghanistan

  Antigua and Barbuda

  Bangladesh Barbados

  Belize

  Botswana

  Cote D'Ivoire

  Dominica

  Egypt

  Ethiopia

  Gambia

  Ghana

  Grenada

  Guyana

  Honduras

  Indonesia

  Jamaica

  Jordan

  Laos

  Malawi

  Mauritius

  Mozambique

  Nicaragua

  Pakistan

  Peru

  Senegal

  Sierra Leone

  Solomon Islands

  Sri Lanka

  St. Lucia

  Sudan

  Turks and Cairos Islands

  Tonga

  Western Samoa

  Zambia.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she has taken to ensure that privately donated aid destined for refugees from Kosovo is not being delayed by unnecessary bureaucracy; and if she will investigate the reasons for a lorry loaded by NMT Crane Hire of Bedfordshire with aid not being allowed to leave Bishops Stortford for Albania during the past week. [81106]

  Clare Short
  My Department is taking an international lead in urgently working for organisation of the humanitarian relief effort for refugees from Kosovo. The problem to date has not been lack of resources but inadequate organisation. We have no knowledge of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman's questions refers.

  We greatly welcome the spontaneous generosity of the British people but we are fully stretched attempting to improve the effectiveness of the international system.

  We have discussed this issue with the Disasters Emergency Committee which is the alliance of charities co-ordinating private contributions for Kosovo. We are
  422
  informed that even as organisational arrangements improve, the priority for private donations will be to receive financial contributions rather than material ones.

HEALTH

  Nurses
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision has been made for funding courses for general nurses not in employment to convert to Level One. [80261]

  Mr. Denham
  In September 1998 we announced an investment of £50 million from the Modernisation Fund to support initiatives which widen access to nursing and midwifery diploma programmes. This funding is for the period 1999 to 2002 and covers the costs of enabling enrolled nurses to retrain/upgrade their qualifications and return to the National Health Service. The funding will also enable existing NHS staff (previously only available for Health Care Assistants) to access pre-registration nursing and midwifery diploma programmes. The cost of expanding part time and flexible pre-registration nursing and midwifery diploma programmes is also being met from this investment in order to give those who might not normally be able to access nursing and midwifery education, for example those with family responsibilities, the opportunity to do so.

  Interstitial Cystitis
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support his Department is giving to the sufferers of interstitial cystitis; how much funding his Department has donated in the last five years to research into the causes of interstitial cystitis; and what action his Department is taking to encourage research into the treatment of interstitial cystitis. [80237]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service provides investigations, care and treatment for people with interstitial cystitis. There is already a body of international research evidence published in the world-wide literature, and some NHS research has been supported through the NHS research and development levy. In addition, the Medical Research Council welcomes high quality research applications into any aspect of human health and regional offices of the NHS Executive run response mode funding schemes for NHS research proposals.

  A and E Departments
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money will be available to the accident and emergency departments at(a) Ashford, Middlesex Hospital and (b) St. Peter's, Chertsey Hospital in the financial year 1999–2000 in addition to the money allocated under his three year plan. [80428]

  Mr. Denham
  Negotiations with local commissioners about overall funding for the new combined Ashford and St. Peter's National Health Service Trust in 1999–2000 are currently being concluded.

  The accident and emergency team led by Mike Lambert, accident and emergency consultant at Norfolk and Norwich Hospital, are presently reviewing bids for

  423
  funds as part of the accident and emergency modernisation programme and final decisions will be taken shortly.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of multiple sclerosis specialist nursing on patient care. [80597]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has not made an assessment of the impact of multiple sclerosis specialist nursing on patient care. However, we will continue to liaise with the Multiple Sclerosis Society who have set up a £2 million fund for the development of specialist nursing.

  Maternity Units
  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) professional and (b) lay members of the intercollegiate working party convened to set criteria for the restructuring or closure of maternity units; and what are its remit and terms of reference. [80598]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Multidisciplinary Working Party to Consider Maternity Services is an intercollegiate working party set up by the Royal Colleges of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Midwives, and Paediatrics and Child Health.

  The current membership of the Multidisciplinary Working Party to Consider Maternity Services is as follows:

  Professor W. Dunlop FRCOG, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist (Chairman)

  Mr. A. J. Evans MRCOG, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist

  Mr. R. J. Porter FRCOG, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist

  Dr. K. Dodd FRCPH, Consultant Paediatrician

  Professor A. Wilkinson FRCPH, Neonatal Paediatrics

  Ms H. Camm, Head of Midwifery Services

  Dr. S. Downe, Research Midwife

  Dr. G. Lewis, Principal Medical Officer, Department of Health.

  The Working Party is not funded by the Department of Health. It is a new group and first met on 18 February.

  The Working Party's current terms of reference are to set criteria for consideration when restructuring or closing maternity units.

  Lamotrigine
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many deaths have been reported to his Department since the drug, Lamotrigine, has been licensed for use in Britain arising out of or related to the use of this drug or arising out of or connected to side effects suspected to be related to the use of this drug; [67007]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 30 March 1999, Official Report, columns 656–57, on Lamotrigine, how many suspected deaths have been reported to his Department or the Medicines Control Agency arising out of or related to Lamotrigine. [80230]
  424
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]There have been a total of 1,333 reports of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) made via the UK spontaneous reporting scheme (the Yellow Card Scheme) associated with lamotrigine, of which 42 were fatal. Eighteen of the fatalities were associated with convulsions (the condition for which the drug was prescribed) and therefore it is difficult to establish what role, if any, the drug played in these cases. In general, doctors are asked to report suspected adverse drug reactions via the Yellow Card Scheme and therefore it is not possible to definitely attribute causality. Factors such as the patients' underlying illnesses and other medication may have contributed to the reactions.

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) Conservative, (b) Liberal Democrat and (c) Labour councillors have been appointed to primary care group boards. [81390]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally. The details we are currently collecting on the composition of Primary Care Group Boards will not include party political affiliation.

  Joint Investment Plans
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the client groups that will be covered by the joint investment plans that health authorities and social services departments will be required to produce during 1999–2000. [81252]

  Mr. Hutton
  Health authorities and social services departments were required, by April 1999, to produce joint investment plans for older people, including those with mental health problems, with preparatory information to support the National Service Framework for mental health services. We are considering what other client groups will be covered from April 2000 and will issue guidance shortly.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the Social Exclusion Unit to report its findings on the investigation into teenage pregnancies. [81071]

  Ms Jowell
  There has been extensive consultation with interested organisations and individuals from outside Government and with young people and parents on the Teenage Pregnancy report.

  The report will be published shortly.

  Emergency Contraception
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if emergency contraception will be available in the health shop scheme. [81072]

  Ms Jowell
  The first 20 "Walk-in" Centres will be set up during this year. Services provided in each centre will be based on an assessment of local needs, which may include the need for additional access to contraceptive advice or services.

TREASURY

  Children's Tax Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the rate at which a tax credit for pre-school children could have been introduced into the proposed working families tax credit if it were to be financed by not introducing the proposed childcare tax credit.[76100]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 11 March 1999]The cost of the childcare tax credit in the Working Families Tax Credit is estimated to be about £200 million in 2000– 01, the first full year of the tax credit. If the childcare tax credit within Working Families Tax Credit was not introduced and the money spent instead on an additional tax credit for children under 5, then, taking into account reductions in income related benefits, the credit could be set at about £5 a week on top of the rates announced by the Chancellor in the Budget.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is the Inland Revenue's policy to warn taxpayers that they are likely to issue a section 20 Taxes Management Act 1970 notice in circumstances where a taxpayer appeals against a section 19A Taxes Management Act 1970 notice for information. [80256]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The powers in section 19A and section 20 Taxes Management Act 1970 are not mutually exclusive. However, the Inland Revenue would not normally issue a notice under section 20 in order to obtain information that they had failed to obtain under section 19A. Very rarely, it might become clear, after the taxpayer had appealed against a section 19A notice, that section 20 was in fact the more appropriate section to use. A notice under section 20 cannot be issued by an inspector unless the taxpayer has failed to take an opportunity to provide the information voluntarily, and may be issued only with the consent of an independent Appeal Commissioner.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the Inland Revenue has paid in incorrect tax repayments as a result of processing errors since the introduction of self-assessment. [802591]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In 1997–98 the Revenue made 2.180 million self assessment repayments and a further 2.812 million in 1998–99, totalling £1.536 billion and £2.431 billion respectively. The Revenue has processes in place designed to ensure that its staff accurately capture information from returns on to their computer systems. It also has processes in place designed specifically to risk assess repayments both before and after they are issued. It has no evidence to suggest that tax was over or under repaid as a result of processing errors in other than a very small number of cases.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Inland Revenue review process takes place to ensure processing errors are detected. [80258]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue carries out various activities in Self Assessment to ensure that processing errors are avoided or detected. These include full training for staff on carrying out processing work, computer validations on the processing of information,426
  reviews by staff to ensure they have captured information correctly, and quality monitoring of processing work after the event.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Inland Revenue has to improve the presentation of statements of account for self-assessment purposes. [80257]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue has made a number of improvements to the presentation of the statements of account since they were introduced. Further improvements are planned before the next widespread issue of statements of account in January 2000. All improvements are subject to consultation with the main representative bodies, including accountancy bodies, and revised statements are tested for usability with taxpayers before changes are introduced.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of Inland Revenue correspondence from taxpayers is(a) replied to and (b) replied to with a substantive reply within 28 days. [80142]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue does not publish its performance against annual targets until appropriate validation and checking of figures has been carried out.

  On latest provisional information, the Department is on course to meet its 1998–99 target of 75 per cent. for providing replies to correspondence, which includes correspondence from taxpayers, within 28 days.

  In 1997–98 the Inland Revenue dealt with about 85 million items of post. The Department provided a full response within 28 days in 74 per cent. of cases.'

  Note:

  Figures are for the Inland Revenue's network of local offices which is administered by ten Regional Executive Offices.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Inland Revenue target for dealing with taxpayers' correspondence; and what is the procedure for opening and logging such correspondence. [80143]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue target for dealing with correspondence within 28 calendar days, which includes taxpayers' correspondence, was 75 per cent. in 1998–99.

  The target for 1999–2000 is under discussion. The final figure will be included in the Inland Revenue Plan which is expected to be published in May.

  The Department has a procedure in place to measure performance against its customer service standard of responding fully to all correspondence within 28 days. The procedure involves offices sampling a representative number of items of correspondence over the year, and monitoring the time taken to provide a full reply to every question or issue raised.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which department of the Inland Revenue is responsible for the collection of form P14. [80584]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The local tax office is responsible for the collection of forms P14.

  Capital Allowance
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of(a) increasing the existing 40 per cent. first year capital allowance to 100 per cent. on a permanent basis and (b) the additional cost of extending these allowances to assets leased by SMEs. [R] [80495]

  Dawn Primarolo
  If the extension by one year of 40 per cent. first year allowances for SMEs announced in the Budget were made permanent and increased to 100 per cent., the additional Exchequer cost would be £0.75 billion in 2000–01 and £1.3 billion in 2001–02. From 2002–03, annual costs would decrease steadily to reach £0.5 billion a year.

  The cost of extending these allowances to include assets leased by SMEs is not available.

  Additional Personal Tax Allowance
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many(a) men and (b) women are currently entitled to the additional personal tax allowance; and how many of those men and women are (i) parents and (ii) carers; [80935]

  (2) what is the current take-up rate of the additional personal tax allowance; and what estimate he has made of the additional cost should full take-up occur. [809361]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 April 1999]I regret that no information is available on either the total number of people eligible to claim the additional personal allowance or on the proportion who are carers. Therefore no estimates can be made of the take-up rates or of the additional cost should full take-up occur.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of UK vehicle excise duty rates on the competitiveness of the UK haulage industry, with particular reference to the rates of duty for(a) 40 and (b) 41 tonne articulated lorries.[81359]

  Mr. Milburn
  In formulating vehicle taxation policy the Government give careful consideration to its overall effects on the UK road haulage industry.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for North Essex of 6 March concerning the road haulage industry and the Budget. [81361]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have done so.

  Fixed Profit Car Scheme
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change the fixed profit car scheme in respect of the relationship between engine size and mileage rates. [812691]

  Ms Hewitt
  None.

  Payroll Software
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which software house will be preparing the new Government-supported standard payroll software for small employers and at what cost to(a) the Exchequer and (b) the user. [80815]
  428
  Mr. Wills
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are a number of options available for delivering the Automated Payroll System (APS) which we are currently considering. No decisions have yet been made.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Macpherson Inquiry
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the implications for his Department of the Macpherson Inquiry recommendations; and if he will make a statement. [80529]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 14 April 1999,Official Report, columns 23940.

  Multi-disciplinary Partnerships
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to permit the development of multi-disciplinary partnerships in the legal profession; and if he will make a statement. [R] [81094]

  Mr. Hoon
  This is a matter for the legal professional bodies. The rules of the Bar Council and the Law Society prohibit such arrangements. The Bar Council has no current plans for change. The Law Society issued a consultation paper in October 1998 on the possibility of allowing solicitors to enter multi-disciplinary partnerships; the responses are currently being analysed. Under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, it could fall to the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges to approve any proposed changes to those rules, if such changes came into the scope of Schedule 4 of that Act.

  Complaints Procedures
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review the complaints procedures applying(a) to solicitors and (b) to barristers; and if he will make a statement.[R] [81095]

  Mr. Hoon
  Government plans for the handling of complaints about members of the legal professional bodies were announced during the Second Reading of the Access to Justice Bill on 14 April 1999, Official Report, columns 230–325. There is currently a good deal of public concern that the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors is failing to deal adequately with complaints. The Government share this concern. We therefore propose to establish a new post with the responsibility for setting targets for complaints handling and making recommendations about complaints systems. These powers would, however, be held in reserve unless and until the professions are seen not to be making real progress; that progress will be measured against targets which the bodies would be encouraged to set. The new powers would cover all the authorised bodies including the Law Society, the Bar Council and the Institute of Legal Executives.

  Barristers (Limited Liability)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to permit barristers to practise in(a) partnerships and (b) limited liability companies; and if he will make a statement. [81096]

  Mr. Hoon
  This is a matter for the General Council of the Bar. Practising barristers are currently prohibited by their professional rules from entering into partnerships. Under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, it could fall to the Lord Chancellor and the designated judges to approve any proposed changes to those rules, if such changes came into the scope of Schedule 4 of that Act.

  Stow-on-the-Wold Magistrates Court
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received from(a) Gloucestershire County Council and (b) other parties opposing the proposed closure of Stow-on-the-Wold Magistrates Court; when he expects to make a final decision on the future of that court; and if he will make a statement.[81259]

  Mr. Hoon
  Gloucestershire Magistrates Courts Committee has determined to close the Stow-on-the-Wold Magistrates Court with effect from 1 July 1999. Gloucestershire County Council has appealed against this determination. A total of 21 other representation, opposed to the proposed closure, have been received.

  The appeal process is proceeding. The two parties are being given the opportunity to put their case forward and make comments. This will continue until both parties are satisfied that they have nothing further to add. A final decision will not be made until that time. Magistrates courts are locally managed by magistrates' courts committee under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Decisions concerning the future of magistrates courts in their area are for the relevant magistrates courts committee to determine. A local authority that contributes financially may appeal to the Lord Chancellor against a proposed closure. The procedure for such appeals is set out in section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997.

WALES

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many primary care groups are operative in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [80837]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  On 1 April, 22 Local Health Groups became operational as sub committees of their health authorities. They are expected to make a major contribution in three main areas:

  the development of health improvement programmes

  developing the principles of clinical governance to improve the quality of primary health care; and

  informing and developing the commissioning of hospital and community health services.
  430
  Local Health Groups are coterminous with unitary authorities, with representatives of the local authorities on their boards; which will allow for more effective use of resources across the range of health and social services expenditure.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what(a) guidance and (b) new money he has given to primary care groups. [80836]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Welsh Office guidance on establishing Local Health Groups was issued in October, followed by guidance on Remuneration and Human Resource, issued in December 1998.

  £8.9 million previously used for the GP Fundholder Management allowance will be allocated to health authorities this year to cover the start up and operating costs of LHGs.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the level of NHS dentistry in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [80838]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  In Wales at the end of September 1998, 60 per cent. of children and 46 per cent. of adults were registered with NHS dentists, having visited them at least once during the preceding 15 months.

  NHS net spending on general dental services in Wales in 1997/98 rose to £56.2 million, a 6 per cent. increase over the previous year. Over the same period, the number of courses of NHS treatment, for adults in Wales, rose by nearly 7 per cent. to 1.446 million. The number of dentists treating patients under NHS arrangements in Wales reached an all-time high of 960 by the end of 1998.

  The Welsh Office dental initiative, first launched in 1995, has enabled Welsh Health Authorities to offer unprecedented levels of grant (up to £50,000 in some areas) to attract new dentists and for the expansion of the Community Dental Service. It has been very successful for Wales as a whole but there are still some areas where certain categories of patients may find it difficult to register with an NHS dentist close to home.

  The initiative was modified and re-launched in July 1998. The modified scheme provides more flexibility in terms of the extent and length of commitment required and offers more flexible conditions which are specifically designed to address the particular problems of rural areas.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Macpherson Inquiry
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made
  431
  of the implications for his Department of the Macpherson inquiry recommendations; and if he will make a statement. [80531]

  Ms Hodge
  The Home Office published an Action Plan on 23 March containing the Government's detailed response to the specific recommendation of the Macpherson inquiry. The plan commits the Government to setting out over the coming months how they will take forward their broader vision of an anti-racist society.

  The Government have already announced that they will legislate to apply the Race Relations Act 1976 not just to the police service, but across public services as whole. The Government are seeking to ensure that policy development takes account of any race equality implications.

  There were three recommendations that related specifically to education and a detailed response to them is contained in the Action Plan.

  In summary, the Government agree that the National Curriculum must properly reflect the needs of a diverse society and we are actively considering the recommendation for preventing and addressing racism in schools. Guidance will be issued to make it clear that schools must record all racist incidents and this information will be made available to parents, governors and Local Education Authorities. The Government do not, however, agree with the recommendation to publish the number of racist incidents on a school by school basis, which would risk discouraging the reporting of racist incidents. On inspection of schools, Ofsted will ensure that the important issues raised in the report are addressed during inspections and that appropriate training is put in place for Inspectors.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many work permits were granted during the last 12 months. [80644]

  Ms Hodge
  During the 12-month period from 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999 a total of 68,527 work permits were granted.

  Grant Maintained Schools
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will state aggregated by local education authority and for the three most recent years for which information is available(a) the total annual maintenance grant paid to grant maintained schools, (b) the total annual maintenance grant paid to grant maintained schools divided by the number of pupils, (c) the total of special purpose and other non-capital grants paid to grant maintained schools and (d) the total of special purpose and other non-capital grants paid to grant maintained schools divided by the number of pupils. [80671]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 15 April 1999]The calculation of the annual maintenance grants (AMG), and of the special purpose and other non-capital grants (SPGs) for Grant Maintained (GM) schools, has been a matter for the Funding Agency for Schools. I have placed in the Library tables which contain figures for the AMG by Local Education Authority, both in total and per pupil,432
  for the years 1998–99, 1997–98 and 1996–97. The tables also give figures for SPGs, both in total and per pupil, for the years 1997–98 and 1996–97. These figures have been calculated using data recently provided by the Funding Agency.

  School Budgets
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each local education authority in England for the three most recent years for which information is available(a) the budgeted expenditure per pupil and (b) the total budgeted expenditure within (i) the aggregate schools' budget, (ii) the general schools' budget and (iii) the general schools' budget allocated to capital charges. [80670]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 15 April 19991 I have placed in the Library a table which shows, for each local education authority in England for the financial years 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99,(a) the budgeted expenditure per pupil and (b) the total budgeted expenditure each within (i) the Aggregated Schools Budget, (ii) the General Schools Budget and (iii) the General Schools Budget allocated to capital.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average length of time spent on the Gateway of the New Deal for 18 to 25-year-olds by those(a) going directly into unsubsidised employment, (b) entering each of the New Deal Options subsequently chosen, (c) transferring to other benefits, (d) taking other options and (e) for whom no ultimate destination is known. [81110]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information set out in the following table shows the average length of time spent on the New Deal Gateway by immediate destination, for those young people who had left the Gateway by the end of January 1999.

  Destination on leaving the Gateway

  Average length of time spent on Gateway (in days)

  Unsubsidised employment

  70

  Options

  Employer Option

  68

  Full-time Education or Training Option

  91

  Voluntary Sector Option

  123

  Environment Task Force Option

  128

  Other benefits

  79

  Other known destinations

  82

  Unknown destinations

  76

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of those joining each of the options of the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds in each month since January 1998 have had(a) no qualifications (b) foundation level qualifications, (c) NVQ Level 1, (d) NVQ Level 2, (e) NVQ Level 3, (f) NVQ Level 4 and (g) other qualifications. [81093]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information is set out in the following tables and is drawn from data listing qualifications supplied by the participant.
  433

  Percentage

  Highest qualification held on entry to New Deal

  None

  Other

  Foundation

  NVQ/SVQ Level 1

  NVQ/SVQ Level 2

  NVQ/SVQ Level 3

  NVQ/SVQ Level 4+

  Total

  Month of entering of employer option

  January 1998

  27

  3

  0

  24

  21

  18

  6

  100

  February 1998

  16

  2

  8

  26

  38

  7

  3

  100

  March 1998

  20

  8

  8

  24

  30

  9

  2

  100

  April 1998

  26

  8

  8

  16

  30

  7

  5

  100

  May 1998

  21

  18

  7

  18

  25

  7

  3

  100

  June 1998

  24

  22

  7

  14

  24

  6

  2

  100

  July 1998

  24

  21

  6

  16

  25

  6

  2

  100

  August 1998

  27

  23

  7

  12

  23

  6

  2

  100

  September 1998

  24

  24

  5

  14

  25

  6

  2

  100

  October 1998

  26

  23

  6

  14

  23

  6

  2

  100

  November 1998

  24

  23

  7

  13

  25

  6

  2

  100

  December 1998

  23

  24

  6

  12

  28

  5

  2

  100

  January 1999

  23

  20

  8

  16

  23

  6

  4

  100

  Total

  24

  21

  7

  15

  25

  6

  2

  100

  Month of entering full time education and training option

  January 1998

  29

  0

  0

  18

  41

  0

  12

  100

  February 1998

  19

  0

  10

  32

  29

  5

  5

  100

  March 1998

  24

  3

  13

  25

  28

  4

  4

  100

  April 1998

  21

  6

  11

  25

  27

  7

  3

  100

  May 1998

  26

  6

  11

  23

  22

  6

  6

  100

  June 1998

  29

  13

  11

  20

  20

  4

  4

  100

  July 1998

  30

  16

  10

  18

  20

  4

  2

  100

  August 1998

  30

  21

  9

  17

  18

  3

  2

  100

  September 1998

  27

  24

  7

  16

  21

  4

  1

  100

  October 1998

  29

  22

  9

  16

  20

  4

  1

  100

  November 1998

  32

  19

  9

  16

  18

  4

  2

  100

  December 1998

  32

  20

  8

  16

  19

  3

  1

  100

  January 1998

  33

  20

  8

  17

  17

  3

  2

  100

  Total

  29

  20

  8

  17

  20

  4

  2

  100

  Month of entering full time education and training option

  January 1998

  0

  0

  20

  0

  0

  40

  40

  100

  February 1998

  0

  0

  13

  33

  27

  20

  7

  100

  March 1998

  13

  3

  13

  11

  45

  8

  8

  100

  April 1998

  23

  0

  10

  20

  17

  3

  27

  100

  May 1998

  16

  9

  11

  17

  25

  12

  11

  100

  June 1998

  15

  11

  15

  20

  25

  7

  7

  100

  July 1998

  23

  15

  11

  18

  21

  6

  6

  100

  August 1998

  27

  21

  7

  16

  17

  7

  4

  100

  September 1998

  29

  24

  8

  14

  15

  7

  3

  100

  October 1998

  28

  23

  7

  16

  18

  5

  2

  100

  November 1998

  29

  23

  6

  14

  20

  5

  2

  100

  December 1998

  31

  20

  6

  16

  18

  5

  3

  100

  January 1999

  32

  19

  8

  15

  18

  6

  2

  100

  Total

  28

  20

  8

  16

  19

  6

  4

  100

  Month of entering environment task force option

  February 1998

  14

  0

  14

  0

  14

  29

  29

  100

  March 1998

  19

  7

  7

  33

  11

  4

  19

  100

  April 1998

  27

  4

  15

  17

  21

  6

  10

  100

  May 1998

  33

  8

  4

  16

  20

  8

  10

  100

  June 1998

  35

  4

  17

  20

  16

  4

  5

  100

  July 1998

  44

  6

  13

  19

  11

  4

  3

  100

  August 1998

  43

  12

  12

  15

  14

  4

  1

  100

  September 1998

  45

  18

  9

  15

  10

  2

  1

  100

  October 1998

  48

  16

  8

  14

  11

  2

  1

  100

  November 1998

  50

  17

  7

  11

  12

  2

  1

  100

  December 1998

  49

  15

  8

  14

  10

  2

  0

  100

  January 1999

  47

  16

  7

  13

  13

  2

  2

  100

  Total

  46

  15

  9

  14

  12

  3

  2

  100

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the procedure under the New Deal for Young Unemployed for dealing with a person who disappears from an option and then returns to claim benefit. [81363]
  434
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Young people who return to claim Jobseekers Allowance within 13 weeks of leaving a New Deal option are taken back into New Deal. All cases are referred to adjudication for a decision on whether the young person had "good cause" for leaving the option early.

  Action Zones
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which of the first-round education action zones have applied to vary the details of their original bids; and if he will set out the details of such variations. [81144]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  None so far. Each EAZ submitted a detailed action plan on 31 March 1999. The action plans are currently being assessed and decisions on their approval will be made shortly.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the time limits on the existence of the education and employment action zones.[80893]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Education Action Zones are established for three years in the first instance. Zones which are successfully meeting their aims and targets for raising standards, and can continue to contribute significantly to raising standards, will be extended to five years; some may be extended beyond this.

  Employment Action Zones will operate for two years in 14 areas, from April 2000, helping 48,000 long-term unemployed people find and keep work.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 27 January 1999,Official Report, column 293, if he will list the expenditure by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies on (a) market research, (b) conferences, (c) direct mail, (d) advertising and

  Key stage 1 and 2 classes, average class size of single teacher classes in maintained primary and secondary schools. Local Education Authority areas, January 1998 and 1999

  Key Stage 1

  Key Stage 2

  England

  27.1

  26.5

  28.3

  28.4

  North East

  26.9

  25.8

  27.8

  27.6

  Hartlepool

  27.9

  25.7

  28.2

  28.0

  Middlesbrough

  26.7

  26.0

  27.5

  27.2

  Redcar and Cleveland

  26.8

  26.1

  27.9

  27.3

  Stockton-on-Tees

  26.7

  26.0

  28.3

  27.8

  Darlington

  29.3

  25.9

  29.2

  28.4

  Durham

  27.2

  29.4

  29.1

  30.2

  Northumberland

  27.3

  25.9

  29.0

  28.4

  Gateshead

  25.8

  25.4

  26.6

  26.9

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  27.4

  25.4

  27.8

  27.7

  North Tyneside

  27.2

  26.5

  27.6

  27.5

  South Tyneside

  27.0

  25.0

  26.7

  26.8

  Sunderland

  25.2

  24.7

  26.4

  26.6

  North West and Merseyside

  27.5

  26.6

  28.5

  28.6

  North West

  27.7

  26.7

  28.7

  28.9

  Cheshire1

  26.4

  —

  28.0

  —

  Cheshire2

  —

  26.4

  —

  28.3

  Halton

  —

  24.9

  —

  27.8

  Warrington

  —

  27.3

  —

  28.8

  Cumbria

  25.7

  25.0

  26.7

  26.8

  Bolton

  28.3

  27.8

  29.2

  29.6

  Bury

  29.3

  25.3

  29.7

  29.5

  Manchester

  27.1

  26.6

  27.9

  28.1

  Oldham

  29.1

  28.3

  30.1

  29.8

  Rochdale

  28.9

  27.8

  30.0

  29.9

  Salford

  26.9

  25.7

  27.5

  28.3

  Stockport

  28.1

  27.1

  29.1

  29.2

  Tameside

  29.2

  27.5

  30.2

  29.3

  436
  publicity, (e) web sites, (f) hospitality, (g) salaries and relevant expenses of administrative staff and (h) external consultants and advisers which is included in the expenditure on education action zones.. [81152]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Expenditure, during the financial year 1998–99, was as follows:

  £

  (a) Market research

  0

  (b) Conferences

  254,735

  (c) Direct mail

  3,496

  (d) Advertising and publicity

  124,825

  (e) Website

  0

  (f) Hospitality

  1,200

  (g) Central administration costs

  539,693

  (h) External consultants and advisers

  219,202

  Single Teacher Classes
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what was the average size of single teacher classes for Key Stage One pupils in January 1999(a) in each local education authority and (b) in total; and what were the corresponding figures in January 1998; [80684]

  (2) what was the average size of single teacher classes for Key Stage Two pupils in January 1999 (a) in each local education authority and (b) in total; and what were the corresponding figures in January 1998. [80685]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 15 April 1999]The information requested is shown in the following table.
  437

  Key stage 1 and 2 classes, average class size of single teacher classes in maintained primary and secondary schools. Local Education Authority areas, January 1998 and 1999

  Key Stage 1

  Key Stage 2

  1998

  1999(provisional)

  1998

  1999(provisional)

  Trafford

  28.7

  27.8

  29.3

  29.2

  Wigan

  28.1

  26.0

  28.3

  28.3

  Lancashire1

  28.3

  —

  29.6

  —

  Lancashire2

  —

  26.8

  —

  29.6

  Blackburn and Darwen—

  —

  28.4

  —

  29.7

  Blackpool

  —

  28.7

  —

  31.1

  Merseyside

  26.9

  26.3

  27.6

  27.6

  Knowsley

  27.4

  27.2

  28.5

  28.1

  Liverpool

  26.7

  26.2

  27.2

  27.0

  St. Helens

  27.3

  26.8

  28.2

  28.5

  Sefton

  27.4

  26.3

  28.3

  28.8

  Wirral

  26.0

  25.6

  27.0

  26.8

  Yorkshire and Humber

  27.3

  26.3

  28.9

  28.8

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  28.0

  27.0

  29.1

  29.2

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  28.0

  27.0

  30.0

  29.7

  North East Lincolnshire

  28.9

  27.5

  29.4

  28.9

  North Lincolnshire

  28.5

  23.9

  28.9

  28.6

  York

  26.2

  25.4

  29.0

  28.0

  North Yorkshire

  25.5

  25.0

  28.1

  28.2

  Barnsley

  27.6

  26.8

  30.4

  30.1

  Doncaster

  28.0

  27.6

  28.4

  28.5

  Rotherham

  25.8

  24.8

  29.4

  28.9

  Sheffield

  25.9

  24.9

  27.3

  27.3

  Bradford

  28.4

  27.2

  29.3

  28.6

  Calderdale

  27.3

  26.7

  28.8

  28.8

  Kirklees

  28.5

  26.7

  30.1

  30.2

  Leeds

  27.7

  26.9

  28.4

  28.7

  Wakefield

  27.4

  26.8

  29.5

  29.3

  East Midlands

  26.8

  25.9

  28.9

  28.9

  Derby

  28.5

  24.8

  30.7

  30.9

  Derbyshire

  28.0

  25.9

  30.8

  30.3

  Leicester City

  26.5

  24.9

  27.5

  27.3

  Rutland

  25.4

  25.1

  26.1

  27.0

  Leicestershire

  25.8

  25.4

  27.8

  28.0

  Lincolnshire

  26.1

  26.2

  27.8

  28.3

  Northamptonshire

  27.1

  26.8

  27.6

  27.9

  Nottinghamshire1

  26.8

  —

  29.9

  —

  Nottinghamshire2

  —

  26.4

  —

  29.6

  City of Nottingham

  —

  25.4

  —

  29.0

  West Midlands

  27.0

  26.1

  28.0

  28.0

  Hereford and Worcester

  26.1

  —

  27.3

  —

  Herefordshire

  —

  24.0

  —

  27.0

  Worcestershire

  —

  26.0

  —

  28.0

  Shropshire1

  25.2

  —

  29.1

  —

  Shropshire2

  —

  24.3

  —

  29.3

  Telford and Wrekin

  —

  25.8

  —

  30.1

  Stoke

  26.7

  26.0

  27.6

  27.5

  Staffordshire

  26.4

  25.7

  28.3

  28.2

  Warwickshire

  27.7

  26.3

  29.2

  28.7

  Birmingham

  27.5

  27.2

  27.5

  27.6

  Coventry

  27.3

  25.2

  28.1

  28.0

  Dudley

  26.6

  26.6

  26.7

  26.6

  Sandwell

  28.4

  25.7

  29.0

  28.9

  Solihull

  29.1

  25.8

  27.9

  28.6

  Walsall

  26.3

  26.2

  28.6

  27.7

  Wolverhampton

  27.7

  27.8

  26.7

  27.4

  Eastern

  26.4

  26.2

  28.1

  28.2

  Luton

  27.9

  28.2

  26.9

  26.7

  Bedfordshire

  26.4

  —

  27.8

  —

  Bedfordshire

  —

  25.9

  —

  27.4

  Peterborough

  —

  27.1

  —

  29.4

  Cambridgeshire

  27.8

  27.4

  29.3

  29.8

  Essex1

  26.6

  —

  28.6

  —

  Essex2

  —

  26.5

  —

  28.7

  Southend

  —

  27.4

  —

  29.5

  Thurrock

  —

  26.4

  —

  28.6

  438 439

  Key stage 1 and 2 classes, average class size of single teacher classes in maintained primary and secondary schools. Local Education Authority areas, January 1998 and 1999

  Key Stage 1

  Key Stage 2

  1998

  1999 (provisional)

  1998

  1999 (provisional)

  Hertfordshire

  26.6

  26.0

  28.0

  28.2

  Norfolk

  26.1

  25.8

  27.4

  27.0

  Suffolk

  24.1

  24.1

  26.3

  26.3

  London

  27.2

  27.1

  27.6

  27.7

  Inner London

  26.4

  26.8

  26.9

  27.1

  City of London

  25.0

  0.0

  27.0

  27.5

  Camden

  27.3

  27.0

  27.4

  27.5

  Hackney

  25.6

  26.4

  26.2

  26.8

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  24.9

  25.6

  26.7

  26.7

  Haringey

  27.4

  27.7

  27.3

  27.4

  Islington

  27.1

  27.3

  27.7

  27.2

  Kensington and Chelsea

  24.8

  24.8

  25.8

  26.3

  Lambeth

  26.1

  26.6

  26.0

  26.3

  Lewisham

  25.9

  26.5

  26.5

  26.9

  Newham

  27.8

  28.0

  28.8

  28.9

  Southwark

  26.5

  26.6

  27.1

  27.2

  Tower Hamlets

  26.8

  27.0

  27.4

  27.3

  Wandsworth

  25.8

  26.3

  25.2

  25.7

  Westminster

  22.9

  24.5

  25.6

  26.2

  Outer London

  27.6

  27.3

  27.9

  28.0

  Barking and Dagenham

  27.4

  27.6

  26.5

  26.9

  Barnet

  27.4

  27.3

  26.3

  26.6

  Bexley

  28.9

  27.2

  29.5

  29.6

  Brent

  26.2

  27.3

  26.9

  26.5

  Bromley

  28.5

  27.2

  29.2

  28.6

  Croydon

  28.2

  27.6

  28.4

  28.4

  Ealing

  27.5

  26.5

  27.5

  28.1

  Enfield

  29.2

  29.0

  29.1

  28.9

  Greenwich

  24.7

  25.0

  27.1

  27.1

  Harrow

  28.4

  28.0

  28.2

  28.1

  Havering

  27.8

  28.1

  28.2

  28.3

  Hillingdon

  27.1

  25.3

  27.6

  27.5

  Hounslow

  27.3

  27.9

  26.6

  26.6

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  30.2

  30.4

  28.5

  29.0

  Merton

  27.4

  26.7

  28.7

  28.0

  Redbridge

  27.4

  27.5

  30.0

  29.6

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  28.2

  28.3

  26.4

  26.7

  Sutton

  27.1

  26.5

  28.6

  29.3

  Waltham Forest

  26.4

  26.6

  27.4

  27.9

  South East

  27.1

  26.9

  28.5

  28.5

  Berkshire

  26.4

  —

  28.6

  —

  Bracknell Forest

  —

  26.5

  —

  28.5

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  —

  25.5

  —

  27.6

  West Berkshire

  —

  24.0

  —

  27.9

  Reading

  —

  25.5

  —

  28.9

  Slough

  —

  27.6

  —

  28.1

  Wokingham

  —

  26.6

  —

  29.3

  Milton Keynes

  27.4

  26.6

  27.4

  28.1

  Buckinghamshire

  27.3

  26.4

  29.7

  29.5

  Brighton and Hove

  28.5

  28.0

  28.9

  29.2

  East Sussex

  27.3

  27.5

  29.4

  29.9

  Portsmouth

  27.8

  27.5

  28.1

  28.7

  Southampton

  27.0

  27.0

  28.8

  28.4

  Hampshire

  28.0

  27.8

  28.6

  28.6

  Isle of Wight

  25.7

  23.8

  27.6

  28.3

  Kent1

  27.6

  —

  29.0

  —

  Kent2

  —

  27.5

  —

  28.9

  Medway

  —

  28.0

  —

  28.5

  Oxfordshire

  26.0

  24.8

  29.0

  29.2

  Surrey

  26.7

  26.9

  26.8

  27.1

  West Sussex

  26.1

  26.4

  27.8

  28.2

  South West

  27.0

  26.4

  28.9

  29.0

  Bath and North East Somerset

  26.3

  26.4

  27,3

  28.1

  City of Bristol

  27.4

  27.5

  28.1

  28.0

  North Somerset

  27.7

  27.4

  28.9

  29.4

  South Gloucestershire

  28.3

  26.7

  29.1

  29.1

  Cornwall

  26.3

  26.3

  29.0

  29.5

  440 441

  Key stage 1 and 2 classes, average class size of single teacher classes in maintained primary and secondary schools. Local Education Authority areas, January 1998 and 1999

  Key Stage 1

  Key Stage 2

  1998

  1999 (provisional)

  1998

  1999 (provisional)

  Isles of Scilly

  16.3

  18.0

  20.8

  18.4

  Devon

  26.8

  —

  29.3

  —

  Devon

  —

  24.8

  —

  28.9

  City of Plymouth

  —

  25.6

  —

  29.0

  Torbay

  —

  26.9

  —

  30.2

  Bournemouth

  29.2

  29.2

  30.2

  29.4

  Poole

  29.9

  30.0

  29.9

  30.3

  Dorset

  26.2

  25.4

  28.9

  29.0

  Gloucestershire

  26.8

  26.6

  28.3

  28.6

  Somerset

  26.7

  26.8

  29.1

  29.5

  Swindon

  28.5

  28.4

  30.2

  29.6

  Wiltshire

  25.8

  25.9

  28.7

  28.8

  1Before Local Government re-organisation of April 1998.

  2After Local Government re-organisation of April 1998.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by local education authority(a) how many Key Stage One and Key Stage Two pupils in maintained schools were being educated in the same class in January 1999 and (b) how many pupils were being educated in mixed year group classes in maintained primary schools in January 1999. [80680]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 15 April 19991 Information about the number of Key Stage One and Key Stage Two pupils who are being educated in the same class is not collected centrally. However, the following table shows the number of mixed Key Stage classes in primary schools in January 1999. This will include some mixed Key Stage Two and Key Stage Three classes. The proportion of pupils in mixed year classes has fallen in primary schools from 27 per cent. in 1998 to 26 per cent. in 1999.

  Numbers of pupils educated in mixed key stage and mixed year group classes in maintained primary schools by local education authority area in England1 January 1999 2

  Number of pupils in mixed Key stage classes3

  Number of pupils in mixed year group classes4

  England

  82,514

  969,460

  North East

  4,722

  51,723

  Hartlepool

  548

  3,267

  Middlesbrough

  115

  2,818

  Redcar and Cleveland

  261

  4,254

  Stockton-on-Tees

  188

  4,072

  Darlington

  107

  1,803

  Durham

  1,161

  14,282

  Northumberland

  882

  7,036

  Gateshead

  419

  4,136

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  490

  4,128

  North Tyneside

  258

  1,580

  South Tyneside

  51

  959

  Sunderland

  242

  3,388

  North West and Merseyside

  9,856

  128,915

  North West

  8,093

  112,735

  Cheshire

  1,371

  21,314

  Halton

  146

  3,843

  Warrington

  498

  3,598

  Cumbria

  1,361

  15,130

  Bolton

  103

  3,530

  Bury

  121

  3,012

  442

  Numbers of pupils educated in mixed key stage and mixed year group classes in maintained primary schools by local education authority area in England1 January 1999 2

  Number of pupils in mixed Key stage classes3

  Number of pupils in mixed year group classes4

  Manchester

  443

  5,660

  Oldham

  239

  4,477

  Rochdale

  289

  4,218

  Salford

  237

  3,918

  Stockport

  512

  4,712

  Tameside

  294

  3,531

  Trafford

  233

  2,777

  Wigan

  198

  3,057

  Lancashire

  1,985

  27,596

  Blackburn and Darwen

  63

  2,082

  Blackpool

  0

  280

  Merseyside

  1,763

  16,180

  Knowsley

  417

  2,656

  Liverpool

  397

  3,725

  St. Helens

  22

  893

  Sefton

  487

  3,060

  Wirral

  440

  5,846

  Yorkshire and Humber

  8,316

  117,745

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  757

  9,371

  City of Kingston-Upon-Hull

  357

  6,856

  North East Lincolnshire

  283

  3,013

  North Lincolnshire

  103

  3,025

  York

  178

  4,505

  North Yorkshire

  2,467

  24,627

  Barnsley

  663

  6,111

  Doncaster

  255

  5,275

  Rotherham

  290

  5,065

  Sheffield

  48

  6,043

  Bradford

  824

  7,784

  Calderdale

  384

  6,751

  Kirklees

  489

  9,411

  Leeds

  686

  12,503

  Wakefield

  532

  7,405

  East Midlands

  9,200

  132,270

  Derby

  82

  5,668

  Derbyshire

  1,085

  24,677

  Leicester City

  661

  5,731

  Rutland

  81

  1,446

  Leicestershire

  1,283

  17,498

  Lincolnshire

  1,707

  23,467

  Northamptonshire

  1,276

  16,286

  Nottinghamshire

  2,139

  27,840

  City of Nottingham

  886

  9,657

  443

  Numbers of pupils educated in mixed key stage and mixed year group classes in maintained primary schools by local education authority area in England1 January 1999 2

  Number of pupils in mixed Key stage classes3

  Number of pupils in mixed year group classes4

  West Midlands

  7,130

  86,431

  Herefordshire

  517

  5,557

  Worcestershire

  1,109

  10,185

  Shropshire

  1,263

  12,608

  Telford and Wrekin

  168

  5,338

  Stoke

  199

  2,726

  Staffordshire

  1,906

  16,022

  Warwickshire

  873

  9,549

  Birmingham

  528

  4,714

  Coventry

  171

  5,974

  Dudley

  26

  2,950

  Sandwell

  175

  3,301

  Solihull

  62

  1,288

  Walsall

  104

  4,209

  Wolverhampton

  29

  2,010

  Eastern

  11,438

  119,498

  Luton

  80

  1,457

  Bedfordshire

  641

  6,756

  Cambridgeshire

  1,081

  17,543

  City of Peterborough

  305

  5,104

  Essex

  2,693

  31,034

  Southend

  41

  1,802

  Thurrock

  669

  4,074

  Hertfordshire

  1,146

  19,326

  Norfolk

  3,619

  17,264

  Suffolk

  1,163

  15,138

  Greater London

  2,814

  47,340

  Inner London

  1,272

  21,258

  City of London

  0

  0

  Camden

  0

  691

  Hackney

  26

  1,627

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  10

  899

  Haringey

  0

  313

  Islington

  192

  1,711

  Kensington and Chelsea

  29

  343

  Lambeth

  141

  2,365

  Lewisham

  140

  1,939

  Newham

  354

  3,011

  Southwark

  29

  3,279

  Tower Hamlets

  30

  2,275

  Wandsworth

  268

  2,255

  Westminster

  53

  550

  Outer London

  1,542

  26,082

  Barking and Dagenham

  56

  749

  Barnet

  12

  1,468

  Bexley

  73

  1,856

  Brent

  6

  1,005

  Bromley

  58

  2,969

  Croydon

  61

  993

  Ealing

  78

  1,336

  Enfield

  21

  1,035

  Greenwich

  92

  3,236

  Harrow

  55

  310

  Havering

  131

  3,525

  Hillingdon

  85

  1,880

  Hounslow

  31

  784

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  31

  493

  Merton

  263

  643

  Redbridge

  0

  843

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  29

  305

  Sutton

  232

  1,207

  Waltham Forest

  228

  1,445

  South East

  14,485

  147,801

  Bracknell Forest

  89

  1,652

  Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

  31

  3,556

  West Berkshire

  442

  5,299

  444

  Numbers of pupils educated in mixed key stage and mixed year group classes in maintained primary schools by local education authority area in England1 January 1999 2

  Number of pupils in mixed Key stage classes3

  Number of pupils in mixed year group classes4

  Reading

  159

  4,101

  Slough

  33

  567

  Wokingham

  389

  3,862

  Milton Keynes

  1,000

  3,771

  Buckinghamshire

  985

  6,975

  Brighton and Hove

  436

  1,424

  East Sussex

  662

  10,432

  Portsmouth

  110

  1,232

  Southampton

  104

  1,364

  Hampshire

  2,130

  24,000

  Isle of Wight

  381

  1,990

  Kent

  2,482

  28,270

  Medway

  204

  2,876

  Oxfordshire

  1,946

  21,936

  Surrey

  906

  10,197

  West Sussex

  1,996

  14,297

  South West

  14,553

  137,737

  Bath and North East Somerset

  340

  3,482

  City of Bristol

  196

  6,996

  North Somerset

  179

  5,093

  South Gloucestershire

  518

  6,737

  Cornwall

  2,400

  16,994

  Isles of Scilly

  10

  156

  Devon

  2,803

  23,013

  City of Plymouth

  496

  6,193

  Torbay

  85

  1,937

  Bournemouth

  0

  259

  Poole

  0

  269

  Dorset

  689

  7,351

  Gloucestershire

  2,147

  18,422

  Somerset

  2,188

  16,241

  Swindon

  526

  4,901

  Wiltshire

  1,976

  19,693

  1Classes as taught during a single selected period in each school on the day of the census in January.

  2 Provisional

  3Includes a small number of pupils in mixed key stage 2 and 3 classes.

  4 Includes pupils in mixed classes of reception age to year group 7.

  Rainsford School, Chelmsford
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 5 March 1999,Official Report, column 951, on Rainsford School, Chelmsford, when he expects to reach a decision on the appeal from Rainsford School, Chelmsford against the direction made by Essex County Council to admit a pupil, whose name has been sent to him, to that school. [81069]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We asked Essex Local Education Authority to provide details on this pupil and their handling of the direction process, along with full information about alternative local schools, by Monday 15 March. The information requested was necessarily full and complex, and Essex LEA were not in a position to respond before Monday 12 April. Officials are now giving urgent consideration to the material provided to enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make a decision as soon as possible.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Vitamin and Mineral Supplements
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what guidance he has given to the Ad Hoc Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals on those sections of the Agriculture Committee's Fifth report of Session 1997–98 (HC 753) on Vitamin B6 which deal with the distinction between good and bad science; [80637]

  (2) what guidance he has given to the Ad Hoc Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals on those sections of the Agriculture Committee's Fifth report of Session 1997–98 (HC 753) on Vitamin B6 which deal with the use of inappropriate safety factors when assessing supplement safety. [806221]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South East (Dr. Iddon) on 15 April 1999, Official Report, column 320.

  Government-funded Research
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much the Government spent in 1998–99 on research into(a) organic farming and (b) biotechnology.[80791]

  Mr. Rooker
  In 1998–99 the Government spent(a) £1.7 million on research into organic farming and
  (b) £52 million on agricultural biotechnology research. "Biotechnology" is defined by Government as the use of biological organisms, systems and processes to manufacturing and service industries.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the proposed Meat Hygiene Service charges; which organisations have expressed concern about their impact; and if he will make a statement. [81366]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have received a great many representations from within and outside of the meat industry on the proposed level of Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) charges for 1999–2000. The level of MHS charges to apply in 1999–2000 for hygiene/welfare inspection and for the enforcement of Specified Risk Material controls has yet to be decided. Ministers are still carefully considering proposals made by the MHS to ensure that they are fully cost justified. They will then be subject to full consultation with all plant operators. The results of the consultation will be reported back to Ministers who will then take final decisions on the level of rates to apply and their operative date.

  Suckler Cow Quota
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria are used to award suckler cow quota to(a) new entrants to suckler production, (b) existing producers wanting extra quota and (c) dairy farmers seeking to convert to suckler production; and what rules exist regarding minimum and maximum amounts which may be awarded.[81373]
  446
  Mr. Rooker
  Producers who meet strictly defined criteria may apply to the appropriate category of the Suckler Cow Quota national reserve for a quota allocation. Some of the categories cover new entrants and other existing producers wanting extra quota. There is no category which specifically covers dairy fanners seeking to convert to suckler production, although such producers may qualify under a category for first-time claimants. In addition, both new and existing producers are free to buy or lease quota from other producers.

  The maximum amount of quota which may be allocated varies depending on the category applied to, the circumstances of the applicant and the availability of quota in the reserve. There are no rules governing the minimum amounts which may be allocated to a producer, but it is not possible to allocate less than 0.1 of a quota.

  Further information is contained in the documents "Explanatory Guide to Suckler Cow Premium Scheme Quotas" and "Application for Quota from the National Reserve" which have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Minister for Science
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which companies the Minister for Science has met(a) in his Department and (b) elsewhere since becoming a Minister to discuss genetically modified foods. [70440]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 11 February 1999]In his capacity as Science Minister my noble Friend has met many companies inside and outside the Department. None of these meetings has specifically discussed genetically modified food policy.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if the Minister for Science has left the room on each occasion that genetically modified foods and crops have been discussed at meetings since his appointment; [73127]

  (2) how many meetings the Minister for Science has attended where genetically modified foods and crops were discussed; on what dates; and if he will list those who attended these meetings; [73135]

  (3) if the Minister for Science is permitted to take part in discussions on genetically modified foods and crops; [73128]

  (4) what discussions on genetically modified foods or crops the Minister for Science has been involved in since taking office; [74220]

  (5) if the Minister for Science participates in (a) decisions on genetically modified food policy, (b) discussions on genetically modified food policy, (c) discussions on genetically modified crop policy, (d) discussions on policy relating to genetically modified crops, (e) promotion of or support for British companies involved in genetically modified food or genetically modified crops, (f) decisions on Government biotechnology policy as it relates to agriculture and (g) discussions on Government biotechnology policy as it relates to agriculture. [74236]
  447
  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 25 February 1999]I refer the right hon. Member to the statements made by my noble Friend Lord Sainsbury on 31 July 1998 and 16 February 1999, copies of which I have placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place the itinerary for the Minister for Science's visit to China and Korea in the Library; if he will list the (i) universities, (ii) scientific institutions, (iii) laboratories and (iv) companies which he visited; and what was the cost of the visit. [73021]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 25 February 1999]My Noble Friend Lord Sainsbury visited Korea from 12-16 September 1998 and China from 16–18 September. The cost of his visit was £6,570.

  In Korea, Lord Sainsbury co-chaired the Third UK-Korea Science and Technology Round-table with Minister Kang of the Ministry of Science and Technology. He held discussions with Minister Bae of the Ministry for Information and Communications and also with Kim Tae-dong the Presidential Secretary for Policy and Planning and with Chung Se-yung, Honorary Chairman of Hyundai Motors. In addition, Lord Sainsbury opened a seminar on Technology Transfer and Innovation in UK industry, attended the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and the Korean Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology, and made visits to the LG Corporate Institute of Technology, the Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology and to Yonsei University.

  In China, Lord Sainsbury held discussions and signed a new Protocol on Scientific and Technological co-operation between the UK and China with Vice Minister Xu Guanhua of the Ministry of Science and Technology. He also signed a DTUMOFTEC Memorandum of Understanding on Cleaner Coal Technology Research and Development with Vice Minister Long Yongtu and attended the signing of a co-operation agreement between the Institute of Electrical Engineers and the Chinese Mechanical Engineers Society. In addition, Lord Sainsbury spoke at a China-UK Technology Foresight Colloqium and at a seminar at Tsinghua University to launch co-operation on micro-satellites between the Surrey and Tsinghua Universities. He opened a Renewable Energy Seminar sponsored by DTI and the State Economic and Trade Commission; and launched the Sino-British Science and Technology Festival in the presence of Vice Minister Xu.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions since becoming a Minister, the Minister for Science has in his official capacity met(a) Judith Portrait and (b) Christopher Skie. [74222]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]None.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many times the Minister for Science has met Mr. Christopher Stone, Director of Floranova, Innotech Investments and Gatsby Plant Science Innovations Ltd., since becoming a Minister. [75708]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave on 18 March 1999,Official Report, column 712.
  448
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if any company, foundation or trust with which Lord Sainsbury is, or has formerly been, associated is planning to be involved in the commercial exploiting of genome research. [76076]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 11 March 1999]All Lord Sainsbury's commercial interests were placed in the blind trust established when he was appointed as Minister for Science.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements Lord Sainsbury has made to insulate himself from his former interests in the Gatsby Foundation.[76074]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 11 March 1999]My noble Friend Lord Sainsbury has no financial interest in the Gatsby Charitable Foundation, which is a registered charity. He wrote to the trustees on 31 July asking them not to divulge to him any information about the Foundation's investments while he is in Government. He has chosen to take no part in the Foundation's grant decisions in this period.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if Lord Sainsbury participates in discussions in the Cabinet Committee on Biotechnology in respect of the Human Genome Project. [76073]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 11 March 1999]He does.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Minister for Science discussed biotechnology issues with Mr. Christopher Stone in his capacity as a board member of the Gatsby Trust. [78590]

  Mr. Byers
  No such discussions have taken place.

  BBSRC Grants
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much grant in 1998–99 was given by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council to(a) the John Innes Centre and (b) the Sainsbury Laboratory. [73037]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 25 February 1999]DTI Ministers routinely respond to questions concerning the use of Science Budget money and the conduct of the Research Councils, but this Government, like their predecessors, support the Haldane principle that"day-to-day decisions on the scientific merits of different strategies, programmes and projects should be taken by the Research Councils, without Government involvement"
  (Paragraph 3.23 of the 1993 White Paper, "Realising Our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology").

  Accordingly, it is the BBSRC itself which decides the allocation of competitive strategic grant (CSG) to each of its eight Institutes, including the John limes Centre. The Institutes are also able to apply for certain categories of BBSRC research grants, in competition with other researchers and subject to the approval of the Council's peer review committees. The Council does not allocate CSG to the Sainsbury Laboratory. The Laboratory is administered by the University of East Anglia and its staff are University employees. They are eligible to apply for research grants in the same way as academics elsewhere.
  449
  The table shows, for each year since 1996–297, the CSG approved by the Council for the John Innes Centre (including expenditure on equipment and minor works), and expenditure on research grants to the John Innes Centre and the Sainsbury Laboratory respectively, as approved by the BBSRC's peer review committees.

  Expenditure (£ millions)

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  John Innes Centre

  (a) CSG

  10.19

  10.25

  10.50

  (b) research grants

  2.41

  2.55

  2.21

  (c) total

  12.60

  12.80

  12.71

  Sainsbury Laboratory (research grants)

  0.28

  0.51

  0.64

  Food and Crop Biotechnology (Genetic Modification)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the Government differentiate between genetically modified food and genetically modified crop biotechnology in determining departmental responsibilities. [74221]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]The responsibility for agriculture and food issues—including those relating to genetically modified crops and foods—rests primarily with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Other Government Departments also have a role. For example, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has primary responsibility for protection of the environment, and is therefore responsible for ensuring the safety of the release of genetically modified organisms—including genetically modified crops—into the environment. In this respect, DETR/MAFF act jointly on GM crop applications, with DETR taking the lead. Similarly, given the Department of Health's primary responsibility for human health, it acts jointly with MAFF on genetically modified food applications, with MAFF taking the lead.

  The Office of Science and Technology seeks to ensure that there is effective co-ordination between Government Departments, and that the Government are receiving the best scientific advice.

  Human Genetics
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if it is his policy that members of the Human Genetics Advisory Commission should avoid conflicts of interest.[79532]

  Mr. Battle
  It is important that advice is sought from those people best placed to provide it. The members of the Human Genetics Advisory Commission, therefore, have a range of backgrounds, experience, and interests. As with members of any public body, they are required to declare any personal or business interest which may influence their judgment and should follow all the appropriate guidance whenever a conflict arises.
  450
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 18 March 1999,Official Report, column 716, where the declarations of interest of members of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and the Human Genetics Advisory Commission are available for public inspection. [79506]

  Mr. Battle
  I understand that a list is maintained at the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority at Paxton House, 30 Artillery Lane, London El 7LS (Tel: 0171–377 5077). For the Human Genetics Advisory Commission a list is maintained by the secretariat at the Office of Science and Technology, Albany House, 94–98 Petty France, London SW1H 9ST (Tel: 0171–271 2131). I understand that both bodies intend to publish the list in their forthcoming Annual Reports.

  Wellcome Trust
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to reduce uncertainty among scientists about the rules for submission and resubmission of applications for the Wellcome Trust funds from the Joint Infrastructure Fund. [80162]

  Mr. Battle
  Comprehensive information and details of how to submit applications to the Joint Infrastructure Fund are available from the Wellcome Trust in respect of the biomedical and biological sciences, and the relevant Research Councils in respect of all other areas of science and engineering. Any specific inquiries which universities may have about the Fund should be directed to them.

  The Trust and Research Councils will accept submissions at any time up to a final deadline of 30 April 2000 for new buildings and refurbishment and 10 October 2000 for applications for equipment. Resubmissions are allowed only if expressly invited by the Joint Executive Committee of the Joint Infrastructure Fund, but this would be only under the most exceptional circumstances and is expected to be a very rare occurrence.

  European Scrutiny Committee
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will produce an updated explanatory memorandum for the European Scrutiny Committee in relation to the draft End of Life Vehicles Directive. [80540]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]As the hon. Member is aware, the Environment Council meeting on 11 March decided to defer a final decision on the Directive until its next meeting on 24–25 June. No new issues have been raised which would merit an updated Explanatory Memorandum or Regulatory Impact Assessment. However, if an official text should emerge in the meantime, this will of course be deposited in Parliament and covered by an Explanatory Memorandum in the normal way.

  Departmental Secondments
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the individuals
  451
  seconded from his Department to the oil and gas companies or firms contracting for oil and gas companies since 1 May 1997. [80849]

  Individual

  Company to which they are seconded

  DTI directorate from which they are seconded

  Helen Hichens

  Mobile North Sea Ltd.

  Oil and Gas Directorate

  Christopher Pook

  BG plc

  Ministerial Parliamentary Support Team

  Anne Sherriff

  BP Exploration

  Finance and Resource Management

  Ashley Malster

  BG plc

  Reform of Energy Regulation Team

  My Department does not have details of the specific companies with which those in the oil and gas sector have current contracts.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the individuals seconded

  Individual

  Seconding company

  DTI directorate to which they are seconded

  Dominic McClafferty

  European Gas Turbines (GEC Alstrom)

  Export Promotion Directorate

  Scott Hornafius

  Mobil

  Oil and Gas Directorate

  Philip Haymes

  British Petroleum

  Export Promotion Directorate

  Neil McMillan

  Brown and Root AOC

  Infrastructure and Energy Projects Directorate

  Raw Milk (MMC Report)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 13 April 1999,Official Report, column 94, when he will publish the MMC report on the supply of raw milk. [81109]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will publish the report as soon as is practicable.

  MOX Fuel Shipment
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much extra training the armed United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority police who will accompany the shipment of MOX fuel from Barrow to Japan have been given; when this extra training was undertaken; what the cost was of the extra training; and if he will make a statement. [81080]

  Mr. Battle
  Officers of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary have been given comprehensive training, taking full account of their roles and responsibilities when escorting shipments of MOX fuel. The training package, including provision for regular refresher courses, was specially developed by the Constabulary and the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency and delivered under commercial contracts during the past year. Other specialist training has been carried out by the Northumbria Constabulary. Some officers have also completed advanced first aid courses. The costs of the training are a matter for the companies concerned.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many armed United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Police will accompany each shipment of MOX fuel from Barrow to Japan; what weapons they will be armed with; when the first shipment is expected to leave Barrow; and if other countries will be informed in advance of the movements of these shipments through their jurisdictions. [81079]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on 18 January 1999,Official Report, columns 364–65.
  452
  Mr. Battle
  Four secondments from my Department to companies in the oil and gas sector have commenced since 1 May 1997. They are:

  to his Department from the oil and gas industry since 1 May 1997. [80848]

  Mr. Battle
  Four secondments into this Department from the oil and gas industry have commenced since 1 May 1997. They are:

  For obvious security reasons details of physical protection arrangements for ships carrying MOX fuel are confidential. The timing of the first shipment is not yet finalised but the intention is to carry it out this calendar year. It has been our practice to inform coastal states, both on and off route, in advance and on a confidential basis, of the movement of High Level Waste shipments. In the case of MOX fuel shipments, we intend to continue this practice, consistent with our international obligations to protect information about the movement of sensitive nuclear materials.

  Carers (Minimum Wage)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to introduce a minimum wage for carers. [80766]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Carers aged 18 or over, who are workers, are already covered by the national minimum wage.

  Consumer Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the outcome of the Consumer Affairs Council held in Brussels on 13 April; and if he will make a statement. [80762]

  Dr. Howells
  The Council unanimously adopted a Resolution welcoming the European Commission Consumer Policy Action Plan for 1999–2001. In an exchange of views on the Action Plan there was welcome for it and the importance it placed on integrating consumer concerns into other Community policies, in accordance with the Amsterdam Treaty.

  During the orientation debate on the proposed Directive on the Distance Marketing of Financial Services, member states agreed on the need for a Directive, but there were differences as to its contents.

  Spain called for action at Community level to restrict or ban the sale and marketing of videos and toys which encourage violent behaviour.
  453
  The Netherlands suggested that the Community should consider the implications for consumers of the millennium bug.

  Science Enterprise Challenge
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the centres of enterprise to be endowed under the science enterprise challenge scheme. [80813]

  Mr. Battle
  The Science Enterprise Challenge competition is still in progress so it is not possible to list the centres at this point. The competition is in two stages.

  University

  £million

  University of Leeds/University of Sheffield/University of York (White Rose Consortium)

  4.5

  University of Manchester/UMIST

  4.5

  University of Bath/University of Bristol

  3.75

  University of Birmingham/University of Warwick

  3

  University of Cambridge/The Babraham Institute

  3

  University of Cardiff/University of Wales College of Medicine

  3

  Imperial College, London

  3

  King's College London/Queen Mary and Westfield College London

  3

  London Business School/King's College London/Queen Mary and Westfield College/University College London

  3

  University of Oxford

  3

  University of Strathclyde/University of Glasgow

  3

  University College London/Institute of Cancer Research/Cancer Research Campaign Technologies Ltd./School of Pharmacy London/Imperial Cancer Research Fund/Royal Veterinary College

  3

  University of Edinburgh/The Moredun Foundation/The Roslin Biotechnology Centre/The UK Astronomy Technology Centre of PPARC/Edinburgh Station of the British Geological Survey

  2.25

  Queen's University Belfast/University of Ulster

  2

  University of Aberystwyth/The Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research (IGER)

  1

  It is inappropriate to publish a list of all the original 45 bids as they were provided in confidence.

  Local Support Centres
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what budget has been allocated to local support centres for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000. [81062]

  Mr. Wills
  The budgets allocated to the Department's Information Society Initiative Local Support Centres for the requested financial years are:

  Year

  £ million

  1997–981

  2.77

  1998–991

  2.00

  1999–20002

  3.00

  1Actual Spend

  2 Forecast

  Commercial Debt (Late Payment)
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to make representations to the European Community on standardising late payment of commercial debt regulations across the Community. [81057]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government are working closely with their EU partners to tackle late payment at a European level so that small and medium enterprises (SMEs) can be sure of their rights wherever they do business in the EU and participate fully in the Single Market. We are actively involved in discussions on the proposed EU 454
  Stage 1 bids were due in on 14 April and the finalists to go onto stage 2 will be announced on 10 May. The winners will be announced this summer.

  University Challenge
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the bids for the £50 million university challenge scheme referred to in paragraph 3.59 of the Red Book. [80814]

  Mr. Battle
  The 15 winners of the £45 million University Challenge competition, run jointly by Government, Wellcome Trust and the Gatsby Foundation, were announced on 10 March 1999. They are:

  directive on combating late payment in commercial transactions which, we believe, should complement our own late payment legislation.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those areas for which extension of the Working Time Directive is currently scheduled for discussion at the European Council, for which a qualified majority of member states have already declared their support. [81227]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Negotiations on the extension of the Working Time Directive to those sectors which are currently excluded are continuing at working group level, and are not due to be discussed at the European Council. The agenda for the next Social Affairs Council meeting, which is due to take place on 25 May, has not yet been agreed.

  Depleted Uranium
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what sites in the United Kingdom are licensed for storing depleted uranium. [81232]

  Mr. Battle
  A licence under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 is not required for the storage of depleted uranium as it constitutes "excepted matter" under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 (as amended), s26(1). However, material is stored at a number of nuclear licensed sites. Depleted uranium is used at a number of Ministry of Defence sites and by civil industrial operators who are registered by the Environment Agencies
  455
  (Environment Agency for England and Wales, SEPA for Scotland and the Environment and Heritage Service which is an executive agency for the DoE in Northern Ireland) under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993.

  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what safety standards exist for the storage of depleted uranium. [81231]

  Mr. Battle
  The Health and Safety Executive regulates the storage of depleted uranium under the general provisions of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and the specific requirements of the Ionising Radiations Regulations 1985 (SI 1985/1333). The Environment Agencies in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have responsibilities in respect of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993.

  Arms Brokers
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what steps he has taken to establish a national register of arms brokers; [81100]

  (2) what estimate his Department has made of the number of arms brokers operating in the United Kingdom. [81099]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 16 April 1999]The Government considered the establishment of a register of arms dealers whilst developing proposals contained in the White Paper on Strategic Export Controls, but felt that it would be better to focus on the need to control specific trafficking and brokering activities. However, this issue was raised in response to the White Paper and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) told my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) on 14 December 1998,Official Report, column 364, we are reviewing all the proposals contained in the White Paper in the light of the responses received.

  The Department of Trade and Industry has made no estimate of the number of arms brokers operating in the United Kingdom.

  Strategic Exports
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of current(a) German and (b) US licensing requirements for arms brokers; and if he will introduce similar licensing requirements for arms brokers in his proposed legislation on strategic exports. [81172]

  Dr. Howells
  In their White Paper on Strategic Export Controls, the Government set out their proposals for new controls on trafficking and brokering. All the proposals contained in the White Paper are currently being reviewed in the light of the responses to it. Both in the course of drawing up the proposals and during our review, we have examined, where it is relevant to do so, the legislation and practice in other countries, including the US and Germany.

  Scottish Power
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his decision on Scottish Power's application to construct and operate an open cycle gas turbine generating station at Holybourne, Hampshire. [81487]
  456
  Mr. Battle
  I have today decided to give a direction under Section 14(3) of the Energy Act 1976 to prevent the building of a 160 MW generating station to be fuelled by natural gas at the Holybourne Oil Terminal, Alton, Hampshire.

  Copies of the Press Notice and decision letter are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Export Controls
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if(a) tear gas and (b) plastic bullets are covered by the export control regime. [81273]

  Dr. Howells
  These goods, and others, are controlled under entries in Part III of Schedule I of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 as amended: tear gas under entry ML7; and plastic bullets under entries ML3 or PL5021.

  However, a variety of devices may contain tear gas. Such devices are controlled under several other entries: for instance, portable anti-riot devices for administering an incapacitating substance under PL5001; grenades under ML4 or PL5030; ammunition under ML3 or PL5021; gas projectors or generators under ML2 or PL5018; under entries ML6, ML9, or ML10, gas projecting equipment for controlled ground vehicles, combatant vessels or aircraft, respectively, which are specially designed or modified for military use; and portable devices designed for self-protection by the administration of an incapacitating substance under entry 1A905 of the Dual-Use and Related Goods (Export Control) Regulation 1996, as amended.

  It should be noted that other goods are also controlled under each of these entries.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disabled People (Benefits)
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to improve the living standards of the poorest disabled people. [79740]

  Mr. Darling
  Our proposals for a new Disability Income Guarantee together with measures in the Welfare Reform Bill will provide more help for disabled adults and children who need help most.

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the steps he has taken to remove obstacles within the benefits system to people with disabilities who wish to train for, seek or undertake employment. [79764]

  Mr. Bayley
  We are removing barriers to work from the benefit system. We introduced a new 12 months linking rule for incapacity benefits last year, which removes the risk of losing money for people on benefits who want to try work.

  We are also piloting, for a year, from 11 April 1999, a package of four measures in 15 areas to help people with disabilities, who want to return to work. The pilots will allow those on incapacity benefits to earn a small amount of money (up to £15) without losing benefit; and to test out a job for a trial period whilst remaining on benefit. The pilots will also allow access to a Jobmatch payment of £50 a week for people moving into part-time work; and a Jobfinder's Grant of £200 for those starting work.

  All-work Test
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his proposals to reform the all-work test. [79742]

  Mr. Bayley
  There is a provision in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill to replace the All-work Test with the Personal Capability Assessment. We intend that, as well as determining entitlement to benefit, the Personal Capability Assessment will provide constructive information about what a person's medical condition or disability would allow them to do and advice on practical measures which might improve their chances of returning to work. This will enable personal advisers to help people identify and overcome the barriers they face and take steps back into employment.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals are pending against refusal of benefit due to a failure to satisfy the all-work test; and if he will make a statement. [79758]

  Mr. Bayley
  As of 31 October 1998, there were 40,198 all-work test appeals pending in Great Britain.

  New, streamlined arrangements for handling disputes and appeals are being introduced later this year under the powers in the Social Security Act 1998. These changes form an early part of the Government's long-term plan to modernise the social security system.

  Note:

  Figures include all cases lodged before 31 October 1998 and still awaiting a decision.

  Source:

  100 per cent. extract from Independent Tribunals Service computer.

  Medical Examiners
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to modify the role of medical examiners in benefit applications. [79746]

  Mr. Bayley
  We will be making minor changes to the role that examining doctors play in deciding entitlement to disablement benefits during the course of the year as part of our plans to modernise the decision making system. For all benefits where entitlement depends on a medical question, the examining doctor will act in an advisory capacity to the decision maker, providing expert medical advice to enable them to reach a correct decision on benefit entitlement. The aim will be to improve the quality of the decision and the level of information which we give to benefit claimants.

  Fraud
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to minimise fraud in the administration of housing benefit. [79751]

  Mr. Timms
  "Safeguarding Social Security", published last month, makes it clear that we want a benefit system which is secure from start to finish. This Government are committed to taking tough action against housing benefit fraud. We have already reformed the anti-fraud financial incentive scheme for local authorities to ensure they continue to be rewarded for detecting cases of genuine benefit fraud and cases where they identify that a claimant is no longer resident at an address. An additional £100 million will be made available to local authorities over the 458
  next three years to encourage them to adopt the Verification Framework. Through a series of additional checks, carried out throughout the life of a benefit claim, the Verification Framework will help to secure the administration of housing benefit. The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate is continuing to carry out a rolling programme of visits to local authorities. This will also play a key role in driving up standards of administration and security.

  To secure the payment of housing benefit from the outset of a claim all local authorities have been invited to participate in the Royal Mail "do not redirect" initiative. This initiative prevents benefit claimants from using Royal Mail's postal redirection arrangements to make false claims to benefit from multiple addresses. To further streamline the administration of housing benefit, over £3 million has been made available this year to install computer terminals in local authorities which provide access to the Department's benefit systems. We are now looking to extend this initiative to include exchanging information electronically between local authorities and the Department, providing further scope to prevent fraud and error occurring in the first place.

  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes to procedures he proposes to safeguard the benefits system against fraud. [79754]

  Mr. Timms
  We are improving procedures and processes across the board to get claims right from the outset and then keep them right to reduce losses from fraud and error. It is vital that we secure the gateway to the benefit system. The initial step of checking a claim requires careful scrutiny of the evidence that must be provided by a claimant before payment is made. We have already tightened the gateway to Income Support and saved £200 million in 1998–99 alone.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his plans to train and support staff to tackle fraud in the benefit system. [79759]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department is committed to training and developing all staff to deliver their jobs more effectively, in line with the principles of Investors in People. This commitment applies equally to our staff who tackle fraud in the benefit systems, and who through their administrative duties help in our prevention of fraud.

  In October 1997 the gateway to Income Support was substantially strengthened by introducing more checks at points of known weakness. Staff were given over 200,000 hours of extra training on the new rules and this was supported by drawing together into a single code more than 450 separate instructions on how to check and process Income Support claims.

  The Benefits Agency (BA) provides extensive training for counter fraud staff ranging from standard interviewing techniques through to specialist training in the law, surveillance and case preparation for the courts. In June 1997 we set up a joint development initiative between the BA and Local Authorities to establish commonality across a range of standards and training issues. In particular the Professionalism In Security (PINS) project is seeking to introduce a new package of accredited training that will lead to the award of a professional qualification in fraud investigation and will be recognised by both central and local government.
  459
  A foundation level training syllabus has now been finalised and contracts have been awarded for training to improve the professionalism of investigators and thereby to raise the status and profile of this group. In addition, over 50 students are already studying for Security Management certificates, diplomas and degrees offered by the University of Leicester.

  Research and development work into an advanced level syllabus, a code of conduct, a code of good practice, a security management framework and centres of excellence is on-going.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate into Area Directorate 3 of the Benefits Agency, with particular reference to(a) improving staff compliance with operating procedures and (b) encouraging co-operation between the Agency and local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [81112]

  Mr. Timms
  The fraud strategy paper published on 29 March, "A New Contract for Welfare: Safeguarding Social Security", highlights the weaknesses of the system that we inherited. The paper also sets out our strategy for dealing with those weaknesses, many of which have been highlighted in the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate's report.

  The Benefits Agency is committed to improving standards and, in response to the issues raised in the BFI report, has produced a robust and detailed action plan which was published in the report. It has already taken a number of steps to improve staff compliance to administrative procedures and counter-fraud work. This action plan, together with an annual plan for the Area Directorate 3, will be reviewed regularly and rigorously to check that standards are achieved.

  By working in partnership, councils and the Benefits Agency can fight fraud more effectively, as well as giving better service to the public. That is why we have earmarked funding in each Benefits Agency area to develop stronger links with local councils. Liaison between the BA and the local authorities is governed by Service Level Agreements (SLAs) at local level, based on national models. All SLAs have been revised recently and cover core activities on benefit administration and fraud and give each party a clear statement of how co-operation should work in practice.

  Childhood Poverty
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to tackle the problem of children growing up in poverty. [79755]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) earlier today,Official Report, column 567.

  Child Care Costs
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to assist parents seeking work with the costs of child care. [79760]

  Angela Eagle
  Parents need access to affordable, good quality child care to help balance work and family life successfully. We have already increased the help available 460
  for child care costs in the in-work benefits and the Government have introduced the Tax Credits Bill, which provides for a much more generous child care tax credit.

  Pensions
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he has taken to monitor the mechanism by which the relative level of the state pension and associated benefits are calculated for(a) single pensioners and (b) pensioner couples. [79761]

  Mr. Timms
  The rate of Category B retirement pension (the "married woman's pension") has been set at about 60 per cent. of Category A retirement pension since it was introduced. We have no plans to change this.

  Widows (Benefits)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of widows who will suffer a reduction in their SERPS entitlement from April. [79762]

  Mr. Timms
  Information in the exact form requested is not available. The table provides forecast information on the average number of widows who could be affected at any one time in each year of the next 10 years. It should be noted that some of these people may have no SERPS entitlement and, therefore, will not be affected by the change.

  Potential number of widows affected (Thousand)

  1999–2000

  15

  2000–01

  50

  2001–02

  90

  2002-03

  130

  2003-04

  175

  2004-05

  225

  2005-06

  275

  2006-07

  330

  2007-08

  390

  2008-09

  450

  2009-10

  115

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest 5,000.

  2. The proposed new schemes for widows and widowers under state pension age have not been taken into account, nor have the half rate inheritance changes beginning in April 2000.

  3. Figures are for GB only.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements are being made to ensure that widows who have lost bereavement tax credit receive comparable benefits. [79750]

  Angela Eagle
  No one who already has the Widow's Bereavement Tax allowance will lose it. Anyone who claims the allowance before 5 April 2000 will receive it in the normal way—for the tax year they claim and the following year.

  In the future, widows and widowers who are under pension age will be able to claim the new bereavement benefits, which will include the Bereavement Payment—a tax free lump sum of £2,000 payable to widows and widowers. This is double the amount of the current lump sum, Widow's Payment.

  Welfare Reform
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what way the Government have taken into account the views of respondents to the consultation on the Green Paper on Welfare Reform. [79763]

  Mr. Timms
  Responses are assessed as individual policy areas are developed and announcements made.

  Retirement Pensioners
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the numbers of retirement pensioners; and what estimate has been made of the number in 10 years' time. [79765]

  Mr. Timms
  For 1998–99, the estimated average number of pensioners is 10.7 million. The average for 2008–09 is 12 million.

  Notes:

  1. The estimates are for Great Britain and overseas.

  2. The estimates exclude those receiving only Graduated Retirement Benefit.

  Source:

  1. Pensions Strategy Computer System.

  2. Government Actuary's Department.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce incentives to assist lone parents into employment. [79766]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government have introduced a number of measures to give all lone parents the opportunity to work.

  In the Budget we announced plans to increase the support available to lone parents going into work. From this October, those getting Income Support will continue to receive that benefit for two weeks when they start work and claim Working Families Tax Credit. This will give real help with meeting expenses, including child care costs, in the period up to the first payday. At present, concerns about such expenses can deter lone parents from making the move into work.

  The National Minimum Wage and the Working Families Tax Credit will help ensure that work pays for lone parents. We are also helping lone parents overcome the barriers they face in moving into work through the New Deal for Lone Parents and the National Childcare Strategy.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which categories of disability living allowance recipients are exempt from the review process which replaces the benefit integrity project. [79734]

  Mr. Darling
  At the outset, certain groups of disabled people will not be contacted as part of the new periodic inquiry process. These include anyone whose case has been examined by the Benefit Integrity Project; anyone excluded from the activity of the Benefit Integrity Project; anyone with a fixed period award of DLA due to expire within the next three years, and anyone who is treated as being terminally ill within the Department's definition.
  462
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list for(a) Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland and (d) each region of England, the number of disabled people who have been awarded disability living allowance since 1 June 1997 (i) on their initial application, (ii) at review and (iii) at appeal; [80938]

  (2) if he will list for (a) Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland, (d) England and (e) the United Kingdom, the number of people who applied (i) successfully and (ii) unsuccessfully in the last year for disability living allowance. [80940]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of Social Security benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Mark Oaten, dated 16 April 1999 The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking if he will list for, (a) Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland, and (d) each region of England, the number of disabled people who have been awarded disability living allowance since 1 June 1997, (i) on their initial application, (ii) at review and, (iii) at appeal, and if he will list for (a) Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland, (d) England, and (e) the United Kingdom, the number of people who applied, (i) successfully, and (ii) unsuccessfully, in the last year for disability living allowance.
  The information you have requested is in the attached tables. I hope you find this information helpful.

  Number of disability living allowance awards made on initial application, review, and appeal, in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

  Region

  On initial application

  At review

  At appeal

  England

  North East

  19,900

  3,180

  2,240

  Yorks and Humberside

  29,600

  5,660

  2,640

  East Midlands

  26,460

  3,920

  1,040

  Eastern

  25,580

  3,520

  1,280

  London

  36,900

  5,900

  2,540

  South East

  29,240

  4,740

  1,780

  South West

  24,120

  3,200

  1,300

  West Midlands

  34,180

  4,620

  1,180

  North West

  45,180

  9,860

  4,900

  Wales

  24,720

  4,180

  1,420

  Scotland

  31,740

  7,680

  4,840

  Northern Ireland

  22,395

  7,044

  1,318

  Figures are for the period 1 June 1997 to 28 February 1999

  Figures for England Scotland and Wales are estimates by Analytical Services Division based on a 5 per cent. sample

  Figures for Northern Ireland (NI) based on 100 per cent. data and provided by DHSS (NI)

  The Regions of England are Government Office Regions

  Applications for Disability Living Allowance in 1998

  Successful application

  Unsuccessful application

  England

  148,428

  169,872

  Wales

  13,029

  16,333

  Scotland

  17,345

  26,576

  Northern Ireland

  12,492

  9,359

  United Kingdom

  191,294

  222,140

  Figures for England Scotland and Wales provided by Analytical Services Division based on 100 per cent. data

  Figures for Northern Ireland (NI) based on 100 per cent. data and provided by DHSS (NI)
  463
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for(a) Wales, (b) Scotland,(c) Northern Ireland, (d) England and (e) the United Kingdom, the number of people whose main disabling condition is deafness (i) who were awarded disability living allowance since 1 June 1997 (1) on their initial application, (2) at review and (3) at appeal, and (ii) who applied (x) successfully and (y) unsuccessfully in the last year for disability living allowance. [80939]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of Social Security benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Mark Oaten, dated 16 April 1999 The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question regarding the number of people whose main disabling condition is deafening (i) who were awarded Disability Living Allowance since 1 June 1997 (1) on their initial application, (2) at review, and (3) at appeal, and (ii) who applied (x) successfully and (y) unsuccessfully in the last year for Disability Living Allowance for (a) Wales, (b) Scotland, (c) Northern Ireland, (d) England, and (e) the United Kingdom.
  The information that is available is included in the attached tables. Unfortunately the information about the number of people, for whom the main disabling condition is deafness, and unsuccessfully claimed Disability Living Allowance in the last year, is unavailable.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  People awarded Disability Living Allowance on initial application, review, and appeal since 1 June 1997—main disabling condition deafness

  Initial Application

  Review

  Appeal

  England

  3,300

  1,540

  1,520

  Wales

  260

  100

  40

  Scotland

  120

  140

  160

  Northern Ireland

  221

  51

  15

  United Kingdom

  3,901

  1,831

  1,735

  Notes:

  Figures relate to the period 1 June 1997 to 28 February 1998

  Figures for England Scotland and Wales are estimates by Analytical

  Services Division based on a 5 per cent. sample

  Figures for Norther Ireland (NI) based on 100 per cent. data and provided by DHSS (NI)

  People awarded Disability Living Allowance in 1998—main disabling condition is deafness

  Area

  England

  1,900

  Wales

  180

  Scotland

  80

  Number and proportion of widows in receipt of occupational pension by Government Office Region/Home Nation (1996–97)

  Number of widows (Thousand)

  Percentage of widows

  Government Office Regions (exc. NI)

  In receipt of occupational pension

  Not in receipt of occupational pension

  Total

  In receipt of occupational pension

  Not in receipt of occupational pension

  Total

  North East

  70

  70

  140

  50

  50

  100

  North West and Merseyside

  150

  200

  340

  42

  58

  100

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  150

  140

  290

  52

  48

  100

  East Midlands

  90

  100

  180

  48

  52

  100

  West Midlands

  120

  130

  260

  47

  53

  100

  Eastern

  110

  130

  240

  47

  53

  100

  464

  People awarded Disability Living Allowance in 1998—main disabling condition is deafness

  Area

  Northern Ireland

  126

  United Kingdom

  2,286

  Notes:

  Figures relate to awards on initial application

  Figures relate to the twelve months ending 30 November 1998

  Figures for England Scotland and Wales are estimates by Analytical

  Services Division based on a 5 per cent. sample

  Figures for Northern Ireland (NI) based on 100 per cent. data and provided by DHSS (NI)

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what environmental appraisals of policy his Department has(a) completed, (b) started and (c) planned. [79621]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer from the Under-Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), on 13 April 1999,Official Report, column 66.

  Bereavement Benefits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 19 March 1999,Official Report, columns 838–39, on bereavement benefits, if he will estimate the ranges of income from occupational pensions being received by the widows in receipt of such pensions. [80599]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 14 April 1999]The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Amount of occupational pension received by widows in Great Britain in 1996–97

  Thousand

  Amount of occupational pension received

  Number

  No occupational pension

  1,450

  £0-£10

  180

  £10-£20

  260

  £20-£30

  180

  £30-£40

  140

  £40-£50

  100

  £50 or more

  80

  Total

  2,780

  The information provided in my Written Answer on 19 March 1999, Official Report, at columns 838–39 included information on widowers. The analysis reproduced related only to widows.
  465

  Number and proportion of widows in receipt of occupational pension by Government Office Region/Home Nation (1996–97)

  Number of widows (Thousand)

  Percentage of widows

  Government Office Regions (exc. NI)

  In receipt of occupational pension

  Not in receipt of occupational pension

  Total

  In receipt of occupational pension

  Not in receipt of occupational pension

  Total

  London

  120

  190

  310

  40

  60

  100

  South East

  190

  170

  360

  54

  46

  100

  South West

  120

  120

  230

  50

  50

  100

  Wales

  90

  90

  180

  51

  49

  100

  Scotland

  120

  140

  250

  46

  54

  100

  England

  1,120

  1,230

  2,350

  48

  52

  100

  All widows

  1,330

  1,450

  2,780

  48

  52

  100

  Notes:

  1. The figures above are estimates and are taken from the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) 1996–97 data set which are based on the Family Resources Survey (FRS). The FRS does not include Northern Ireland. 1996–97 is the latest year for which information is available.

  2. All monetary values are given in April 1998 prices.

  3. Estimates are given in thousands and are rounded to the nearest 10.000. Due to rounding components may not sum to totals.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to increase the take-up of occupational pensions. [79743]

  Mr. Timms
  The latest National Association of Pension Funds Survey shows proportion of eligible employees joining occupational pensions schemes. For final salary schemes the figure has increased from 62 per cent. in 1997 to 86 per cent. in 1998. For Money purchase schemes the comparable figures are 68 per cent. and 75 per cent. In schemes where employers operate automatic entry the figures are over 90 per cent.

  We want to do more to encourage people to join occupational pension schemes. In the Green Paper "A new contract for welfare: Partnership in Pensions", we have sought views on how to do this and on whether we should allow employers to require employees to be members of their occupational pension scheme, subject to the right for employees to opt out.

  We are currently considering the responses we have received and will be formulating proposals to take action to improve take-up.

  Mature Students (Housing Benefits)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on proposed improvements to the situation of those mature students who have recently forfeited housing benefits. [79851]

  Angela Eagle
  There has been no change in the position of mature students. Most full-time students, including mature students, are not entitled to housing benefit, although certain students in vulnerable groups, such as lone parents, can continue to claim this benefit.

  Mental Illness
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce safeguards in respect of the welfare of people with diagnosed mental illness in his benefits review process. [81357]

  Mr. Bayley
  From the beginning of this month, the Benefit Integrity Project was replaced by a system of periodic inquiry into Disability Living Allowance (DLA)466
  entitlement. This is designed to be fairer to the welfare of vulnerable benefit claimants, including those with mental illness. We have discussed the operational procedures with disability organisations and we are aware that when contacting claimants, we need to take account of their individual circumstances and the effect that this contact may have. We are taking steps to ensure that any periodic inquiry literature issued to claimants, including to those who are diagnosed with a mental illness, is both clear and user-friendly, giving people the opportunity to discuss the best way of obtaining information as to their needs. We have also recognised the need to carry out specialised training on mental health issues for visiting officers and adjudication officers involved in the inquiry process. This training is planned to start in late May.

  Certain types of case are exempt from action from the periodic inquiry from the outset. These include certain categories of mental illness, and the full list can be found in the pursuant answer to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on 10 March 1999, Official Report,columns 251–52.

  We will continue to discuss the operation of the new arrangements with disability organisations, and will involve them in a comprehensive review of the new system at the end of the first six months of its operation.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Macpherson Inquiry
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the President of the Council what assessment she has made of the implications for her Department of the Macpherson Inquiry recommendations; and if she will make a statement. [80538]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 14 April 1999,Official Report, columns 239–40, by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office. The Privy Council Office will participate fully in Government initiatives to improve the representation of ethnic minorities in the Civil Service. The Department has few policy responsibilities which impact directly on racism in society, but it does have responsibility for the appointment of High Sheriffs. There are currently no Sheriffs from the ethnic minorities, and the Privy Council Office wrote last year to the Shrievalty Association

  467
  expressing concern. The Association has agreed to address this point specifically in guidance to their members, since under the relevant legislation it is for serving Sheriffs to provide nominations. My Department will continue regularly to monitor the position and to urge action where necessary.

  Death Penalty (Commonwealth Countries)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to her answer of 13 April 1999,Official Report, column 29, if she will list the Commonwealth countries from which appeals and applications for leave to appeal in cases concerning the death penalty have been submitted; and if she will make a statement. [81579]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The information requested is as follows:

  Country

  Number of appeals

  Number of applications for leave

  Trinidad and Tobago

  7

  10

  Jamaica

  3

  4

  Antigua and Barbuda

  1

  —

  Belize

  1

  —

  St. Vincent and the Grenadines

  —

  1

  Bermuda

  1

  —

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Macpherson Inquiry
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the implications for her Department of the Macpherson inquiry recommendations; and if she will make a statement. [80530]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have been considering the report into the brutal murder of Stephen Lawrence in the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland. The report focuses on the Metropolitan Police but it raises many issues for policing and, indeed, society generally. Many of the Lawrence report's recommendations are pertinent in Northern Ireland, not only in terms of how racial differences are addressed, but also in terms of divisions along religious and other lines.

  The Government attach great importance to issues of racial equality in Northern Ireland and, in the context of policing, I welcome the first meeting of the Consultative Committee on Policing for Ethnic Minorities hosted recently by the Police Authority for Northern Ireland and the RUC. This Committee will do much to ensure the views of ethnic minority groups are fully understood and their policing needs met. It will develop a greater understanding in the police service of the problems faced by ethnic minorities and provide a means by which these communities can work with the police to provide a better service and have their problems addressed.

  The Criminal Justice and Policing section of the Good Friday Agreement recognises that we have a unique opportunity to bring about a society,
  468
  "which will recognise the full and equal legitimacy and worth of identities, senses of allegiance and ethos of all sections of the community in Northern Ireland".

  This is why the Government established the independent Commission on Policing and the Review of Criminal Justice, which will report later this year. The terms of reference of these two bodies cover many areas highlighted by the report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

  None the less, there are a number of areas where I will want to see comparable changes to those set out in my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's action plan for addressing the recommendations of the Lawrence report. On the application of not only race relations legislation, but all Northern Ireland's stringent equality legislation to the police, I want to see as full a coverage as possible. Northern Ireland is already a leader in providing statutory guarantees of equality of treatment and I want to build on this.

  Improving community confidence in policing generally is an essential priority. The Police Authority has set an objective in the recently published Policing Plan requiring the Chief Constable to raise public confidence in the RUC in the year 1999–2000. However, in view of the recommendations contained in the Lawrence report, I will examine with the Authority and the Chief Constable what more might be needed to promote racial, religious, sex and disability equality and what meaningful measures can be adopted to ensure this happens. There should be no doubt of the Government's commitment to tackling all forms of discrimination.

  Turning to the recommendations which affect police complaints and discipline procedures, we are making important changes. On independent investigations, we are pressing ahead with the establishment of a Police Ombudsman. This will provide for completely independent investigation of complaints against the police and will provide a model for other systems. We want this system to be as transparent as possible. We will also be introducing important reforms of the police conduct and performance procedures and will consider the further changes recommended by the Lawrence report in this area.

  While first aid training in the RUC generally meets the standards recommended by the report, we are in touch with the RUC to ensure that any steps necessary to reduce intervals between refresher training are advanced as a matter of urgency. In other aspects of training, the police will build upon the initiatives taken as part of the Community Awareness Programme which already uses outside trainers from a wide variety of organisations. On inspection, similar changes to the role of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary will be made in Northern Ireland in line with those being made by the Home Secretary.

  The Report raises issues about communication between the prosecuting authorities and victims. In Northern Ireland, victims or their families are informed about the progress of their case by the RUC at key stages during the process, and by staff of the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland if any decisions are taken once the case has actually come to court. The experience of those victims and witnesses who are made to feel particularly vulnerable because of the

  469
  nature of the offence they are giving evidence about has been considered by a working group since last May. The group will be making recommendations to me in the summer as to how the criminal justice system might better assist such witnesses.

  The Stephen Lawrence report highlights the need for co-ordinated action across the public sector if reforms are to be truly effective. For this reason the Government will be seeking to work closely with the new Assembly in Northern Ireland on those recommendations dealing with education and equality law. Consultation with bodies outside central Government will also be required. I have already initiated this action. On the application of the recommendations to those relevant parts of Government that will remain within my area of responsibility after devolution, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 14 April 1999, Official Report, columns 145–46.

  The Government consider the protection of human rights, equality of treatment and respect for different cultures as fundamental aspects of the ethos of the police service in Northern Ireland. A service where, as the Chief Constable has indicated, there is no room for prejudice of any kind and cultural diversity is celebrated. The recommendations of the report on Stephen Lawrence will help us in pursuing this aim.

  Maghaberry Prison
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many officer days have been lost through sickness and what percentage of officers at Maghaberry prison have (i) reported sick and (ii) been absent from work for reasons of illness or stress(a) over the last month and (b) over the same four week period in 1998 and 1997. [80603]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 April 1999]The number of days lost to sickness in the period mentioned is as follows:

  Days

  March 1999

  2,128

  March 1998

  1,724

  April 1997

  1,634

  Data for March 1997 are not available.

  The average daily percentage of officers on sick leave against total staff in post during the three periods in question is as follows:

  Percentage

  March 1999

  12.58

  March 1998

  10.90

  March 1997

  9.48

  470
  The average daily percentage of officers on stress related sick leave against total staff in post during the three periods in question is as follows:

  Percentage

  March 1999

  2.59

  March 1998

  3.49

  March 1997

  1.58

  Roads Service
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is her estimate of the savings which will result from the changes introduced into the organisational and regional structures of the Roads Service on the 1 April for the present financial year and the following two years; and to what use such savings will be put. [81159]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 16 April 1999]Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Roads Service under its chief executive designate, Mr. C Jones. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from C. James to Mr. William Ross, dated April 1999
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to respond to your recently tabled Parliamentary Question about the reorganisation of Roads Service.Like all public bodies, there is continuing pressure on Roads Service to make the best use of resources available to us. Since we were formed as an Agency in 1996, we have been committed to a programme of improving efficiency but have reached a point where further meaningful efficiencies could not be achieved without a reorganisation of our overall business. This reorganisation, which was introduced on 1 April 1999, was designed to provide a structure, comprising separate business units, which will enable us to focus more directly on how we can continue to deliver our services as efficiently as possible.The main purpose of the reorganisation was, therefore, to provide a platform for future efficiencies and was not specifically geared to producing immediate savings. The reorganisation, by creating separate business units, will enable us to assess more effectively how efficient our work processes are compared to external organisations with a view to achieving further efficiency gains in future years.I hope you find this information helpful.

  Mr. Pat Finucane
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on her meeting with Mr. Param Cumaraswamy; and if she has agreed to establish a formal inquiry into the death of Mr. Pat Finucane. [81124]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I met Mr. Cumaraswamy on Wednesday 14 April. A copy of the statement I issued afterwards is available in the Library.

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to represent the Government at the European Ambassadors' lunch on Thursday 22nd April, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Overseas Travel: Advice from FCO
Lord Hurd of Westwell Lord Hurd of Westwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have yet completed the review announced on 11th January by the Foreign Secretary of the system by which his department gives advice on safety to British citizens living or travelling abroad.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the review of Foreign and Commonwealth Office travel advice should be completed by the end of June. Travel advice is under constant review and the FCO aims at all times to provide accurate and timely information to enable British nationals to make informed decisions. But we also look to travellers and to the travel industry to take responsibility for their personal safety when overseas.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer on a subject which is not the most important but one of the trickiest with which she and her colleagues in the Foreign Office have to deal. Is there not a strong distinction between the tourist and the British resident who works, perhaps is married, has settled down and put down roots in a foreign country and who may he just as competent as the Foreign Office to assess whether they should stay or leave?
As for the tourists, is there not some danger of drifting, under pressure from the travel companies, into a position where the Foreign Office—not the travel companies nor the individuals—takes responsibility which does not belong to it for the decisions of individuals? Can the noble Baroness make a little more clear the distinction which emerged somewhat opaquely from her Answer between the giving of facts and information and the giving of advice to individuals whose circumstances vary greatly?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I can agree with much of what the noble Lord
932
said. Foreign Office advice is exactly that: it is advice. It is not intended to indemnify either tour operators or individuals against eventualities of their travel. Individuals and tour operators must take responsibility for their personal safety. But the advice is intended to allow travellers to make informed decisions. There is no such thing as risk-free travel in any part of the world, as sadly we have seen.
I also appreciate the distinction that the noble Lord makes about tourists on the one hand and residents on the other. Many residents in foreign countries will generally be more familiar with local circumstances. But on occasions they will still look to the Foreign Office for the political advice which may inform decisions that they need to take about their own safety.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, what lessons does the Minister believe have been learnt so far by the Foreign Office as a result of the tragic kidnappings and murders of British tourists and workers in Chechnya, the Yemen and Uganda? In what way have those lessons been incorporated into the Foreign Office system of travel advice?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in considering the travel advice in relation to the tragic events to which the noble Lord referred, I personally looked at it searchingly. At the time one could not have known the circumstances which would have led individuals to take different decisions from those that they took. It is all very well being wise after events, but we must act on the basis of what is known at the time. We review all travel advice every month as a matter of routine and some travel advice in particularly difficult parts of the world is reviewed more often than that.
We do not have all the answers, otherwise we would not be having the current review. I welcome any suggestions which any noble Lords wish to make to the Foreign Office. They should be sent to the office for the purposes of that review. We have already had a very useful seminar with members of the travel industry and they have put forward a number of suggestions which we shall now review and take into account.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, does the Foreign Office give its advice to travel firms without being asked, or does it rely on the travel firms to seek that advice from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? When it gives advice to the travel firms does it recommend that that advice be passed on to customers?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, travel notices are distributed throughout the travel industry as a matter of course, via electronic information systems. The Federation of Tour Operators, the Association of British Travel Agents and the Association of Independent Tour Operators then forward the advice to their respective members. In that way, more than 90 per cent of the travel industry are able to access the information. So it goes out, as a matter of course, but on occasions, particularly when trouble is apparent in different parts of the world, tour operators

933
will want to telephone the Foreign Office to find out about certain parts of the world or particular regions of a country where they have fears or worries.
It was suggested that the Foreign Office should have a dedicated line just for tour operators rather than for the general public. That was one suggestion which came out of the seminar to which I referred. We hope to introduce such a dedicated line for tour operators by the end of this week.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us who travel abroad but who do not go through travel agencies are grateful to the Foreign Office for the intelligence that it gives us? In the light of that information we then make up our own minds.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for making that point. A good number of people who want to access Foreign Office travel advice do so as individuals and not through tour companies. It is worth remembering that a number of countries throughout the world seek to emulate the travel advice of the Foreign Office. Canada is one example. Very recently a number of French colleagues visited the Foreign Office to look at the way in which we give travel advice. They were favourably impressed and used it as a model for their own travel advice.

Passenger Train Services
2.43 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to comply with Section 4 of the Railways Act 1993 in considering proposed new passenger train services from train operators; for example, from East Anglia to the south-west and north-west of London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, decisions on approving access rights for new passenger services are a matter for the rail regulator. In deciding whether to approve rights the regulator will have regard to his duties under Section 4 of the Railways Act 1993, including the promotion of competition and the carriage of both passengers and freight by rail. In all cases other operators affected by a proposal will be consulted.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for his helpful reply, I declare an interest as adviser to Adtranz. Is the Minister aware of proposals by GB Railways to run passenger services between Chelmsford and Basingstoke to create a kind of east-west Thameslink? Will my noble friend put
934
pressure on the regulator and Railtrack, who I believe have the duty to provide capacity, to ensure that these services start as soon as possible?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this is primarily a matter for the rail regulator. I understand he has indicated his belief, based on the evidence presented to him so far, that the proposed Ipswich to Basingstoke service would provide a range of new services and satisfy local and national transport needs. He has encouraged Anglia together with Railtrack to develop this service and other aspects of Anglia's proposals to a stage where they are capable of detailed examination. At the same time, he has urged full consultation with other affected operators.
Lord Cadman: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government's procrastination with regard to the introduction of north of London Eurostar services to the regions is a contravention of this section of the Act?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not agree. The term "procrastination" should not be applied to a proper assessment of the facts. The Government have sought a further consultancy as to the viability of those potential regional Eurostar services north of London.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the major reason for privatisation of railway services was that British Rail was inefficient and that privatisation would provide a much better, cheaper and more reliable service? I understand that latest reports show that the services provided by the private organisations are worse than they were under British Rail. Is not the corollary of that the bringing back of railway services into full public ownership?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the reasons for what I have previously described in this House as a rushed and botched privatisation by the previous administration are not really matters for me. Certainly they claimed that privatisation would lead to greater efficiency. It is quite clear that while there is variable performance among rail operators efficiency as a whole has not significantly improved. My noble friend is probably referring specifically to the report which appeared in the media in the past few days related to Railtrack's performance in terms of the delay to trains and its policies on maintenance and renewal. That is primarily a matter for the regulator. But we have asked the regulator to look at the way in which Railtrack receives public subsidy. Once the regulator has reported we shall decide on the way ahead to deliver the rail system that passengers and operators deserve. Clearly we would prefer not to be starting from here. Nevertheless, we are determined to make this system work. The establishment of a strategic rail authority as foreseen by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister will lead to a more strategic approach to the railway system even under private ownership.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, does the Minister agree that whatever one may say about privatisation—it has its defenders and critics—the

935
number of rail passenger users has risen, almost for the first time since privatisation, and fares have risen by statute by no more than the rate of inflation, whereas in the days of British Rail they went up remorselessly by more than inflation every year?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am interested to hear that privatisation has its supporters, although they are not very vocal at the moment, in commenting generally on the system. There has been some improvement in services. The aim of the Government's strategic approach to railways is to bring the whole of the railway network up to and beyond the performance of the best. That is why we need a strategic approach, which is so sadly lacking, even if one accepts privatisation as a principle for running a railway.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will my noble friend take steps to improve the rail services from North to South Wales; otherwise, there will be nobody in the new Assembly?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that greater attention to the Welsh transport infrastructure as a result of the creation of the Assembly will benefit railway transport as well as the transport system in Wales in general.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, to return to the original Question, does the noble Lord agree that the development of cross-country services is a very good step in reducing the amount of unnecessary travel by car? Can the Minister say whether the advent of a strategic rail authority will enable the regulatory functions in relation to Railtrack's role in the development of the rail system to be performed more enthusiastically? If so, when can we expect the strategic rail authority to begin to carry out those functions?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that the establishment of the strategic rail authority, even in its pre-legislative form, will increase the pressure on all operators within the industry to perform and will give greater strength to the regulator.
Putting the strategic rail authority on a statutory basis will depend to some extent on progress on other legislation. The Bill to do so will be produced by the department shortly and will indicate the direction in which our policy is going.
Cross-country services will not only benefit the rail network but they will also reduce pressures on the roads. That is also a serious strategic objective of our policy.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, following the supplementary question from the official spokesman from the Opposition, is it possible for the Minister to give noble Lords some details of the subsidies that go to rail at present?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I shall write to the noble Lord in overall detail, adding up all forms of subsidy. Subsidies go to Railtrack via the rail operators, to freight rail and to particular services. It may be of benefit to
936
my noble friend and the spokesperson for the Opposition if we spell out the degree to which the public finances still effectively support the railway system in this country.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I invite the Minister to answer the question posed by his noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon; namely, if the railways are now that bad, and were that good when they were nationalised, why do not the Government re-nationalise them?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we inherited the state of the railways.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the railway franchises were given out for a period of seven or 14 years. It is the intention of this Government to make those franchises work if possible. If it is not possible to do so under the current franchising system, clearly other solutions have to be sought. However, our immediate intent is to make those franchises work to the benefit of passengers.

Meat Hygiene Service
2.52 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, given that functions under meat hygiene legislation are primarily those of law enforcement, such enforcement in the United Kingdom should be assigned to untrained officials from other European Union countries.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, enforcement of meat hygiene legislation in licensed fresh meat premises in Great Britain is carried out by the Meat Hygiene Service, an executive agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. All officers of the Meat Hygiene Service are fully trained to standards required by European Union directives which are enshrined in United Kingdom law.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the essential difference between an ordinary veterinary surgeon and an officer of the Official Veterinary Service is that he or she has law enforcement powers? On that basis, does he find it acceptable that young female Spanish vets with a poor understanding of our language, who have little understanding of British law and British law enforcement methods, should be placed in a position where they are enforcing the law for a group of British citizens after only one week's training? Would he find it comparatively acceptable if 300 young Spanish people were dressed in Metropolitan Police uniforms, given one week's training and put out on the streets to enforce the law in this country?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, all vets working for the Meat Hygiene Service have training in enforcement and other matters. The hierarchy of enforcement is set out in the manual of their training.

937
I should point out that no junior vet, as described, would be able to pursue the law against an abattoir owner. Senior veterinary officers are involved at an early stage, and no reference to the law can be made other than by the director of operations in the Meat Hygiene Service and then the legal side of the service will consider it. It is not the case that a junior and inexperienced vet will bring down the full force of the law on a British meat operator.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is it not true that the latest diktat from Brussels means that we shall require another 400 of these OVSs, that costs will have to rise by a further 128 per cent, and that many more small firms will therefore go out of business? Given the plenteous supply of foreign OVSs, can the Minister tell the House what other EU countries are doing about meat hygiene?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, from our investigations other countries are pursuing meat hygiene under the European Union directive broadly in the way that we are.
The costs are increased because of the need for increased supervision and inspection. That is following infraction procedures taken against us because the previous administration under-implemented the rules. We are suffering because of that. Costs are higher in this country. One reason is that the costs of British vets are significantly higher than the costs of vets trained in other European countries—sometimes 300 per cent higher.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House as to the nature and reference number of the European legislation which amended ordinary British law prior to its coming into existence in this matter? If it is dependent upon European legislation, will the noble Lord inform the House of the exact nature of that, preferably by referring to the number by which it can become identified?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I have learned not to tangle with my noble friend on details of European legislation. However, I shall arrange for the noble Lord to be written to. I hope that there will be an appropriate number in it to satisfy him.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, is it true that no deaths have been traced through negligence in red meat abattoirs in this country over the past 30 years? If that is so—and I believe that it is—what is the purpose of this bureaucracy?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the purpose of inspection and supervision of our abattoirs and other meat plants is to protect the public health in every way.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, on the costs of the meat hygiene inspectors, is the noble Lord aware that in many rural parts of this country abattoirs will cease to exist? On a recent visit to Stornoway it
938
was brought home to me that the abattoir there could easily cease to exist and the crofters return to the old-fashioned method of slaughtering at home. Does the Minister think that this will be an improvement in meat hygiene?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that small abattoirs have an important function, especially in the more remote parts of the United Kingdom. That is why we are looking at whatever ways we can to protect and preserve them. However, as I am sure he is aware, this is against a background in which there is an oversupply of abattoirs and in which profit margins are extremely tight. We cannot wholly prevent the workings of the free market.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister tell us who or which body he thinks should pay for this increased enforcement? Does the noble Lord think that the beef farmers are so rich that they can pay for it; or does he think that the distributors and the retailers are better able to do so?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, under European Union law we are required to recover from the industry the full costs of the supervision. We are in the process of doing that.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the closing of small abattoirs up and down the country is not only bad for them and their owners but for the animals, which will have to travel greater distances to slaughter? Will my noble friend give that matter a good deal of consideration, because if he does not many animal lovers in the country will not be happy with his performance?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that as regards animal welfare it is helpful if there is an abattoir, small or otherwise, in close access. Small abattoirs often perform a service for the small producer who needs access to a nearby abattoir which will take only a few animals. I wholly agree that small abattoirs perform a very importance service.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, the Minister said that other countries will establish broadly the same service. Is there an indication that the EU will apply the same standards to Portugal, which has only five inspectors to cover its 200 abattoirs?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, that matter has given us considerable concern. The department has made inquiries into practices on the Continent of Europe and the Meat Livestock Commission is in the process of doing so. The bulk of the information does not meet the anecdotal belief that on the Continent they do not apply these rules. I do not have information with me on Portugal, but if we have it I shall write to the noble Baroness.

Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act: Prosecutions
3.2 p.m
Baroness Rendell of Babergh Baroness Rendell of Babergh asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there have been any prosecutions under the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985, and whether they plan to introduce a programme of educating Somali immigrant parents to persuade them to stop this practice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, there have been no prosecutions to date under the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985. The difficulties in obtaining enough evidence to support a conviction are considerable. The Government fund a range of educational projects in Britain, where strong links have been formed with Forward, the leading voluntary organisation in the field, and abroad working alongside and within these communities. We believe that that is the best way to ensure that this most harmful practice is stamped out.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that most helpful reply. Does she agree that a policy of encouraging young Somali graduates to become social workers and health professionals might be a wise course as people more readily accept advice from members of their own ethnic group?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend is right. We need to have educational and social services which reflect the communities they serve. They would be effective in this area if we gained the trust of those communities and worked within them. For that reason, we have funded a range of projects to help professionals both from those communities and those who work within them to develop sensitive educational materials to take forward the work. We have also funded a project specifically to investigate the dynamics of the continuation of female genital mutilation among young Somalis living in London.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a successful and popular programme of education in this field is PLA, participatory learning in action? How much support are the Government giving to that?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am afraid that I was not aware of that programme, but I shall certainly look into it to see whether it can be applied. Undoubtedly, we need to use whatever avenues are effective because the problem is difficult to tackle.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, do the Government accept that there are two ways to eliminate or diminish this horrible practice? One is by education, as proposed in the Question; the other is by prosecution
940
under the 1985 Act. Does the Minister remember that both Houses of Parliament were well aware of the existence of those two ways when the Act was passed and decided that the practice was so horrible that it ought to be made a criminal offence? Does she agree that when considering the mother in such cases. one's mind turns to education, but that when considering the child who is mutilated while the parents are being educated, one's mind may turn to prosecution as being the quicker answer?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I believe that where there is evidence that the practice takes place and where we could successfully prosecute, we ought to do so. It is right that we made the practice a criminal offence. However, there is no evidence that the police or the Crown Prosecution Service are holding back on such prosecutions. For reasons which my noble friend will understand, it is very difficult to obtain appropriate evidence. That is why the education effort is particularly worth while. When offences are committed, we should prosecute in order to protect children. However, we can take other measures through the Children Act in order to safeguard children who are at risk.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, is there a requirement under the Act for medical doctors to report to the police when they have evidence that such mutilations have taken place?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as regards medical practitioners, the prosecution requirements for this criminal offence are the same as for other criminal offences.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, does the Minister accept that any doctor on the UK register found to have performed the operation would, under law, be referred to the General Medical Council with an issue of serious professional misconduct arising? However, there is no law in this country which prevents anyone, however unqualified, carrying out surgery. Under the law, people are not allowed to be called "registered medical practitioners" if they are not. Is it not right that those unqualified individuals, few in number, who are carrying out this operation. resulting in great mutilation, should be pursued as vigorously as possible?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. The General Medical Council has acted in an exemplary fashion in cases where there has been evidence of people willing to undertake the work. All professional groups in this country have done what they can to educate their own members about the importance of being on the lookout for the practice. Perhaps I may reiterate that where there is evidence, the possibility of prosecution will be looked at most seriously by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.

Water Industry Bill
3.8 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clause 1,
Schedule 1,
Clauses 2 to 12,
Schedule 2,
Clauses 13 to 15,
Schedules 3 and 4,
Clauses 16 and 17.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pollution Prevention and Control Bill [H.L.]
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment).—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee (on Recommitment) accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause

Pollution Prevention and Control Bill [H.L.]

  PURPOSE OF ACT
  (" . The purpose of this Act is to create a single Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control system which strengthens the system introduced under sections 1 to 28 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and includes the system of Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control in accordance with European Community Directive 96/61.")
  Lord Renton: Before my noble friend goes further, it is important for me to point out that the grouping of the amendments is not acceptable. The Government have grouped Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 12, 19 and 20. Amendments Nos. 1, 19 and 20 deal with separate important issues, whereas Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 12 are minor government amendments dealing in detail with the regulation-making power of the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 1 is an important new purpose clause and Amendment No. 19 prevents the Government repealing Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which consists of 28 clauses, by secondary legislation that cannot be amended by either House and virtually turns both Houses into rubber stamps.
  Amendment No. 20 amends the Long Title to reveal what the Bill is about, but we cannot do that until we have considered all the amendments. The Government are not entitled to require the Committee to accept the grouping. It is for your Lordships to say whether or not
  942
  the grouping should be accepted. In those circumstances, I suggest that the grouping is not reasonable.
  Lord Whitty: I understand the noble Lord's substantive point. I understood that the grouping had been agreed through the normal channels but, as always, the grouping remains informal and non-binding. The noble Lord has an agreement from the Government that we should recommit the Bill. We were open to a more flexible approach. If the noble Lord wishes to press for the removal of his amendments from the group, no doubt he can. All the amendments in the group seem to address the central issue raised in the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and in the previous commitment stage, in terms of what is on the face of the Bill and in regulations. Therefore, it would seem logical to take all those amendments together. The noble Lord may not regard the government amendments as adequate. Nevertheless, they address the same subject and have the same origin as the other amendments in the group. At the end of the day, I am in the hands of the Committee.
  Lord Renton: With respect, the Minister has not got that right. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee did not deal with the purpose clause. Neither did it deal with amendment of the Long Title. Those are quite separate and important matters.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I wonder if I may say a word—as, in a sense, the responsibility is mine? I would normally have been asked to agree the groupings. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, nobody contacted me about them at the end of last week. I was not aware of the potential list until I arrived here this morning at about a quarter-past 12, which was too late for the groupings to be amended in any way. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, indicates his disagreement, but that is as I understood it. I accepted what I understood to be a de facto situation. We can surely deal with this matter quite easily by taking Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 off the list and speaking to them at the end of the Committee stage. Perhaps that will go a long way towards meeting my noble friend's problem.
  Lord Carter: In the usual way, the groupings list is circulated and there was plenty of time to dispute it this morning if the noble Lord wished to do so. As the grouping is voluntary, the easiest way to deal with the matter now is in the way that the Committee wishes. If it wants to degroup Amendment No. 19, it can. The amendment is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He can speak to it in its place on the list of amendments, rather than in the first group.
  Lord Renton: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Amendment No. 19 raises an important separate issue—perhaps the most important that will be considered today.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: In speaking to Amendment No. 11 want to thank the Government for agreeing to

  943
  the recommital of the Bill. In a very busy parliamentary programme that is a generous concession. The more restricted rules of debate on Report would not have allowed proper examination of the government amendments. If those amendments are approved they will alter and improve the Bill a great deal and they also deserve our recognition as a necessary but nonetheless generous concession. Again, I express my gratitude to the Government.
  We have never objected to the purposes of the Bill. We are as anxious as the Government to see a proper Bill on the statute book. Our objection was to the form of the original draft. I hope that after our debate today the Bill will make more rapid progress. The original draft was nothing more than an open framework to make regulations, which generally receive less scrutiny than primary legislation.
  I asked in the Library how many Bills there have been that are similar in form to this one. The Library found only one that commences with the power to make regulations and it concerns employment tribunals—a rather more specific subject than the one we are debating. Moreover, that statute did not set out to replace a whole part of an Act of Parliament by orders, which is a subject to which we shall be returning. The Library found only two other Bills that contain order-making powers in their first section. Bills in the form of the original draft are rare.
  The Select Committee on delegated powers was very critical of the original draft in its third report for this Session—stating, inter alia, that it would not wish the drafting to be used as a precedent. The Select Committee has looked again at the Bill in light of the Government's proposed amendments, which greatly modify the Bill. Once again they say that the Bill should not be regarded as a precedent. The ninth report, dated 10th March, stated:
  "We therefore wish to reiterate the following general remarks which we made in our 3rd report. 'Even if the House accepts the bill with any such amendments as being justified for the reasons which the DETR give for proceeding by such wide ranging enabling legislation, the Committee would not wish this Bill to be regarded as a precedent for the future'".
  However, my interpretation of that conclusion this time is that it is the same as my own. The Bill, even though far from perfect when amended, must now make progress if the United Kingdom is to have appropriate legislation on the statute book in time to meet the time limit proposed by European Community Directive 96/61.
  That point returns me to the amendment. It is our view that there should be, on the face of the Bill, a purpose other than that of making regulations at the commencement, so that the Bill conforms more closely with the general way that legislation is normally drafted. The amendment does just that. The Government may argue that it is tautological. That may be so, but if the Government had tackled the Bill's drafting in a more thorough and conventional way from the start we would not be having this debate.
  The amendment changes the opening lines of the Bill so that its purpose is made clear in its commencement lines. As presently drafted, the Bill's purpose might
  944
  appear to be the making of regulations. Amendment No. 1 states that the Bill's purpose is to meet the requirements of the European directive on integrated pollution prevention and control. The power to regulate then follows. I beg to move.
  Lord Renton: I support my noble friend's amendment. Purpose clauses are always desirable and sometimes necessary. I suggest that in this case, it is necessary to have a purpose clause because, quite frankly, as my noble friend pointed out—and as is well known—this is a Bill which merely enables the Secretary of State, by subordinate legislation, to do things which are of national and international importance and which have so far been covered by the primary legislation of this country.
  For this Bill to go forward without revealing its; purposes is utterly wrong. With those deplorable factors in mind, perhaps I may elaborate a little on the way in which my noble friend and others who have worked with him have drafted this purpose clause.
  The Explanatory Notes, which are of great help and value in understanding the Bill but which are not pan: of the law, which the Government issued when the Bill was first published make the position quite clear in paragraphs 4 to 7. Paragraph 6 states:
  "The purpose of the Bill is to enable a single, coherent pollution control system to be set up",
  and it then sets out how that is to be done; namely, by regulation, which is most extraordinary. So that purpose has been expressed in the new clause.
  However, the Explanatory Notes also make it clear that the Government, quite rightly, intend to strengthen our existing system which is expressed in Part I of the 1990 Act, all 28 clauses of which are to be repealed. The Government have made clear also that they intend to implement the EC Directive on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control which must be done by 30th October this year.
  Therefore, we have made clear in our purpose clause that that is a principal aim of the Bill. It is something which cannot be derived, even by careful reading, from the Bill itself. If the Government do not believe that the purpose clause goes far enough—I suppose they may think that—they can agree to this amendment now and extend the purpose clause, if they think necessary, on Report. I hope that my noble friend will receive full support from the Government in relation to this purpose clause.
  Lord Whitty: At this stage, it may he helpful if I indicate generally the Government's approach to this matter. It may be helpful also for me to spread my remarks rather wider than merely speaking to my amendments in the group because I believe that the Government have responded both to the feelings expressed originally in Committee and to the report of the Delegated Powers Committee. There have also been various informal discussions in the interim with which noble Lords will be familiar.
  Clearly there was a problem with the Bill. In all humility, the Government accepted that and we have done quite a bit to meet those problems. The noble Lord,

  945
  Lord Dixon-Smith, was generous in his remarks, but it took quite a lot of persuasion on his part to convince me that a recommitment stage would be sensible because, in many ways, we have changed the nature of the Bill in the amendments we have tabled. Therefore, it may be helpful to the Committee to know our overall approach.
  The Delegated Powers Committee gave its opinion on the Bill, which was fairly robust. It concluded that the powers which were being delegated were too wide; were not clearly enough defined; and were not subject to an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. We debated those points with some vigour and we have considered them.
  The first of the Delegated Powers Committee's suggestions was:
  "whether the legislation should be limited to matters provided in Schedule 1".
  The government amendments which have now been tabled do just that. They limit the scope of the Bill to set up a permit regime to regulate environmental pollution from installations and plant and to establish standards and objectives or to make plans relating to emissions. In other words, the purposes of the Bill are now confined to those items which are spelt out in Schedule 1.
  The committee then asked whether there should be a clear indication of the ambit of powers which may be delegated and whether the categories of person to whom powers can be delegated should be specified. Amendment No. 10 in particular removes the general power to sub-delegate and allows it only for those functions necessary to maintain the flexibility of the regulator. I have also tabled a later amendment which meets the committee's recommendation that no regulation should be made without proper consultation Further, there is an amendment which meets all the Select Committee's recommendations about the use of the affirmative procedure. Therefore, we have restored substantially the area of parliamentary control about which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and others were deeply concerned, as was the Delegated Powers Committee.
  We have gone further than the Select Committee's recommendations. Later today I shall move amendments to meet some of the other points raised in the debate in February. They will provide greater clarification of the definition of "environmental pollution"; modify the provision relating to the regulator's powers; and include a provision for the protection of commercially confidential information. That is a substantial move and one which has been acknowledged by the Select Committee.
  I asked the Delegated Powers Committee to comment on the proposed government amendments, should it so wish. It has done so. Its conclusion is:
  "We are, therefore, satisfied with the Government's response to our 3rd Report … Taken together, these amendments would circumscribe and provide criteria for what were previously excessively wide powers".
  Therefore, the amendments meet the points made by the Delegated Powers Committee and those raised previously in Committee.
  946
  That approval goes wider than the Select Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to the CBI. In a letter dated 22nd March, the CBI expressed its approval of the way in which the Government are proposing to handle those issues. The CBI is keen to ensure that we maintain coherence. Its letter states:
  "Our preference is for a specific Bill to put the IPPC Directive into effect rather than implementation through the 1972 European Communities Act".
  That would have permitted much less parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations. The CBI went on to recognise the value of delegating regulations by saying:
  "We recognise that the Bill must allow for powers to change the law by regulations in certain areas to retain flexibility … We believe the amendments you have put down … create safeguards for business in providing for consultation and allowing for the scrutiny of Regulations in key areas by the affirmative resolution procedure".
  Government Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 probably provide the most important safeguards. That has been recognised by the Delegated Powers Committee and those amendments are supported by the CBI and the Environment Agency. I have received a letter from the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, who unfortunately cannot be with us today. Other noble Lords may have received a copy of that letter.
  Indeed, the amendments go much further than the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee. Therefore, I believe that the Government have met the anxieties which were expressed previously in Committee and by the Delegated Powers Committee. In doing so, I acknowledge that there have been drafting difficulties with the Bill. However, we have now addressed them and I hope that the Committee will accept that.
  In view of the fact that I have agreed to a recommitment stage, I hope that the Committee will not object if I take advantage of the flexibility provided by that to come back on the specific amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, so that I may deal also with other points which noble Lords are anxious to raise. However, I ask Members of the Committee to understand the wide-ranging scope of the government amendments. I thought it helpful to explain the position at this stage.
  Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The Minister should be congratulated on his miracle of understatement when he said that there have been drafting difficulties in relation to the Bill. We can all go along with that without any difficulty.
  I wondered why the Minister rose to his feet so early in what is likely to be a brief discussion. I was impressed by what my noble friend on the Front Bench said about the need for a purpose clause and by what my noble friend Lord Renton said. In rising to his feet so early, I thought that the Minister wished to add to the welcome, friendly atmosphere which has prevailed so far by saying that, of course, he will accept the amendment. However, he did not. He plunged into the deeper waters of the later stages of the Bill. I should have thought that his immediate acceptance of this reasonable amendment would be a further gesture of good intentions.

  947
  I do not want to underrate the importance of my noble friend's amendment but, as I understand it, he is giving the Government free, gratis, for nothing and without any charge a decent quantity of face powder which the Government can use to cover their obvious embarrassment about the way in which they have handled the Bill up to now. I hope that nothing that the Minister has said so far indicates his intention to advise the House to reject the amendment.
  3.30 p.m.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: As my name stands to this amendment, perhaps I may speak now. If at any stage I am inaudible or incoherent that will be because this morning I had a wisdom tooth extracted and I am still suffering the effects.
  Lord Renton: Your wisdom is still there!
  Lord Jenkin of Boding: I am not sure about that. My noble friend is very kind.
  I want to make one or two points arising out of the earlier discussion. First, this is the first Bill of which I have had experience where we have operated a new procedure; namely, the Marshalled List is produced not on the day of consideration, but on the previous Sitting day. That happened to be last Thursday. However, we did not receive the groupings until this morning when, as I have said, I was otherwise engaged.
  Although it is helpful to have the amendments relisted in the order in which they will be taken and doubly helpful to have numbers allocated to them—the primary purpose—we should like to have even a tentative list of groupings at the same time, particularly when a weekend intervenes. I attempted to get hold of a draft groupings list over the weekend and I was told by the Printed Paper Office that that would be impossible. However, we received one this morning.
  My second point is that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is right. He has moved a long way towards meeting the complaints of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and the points made in an earlier Committee stage from all parts of the House. I am grateful to see noble Lords who took part in those debates in their places. I hope that I am not out of order in saying that if anybody imagines that that would have happened in another place, in the present circumstances, they have a bigger imagination than I have. This is the House of Lords at its best. I refer both to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and to our earlier debates in Committee.
  I believe that my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, whom I support, made a strong case for wanting at the outset of the Bill a clear statement of its purpose. I share the disappointment of my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil that so far the Government have not indicated any readiness to agree. Legislation has to be interpreted by the courts. One cannot imagine a more useful way of indicating to the courts the purpose of the Bill, so that when they interpret the clauses and the regulations under the clauses, they will have the purpose on the face of the Bill.
  948
  I understand that it is open to the courts to look at what was said in the course of the debates, particularly from the Government Front Bench. However, I would rather see that on the face of the Bill in the form of Amendment No. 1. If the amendment is not worded correctly, perhaps there may be another opportunity to correct that.
  I too have read the letter from the chairman of the Environment Agency, although I did not receive my copy until after five o'clock on Thursday when it was no longer possible to table fresh amendments. I am afraid that the agency did not understand the new procedure. I have replied to the chairman, stating that we shall have to return to his points at a later stage because it was too late to take account of what he had said, notwithstanding the fact that my noble friend's amendment had been tabled for some time.
  Perhaps that is not right, but, in the meantime, it embodies an enormously important principle that, when legislating for substantial delegated powers, in pursuance of a directive from the European Union, it is very important to have a clear purpose clause at the front of a Bill. I hope that, on reflection and having heard the debate, the Minister will feel able to accept that—if not now, perhaps at a later stage. I regard this amendment as extremely important and I hope that it will be pressed.
  Baroness Hamwee: On the new arrangements, as a member of the Procedure Committee which made recommendations to the House as to the publication of the Marshalled List and the publication of the groupings, I am sure that if noble Lords feel that the arrangements are not working well that committee, when and if it is appropriate, will look at them again. I am probably entirely out of place in saying that as a mere member of the committee, but I know that that has been the approach of both the working group appointed by the Leader of the House and the committee. I was very glad to receive the Marshalled List early.
  On the late delivery of the letter from the chairman of the Environment Agency, I simply say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that perhaps he was lucky to have received a letter about this afternoon' s proceedings at least before the proceedings took place. Frequently, I receive correspondence after a debate has taken place.
  Perhaps I can, not too obsequiously—I hope it will not be held against me on future occasions—congratulate the Minister on what he personally has achieved in ensuring that this afternoon we have before us amendments which do so much to rectify the position which we all acknowledge was unsatisfactory. One can only imagine what may have gone on behind the scenes. I suspect that the Minister had a substantial hand in what we have before us. I am sure that the House is very grateful to him for that.
  On Amendment No. 1, I have often been on the side of those who have proposed a purpose clause when that purpose clause has been at odds with the real purpose of the Bill. So often it is a device for debating, early in the proceedings, the policy to be incorporated in the Bill. This afternoon we are in a

  949
  different position. The Committee is generally agreed that the purposes of the Bill are good purposes and ones that we want to see enacted. There is, however, the possible technical problem that the clause refers to Sections 1 to 28 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which, subject to later amendments, would be repealed in any event, but I have no doubt that the Minister will deal with that.
  Perhaps the Minister could answer one question. I am a little ashamed to ask it, given, as I say, that I have taken part in other debates on purpose clauses. Technically, will a purpose clause restrict subsequent provisions of the Bill? In other words, will it be a guide to the enforcers of the system, or will it prevent orders which are outside the narrow confines of the purpose clause so that the purpose clause will override the later provisions dealing with the order-making powers or, at any rate, constrain their application?
  Lord Skelmersdale: As a newcomer to this Bill, but I hope a fairly objective one, I observed from listening to the debate over the past half-hour that we are in effect presented with two purpose clauses. One is that moved by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith and spoken to by my noble friends Lord Renton, Lord Jenkin of Roding and others and the other is the Government's Amendment No. 3 which seeks to make the Bill read:
  "The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision",
  for any of the purposes listed in Part I, Schedule 1. Although it is not spelt out in the same sort of detail as in my noble friend's amendment, it is in effect starting with a purpose reference. But—a very big "but"—we have to delve into Part I, Schedule 1, to find out what the purpose really is, whereas my noble friends made it crystal clear that, were their amendment to be accepted, it would stare us straight in the face the moment we opened the statute book.
  My only question to the Minister is this: are the words in the purpose clause, which all sides are agreed is necessary, accurate? If they are, it is a far better purpose clause than that of the Government.
  Lord Renton: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I can add a few words to the debate.
  I hope the Government realise that we are trying to help them and to protect the sovereignty of both Houses of Parliament—at any rate that of another place. The Minister relies upon amendments that he tabled after our original Committee stage and claims that they declare the purpose of the Bill. They do not. All that they do is slightly elaborate the regulation-making power upon which the Government rely to give the Secretary of State the power to turn primary legislation into subordinate legislation, as to which Parliament can only say yes or no.
  The noble Lord relied upon the work of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which has done great service to this House. But I feel bound to point out that on this occasion its conclusions are a trifle
  950
  inconsistent. They are stated in two paragraphs. In paragraph 8 of its last report the committee says:
  "It remains important that the purposes"—
  I stress the word "purposes"—
  "and ambit of legislation, together with any important governing criteria, should be clearly specified within the primary legislation and not simply left to the exercise of delegated powers".
  In the last paragraph, having said that it was not to be regarded as a precedent, the committee tried to help the Government in the clarification of the power to make subordinate legislation which they have so far put forward.
  The Delegated Powers Committee, splendid though it is—I know it and have great respect for it—is merely advisory to us; we are not bound by its conclusions. It is important that we should regard its paragraph 8 as of overriding importance compared with the compromise in paragraph 9.
  It is reassuring to hear the support from a number of my noble friends and from the noble Baroness. I hope that the Government will acknowledge our desire to help them by improving the Bill.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Behind all the arguments crystallised in this amendment is a general consideration; that is, that there is no question but that delegated legislation is far more convenient to the Executive and particularly to the officials. It is an appalling bore for Parliament that your Lordships and the other place insist on going through a Bill line by line. In our House we repeat that three times and in the other place it is again twice. We can amend Bills freely. The great advantage to the Executive of subordinate legislation is that it cannot be amended. That is probably the sticking point.
  There have been repeated efforts to argue that Parliament—in particular your Lordships—may not reject secondary legislation. Happily, that was rejected. On 20th October 1994, your Lordships specifically asserted that our power to reject subordinate legislation was quite untrammelled by any convention. It is true that your Lordships will not be inclined to exercise that power frequently, but that power exists. One of the circumstances where it will be exercised is where a Bill is a skeleton Bill and it is only in the subordinate legislation that we get the enacting provisions. In those circumstances, your Lordships would be fully entitled to reject any of the regulations which you feel are inappropriate.
  We are singularly fortunate in having the Select Committee. From the outset it has been a strong committee. It was originally presided over by the late Lord Rippon of Hexham, and we now owe a great debt to the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon. I see the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in his place. He was an original member of that committee, and my noble friend Lord Ampthill, who is also doing duty here, has been a member throughout. We are very much in its debt.
  One other should be mentioned; that is, the legal adviser. We owe his appointment to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, as Leader of the House. We were

  951
  singularly fortunate, as was the committee, in having a government lawyer of exceptional ability and experience able to take his place on that committee. Once again, it placed us in its debt.
  I echo what has been said; that is, that we owe a debt also to the Minister, who has gone quite a long way to meet the fully justified criticism, even though only implied, of the Select Committee. That should not go unrecognised.
  One comes to the purpose clause. As I understand it, a purpose clause is an aid to interpretation. The noble Baroness asked the Minister what was the effect of a purpose clause. He will correct me if I have it wrong, but in any case the Lord Advocate has recklessly put himself in the line of fire and is available to give an authoritative legal opinion. It undoubtedly has some subsidiary effect in limiting, particularly in the other place, the scope of amendments that might be made.
  I have no objection to this purpose clause as it seems to me to be useful;
  but there is another way of doing it in this Bill and in every Bill; that is, to use the Long Title. The great advantage is that otherwise the Long Title serves no purpose whatever. In this case it is a Bill to,
  "Make provision for a new system of pollution prevention and control; and for connected purposes".
  I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will forgive me for saying that, even with his proposed addition, it really is very unilluminating. It is possible, however., to frame a Long Title so that it gives a guide to the purpose of a statute. The leading textbooks on the subject, Craies and Maxwell, give a number of examples where that has been done. It seems to me to be generally advantageous to declare the purpose of a statute in the Long Title, otherwise the Long Title is purely suprarogatory.
  We are still at a Committee stage. Perhaps I may suggest that the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith, Lord Renton and Lord Jenkin, consider withdrawing their amendment and that the Minister will consider withdrawing his to see whether a common purpose may not more advantageously be declared by re-framing the Long Title.
  If the Long Title is left as it is, it is quite useless. No doubt it can be said that it provides employment for draftsmen, secretaries, typists, printers and bookbinders, but otherwise it serves no useful purpose at all. I hope that the suggestion might be considered of declaring a purpose in the Long Title. That bears on the question asked by the noble Baroness, because it is undoubtedly the law, whatever the answer is to her question, that the Long Title is merely an aid to interpretation and available only to resolve an ambiguity. I doubt very much whether a purpose clause does anything more, but I see that the Lord Advocate is in his place.
  Lord Shepherd: The truth is that over the years the Select Committee has progressively broadened its parameters. I doubt whether, when we first met under Lord Rippon, we would have dared to put the proposal which is in this report. We would have thought it well beyond our competence; but that is the nature of this House and the strength of our committees.
  952
  I cannot help but be reminded of our discussing the purpose clause many years ago. There has always been a wish for that, even though delegated legislation was infinitely less in those days than it is today. The Lord Chancellor of the day, Lord Gardiner, came forward with a proposal that there should be a preface to the Bill; in other words, there would be in the preface an indication as to the purpose of the legislation. If it were in the preface it would therefore not be subject to that part of the Bill, or Act when passed, of which the judges would take cognisance. My understanding is that the judges take a view not on what Parliament has intended but on what Parliament has in fact passed. Your Lordships found the proposal interesting but in the end rejected it. It was too revolutionary.
  If there is a wish to find a means of overcoming the matter of a purpose clause—I understand that there could be difficulties in limitations being placed not so much on this House but perhaps on another place if there were such clauses—one of the solutions might be to look at the proposals which were made by Lord Gardiner.
  Lord Whitty: The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, chided me for not replying directly to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. That may have been appropriate at that point, but it is probably better that I reply to all the points that have been raised in this debate.
  I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and other noble Lords for their kind words regarding the Government's flexibility. I also recognise the role that the Delegated Powers Committee has played not only in this context but in others, which I believe will be appreciated particularly by this House and by this Committee. I appreciate the indication by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that noble Lords are only trying to be helpful. But there is a degree to which helpfulness goes a little too far as far as the Government are concerned. The desire to accept not only the letter but also the spirit of the Delegated Powers Committee's comments seems to us to have been met, and more than met.
  The Delegated Powers Committee referred to the transfer from the face of the Bill to regulations. It noted it and did not comment or make a recommendation. Where it has made a recommendation, we are meeting all of the points and more.
  On the purpose of the Bill as such, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is right that if we were to accept the noble Lord's amendment and my amendment we would in effect have two purpose clauses. I ask noble Lords to look at the effect of my amendment, which changes subsection (2) of Clause 1 to define the general purpose of the Bill as regulating activities which cause environmental pollution and controlling or preventing pollution emissions. Subsection (1) would restrict the purpose yet further to making regulations for the matters listed under Schedule 1, as I indicated.
  The result is that the Secretary of State cannot act outside the scope set out in Schedule 1. Anything he does within the scope of that schedule must be done for the general purpose set out in subsection (2). In other words, my amendments create a purpose clause. The

  953
  noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, may think it is not an adequate purpose clause; nevertheless, it is a clear purpose clause and the Government consider that it meets points which were made earlier, as indeed does the Delegated Powers Committee.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, raises the alternative approach which relates to changing the Long Title. I am advised by the Lord Advocate—who is no longer in his seat—plus taking other expert advice, that once the Bill has been introduced the Long Title can only be amended once an amendment has been passed which alters the nature of the Bill and makes amendment of the Long Title appropriate—
  4 p.m.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Can the Minister say where he gets the proposition that a Long Title can only be amended once?
  Lord Whitty: I believe that the noble and learned Lord misheard what I said. I did not say that it could only be amended once; I said that it can only be amended once—whatever form of speech that is—after the Bill itself has been amended so that an amendment to the Long Title became appropriate. It is therefore premature to consider amendment of the Long Title. That is my advice and Members of the Committee may wish to consider the matter later. However, at present we are dealing with the amendments now before us.
  It is not only the case that I naturally prefer my new purpose clause to that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, it is also the fact that, were we to adopt the noble Lord's amendments, certain consequences would flow. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked whether the purpose clause would restrict the subsequent clauses of the Bill. The answer is, yes, it would. The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is that if we had two purpose clauses clearly some ambiguity would arise if both were adopted. I give way to the noble Lord.
  Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to the Minister. I said that I saw these clauses as alternatives. Therefore, I could not possibly have pre-supposed, as he has twice suggested, that I saw both of them as being able to be written on the face of the Bill.
  Lord Whitty: I accept the noble Lord's clarification. However, perhaps I may address the substance of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. The Government's proposals and the Bill as it stands are not adequately described in the purpose clause he proposes. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, knows only too well, we are not seeking to strengthen the pollution control regime established under the 1990 Act; we are seeking to replace and improve it with something based on the IPPC directive. In doing so, we are making a number of relatively minor changes, not all of which would be regarded as strengthening; in fact, a number of our changes are deregulatory. Therefore, in its current form, the noble Lord's amendment would not allow us to follow that course.
  954
  I refer again to the letter received by myself and some other noble Lords from the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, the Chairman of the Environment Agency. That letter refers to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. The noble Lord says:
  "I assume that their intention in moving this amendment is to provide a check on the extent of the Bill's powers … If this is to be done via a statement of purpose, then it is essential that it is defined correctly… We are concerned that the amendment as worded might create confusion between the powers that can be applied under Schedule 1 and the purpose of the Bill. Given that the separate amendments that you—
  that is to say, the Government—
  "have tabled would effectively limit the scope of the Regulation-making powers … I wonder whether the purpose clause is necessary or desirable".
  We are taking the opportunity to do more than simply implement the IPPC directive. We also intend to improve the offshore environmental regime, for example, by implementing coherently the requirements of the OSPAR agreement on the use and discharge of chemicals offshore and the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, on pollution incidents involving offshore installations. Those matters were not dealt with in the 1990 Act regime nor indeed in the IPPC directive, and so would not be permissible under the noble Lord's new clause as drafted. I am sure that that was not the noble Lord's intention but, nevertheless, that would be the effect.
  The question is whether those powers are better delimited in the manner proposed by the Government, which the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has expressed to be satisfactory, or through the proposed new clause of the noble Lord. As it stands, I do not believe that the clause would be an improvement. While I might have accepted that a purpose clause was lacking in the original draft, I believe that the amendment I propose will meet the objection to the original Bill as drafted. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
  While I am on my feet, perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, as regards the tabling of groupings. We are moving into a new procedure. Frankly, it would of course be most convenient for the Government if we were to have Marshalled Lists and groupings issued a lot earlier than is currently the case. Nevertheless, that is a matter for the authorities of the House rather than for me.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: Before the Minister sits down, will he perhaps consider, as I do, that the difference between us is probably not much more than the thickness of a cigarette paper—that is, if anyone knows what a cigarette paper is in this modern age. I always accepted that our amendment might not be sufficiently well drafted. However, the issue is whether or not the purposes of the Bill should be set out at the beginning or should in fact appear somewhat further on within it.
  My problem is purely psychological. Every time I read the Bill, the first words I come across are the following:
  "The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision".

  955
  I am sorry—indeed, I really am sorry—but I find myself wondering whether in fact it would be possible for the Minister to consider how he might shuffle the pack with the amendments he has proposed so that we get some of the words that he has put in his amendments placed at the beginning of the Bill before the first line that I have just quoted. If we could do that, I believe we would make most speedy progress.
  Lord Ampthill: Before the Minister responds, perhaps I may intervene briefly. I should like to begin by expressing my apologies to him because it was I who first suggested that the Bill should be recommitted on the Floor of the House. I deeply regret the inconvenience to which the noble Lord has been put. I have sympathy with what the noble Lord's amendment proposes, but I feel that what the Minister has in Clause 1 is perfectly capable of amendment at a later stage. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is dissatisfied with it as it is presently placed, there is no reason why he could not rectify that at the next stage of the Bill.
  Lord Whitty: I am grateful for the noble Lord's intervention. As I hope I have indicated, I do not believe that the wording of the noble Lord's new clause represents a difference between us which can be expressed as being merely the thickness of a cigarette paper. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Farrington, has explained to me what a cigarette paper is. I believe that the difference is slightly wider.
  Our clause, as amended, gives an adequate description of the Bill and refers to the Bill's purpose. At the appropriate point, I shall be pressing my amendments. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord not to pursue his amendment for the reasons that I have outlined. If amendments were to evolve at a later stage, I would be happy to consider a purpose clause which might meet my points. However, in the meantime, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. As I said, I shall be pressing my amendments at a later stage
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am sorry that the Minister feels that he cannot "shuffle the pack" at this stage in order to meet what I believe to be a highly desirable situation. Nevertheless, I understand that that might be technically difficult because one is re-drafting a re-draft of a re-draft, so to speak. Therefore, it is not exactly a straightforward matter. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate because there are important issues of principle involved. Indeed, they are not matters which we can let go or treat in any light way.
  In fact, I am grateful to the Minister for the approach which the Government have taken, in so far as it goes a very long way to meeting the objections which were raised regarding the original draft. In the light of what the noble Lord said, I wonder whether he might afford me the same facility and think about what I have said. At this stage I am prepared to withdraw the amendment, and beg leave to do so.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 2:
  Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

  CONTROLS ON OFFSHORE POWER GENERATION PLANT
  (" . Regulations under this Act may provide for emission controls on offshore power generation plant with a total thermally rated input above 50MWs.")
  The noble Lord said: By way of introduction to the amendment, I must say that I was surprised to see that this proposed new clause is still starred on the Marshalled List despite the fact that it was tabled last Wednesday. Therefore, it was bound to be starred when the first Marshalled List was issued the next day. However, for the life of me I cannot see why it should still be starred three days later in the current Marshalled List which is available in the Printed Paper Office. There is always the suggestion that a starred amendment is, somehow, late and therefore a less-deserving afterthought. This was not; indeed, it was tabled in the middle of last week. Although I appreciate that this is not a matter primarily for Ministers but rather for the House authorities, I hope that in taking up the point that was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that can be looked at because I find it slightly infra dig that one of my amendments is starred, which suggests that I did not table it soon enough.
  I do not think this debate will take an hour. It was recognised by the offshore oil and gas industry that the wording of the new clause which we have just debated—and which my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith has withdrawn—may not have been sufficient to take into account certain aspects in relation to that industry. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has indicated that that is one of the purposes of the whole Bill.
  The point that is sought to be made here is that under the European large combustion plants directive which applied to power generation plant with a total thermally rated input above 50 megawatts, that plant was expressly excluded from the large combustion plants directive. The offshore installations were expressly excluded.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, pointed out, that is not the case under this directive. Indeed, it is one of the first items in the appropriate schedule to the directive. I think all I need say at this stage is that when we look again at the question of a purpose clause—because that is what this amendment is intended to reflect—we need to take account of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made about the offshore oil and gas industry. This is almost certainly not the right form of words, but there needs to be something to indicate that here we have a significant extension of the existing controls, which hitherto have not applied to that industry.
  Perhaps I may use this as a peg on which to hang a question to which I have not yet received an effective answer. If other countries in the European Union do not propose to apply this directive to offshore installations, what are the Government going to do about it? The whole purpose of having a European directive is that it shall apply throughout the European Union. I have been told—no one has suggested this is wrong—that, for instance, when the Danish Government perform the

  957
  same process as we are going through now and embody the directive in domestic legislation, they do not intend to extend it to the offshore oil and gas industry. That seems to me to make a nonsense of the whole thing. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is in a position to tell us anything more about that. I say to him with respect that merely to refer to taking infraction proceedings is not a satisfactory answer.
  We are still producing legislation throughout the Union in order to implement the directive. That is the moment at which these things need to be made clear. We should not wait until it is all on the statute book and then say, "Hoi, you have not done what you should have done. We shall now haul you before the European Court". That is a longstop process, as it were; the position should be made clear now. I do not see why this Parliament in this country should enact this legislation, when we are told that others do not propose to enact it in the same form or with the same substance. That would simply hamstring our own industry and put it at a competitive disadvantage vis-à-vis those of other European Union countries.
  I recognise that those questions perhaps go a little wider than the new clause which I propose. Nevertheless, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will be able to give us a more satisfactory answer than we received at the previous Committee stage. I beg to move.
  Lord Whitty: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, indicated that it might not be appropriate to press this amendment at this stage in its present form because of other discussions that are taking place. I refer not just to the discussions which are taking place in relation to this Committee; the regulations for implementing the directive are subject to a consultation process, of which the noble Lord is well aware, which will close on 26th May. That process is carried out by my colleagues in the DTI and a task force involving the industry which is chaired by my colleague John Battle. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Macdonald, who was present a moment ago, is the deputy chair of that body. There is quite a long way to go before the threshold issue as regards regulations is resolved in those discussions. The noble Lord is aware that the threshold to which he refers is contained in the draft regulations.
  As regards the application of the measure in other European countries, our understanding is that in the case of large combustion installations—one must recognise that it is the process that is relevant here, not the location—the measure applies to installations outside territorial waters. It is also our understanding that other EU countries have understood—in some cases belatedly—that that process applies to their equivalent installations as well as to ours, and that they would therefore be subject to possible infraction proceedings if they did not introduce legislation to cover those installations. I believe that the other parliaments to which the noble Lord referred are at an even earlier stage of introducing this legislation than we are. However, all of us here are attempting to pass the legislation to comply with the directive by 30th October.
  958
  I believe that by that stage the other member states—Norway through its membership of EFTA is bound by the same provisions—will have met those requirements in their legislation. I hope that in the light of those comments the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment, at least at this stage.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that clarification which takes us rather further forward than was the case in February. I shall obviously want to take advice on this matter, but at this moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.15 p.m.
  Clause 1 [Regulation of polluting activities]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5:
  Page 1, line 5, leave out from ("make") to ("provision") in line 11
  Page 1, line 12, at end insert—
  ("(2A) The powers of the Secretary of State under subsection (1) shall be exercisable—

  (a) for or in connection with regulating activities which are capable of causing any environmental pollution; or

  (b) otherwise for or in connection with the prevention or control of emissions capable of causing any such pollution.")

  Page 1, line 13, leave out ("(1)") and insert ("(2A)")
  The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 en bloc.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 6:
  Page 1, line 19. after ("land") insert ("which may give rise to any harm")
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 6, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 7 which also stands in my name. When we debated this Bill in February, noble Lords considered that the definition of "environmental pollution" in that draft was inadequate and as such added inappropriately to the width of the regulation-making powers. I promised to reflect on that debate. These amendments address that issue. With my amendment, Clause 1(3) of the Bill will include a definition of pollution which goes no wider than the definition in the directive and in Section 1 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This is as far as the concept can be defined while still allowing for the effective operation of the regulatory regime. To go narrower than the directive definition would mean that we could not properly implement the directive, leaving the UK open to possible infraction proceedings. To go narrower than the 1990 Act definition would mean a weakening of our existing controls, which is not intended.
  Amendment No. 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, would remove from the definition the concept of harm to human health or to the health of other living organisms. I do not think that that is appropriate. This is part of the definition of "pollution". It forms part of the definition in the directive and it appears in current UK legislation. In some ways it is perhaps the most

  959
  important consideration which the regulator takes into account when setting conditions on the operator of an installation. Without it, the regulator would be left to control those emissions which damaged buildings or offended the senses but not those which caused illness or disease. I referred earlier to the letter received from the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, who was also alarmed by the implications of this amendment and who said that it would be contrary to long-standing elements of UK environmental policy.
  The health implications of pollution are fundamental to the regime we are trying to put into place by the legislation. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will not proceed with his amendment. I believe that my amendments meet the concerns expressed in the earlier February debate. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I like the definition in Amendment No. 7. However, there are one or two questions I should like to ask about it. While I have been campaigning for the Scottish Parliament—perhaps in the future we will refer to that as "yet another place"—it has been drawn to my attention that in Clackmannanshire, Kinross and West Fife there is a problem with public health because of the spreading of partially treated sewage sludge, which has concerned many people in that area. Will the Bill regulate the spreading and/or ejection of partially treated sewage sludge on agricultural land? The main concern is public health, particularly when the spreading occurs on more than one occasion per year. The risks of air pollution affecting health and of leachates reaching the water supply are substantial and need to be controlled. Will Amendment No. 7 deal with the issue of the use of agricultural land for the disposal of partially treated sewage sludge?
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am sorry if I appear to be a little confused. I am not sure whether we are talking to the Minister's Amendment No. 7 or to my Amendment No. 8, which I have not yet moved and to which the Minister has apparently already replied. However, in this relaxed and progressive mood, perhaps I should say why I tabled the amendment. It was for partly philosophical and partly practical reasons—and mainly because I wanted to hear what the Minister had to say on the matter.
  My philosophical reason relates to the question of harm to "other living organisms". Harm to other living organisms can mean many things. It implies that in the state of nature other living organisms are not trying to harm themselves. I am afraid that that is patent nonsense. My experience of nature is very clear: it is feast or famine. In the state of nature, everything struggles for domination. The fact that domination may be self-defeating is neither here nor there. It is the state of affairs. Plants do it against plants; animals against animals; animals against plants, and so on. In the state of nature, "harm" is a natural condition. That is the philosophical objection.
  My practical objection is slightly different. We are talking about the possibility of making regulations about industrial processes. My practical concern is that this could conceivably be used against specific agricultural operations in general practice which always involve harm to something, be they only weeds, insects or
  960
  whatever. It could conceivably be used in such a way as to make the United Kingdom's agriculture uncompetitive in Europe arid elsewhere. I may be reassured that that would never happen in the light of the Minister's reply—I do not know—but I hope that he will accept that the point I am raising is a serious one. I hope that he might expand slightly on what he said. I accept that these words have been used in the past, but that does not necessarily mean that they are either wholly appropriate or wholly correct.
  The Duke of Montrose: In a similar vein to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, I am concerned about the proposed paragraph (c) in Amendment No. 7 regarding "offence to the senses". The Minister may be able to tell me where the phrase has been used before, but an "offence to the senses" might include an offence to sight, sound, smell or touch. One can think of various things which would offend people. It seems to me that one could draw up a law to deal with matters which damage such organs in human beings, but such matters are already covered in legislation. I have read the European directive but I can find nothing relating to this context. It seems to me that the amendment exceeds the purposes of the European directive. I am worried, as is the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that this might put our production processes, both industrial and farming, at a disadvantage.
  Baroness Hamwee: Surely other members of the European Union will be in the same position as we are if this definition faithfully replicates the provisions of the directive. I had understood it to mean that, if the definition is included, the Secretary of State will be able to make regulations to deal with "harm" as defined. No doubt we will have to go through a process of working out whether that "harm" is one which requires regulation.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: Does the noble Baroness accept that up until now this country has been somewhat resistant to the idea of harmonisation of matters European? We have not yet pulled it into this specific area, but I suspect that this nation of ours will be as resistant to harmonisation in this area as we would be in others where the matter has generally been raised.
  Baroness Hamwee: I thought that the noble Lord was concerned that we might be ahead of the game on this issue rather than trying to pull the other member states onside.
  Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is correct in saying that much has been made of the Bill. it is essentially an enabling Bill. It does not prescribe what the interventions would be; it defines what falls under both activities and under "environmental pollution". I understand the concerns of agriculture and other industries, hence the implications in sub-paragraph (iii) and paragraph (c) of my Amendment No. 7. Both wordings were in the 1990 Act and, as far as I am aware, there have been no problems of interpretation in the regulations brought forward under that Act. No doubt the

  961
  interests of the agricultural industry and others will be taken into account in the drafting of the various regulations.
  As to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, the regulations will again enable the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to deal with the problem of sludge. They will not necessarily prescribe that he should so do. It may be that "yet another place" will address the matter in a Scottish context at some future date. There are already some water-related regulations which apply to that area. The amendment would allow further such regulations to be made. With that clarification, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will not move his amendment and that the Committee will accept my amendments.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 7:
  Page 1, line 25, at end insert —
  ("() In the definition of "environmental pollution" in subsection (3), "harm" means—

  (a) harm to the health of human beings or other living organisms;

  (b) harm to the quality of the environment, including—

  (i) harm to the quality of the environment taken as a whole,

  (ii) harm to the quality of the air, water or land, and

  (iii) other impairment of, or interference with, the ecological systems of which any living organisms form part;

  (c) offence to the senses of human beings;

  (d) damage to property; or

  (e) impairment of, or interference with, amenities or other legitimate uses of the environment (expressions used in this paragraph having the same meaning as in Council Directive 96/61/EC).")

  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith had given notice of his intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 7, Amendment No. 8:
  Leave out line 4
  The noble Lord said: In the light of the Minister's remarks, which I shall study with great care, I shall not move the amendment.
  [Amendment No. 8, as an amendment to Amendment No. 7, not moved.]
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 9:
  Page I. line 25, at end insert—
  ("() Regulations under this section shall require individuals or bodies responsible for carrying out such activities as are referred to in the regulations to employ the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost (in this clause referred to as "BATNEEC") to be used for minimising the pollution which may be caused to the environment as a whole by those activities:
  Provided that—

  (a) regulations under this section may specify circumstances where a more or less restrictive regime than BATNEEC
  962
  may be required either to comply with European or other international obligations, or on account of other circumstances;

  (b) where regulations are made pursuant to paragraph (a) above, they shall be accompanied by a statement explaining why such a more or less restrictive regime should be applied; and

  (c) if the regime to be employed is more restrictive than BATNEEC, the regulations embodying that regime shall not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.")

  The noble Lord said: We return to the subject of BATNEEC: best available techniques not entailing excessive cost. We debated this matter fully at the earlier Committee stage. Of all the original recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, the one that the committee acknowledged the Government had not met was its original proposal that BATNEEC should be written into the Bill. In response both to the third report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and to the Select Committee at a later stage, the Minister has argued that he is justified in not accepting this proposal, that the well understood, well tried and well applied British test of BATNEEC should be included in the new Bill and the regulations, because there may well be circumstances in which it would be necessary to legislate for what might be described as a more stringent requirement. I believe I am right in saying that the Select Committee recognised the weight of that argument, but also thought it right to clarify whether or not there would be any circumstances in which a less stringent test should be applied. Its indication was that there would not, and should not, be.
  This new clause takes up both those points. It attempts to meet the Government's argument that there may well be circumstances where a more stringent test than BATNEEC should be applied. But it also raises the possibility that there may be circumstances where it would not be right to apply the full rigour of BATNEEC where a less rigorous regime would be appropriate. One can imagine circumstances where the balance of cost and advantage, between the cost to the operators and the advantage to the environment (I use the word in its widest sense) might well justify such a circumstance.
  My amendment therefore recognises that BATNEEC should be the central test. I argue for that because the principle is well known and well understood. Also, the Minister has said, in various different formulations—that it is very similar to; or not dissimilar from; or that BATNEEC lies at the heart of the environmental legislation—that this is what firms, professionals and regulators in this country are all familiar with. If it is the same as the test in the directive, why should we not continue to use it?
  The amendment recognises that there may be either a more stringent regime or a less stringent one. It therefore meets the Government's case on a more stringent regime but provides a new procedure. If, in their wisdom, the Government decide to make regulations which would impose a more severe duty on operators than BATNEEC, or if they were to decide, perhaps in the face of opposition from environmental groups, that there

  963
  should be a less stringent regime, they would have to accompany the regulations with a statement justifying their decision. Further, those regulations must be subject to the affirmative, not merely the negative, procedure in both Houses of Parliament.
  I ask the Government to consider this amendment seriously. It is intended to meet the case pressed by industry, and by the Select Committee, to write BATNEEC—best available techniques not entailing excessive cost—into the Bill. It meets the Government's case as regards giving them power to impose a more rigorous regime. It would also allow the Government in certain circumstances to introduce a less rigorous scheme, subject to the procedural proposals that I have just described. I beg to move.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: In rising to support my noble friend, I congratulate him on his ingenuity in drafting an amendment which literally allows the Government to go both ways—to be more, or less, severe—and then requires them, whichever way they may choose, to provide a public explanation of the reasons for so doing.
  The BATNEEC principle is well understood and is measurable. It has worked successfully for a very long time. The difficulty with moving to a more open and potentially more severe regime is the possibility that no limitations would thereby be created. Theoretically, an industry could quickly be closed down. My noble friend's amendment at the very least merits serious study.
  Lord Whitty: This matter is slightly complex. There are two separate issues involved. The first is whether we should retain as part of our new regime the concept of BATNEEC, or whether we should adopt the BAT regime specified in the directive. The second concerns the freedom of manoeuvre of the Secretary of State in either direction.
  On the first issue, I appreciate the point made by both noble Lords that BATNEEC is a concept with which industry in general is already familiar. It is not originally a British concept. It arose from an EC directive issued in 1984 and was reflected in the 1990 Act. The EU has moved on and has now replaced BATNEEC by specifying the concept of BAT, which we must now apply.
  I see that BATNEEC appears to provide a more explicit reference. However, the two techniques are similar. To my knowledge, neither industry nor regulator has expressed any great concern about having to substitute one for another. BAT is clearly defined in the European legislation—far more clearly than BATNEEC was defined in the 1990 legislation. Paragraph 11 of Article 2 of the directive makes it absolutely clear that cost is a key consideration. It states that,
  "available techniques shall mean those developed on a scale which allows implementation in the relevant industrial sector, under economically and technically viable conditions, taking into consideration the costs and advantages".
  We are therefore not losing the reference to costs which may be behind some of the concerns expressed.
  964
  I should point out that the UK Government cannot now alter the concept of BAT as it is set firmly within the framework of European legislation. Only by changing the European legislation could it be altered. That would require us to go back to square one in Europe, let alone on this particular base of legislation. Although BATNEEC and BAT are similar, they are not identical. We are obliged to transpose the directive in terms of BAT. Since BATNEEC is not identical, and does not have a definition which would allow us to argue that it is identical, we do not have that option.
  Perhaps more fundamentally, if we tried to legislate for BATNEEC here while the directive prescribed BAT, we would all have a headache, working with two different potential definitions and a constant argument about which one applied. That would cause the kind of legal muddle which I know the noble Lord desires to avoid.
  On the second issue, under Section 7 of the existing Environmental Protection Act 1990, an authorisation has to include such conditions as the regulator considers appropriate to achieve a number of objectives, including BATNEEC, and such conditions as are specified in directions given by the Secretary of State. Thus, there is some flexibility in the existing system.
  The circumstances in which more stringent conditions than those dictated by BATNEEC may be imposed are not specified in the 1990 Act. Likewise, the conditions in which more stringent criteria than BAT could be specified in the current proposals are not specified either in the directive or in our proposed Bill. Nevertheless, we have recognised that there could be directives or consequences arising from the discussions on the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, or others which were not covered by the technique of BAT. We would wish to impose more stringent regulations on them. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, indicated, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee recognised that. If we wished to make more stringent regulations they would need to be subject to affirmative procedure.
  The flexibility to operate in the opposite direction, to dilute the effect of BAT or BATNEEC under the existing situation, arises in the sense that the Secretary of State and the regulator have both the ability to grant a transitional period, for example, and to take rote of the particular technical and locational characteristics of the installation concerned. If an operator feels that a rigid application of the technique to his case is wrong, there are grounds for appeal.
  Therefore, under the current regime—and it will continue under this regime—we allow some degree of flexibility. I would not say it is less stringent; it would allow a case-by-case assessment of the situation. If that degree of discretion were to be prescribed in regulations, the flexibility would be removed. That would probably be a retrograde step in the way in which the regulator co-operates with industry in applying the regulations.
  Therefore, on both grounds but particularly on the first ground, I do not think it would be sensible to specify BATNEEC in the way proposed in the noble Lord's amendment. We might be in some difficulty were we to

  965
  attempt to do so. I appreciate his desire to give the Government and the regulator some degree of flexibility, but we do not believe that laying down that it should be prescribed in regulations would be the appropriate way to achieve that. It might make matters more rigid than they would otherwise be.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: Before I respond, I wonder whether I have correctly understood what the Minister said about the circumstances that would arise if there were to be a more stringent test than BATNEEC. Did he say that the regulations that embodied the test would be subject to the affirmative procedure as the Bill now stands? Perhaps I misunderstood him.
  Lord Whitty: I am trying to remember which amendments we have already passed and which we have not. If all my amendments are accepted, then the first set of regulations under the Bill which would deal with such matters would be subject to the affirmative procedure.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: What about the circumstances where a subsequent set of regulations was introduced which might, in particular defined circumstances, impose a stiffer test? We have not yet come to Amendment No. 12 in the noble Lord's name, but as he said, under that amendment there is the first regulation, and then, under subsection (5C)(d), regulations,
  "which create an offence or increase a penalty for an existing offence".
  As I understand it, the Minister says that such a regulation would not necessarily be subject to the affirmative procedure. We may need to come back to it.
  Generally, I accept much of what the Minister said about the possible conflict between the two concepts, similar though they may be. I wonder whether this is yet another example of what one has seen so often in the British Government's interpretation of European directives. It has been summed up in the phrase "gold-plating"; that is, always being determined to ensure that we are holier than anyone else. We do it more thoroughly. We will never be at risk of being taken to the European Court for having fallen down. That has been a long-standing culture of government departments in this country, sometimes to the disadvantage of the subject here, when other countries do not act in quite the same way.
  However, I shall look carefully at what the Minister said. Having fulfilled the Select Committee's remit to come back and check, the Minister said he would want the flexibility downwards as well as upwards, using shorthand terms, so that, in the words of the Select Committee report, the Minister is not saying that in no circumstances would criteria less strict than BAT be used. The report then said that the House may wish to see formal confirmation of this from the Minister. The Minister has not given that formal confirmation. Instead, he wanted flexibility. I do not quarrel with that. I shall study what he said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 10:
  Page 1, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 2.
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 10 and the related Amendments Nos. 13, 16, 17 and 18 meet another of the key recommendations of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. Amendment No. 10 specifies which powers the Secretary of State may sub-delegate and to whom.
  The power to sub-delegate certain aspects of the regulations is an essential part of the regime. It will enable, for example, an operator's permit conditions to be determined on a case-by-case basis by the regulator—aspects of which have just been touched on—rather than across the board in the regulations. Amendment No. 10, together with Amendments Nos. 13 and 18, limit the scope of the Bill to those areas mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Bill where it is necessary to sub-delegate.
  To be more specific, sub-delegation would apply to the granting of permits, the imposition of permit conditions and the reviewing, varying or revoking of permits. The amendments also provide that powers may only be sub-delegated to those persons whom the Secretary of State specifies as "regulators". That would mean public or local authorities; in other words, the Environment Agency, the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency and, in certain situations, the Planning Inspectorate and the local authorities. Amendment No. 12 would make it clear on the face of the Bill that the regulations can provide for regulators to appoint suitable persons to take samples for enforcement purposes and to exercise powers of entry. That is the same power as they have under current regimes. Amendment No. 13 would also enable the Secretary of State to delegate his appellate functions. That principally applies to the planning inspectorate, as is the situation in most cases at present.
  The group of amendments go all the way—if not further—to meeting the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee's requirements under its original critique of our Bill as originally drafted. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 11:
  Page 2, line 11, at end insert—
  ("(4A) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult—

  (a) the Environment Agency if the regulations are to apply in relation to England or Wales;

  (b) the Scottish Environment Protection Agency if the regulations are to apply in relation to Scotland;

  (c) such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of local government, industry and small businesses respectively as he may consider appropriate; and

  (d) such other bodies or persons as he may consider appropriate.

  (4B) Consultation undertaken before the passing of this Act shall constitute as effective compliance with subsection (4A) as if undertaken after that passing.")
  The noble Baroness said: This amendment would place on the face of the Bill a requirement for appropriate consultation before making any regulations. We tabled a

  967
  similar amendment at the previous Committee stage in response to one of the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. We withdrew that amendment, however, in order to reflect upon the points made during debate and as a consequence have now included in this amendment a requirement to consult representatives of small businesses.
  Throughout the development of the new pollution control system we have been consulting extensively on its implementation. We published a set of draft regulations before Christmas and in June the department will issue the fourth and final in the series of consultation papers. The DTI recently published a paper on its proposals to use the Bill to improve the offshore environmental regime. The consultation process has enabled us to maintain a broad consensus in support of the proposals under this Bill. I am happy to confirm our commitment to appropriate written consultation by moving this amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 12:
  Page 2, line 12, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
  ("(5) The power to make regulations under this section shall be exercised by statutory instrument.
  (5A) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section, if made without a draft having been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament, shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House.
  (5B) No regulations to which this subsection applies shall be made (whether alone or with other regulations) unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
  (5C)Subsection (5B) applies to—

  (a) the first regulations to be made under this section which apply in relation to England;

  (b) the first regulations to be made under this section which apply in relation to Wales;

  (c) the first regulations to be made under this section which apply in relation to Scotland;

  (d) regulations under this section which create an offence or increase a penalty for an existing offence;

  (e) regulations under this section which amend or repeal any provision of an Act.")

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 1 [Particular purposes for which provision may be made under section 1]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 13:
  Page 4, line 43, leave out ("and, in particular, securing") and insert—
  ("() Authorising permits to be granted subject to conditions imposed by regulators.
  () Securing")
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 14:
  Page 5, line 6, leave out ("Restricting") and insert ("Regulating")
  The noble Baroness said: It was the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, who moved an amendment similar to this at our earlier Committee stage. I understand that the CBI had drawn his attention to the wording in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 which stated that the regulators could restrict the making of changes in the operation of installations. By its very nature regulation implies a degree of restriction. However, we took the point that this was a particularly negative phrase. In reality it will be very rare for a regulator to have to restrict changes by an operator. It might arise only where the operator refused outright to apply best available techniques in mitigating pollution as a result of the change. We therefore propose to replace "restricting" with "regulating". The CBI in its letter of 22nd March commented that this amendment improved on the previous one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. I believe that he proposed the word "controlling". I beg to move.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I believe that the Government have (if I may use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty) more than met the point that I made at the earlier Committee stage. I agree with the CBI that "regulating" is better than "controlling", and I am grateful to the Government.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 15:
  Page 5, line 39, leave out ("(subject to any") and insert ("(but excepting information which under the regulations is, or is determined to be, commercially confidential and subject to any other")
  The noble Baroness said: One of the concerns expressed during the debate in February was the Lick of provision on the face of the Bill for the protection of commercially sensitive information from disclosure in public registers. This amendment now provides that safeguard. In ensuring that the public has access to information which affects the wellbeing of all the presumption must be that details about emissions are included as fully as possible in public registers. On rare occasions, however, it might be necessary to exclude information which the operator deemed, and the regulator agreed, was commercially confidential. The operator would have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State in cases where the regulator took a contrary view.
  The provisions in our draft regulations and those published for consultation recently by the DTI for offshore installations are, to all intents and purposes, the same as those which currently apply under Section 22 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That provision has operated successfully in relation to the current systems and our regulations (with the safeguard provided by this amendment) will ensure that it continues to do so. I beg to move.
  Lord Renton: I do not oppose this amendment, but I believe that in this context the word "commercially"

  969
  requires some explanation. There may be a precedent for it; if so, I am not familiar with it. What does "commercially confidential" mean in these particular circumstances? The word "commercially" has a very broad meaning. Presumably, it would be something that affected the profits or losses of a company, but in the context of this amendment and Bill I should not have thought that that was an appropriate test to apply. Can the noble Baroness explain the meaning and effect of "commercially" in these circumstances?
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The noble Lord asks a specific question to which I shall try to reply. I may find it necessary to write to him in order to answer the point more fully. I expect the word to mean that disclosure of information would have an adverse impact, usually in the context of competitors. However, should that explanation prove to be wrong, I shall write to the noble Lord.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 16 to 18:
  Page 6, line 6, at end insert—
  ("() Authorising regulators to appoint suitable persons to exercise any such functions and conferring powers (such as those specified in section 108(4) of the Environment Act 1995) on persons so appointed.")
  Page 6, line 32, after ("for") insert ("(or for the determination of)")
  Page 7, line 5, at end insert—
  ("Determination of matters by regulators
  . The regulations may make provision for anything which, by virtue of paragraphs 5 to 8, could be provided for by the regulations to be determined under the regulations by regulators.")
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  On Question, Whether Schedule 1, as amended, shall be agreed to?
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: Perhaps I may raise a question which I have not sought to signal by way of amendment. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that one of the group of amendments discussed last time concerned charges. The noble Baroness in response gave a pretty clear answer but acknowledged that the charging structure and what was supposed to be within the costs of the regulator that had to be met by charges were not as clear as they might be. The noble Baroness said that she was in discussion with the CBI (and no doubt other interest groups outside) with a view to making more explicit what was intended to be covered by the charges and what was not. At this stage all I ask is whether the noble Baroness can give a progress report on that matter. Have there been discussions; if so, have they reached a conclusion? This may be a matter to which we may wish to return on Report if the situation is as unsatisfactory as it was represented to me a couple of months ago.
  Lord Renton: I should like to make a general comment on the schedule. Normally, when legislating we state the powers and principles in the clauses and leave detail to be dealt with in the schedule.
  970
  Here, however, we have a schedule setting out the list of the purposes. Some of the schedule goes into the detail that one would expect. But we have this strange Bill in which the Secretary of State will impose secondary, subordinate legislation upon Parliament. It is stated briefly that it has power to make regulations, but the substance of the matter is for a change appearing in a schedule. I think that that is wrong.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: I note the concerns of the noble Lord. They are part of his general concerns about the Bill. No doubt he will move on to them when moving Amendment No. 19 which stands in his name.
  Providing precisely the list of purposes and procedures that can be adopted under the Bill gives a clear, definitive idea of what the Bill covers. The noble Lord seeks clarity. I should have thought that the form of the schedule provides exactly that clarity.
  In response to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, it is true that we indicated during an earlier stage, and have done so more publicly, that the present regime of charging, in particular in relation to the Environment Agency, requires some modification and clarification. That is not necessarily a matter for primary or secondary legislation. It will be covered by the regulations. There will be a meeting, I believe on 29th April, between my colleague Michael Meacher and the CBI on this matter. I shall therefore be in a position to update the noble Lord before we reach the next stage of the Bill.
  Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
  Schedule 2 agreed to.
  Schedule 3 [Repeals]:
  Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 19:
  Page 10. line 11, column 3, leave out ("Sections 1 to 28")
  The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment—I understand that it has the support of many noble Lords in different parts of the Chamber—is to get the Government to amend and replace those vitally important sections of the 1990 Act by primary legislation, which Parliament can amend, instead of doing so merely by regulation, which we have to accept or reject and cannot amend.
  I shall not trouble the Committee with all the 28 clauses of the 1990 Bill. We are at Committee stage. We have plenty of time to consider the matter further. However, in passing I should mention that Section 23 of the 1990 Act sets out a list of criminal offences. It is most unusual to create criminal offences by regulation. They nearly always go, and rightly so, into primary legislation. However, there are many other reasons why we should not, in a sweeping way, repeal primary legislation which is of national importance. It affects the health and well being of our people; and has to be dovetailed with the European directive.
  I have been in Parliament for 53 years, in the other House and then this place. This is the most far reaching example of legislation by reference replacing primary legislation. There is no precedent for doing so on this scale of which I know except in time of war; and that

  971
  did not happen in the past 53 years. In wartime of course emergencies have to be dealt with in a ruthless way. But we are not dealing with that situation. Why are the Government making provision in this unconstitutional and unusual way instead of in a way that preserves the sovereignty of Parliament?
  If we amend the Bill now by striking out the repeal of those 28 sections, the Government can either table the necessary amendments at Report stage or before the Bill reaches another place; or completely rewrite them if they think that that would make clearer law which users of the statute—millions of people will be affected by it—would understand more clearly.
  The Bill is a piece of complicated legislation by reference which has no finality because even then we have to go by the regulations that we shall not be able to amend. It is really bad.
  I hope that the Committee will agree that we should strike out the repeal of those 28 sections of the 1990 Act. I hope that the Government will show themselves willing to replace them by primary legislation at a later stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: I support my noble friend on this far reaching amendment. I hope that the Committee will mark its displeasure at the way in which the Government have handled the Bill from the outset. They have made stout efforts to amend the earlier errors, but, as we said earlier, they should never have embarked down this unconstitutional road.
  The Select Committee, in a phrase which has been referred to in the debates, said that it would not wish this Bill to be regarded as a precedent for the future. One knows that those words have frequently been uttered on previous occasions in all kinds of contexts. It is a pious hope. Whitehall will recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has had a fairly uncomfortable time. He has done well to have achieved as much as he has. Nevertheless, once Whitehall sees that it can legislate in this way it will not pay too much attention to that.
  If we were to send the Bill to another place having removed the repeal of the first 28 clauses of the 1990 Act, it would bring it home to Ministers, and perhaps even more to their advisers, that this was an inadvisable way to proceed. We shall listen to what the Minister says, but I hope that at the end of the debate my noble friend will feel that it might be right to press the amendment to a Division.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: The amendment goes to the heart of our earlier debates on the way in which the Bill has been drafted. That gives me no satisfaction. However, it must be said that there will be less likelihood of the other place correcting a fundamental matter in the Bill. For that reason, I support my noble friend's amendment. Legislation should be clear, readable and supervisable by Parliament.
  The problem with going down the regulatory route is that we can either approve or reject a regulation, but we cannot amend it. That may appear to be satisfactory; by convention we have operated in that way. However, when one sees this kind of primary legislation being
  972
  taken off the statute book and brought back in the form of regulations, the convention is placed under the most severe strain. The time may come when that convention will need to be examined. That is not a happy situation and I wish that it were not so. I support my noble friend's amendment.
  Lord Whitty: I understand the strength of feeling expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, both in Committee and privately about this aspect of the Bill. However, words such as "unconstitutional" and "unprecedented" are not historically appropriate. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, if not in his place is at least present in our proceedings here. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that although the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee noted that we were replacing primary legislation by regulations it did not comment on that aspect of the Bill.
  I also note that the provisions introduced within the amendment I have made today go a long way not only to meeting the objections of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, but also in making it absolutely clear that there is parliamentary sovereignty over proceedings under the Bill.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I thank the Minister for giving way. He may have implied to anyone reading Hansard that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, was present in the Chamber and therefore perhaps lending strength to his comments. I do not see the noble Lord.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Whitty: If noble Lords read Hansard carefully they will note that I was not indicating that. I made no such contention. I rely entirely on the wording of the Select Committee report in this respect.
  As regards breaking a principle by replacing primary legislation with regulations, that is not unprecedented. I agree that it is unusual, but: it is not unprecedented. My department examined what its predecessors had done in this respect. I admit that I could not find an example when the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was in government, but I did the next best thing and found an example when the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was in government. It occurred in respect of the Local Government Act 1972, which removed whole swathes of legislation and replaced them by regulation. And quite rightly, too, because, similarly the area needed to respond to differing circumstances and to technical and other changes.
  We are not debating the principle of regulation, therefore; we are debating regulation in an area of rapidly changing technology. That is an important aspect of government activity. It gives a more flexible instrument than a piece of primary legislation. It deals with evolving issues.
  In this case, it also deals with a situation in which we are trying to produce a coherent regime which incorporates European legislation and makes it compatible with legislation already on the statute book which received multi-party support. The objective of the

  973
  whole legislation is to achieve a coherent and understandable regime. The Government, the CBI and all other interested parties want to create a coherent regime. The best way of achieving that is not to legislate under the European Communities Act, but to provide clear, one-stop-shop regulations for the whole of the industry covering all aspects of pollution control. That is why the CBI recognises that the changes we have made in the Bill deal with the issues of parliamentary sovereignty and principle and yet provide a flexible and clear instrument under which industry will work.
  The noble Lord, Lord Renton, says that potentially we are creating new offences under the regulations. Clearly, as in my Amendment No. 12, to which we have agreed, any new offences would be subject to affirmative resolution, as in many other areas of offence-creating law. I believe that grouping together the various regimes and the regime we are now required to apply under European legislation so as to provide flexibility and clarity is a better way of proceeding than having a rigid piece of legislation on the statute book. That will put everything in one place rather than creating a piece of legislation which might subsequently need amendment in the light of changing circumstances, either technologically or as a result of scientific knowledge or changes at European level.
  If the amendment were to be adopted, we would pass on to another place a piece of incoherent legislation. The only choice which the other place would then have would be either to reject it or to create legislation which was utterly rigid and which in subsequent years would require parliamentary time to change it. I believe that all parties in this House, all noble Lords who have spoken and all the interested groups which have presented their opinions, require some degree of flexibility. That flexibility, under existing pressures on parliamentary and other time, requires these issues to be dealt with under regulations and not on the face of the Bill.
  That is why we have taken this step. I accept that it is unusual. It is also unusual to try to apply European legislation alongside and make it compatible with existing regimes with which British industry is already familiar. It is not usual but it is desirable. It has been recognised as desirable throughout this House, throughout this debate and throughout British industry as a whole.
  If we were to do anything else, we would create a costly muddle of possibly contradictory regulations. We therefore accept the concerns. In making substantial changes to subsequent regulations subject to the affirmative procedure—and I accept the comment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that the House has powers in relation to the affirmative procedure, although I am not encouraging it to use those powers—parliamentary sovereignty is safeguarded, which meets the fears expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
  I ask the Committee to recognise that the objectives of putting this part of the Bill and what was pre-existing legislation into regulations are not sinister and in no way challenge the authority of the House or Parliament. They are intended to provide coherence, clarity and the ability of Parliament, the legal system and industry to comply with what we all recognise as an important step forward
  974
  in pollution control and therefore the control of dangers to our environment. Most people out there would accept that. I ask noble Lords to recognise that and the noble Lord, Lord Renton—albeit that I acknowledge his sincerity and concern—to accept that we have met most of his concerns by the amendments already adopted this afternoon. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Renton: The Minister has done his best in reply to the arguments but I am sorry to say that his replies are not valid. Of course, there are precedents but there is no precedent for a Bill of national and international importance on this scale to be replaced by regulation. As to incorporating European Union directives, we have incorporated some of a minor kind by regulation but those of a major kind have been incorporated in our statute law—as on this occasion. One could go on to answer every point that the Minister made but I shall not weary your Lordships. I seek the opinion of the Committee.
  5.21 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 19) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 136.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Addison, V.

  Fookes, B.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Ailsa, M.

  Garel-Jones, L.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Geddes, L.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Halsbury, E.

  Attlee, E.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Harding of Petherton, L.

  Biddulph, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Blatch, B.

  Henley, L. [Teller.]

  Bowness, L.

  HolmPatrick, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Burnham, L. [Teller.]

  Kingsdown, L.

  Butterworth, L.

  Kinnoull, E.

  Byford, B.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Cadman, L.

  Lamont of Lerwick, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Lang of Monkton, L.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Lawson of Blaby, L.

  Chalker of Wallasey, B.

  Leigh, L.

  Charteris of Amisfield, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Chesham, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Clanwilliam, E.

  Luke, L.

  Coleridge, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Courtown, E.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Cox, B.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Marlesford, L.

  Davidson, V.

  Middleton, L.

  Dean of Hatptree, L.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Denton of Wakefield, B.

  Molyneaux of Killead, L.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Monro of Langholm, L.

  Dundonald, E.

  Montgomery of Alamein, V

  Dunrossil, V.

  Montrose, D.

  Effingham, E.

  Morris, L.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Moyne, L.

  Elton, L.

  Munster, E.

  Ferrers, E.

  Naseby, L.

  975

  Nathan, L.

  Seccombe, B.

  Norrie, L.

  Sharples, B.

  Nunburnholme, L.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Oxfuird, V.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Skidelsky, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

  Pender, L.

  Strathcarron, L.

  Peyton of Yeovil, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Quinton, L

  Thurlow, L.

  Renton, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  St. Davids, V.

  Wilcox, B.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

  Alli, L.

  Amos, B.

  Islwyn, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Bach, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

  Barnett, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Leathers, V.

  Blease, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Borrie, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Bragg, L.

  Longford, E.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Lovell-Davis, L.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Brookman, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

  Burlison, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller.]

  Maddock, B.

  Christopher, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Marsh, L.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  Mishcon, L.

  David, B.

  Molloy, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Montague of Oxford, L.

  Desai, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Dholakia, L.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Newby, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Northfield, L.

  Evans of Watford, L.

  Orme, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Patel, L.

  Geraint, L.

  Paul, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Perry of Walton, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Peston, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Gregson, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Hacking, L.

  Puttnam, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Hanworth, V.

  Rea, L.

  Hardie, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Richard, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Roll of Ipsden, L.

  Hayman, B.

  St. John of Bletso, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Sawyer, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Sefton of Garston, L.

  Hooson, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Shore of Stepney, L.

  Hughes, L.

  Simon, V.

  976

  Simon of Highbury, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Stair, E.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Uddin, B.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Weatherill, L.

  Taverne, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Tenby, V.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  5.29 p.m.
  Schedule 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  In the Title:
  Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 20:
  Line 1, leave out from ("make) to ("; and") in line 2 and insert ("further provision for the prevention and control of pollution arid to implement European Community Directive 96/61 on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control")
  The noble Lord said: I begin to feel that I have a certain masochistic tendency about bringing forward this amendment. Again, it sets out to try to improve the wording of the Bill, on this occasion in its Long Title.
  The existing wording states that it is to:
  "Make provision for a new system of pollution prevention and control; and for connected purposes".
  That is inadequate. It is not entirely a new system and "further provision" is a better description of what the Bill is about. The description that it is,
  "to implement European Community Directive 96/61 on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control",
  is a matter of fact. If had not been for that particular European Community directive, I suspect that we should not be seeing this Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Renton: As it stands, this Bill is a mass of detailed, regulating powers and this is an attempt to inform the public—all those people, here and abroad, who must comply with it. Its purpose really should be made clear.
  The purpose clause which we discussed earlier would have achieved that purpose. But the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who is not in his place just at this moment, suggested that we should amend the Long Title. There is a lot to be said for that. As it stands, the Long Title tells us very little. It states that it is a Bill to:
  "Make provision for a new system of pollution prevention and control; and for connected purposes".
  That tells us practically nothing whereas the amendment states the fact on which the Bill is founded. The amendment states that the Bill seeks to make,
  "further provision for the prevention and control of pollution and to implement European Community Directive 96/61",
  which is not mentioned in the Bill,
  "on Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control".

  977
  The words "and for connected purposes" would remain in the Long Title. Therefore, I suggest that we are helping the Government and trying to do them a service by putting forward this amendment. I hope that they will have the good sense to accept it.
  Lord Whitty: I understand both the reason for raising the point and the tone with which it has been pressed. In response to the earlier intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I said that my current advice is that once the Bill is produced, we cannot change its Long Title unless other amendments require us to do so. I am not sure that any such amendment has been passed in the course of the afternoon to require that. I need to take advice on that issue before I can support any such move.
  I have, earlier this afternoon, already given a commitment to the Committee that I shall consider whether a better definition of the purpose clause would be a beneficial improvement to the Bill. Perhaps I may tell the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that I shall consider the Long Title in that same context, bearing in mind the strong legal and procedural advice that I have received on what we can change in terms of the Long Title at this stage.
  It may be that we shall be able to discuss that commitment between now and Report and, in view of that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, at this stage at least.
  Baroness Hamwee: I hope that the Minister will be successful in obtaining advice that the Long Title should reflect what is in the Bill. I understand that it would be wrong to amend it, anticipating amendments which have not been accepted. However, we do not want to have a situation in which, to the casual reader—should there be a casual reader of such legislation—the Long Title does not indicate the thrust of the Bill. If that is the case, we, as legislators, are not doing a service to those who need to refer to the legislation. In some senses, the Long Title is a sort of index as to the overall thrust of what is in the Bill. Without changing the way in which the regulations are to be dealt with, I hope that it will be possible to provide in the Long Title a reference-point to the way in which the directive is being approached.
  Lord Renton: I should amplify what I said earlier about the lack of reference in the Bill to the European Community directive. I should have added that there is an obscure reference in one of the schedules.
  Lord Jenkin of Roding: Throughout the afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has been at pains to tell the Committee just how much change has been made to the Bill compared with the Bill introduced to the House last December. Indeed, it is not unfair to say—he is entitled to some credit for this—that large parts of the Bill have been rewritten.
  It seems to me that in those circumstances one is obliged to look again at the Long Title to see whether it reflects what is in the Bill. It may have reflected the
  978
  provisions of the Bill as first introduced. However, many amendments have been accepted. both previously in Committee and much more so today. In those circumstances, it is right to look again at the Long Title.
  In a sense, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is hoist by his own petard. Either he has changed the Bill to meet a large number of requirements, in which case he should change the Long Title, or it is all cosmetic, in which case he leaves it as it is. But he cannot have it both ways.
  Lord Whitty: Whether or not I am hoist by my own petard, which is not a totally unfamiliar position for me, at present I am constrained by the legal advice which I have received. Therefore, I cannot move at present in relation to the Long Title. But, as I have said to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, both as regards an amended purpose clause and an amendment to the Long Title, I shall consider the matter further and consult the noble Lord and other noble Lords who are interested before Report stage. On that basis, I hope that the Committee will feel that it is not necessary to press it at this stage. I hope that we shall reach an accommodation at a later stage of the Bill.
  Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to those who have spoken in support of the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, said, this is now a very different Bill from the original draft. I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply, which gives some cause for hope. I am also grateful for his earlier reply. If we cannot handle the matter one way, perhaps we can handle it in another. There are supposed to be more ways than one of killing a cat. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

EMU
5.40 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): rose to move, That this House takes note of the Government's outline proposals for a national changeover plan for EMU.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to respond to the request by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for a debate on the national changeover plan. I welcome this opportunity to explain the thorough preparations that we are making to give the UK a real option of joining a successful single currency. I thank all those individuals and organisations who have been involved in taking this project to the stage where we could publish the plan. It has been a major consultation process, with a wide range of representative groups of business interests.
I hope your Lordships will support what we have achieved so far and our plans for taking forward preparations. I look forward to hearing your Lordships' views on this important issue.

979
I hope to cover three main areas: the Government's policy on membership of EMU; the preparations made to deal with the arrival of the euro from January of this year—what we have done to make sure that the UK is ready for the euro, whether in or out of EMU—and, finally, the work being done in both the public and private sectors to give the UK a real option of joining.
The question of British participation in the single currency is certainly one of the most important issues this country is likely to face for a generation. So, on coming to office, the Government made a number of important decisions. First, we announced our commitment in principle to economic and monetary union and our decision to make clear and unambiguous economic benefit to this country the decisive test for UK membership. Secondly, we spelled out our firm intention to take the lead in a period of preparation in order to ensure a genuine option to decide to join a successful single currency early in the next Parliament. Thirdly, because of the magnitude of the issue, we said that the final decision on joining should be taken by the British people at a time when it is possible to judge more accurately that the economic benefits are clear.
I have said that the essential decision is economic. The Government's central economic objective is to achieve high and stable levels of growth and employment. Britain's interests in the single currency need to be judged against this objective and to do that we have set out our five economic tests. We stand by the tests as the basis for a rounded and pragmatic assessment of the economic case for membership.
Our tests are challenging and we are making progress towards meeting them. Monetary and fiscal policy have been put on a stable, long-term footing which, we are convinced, will help to put an end to the particular instabilities and volatilities which have plagued the UK economy in the past. Greater economic stability will minimise differences between our economic cycle and that of the eurozone. We have also taken numerous steps to improve the degree of flexibility in our economy through new deals for the young and long-term unemployed and reforms to the tax and benefit system. However, we cannot say that our economic tests are met yet. We need to be able to judge that that convergence is capable of being sustained.
Ensuring this country has a real option of deciding to join a successful euro is the best way of promoting our national interest. The Government are committed to delivering a genuine choice to the British people. That means we need to start making preparations now. It is only through a period of intensive preparation that government, Parliament and the British people will be in a position to make an informed decision about where our economic interests lie.
Our policy on entry is, therefore, clear. It is important that we should prepare for the reality of the euro whether the UK is in or out. In autumn 1997, the Chancellor of the Exchequer set up, under my leadership, the Business Advisory Group with representatives from nearly 20 key business and trade organisations, the Trades Union Congress and the
980
Consumers' Association. The Business Advisory Group's remit was to consider the practical implications of EMU.
In January 1998, the Business Advisory Group reported on a range of preparations, issues arid arrangements for possible UK entry. Throughout 1998, the Treasury's Euro Preparations Unit was the focus for taking forward the Business Advisory Group's recommendations and stimulating preparations in both the public and private sectors.
Here are just some of the steps that the Government have taken to help business prepare. The Government have produced a range of publications on economic and monetary union and core information for business, especially small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), in the form of 20 clear, concise factsheets on "business preparations for the euro". Over 375,000 sets of fact sheets have now been requested by industries and companies.
We have set up a euro preparations website and opened a 24-hour telephone line for ordering the factsheets and carried out a high level national communications campaign aimed at business including TV advertising and direct mailing. The Government have provided speakers for numerous euro preparations events and trained over 500 staff of business intermediary organisations across the UK.
The Government have published six-monthly progress reports on overall and sectoral preparations. The Government have also been responsive in their approach. The public sector is ready to facilitate business use of the euro. Firms can now pay taxes, file accounts, issue and redenominate shares, receive certain agricultural grants and grants under regional selective assistance (RSA) in euros. Customs and Excise has trained 10,000 staff to respond to business needs. All that means that the public sector and business is getting ready for the euro whether the UK is in or out.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury, could enlighten me on one point. Will taxes paid in euros be calculated at the point of assessment or at the point of payment? If there is an exchange rate loss, will that be borne by the Treasury or by the taxpayer? If it is not borne by the Treasury, is not the whole idea of paying taxes in euros simply a gimmick?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I do not think it is a gimmick because there is a choice. The exchange risk will be borne by the taxpayer.
The UK must be in a position to make a quick and smooth transition should Parliament and the people decide to join the single currency. What the Prime Minister announced on 23rd February was not a change of policy but a change of gear. The sheer nature, scale and complexity of the arrangements require considerable time for such preparation. If we do not start to face this reality now, we shall simply not have the practical means necessary to make a choice.
The Government have been working with a great many organisations such as the banks, Chambers of Commerce, Business Links, CBI, and others, on

981
preparations that would be needed for UK entry if that is what Parliament and the people decide. This has been a consultative approach. The changeover plan is very much a consultative document. It seeks to stimulate debate and help people think seriously about what might be involved if we decide to join the euro and it sets out a possible timetable for adopting the euro if the country decides that that is what it wants to do.
Once the Government have announced their decision to recommend joining a single currency to the people, we could hold a referendum of the people within four months. Following a positive referendum result, we would be in a position to introduce euro notes and coins 24 to 30 months later. And six months after that we could see the withdrawal of sterling. So, in total, we estimate it could take three years from a yes vote by the people to the withdrawal of notes and coins.
This is only a provisional timetable and we must do a great deal more work with business and the wider public sector before producing a further plan next year. As I said earlier, this is a consultative process and so we are keen to hear what British business thinks. We can also learn more from the experience of the 11 countries who joined in the first wave and adopt their best practice. There is a wealth of IT experience of euro conversion and real experience of the growth of euro use during the period of changeover which is already developing in continental Europe.
It is essential that as part of this process the public sector shows a lead, making clear the Government's commitment to prepare. Each department now has a Minister responsible for euro preparations and each will now report regularly on preparations they are making. Where computer systems are being upgraded, all departments will build in euro compatibility where that represents value for money. In the case of the Department of Social Security, the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, the scale and complexity of their computer systems makes advance preparations critical. Together those departments are the main interface between central Government and the business community, and deal with almost every individual in the UK. They will need to spend some money prior to a referendum to make their information technology systems euro-compatible so that we can maintain the flexibility for Britain to make the changeover as quickly and cost-effectively as possible in the event of a positive referendum result. We are taking the necessary steps in the public sector.
The Outline National Changeover Plan looked at the key sectors across the whole economy to produce the practical steps that would need to be taken if the UK was to join the single currency. One among those key sectors is retail banking which provides essential services for the rest of the economy. Both through the British Bankers' Association and through direct representation, the banks have been working closely with government in developing an understanding of changeover issues. Many are already offering euro services but they need to think about how demand for those services will build up over time and how they will
982
meet that demand. They need to decide how they will make the process of conversion as simple for their customers as possible.
Retail banks have specialised computer systems which would require thorough planning and significant investment to adapt. This is a complex area. It involves looking at different technical approaches and seeing what lessons we might be able to learn from banks participating in the first wave. The changeover plan states the issue. We now need to continue our work on it.
The retailers are another key sector who would be in the front line in any changeover to the euro; again, we consulted closely with representatives of the sector such as the British Retail Consortium, and all that has gone on behind the development of the national changeover plan. We will continue to do so as planning progresses. Many of the eurozone countries are still developing their approaches in areas such as consumer information and dual pricing, so lessons will only emerge over time and particularly with the introduction of the first euro notes and coins.
Maintaining the confidence of consumers during a changeover would be vital for all retailers; and those that managed to do so most effectively would obviously be at an advantage over their competitors. It is an issue that the retail sector as a whole is keen to address through the development of a draft code of practice, covering such matters as consumer information and dual pricing. The Government welcome that initiative.
Preparations work is not confined to the public sector, the banks and the retailers. The plan also looks at the wholesale financial markets so successfully launched in the first stage on 1st January this year by the City of London with, of course, expert guidance from the Bank of England. We are also studying the production of notes and coins and, separately, the legislative issues which still remain. We will continue to work to refine our understanding of all the issues involved and continue to make practical preparations. My message for noble Lords is that we are making significant progress in preparing the UK for the possibility of joining. The country will have a real choice.
It is government policy that, in principle, Britain should join a successful single currency. That principle is real. The practical preparations that we have set out are also real. The conditions necessary so that we proceed with caution, common sense and in our own interests, are real. If it be the nation's wish that we join, we have an outline programme to facilitate entry into the euro system which will enhance Britain's future in Europe and which has this nation's economic interest at its heart. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Government's outline proposals for a national changeover plan for EMU.—(Lord Simon of Highbury.)
5.56 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, the Outline National Changeover Plan published on 23rd February this year sets out what it calls a "critical path" from the decision of the Government to join the euro to the end of the

983
changeover period when sterling would cease to exist—a period expected to last three years and four months. It then outlines what the various economic sectors should start doing now to adapt their systems to membership. There is a lot of material about preparing computers, information technology, cash machines, pricing systems and so forth for what the Minister called "euro-compatibility"; the general idea being that the economy should be geared up to a state of readiness to join the eurozone quickly if and when the Government and people decide to join.
Much of what is contained in the national changeover plan is perfectly sensible. We criticise it not for what it puts in, but for the intellectual and political vacuum which surrounds it. The preparations assume that it is in Britain's urgent interest to join the euro; that the economic conditions for our membership laid down by the Chancellor in October 1997 will be met sooner rather than later and, in short, that life outside Euroland is simply unthinkable. Yet astonishingly the Government have never set out the case for any of those propositions. It is as though they were urging us to prepare for a war without explaining why we need to fight that particular war.
I should like to draw attention to what was surely an extraordinary statement by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in your Lordships' House on Wednesday 14th April. My noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil had asked,
"Whether [the Government] will issue a White Paper setting out the political and economic reasons for and against the United Kingdom joining the European single currency".
In his reply to a further question from my noble friend Lord Bridgeman, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said,
"A White Paper of the kind asked for … is appropriate only when a decision … is imminent".—[Official Report, 14/4/99; col. 769.]
Do not the Government believe that they have a duty to put all the facts, all the pros and cons, to the public before they exhort or require businesses to make costly preparations for the changeover? The national changeover plan is not simply an outline of what the Government expect businesses to do; it is a set of propositions which will be extremely costly to implement. Businesses are being asked to spend tens, possibly hundreds, of millions of pounds preparing for an event which may never happen, without even being told why it should happen and certainly why it should happen so quickly.
The Government have argued—the Minister has made this point again today—that the case for joining EMU is fully set out in the Treasury paper, UK Membership of the Single Currency, issued in October 1997. It stated five economic tests which had to be met before Britain could expect to prosper in the single currency zone:
"Sustainable and durable convergence is the touchstone and without it we cannot reap the benefits of a successful EMU".
That has been the only official government pronouncement on this matter, but it does not add up to an argument for joining.
The Treasury itself is too cautious, rightly so, to say whether or when convergence will be achieved. Even if we leave that aside, to say that under certain economic
984
conditions we can prosper inside the eurozone is not an argument for going in, unless it can be plausibly shown that we would be economically worse off if we stayed out or that joining would confer additional political advantages which could not be matched by equivalent gains elsewhere. But the Government have not actually made these arguments.
Our contention, therefore, is that we should have this discussion, this wider debate, before we make any further preparations for joining. The time to Kart the changeover is when the British people have decided that they want to join the single currency. To start it now, before the debate has taken place, before the decision has been reached, on the ground that unless we prepare now we shall not have a real option to join early in the next Parliament, seems to me to be simply an attempt to bounce us into accepting that our joining is inevitable. Do the Government really believe that three and a half years would be insufficient to prepare for a changeover once the decision has been taken?
Perhaps I may take up one or two particular points. In his October 1997 statement, the Chancellor said that there is,
"no constitutional bar to British membership of EMU".
Ministers flourish that statement as though it were a great discovery. Of course, there is no constitutional bar to our membership, because Parliament is sovereign and it can do what it likes.
But joining has quite profound constitutional and political implications. At each step in our deepening involvement with the European Union, there have been political and constitutional implications which have been deliberately hidden from the British public by successive governments' insistence that the EU is purely an economic arrangement.
The Prime Minister reinforced this in a recent statement. He said:
"just as the euro cannot be conceived of except politically, it cannot be made to work except economically".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/2/99; col. 181.]
I will try to translate, because its meaning is not obviously apparent. To say that the euro is "conceived of politically" surely means that it has political consequences. If we join the euro, Parliament loses control over monetary policy; but do the Government really believe that the European Central Bank will be allowed to remain a kind of Vatican City in the middle of Europe, a 21st century version of the Papacy, answerable only to the god of monetary theory? Is it not much more likely that a successful attempt will be made sooner or later to impose ultimate political control over the European Central Bank at the European level? And does that not mean a European government or a move towards it? That is not just a hypothesis. It is the avowed aim of most leading continental politicians when they talk on this matter.
Politicians in this country need to be as honest as those on the Continent about the political implications of UK entry into a single currency. If the Government said, "We do not believe that monetary union will lead to political union" or, alternatively, "We believe that political union is such a valuable prize that we are

985
willing to take economic risks to get it", we could at least have a proper debate on the matter. But to pretend that there is no connection between political union and monetary union, that the issue of our membership should be decided solely by economic criteria, is intellectually feeble-minded and politically dishonest.
The changeover plan talks a lot about how businesses and departments should prepare for life in Euroland, but says nothing about how the economy as a whole should be prepared for membership of a single currency. The Government refuse to tell us whether they think that the British economy is becoming more or less like that of continental Europe and they do not tell us how our economy can be made to converge, if it is not doing so of its own accord.
Perhaps I may give one example. Article 3 of the protocol on convergence criteria in the Maastricht Treaty states that a member state should have,
"respected the normal fluctuations provided for in the Exchange Rate Mechanism … without severe tensions for at least two years",
before being allowed to lock its currency "irrevocably"— a word I never like—into the euro. At the time, the normal fluctuation was 2½ per cent on either side of a central parity. Under present conditions, with all that has happened since 1992, the Government should be preparing, if they want us to enter the euro early, for sterling to shadow the euro as part of their preparations for joining. Yet the Government deny that they have any intention of sterling shadowing the euro and imply that convergence of domestic prices leads automatically to convergence of exchange rates. Do they really believe that? If they do not, how do they square alaissez-faire attitude to the value of sterling with their critical path to joining the euro from early in the next Parliament? I do not find any satisfactory explanation of what seems to me to be a clear inconsistency.
There are many other indicators of divergence between Britain and the Continent which I could go into: the fact that we are the European Union's only oil exporter; that we have far more mortgage debt than the rest of the EU; that UK households hold a higher proportion of their wealth in equities; that we have no pensions "time bomb"; that our labour markets are more flexible, and so on. I would single out just one divergence. I refer to that between our trading patterns and those of our EU partners.
According to Business for Sterling, British industry and commerce do more business in dollars than in all the European currencies combined. We export 19 per cent. of our GDP to the eurozone and 25 per cent of our GDP elsewhere. We do more trade outside the EU than any other EU member, and invest more outside the EU and attract more investment from outside the EU than any other member. That means that any savings for firms as a result of our membership of the single currency would be deployed over only 19 per cent of the national economy. There would also be greater exchange rate instability for the rest of our foreign trade, unless the euro-dollar exchange rate were fixed.
The national changeover plan is costly and premature. Unless we are given a much greater insight than we now have into the Government's reasons for wanting to join
986
EMU, we cannot have a proper debate; and unless we have a proper debate on the merits of the project—and I stress, on the political merits just as much as the economic merits—we shall be in danger of drifting into irrevocable commitments which we may well live to regret.
We are asked to take note of the national changeover plan. We, on these Benches, do so with regret.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, the subject of our debate this evening is the Outline National Changeover Plan, which is a fairly substantial document of 64 pages targeted at different sectors and, rather appropriately, printed in red, white and blue for the most part. I should like to make a number of specific comments about the changeover plan during the course of my intervention.
In order to set this in context, which I believe a number of other noble Lords will wish to do and because all questions relating to economic and monetary union and the single currency risk becoming contentious in this country, I should like to make two preliminary comments based on my own experience. I attended all the meetings of the heads of state and government which discussed economic and monetary union and the related issues over a 10-year period from 1987 to 1997. Although some of it was rather boring, I have not forgotten all of it.
I should like, first, to recall that we have had quite a lot of time to think about EMU and the single currency. It is not a new issue; it has been with us quite a long time. Of course, it stems directly from the Maastricht Treaty. Indeed, on reflection, we might say that many of the provisions in that treaty are not very important at all. But three elements of it were extremely important: economic and monetary union, the single currency and the United Kingdom opt-out; the increase in the legislative role of the European Parliament, because there were important changes which increased its powers; and the attempt to create a sort of intergovernmental common foreign and security policy.
At that time, and subsequently, I was very much impressed by two great misunderstandings, going in opposite directions, which applied to the Maastricht Treaty and the subsequent discussion. I believe that those misunderstandings still leave their traces in the discussion on economic and monetary union today and in this debate. On the one hand, the governments of the member states did not generally understand the doubts of the public in a number of member states about the content of the Maastricht Treaty; indeed, the central element of that treaty was economic and monetary union. When the treaty was agreed—I was there myself—the Ministers were as happy as sandboys and did not foresee the difficulties which would arise in some member states. That was one of the problems.
However, on the other hand, the public and the media, particularly in the United Kingdom, did not fully understand the force of the powerful political and economic impulse which drove the heads of state and government of most member states of the European

987
Union to launch economic and monetary union and to participate in the single currency. The conclusions, in my view, are still relevant today: do not underrate the doubts of the British public today, and do not believe that, in some way or other, the euro is going to fail.
For too long many who commented here on economic and monetary union and the move to a single currency thought that it was not going to happen, that few countries would meet the criteria or that, because it was not an optimum currency area, there would be difficulties which would generate economic shocks. Of course, there was an element of truth in the last point because both the press and economic commentators do often get things partially right, but the situation today is different and very clear. The move to economic and monetary union by 11 member states with the locking of their currencies has been smoothly made, and the preparation for the introduction of the euro notes and coins is going forward according to the timetable.
We can conclude that for the foreseeable future, whether or not the UK decides to participate in the single currency, our businesses and our citizens travelling on the Continent will be dealing with the euro. On balance, the existence of the euro in the 11 countries will be positive for British businesses and British travellers, not only because it reduces the complications of the currencies but also because it will make pricing more transparent and thus improve the operation of the single market.
Secondly, we are in a special position not just because of the opt-out but because any decision to participate in the single currency will be taken by the British people in a referendum. Although there will not be any immediate decision by the British Government and people on the question, in my view it is right that, like the Boy Scouts, we should be prepared. This means that, in the event of a negative decision, we must be able to maximise our capacity to benefit from the existence of the single currency elsewhere and to protect and promote the interest in particular of our position in financial services. In the event of a positive decision, it means that the complicated and difficult changes, to which the Outline National Changeover Plan refers, should be prepared and completed as quickly as practicable in order to minimise the disruption and uncertainties on the practical changes necessary.
I therefore support the decision of the Government to present an outline plan and, in particular, their invitation for comments and informed debate on the many practical issues raised in the plan. I am sure that the Minister will be glad that I have now arrived at Westminster from Maastricht and that I am supporting the Government's position on that point. I know that there are different views, but I think that it would be insulting to the British people if, after they had been invited to make a decision in a referendum in the next Parliament and if they decided to join a single currency, we were then to say that no preparations had been made and that much time would be needed. The Government are right to point out that the Outline National Changeover Plan states that,
"without preparation, it is not a practical option".
988
On the substance of the Outline National Changeover Plan, I also have two points to make. First, it is certainly helpful to have the various case studies and an estimate of the timetable for the changeover, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, pointed out, the plan estimates 40 months or less from a government decision to join to the sole use of the euro. However, if we look in particular at the timing for the adaptation of complex IT and other systems—especially in retail banking where most of those systems which were installed a long time ago have been adapted over the years but are not necessarily capable of continuous adaptation—we can say that this is a rather ambitious timetable both for business and for the public sector. It is unusual for a government to be ambitious, but not forbidden. But I believe that this time it is in fact rather ambitious.
Secondly, the plan asks quite specifically whether there is a role for regulation—by which is meant legislative action—of the practical steps of any changeover. I very much hope that the Government will stay with their support for a voluntary approach and the development of a UK code of practice to help consumers, retailers and suppliers. The first priority should be the consumers. But, to ensure the best deal for them, we need adequate information, very adequate information and perhaps very very adequate information. We also need a certain flexibility within the framework of a code of practice.
To sum up, the people will decide but it is right to prepare information and to examine the practical problems now, using a voluntary approach as far as possible. The Government are also right to invite comments on the outline plan and to be ready to present a further public changeover plan after that consultation.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I agree with much that the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, has just said. I should like to deal with the three basic attitudes which exist in relation to both the plan and. indeed, economic and monetary union, although there are many strong variations on those basic attitudes. First, there are those who oppose the latter with different intensity. I include the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsy, among them and, indeed, the Official Opposition. In fact, judging from what they say, if they were honest they would admit that they would be opposed not just to EMU but probably even to membership of the European Union. They certainly do not leave many options open.
Secondly, I agree with the Government's White Paper for reasons that were well spelt out by the previous speaker. However, I take a different view, a third view, which I should like to outline.
I begin with those who oppose the changeover plan—the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and the Official Opposition—although that attitude is not held by every Member of the Official Opposition, as we all know. However, the argument was put by the Leader of the Opposition in the other place when the Statement was made on 23rd February. He said that there were fundamental risks. Of course, there are risks. No one

989
would doubt that; certainly not myself. However, I assume that "fundamental risks" means something fundamental.
Indeed, on 23rd February the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked whether there was not an attempt to lull people into thinking that,
"a nation that has decided its own destiny for 1,000 years is no longer fit to do so".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/2/99; col. 186.]
The Prime Minister challenged Mr. Hague on that occasion. He said, also at col. 186,
"At least the right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is opposed to a single currency for good, for ever".
Mr. Hague replied,
"No, I have not".
I quote Mr. Hague directly, which I assume will upset some noble Lords opposite. I see that one of them is laughing now. Certainly that does not appear to upset the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. I believe he would strongly agree with those sentiments. However, he said that he does not like the word "irrevocable". What the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, has said, and what the Leader of the Opposition said in another place in this context, means "never". I do not think there can be any doubt about that in anyone's mind. On the other hand, one is bound to say that even if it is in the national interest to join in the next Parliament, the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, his colleagues and the Leader of the Opposition in another place would not go along with that; they are opposed to it. As I say, those are the people who oppose the changeover plan and economic and monetary union.
I shall now discuss the plan itself. For the same reasons that were given by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, I strongly agree with the need to make plans and to prepare for the possibility, as the Government put it, of joining. The document emphasises areas of vital national interest. I refer to the timetable which my noble friend Lord Simon mentioned, and which is referred to in some detail in the document, which states that the process would take about four months from the taking of the decision to finishing the referendum, and then up to four years for larger public sector departments, but overall it would be something like 40 months. That means that even if a decision was taken on this matter after a general election—which one assumes, in the light of all that is happening to the Opposition, the Government would win—we are talking about the end of the year 2001. The process would then take up to 40 months, if not a little longer.
Therefore, we would not assume membership of economic and monetary union and a single currency until 2004 or 2005. My personal view is that is far too long for us to be outside such an important currency area. I disagree with the Government on that point. However, that does not mean that I disagree with the need to plan and to prepare for our joining. Indeed, the Government have expressed the view that in principle they are in favour of joining, although they could not help including in the document and in the Prime Minister's Statement the words "conditional", "not
990
inevitable", and "a change of gear". If that is the position, the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, is probably right that we should not have issued the document at all. I hope that our joining is not conditional; that it is inevitable that we shall join; and that it is not just a matter of a change of gear.
Although I recognise the political reality that all governments, and particularly this one—if I may put it that way—do not like to commit themselves too strongly until they have certain newspapers, or even the British public, on their side (leaving aside the noble Lord, Lord Lamont), I find it incomprehensible that they are unwilling to say that it is now a matter of "when" we shall join rather than "if. When we debated this matter previously, my noble friend Lord Simon did his best when he said that the matter means effectively what is in the eye of the beholder. He did not exactly use those words, but that is what he meant. I see that he nods his head. When he replies to this debate, I hope that he will do a little better than that because this should not just be a matter of what is in the eye of the beholder. If we agree to the measure in principle, we should say so as that would be beneficial to the whole future of Britain inside Europe.
The third of the basic attitudes that I have mentioned—I include myself in this—is that the UK is now more convergent, and sustainably so, than many of the 11 which are already in the system. The Government still continue to insist that we must meet the five economic tests that the Chancellor spelt out in October 1997. They should not talk about that because we all know that the five economic tests were not terribly relevant then and are much less so today. I recognise the problems that my noble friend Lord Simon faces in agreeing with me, but I hope that he will agree with me on this—to some extent at least. We refer to the economic cycle here as being different, but my noble friend must know that there will always be differences in economic cycles within 15 countries. If we were to insist on that point, then, like the Opposition, we really would mean that we would never join. There will always be some differences in the economic cycles. As regards interest rates, although clearly there is a difference between our interest rate, those in other European Union countries and that of the 11 member states which have joined, the margin is much narrower now. If we were to announce today that we would now join as a matter of fact, I believe we would close that margin considerably and without too much difficulty. That would considerably help the British economy.
It is constantly said that one of the five economic tests is the need for sustained economic strength, as the Prime Minister said in the Statement of 23rd February. I hope that the Prime Minister believes what the Chancellor has been saying. Although I have had my doubts from time to time, I believe what the Chancellor said. I believe that most people in the country have now stopped talking about recession, crises and all the rest of it. What the Chancellor has said both in his Budget and in other statements about the economic strength of the

991
United Kingdom signifies that we have more sustained economic strength than many of the 11 which have already joined.
I believe that the Government's position is absolutely right as regards the plan. It is sensible to prepare, whatever may be said by the Opposition. But it must be wrong not to give a clear lead today. Let us forget the five so-called "tests". Matters are never likely to be better than they are now, or in the next year or so when I hope we shall join. I hope that the Government will declare their intention to proceed rapidly with the changeover plan so that we can become a real leader in the European Union—and much sooner than now appears to be the case.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Cockfield:My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, not least because, although we sit on different sides of the House, on major issues confronting the European Union we stand on very much the same side.
Although this will be well known to most of your Lordships, I support, and always have supported, the concept of a single currency. Indeed, I regard it as the crowning achievement of the single market. It is in fact the keystone which holds a whole edifice together and complete. My only regret is that we did not join at the outset. In the case of the Major government, riven as they were by dissent, that is understandable. But the Labour Government have no such excuse. Having said that, I now propose sticking strictly to the subject matter of the debate, which is the outline changeover plan that has just been published by the Government.
It is a step forward that the Government should have published such a plan, but nevertheless it is deeply unsatisfactory. It sets out various steps in the changeover. There is nothing novel about that. Indeed, virtually all of this information appeared in the Financial Times a couple of days before we last debated this subject on 20th January. The changeover plan adds very little to that. While it is good as far as it goes, it contains neither a starting date nor a date of conclusion. It is as though you invited somebody to take a journey by train and you told them it would take four hours, but you were not prepared to disclose when the train would leave, still less when it was expected to arrive. You did, however, warn the traveller that he might meet delays en route and you even said the train might arrive early. That, of course, is very reminiscent of the way the railways are run at present—except for the possibility of arriving early—but for the Government, that is not good enough.
Having said that, I wish to draw specific attention to two perils which might he encountered on the mystery tour to which the Government are now inviting us and which might have an important bearing on the time the train arrives at its destination. I tried to explain the first of the perils in some detail in the debate on 20th January, but I failed to put over my point. I propose having another go now. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has left us because he replied to the debate on 20th January and I would not
992
like him to think that I was in any way dissatisfied with the reply that he gave. It is simply that it was not an answer to my question. I am hoping for rather better luck with the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Highbury.
From the political point of view, what really matters about the changeover is the retail stage. That is when euro notes and coins will be substituted for our existing currency. That is when the general public—the man in the street, the shopper—will come face to face with the reality of the changeover. Anyone whose memory goes back to 1972—and the memory of some noble Lords will do so—when decimalisation was introduced will recall the public outcry that occurred on that occasion. They will recall that people claimed they (lid not understand and that there was profiteering on the part of retailers and other people. The reaction to the introduction of the euro at the retail stage is likely to be far worse than anything that occurred in 1972.
By an irony of fate, the retail stage under the timetable for the introduction of the euro, which has now just started to run, coincides with the date when the next general election might be held. That is likely to be in 2002. In our debate on 20th January I asked the Government how they proposed to deal with that singularly unfortunate coincidence of two major events. As I said, I received no reply, so I am now trying once again. To some extent, the answer is given in the changeover plan. I shall give two quotations, but I have left out what I regard as unnecessary words. The changeover plan states that,
"making a decision, during this Parliament, to join is not realistic".
The second quotation follows almost immediately afterwards:
"a decision to join … can be made early in the next Parliament".
Leaving aside the question that "can" can always be interpreted as "might" if it is expedient so to do, it would seem at first sight to meet my concern as it places the whole operation beyond the next general election which, incidentally, need not take place until May 2002. But it raises all kinds of other problems. In particular, it could create real problems in relation to the following general election, especially if the election in 2002 were late and there was then pressure to wait until the reaction on the Continent to the retail stage was known. That might well take many months to assess. That might have repercussions in relation to the timing of the following general election.
I realise that all this can be dismissed as idle speculation, but unless the Government have a very clear idea of how they will address these problems, industry and the private sector generally will be left in a state of uncertainty. Fortunately, there is an answer—I offer the Government this advice—in terms of having an early general election this time round. Instead of letting the present Parliament run its full term until May 2002, a general election could be called a year early; namely, in May 2001. There is nothing unusual in a four-year Parliament instead of a five-year Parliament. Indeed, a five-year Parliament carries certain risks for the incumbent government, as the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, and my right honourable friend John Major, will testify, both of whom thought that they would run to a five-year Parliament.

993
In offering the Government the option of a four-year Parliament I am trying to assist them. The decision to join could then be announced in the Queen's Speech; the changeover programme could begin to roll and would be completed well before the following general election. It would require real courage, but unless the Government are absolutely clear and categoric about this and, therefore, about the timetable as a whole, many people will simply sit on their hands, wasting time arguing the toss, and the end result will be disaster—not just for the Government, which arguably does not matter, but for the country, which certainly does matter.
We have before us now the lesson of the millennium bug. People have not been prepared to take it seriously and we have reached the stage where, if people have failed to take the necessary measures, it is almost too late to do so.
There is a second peril which must at all costs be avoided; namely, going in at what proves to be the wrong rate of exchange. To understand this point we need to return to the disaster that occurred when we joined the ERM. It is commonly said that we went in at the wrong exchange rate. That is not the real explanation. The real reason is that we went in at the wrong time—just at the time when the Lawson boom was reaching its climax and the economy was poised to slip downhill. When a country moves into recession, normally its rate of exchange weakens. That is a benign development because the weakening of the rate of exchange encourages exports, and that in turn can often start the recovery under way.
When we entered the ERM the exchange rate was entirely correct as of that day. But as we moved into recession the exchange rate ought to have fallen, but it could not do so because of the constraints imposed by the ERM. In short, after proclaiming year in, year out that we would enter the ERM when the time was right, we went in exactly when the time was wrong. I hope that that error will not be repeated. I shall deal with the point in greater detail. In the end, we broke out of the bind, which was a self-inflicted injury—no one else was to blame—by leaving the ERM. That drastic remedy is not available in relation to the single currency. It is a case of once in, effectively always in. So once we join, we have to get this one right. Ideally, that means entering the ERM when we are at the bottom of the economic downturn, when our currency is at its weakest and when, it is to be hoped, the other countries are at the top of their economic cycle. That is precisely the opposite of what Mr. Brown has advocated in wanting our economy to be "in sync" with the other economies of the economic union.
It is no good thinking that this problem can be solved by negotiation. The other member states will never for a moment accept a rate of exchange for the pound when we enter which is different from the current rate of exchange. We must ensure that, when we enter the single currency, the facts meet our expectations. There is, of course, a problem with the Maastricht criteria—if anyone really knows what those criteria amount to. I know that my remarks may sound pretty Machiavellian, and I would never accuse the Government of being
994
as clever as that, but the European Union is no gentlemen's club. You have to be pretty ruthless if you are going to survive.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend both on the plan that we are debating and on his presentation of it. I begin from the position that, no matter what the theoretical pros and cons of monetary union per se, now that EMU exists the United Kingdom should be a member. I appreciate the difficulties of a new government, after 18 years in opposition, taking an early decision to join. But, like my noble friend Lord Barnett, I am sorry that the earliest Britain could now be a member would be the third, fourth or even fifth year of the new century.
The present document refers to whether the economic case for the United Kingdom joining is clear and unambiguous. I can only say that I am hesitant about regarding the economic case for anything as capable of being clear and unambiguous. That applies even more so to business decision-making, which is usually about the balance of advantage and disadvantage, or the choice of evils.
With that caveat, I would assert that at this moment the United Kingdom would be more likely to prosper within the single currency system than some of the countries that have already joined. That is also true if the criteria of sustainable convergence are examined. Rather like my noble friend Lord Barnett, I believe that we have converged to the necessary degree and can sustain that position relatively easily. I am therefore much more optimistic about this matter than is my noble friend the Minister.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, gave the usual list of all the ways in which this country differs from all the other members of the European Union. He did not include the main difference, which I am convinced underlies the opposition of the so-called Eurosceptics. The main difference between us and them is that we are British and they are foreigners. That is the whole point about Euroscepticism. It has nothing to do with a serious analysis of economic matters. Happily, the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, did not take that xenophobic view.
The noble Lord led us to the serious question of the exchange rate. The document refers to exchange rate stability against the euro. I do not know whether that replaces the Maastricht Treaty condition, which related to membership of the ERM and exchange stability within it. For several years (I asked this question several times of the previous government) the Treasury appears to have said that the original Maastricht condition no longer applies. It would be useful if the Minister could confirm that.
Much more important is the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, to which I have to say I do not know the answer. Almost everyone agrees that the fixed value of our currency within EMU must be lower that it is at present against the euro. What is not clear is how we arrive at the correct value, assuming that we can work out what it is. The Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee has a remit to hit an

995
inflation target. The Chancellor has set fiscal policy in the medium term, and therefore has shown what used to be called Keynesian short-term interventionism.
It follows logically from that that the exchange rate is simply determined by market forces. The Government have no control over it at all. That means that at some point either the remit of the Monetary Policy Committee has changed, or something miraculous has happened. I, for one, am not a great believer in miracles. It is, anyway, true that in clue course new legislation must be introduced to replace the 1998 Bank of England Act. The Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England will cease to exist and the Bank of England will become just like the central banks of other member countries, sending a representative to the European Central Bank in order to help formulate monetary policy and retaining only a technical role for itself.
Here is as powerful an example as any of what we lose by not being a member now. A new form of policy-making is emerging at the European Central Bank. Member countries openly state that they are learning the ropes and gaining experience as they go along. But by the time we join, a great deal of their operating procedures and monetary policy philosophy will be determined, without our having any ability to influence or change it. In other words, it is a repetition of the story of the European Union in all its forms over all these years. That is a great pity.
Perhaps I may now make a few remarks on the practical details as they are admirably set out in the document. My noble friend and his committee (or committees) are doing an extremely good job in most difficult circumstances. It is a commonplace of economic theory that changing the currency unit has no economic effects. It is equivalent to the proposition that the real temperature is no different whether it is measured in centigrade or Fahrenheit. That said, it is interesting to the average academic economist how difficult and costly changing the unit of account turns out to be.
I also note, somewhat wryly, how IT appears to be as much a part of the problem as the solution. The miracle of computing power available at all levels of business and households would have caused naive people such as me to say that the changeover would be easy. It would be like my route-planning software. At one click I can tell it to calculate distances in miles or kilometres or petrol consumption in gallons or litres. Telling computers to calculate transactions in euros instead of sterling would be just as simple, I would have thought. But I am clearly wrong.
In those circumstances, I have to reflect on the following sentence on page 31 of the document, to which the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, has already referred:
"By and large the UK clearing banks have core systems which were originally built—"
believe it or not—
"in the 1960s or 1970s but which have since been expanded over the years as services have become more sophisticated. The systems are very good at what they do, but are quite difficult to adapt".
996
I can only comment that you do not have to be a genius to see that in the contemporary world adaptability is of the essence. What kind of people, including the retail banking system, are ordering and building systems which are difficult to adapt to changing needs?
My last technical comment concerns business preparation generally. What assumption is business being asked to adopt? The document sets out clearly and forthrightly the problems of planning. But are businesses being urged to plan on the assumption that we will join? If not, when will they be advised to make that assumption? That point was made by other noble Lords. Presumably the public sector is planning on the assumption that we might join. But with what degree of probability? I do not expect my noble friend to answer questions like that now, but they cannot be left unanswered indefinitely.
That leads to my conclusion on information. It seems to me that the public is bewildered by all the single currency business. The reason is that ordinary people are being asked to respond to hypotheticals: what might be or what would be. What they need are actuals. My own view is that we require a public information campaign, but we require it now, precisely as the document says—
"the early provision of clear, accurate information and its delivery through primed information channels".
Unfortunately, there is a great deal of disinformation. Some people seem to be in the business of providing disinformation on a grand scale. The Government feel, on constitutional grounds I think, that they cannot yet intervene. That is a puzzle to me, but it relates to the point made by my noble friend Lord Barnett, that it is time the Government said, "Yes", and when.
One benefit of the document and of our debate is that perhaps it will reassure the public that we are taking the planning phase seriously, that we can say to the public that there are enormous potential benefits to be gained from EMU. If someone, perhaps, from the Opposition, would put the right subject down for debate, I would be happy to outline what I think the enormous potential benefits are. I happen to believe that they are not benefits that fall into your lap, but benefits you have to grasp and towards which the Government must lead us.
6.53 p.m.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, I find myself in fundamental agreement with my noble friend Lord Skidelsky. Whatever the pamphlet is, it is not a discussion document because it leaves out the political factors. I shall always remain opposed to our joining the single currency because of our loss of sovereignty, which I think will inevitably occur. In my view, the pamphlet is designed to reinforce the impression of the inevitability that we should join. The noble Lord, Lord Simon, talked about the smooth transfer, the ability to make a choice in a hurry, flexibility, speed and all such matters. Having read the pamphlet, I turned to the front cover, fully expecting to see that it came from the "Ministry of Information"—that well-known euphemism, in countries where they have one, for the

997
Ministry of Propaganda. The pamphlet follows the cardinal rule that if something is repeated often enough, most people will begin to believe it.
The first point that struck me was the repetition, eight times, of the blue diagram marking the 40-month period between the "decision" and the "end". It has been described by the noble Lord, Lord Simon, as "a provisional timetable". It is a clever device giving the impression of a fait accompli. Why otherwise would it be necessary to repeat such a simple thing so many times?
You have to hunt around to find out what the end is—perhaps aptly, because if we were ever to get that far, it would be the end of parliamentary democracy in this country, as we have come to know it.
Like my noble friend Lord Skidelsky, I made a note of the response of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, at Question Time. Indeed, I felt strongly about it because I received a Written Answer in the same vein. I have sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who is captive in the position of having to answer such Questions. His instructions seem to be that all he can do is to give his name, rank and number. He might just as well say, "McIntosh, Lord, 2193131", and we would be just as wise as we are from his replies.
The opinion polls show some success in the effort to enshrine inevitability. Although the majority in the country are opposed to our ever giving up the pound, there are many people who think that we will join, whether they like it or not. I wonder whether that is a good basis on which to proceed.
Having lost all the other arguments, the selling of the idea that we will join and that there is nothing anyone can do about it is the only strategy left. It must be given the best chance possible to impress itself on the population before the difficult obstacle of the referendum has to be surmounted. To this end, the persuasion of business is vital.
The pamphlet is, in my view, aimed at continuing that process. However, I suspect that many businessmen who read it will be outraged at its effrontery in the way it tells them how to run their businesses in such elementary terms and how it attempts to inveigle them into spending large sums of money on what must still be regarded as a speculation. Surely they will see through the conspiracy that they are being persuaded to make the bet so that they will then want to see the horse run.
If the referendum goes against joining or even never takes place, money will have been needlessly squandered and the performance and share prices of companies will be adversely affected. If businessmen need more time after the referendum, why can they not have it? The real information they need on the basic assumptions of economic interest is not here. Again, my noble friend Lord Skidelsky mentioned various information that businesses would want and asked about our position as an oil producer. My noble friend Lord Cockfield mentioned how important it is to have
998
the rate fixed at exactly the right level. But what is the right level for exporters against importers? It seems to me that you cannot satisfy both.
Will restructuring in the EU ever take place? We now have socialist governments all over the EU and it seems to me that that is becoming much less likely. There are many questions to which they must know the answer: what will be the rate against the US dollar and the yen? Since we last had a Labour Government in office, we have become a great deal more suspicious of government's expertise in corporate affairs. No doubt we had similar prospectuses for the benefits of nationalisation, the ground nut scheme, de Lorean, and the benefits of sending ships to Poland loaded with taxpayers' money so that the Polish fleet could compete on unequal terms with our own merchant fleet. Concorde and the ERM have been already mentioned. Those are just a few of the instances which spring immediately to mind. Noble Lords will be able to think of many more.
I hope that the chairmen and directors of banks, the motor car industry, the supermarkets, the City of London, and the water companies—I wondered why not the oil industry; is it because it already deals in US dollars or is it because its chairmen and directors are too clever to need it?—all of whom are paid to run their businesses and who are being offered this advice free, gratis and for nothing, will treat it with the scepticism it deserves. But before they put the document in the bin, they should turn to page 46 where they will find the green chart describing the public sector structure. There, they will see in the structure plan, the little triangles, government departments (for which they can read the Westminster Parliament) coming underneath euro ministers. I encourage them to take a pen and insert at the top "The unelected European Commission and Central Bank". They will then have its true significance in a nutshell.
7 p.m.
Lord Kingsdown: My Lords, in case I fail to make it clear in my speech, perhaps I may open by saying that my position is very close to that of my noble friend Lord Williamson. Certainly, my position is closer to that of my noble friend than the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. I last spoke in your Lordships' House during a debate on the economy. I concluded by saying that what was then a very satisfactory situation would be perfected by the granting of independence to the Bank of England. This was received by the then Front Bench good-naturedly but as a plea inspired by special interest. Nevertheless, I admit that to my surprise that was exactly what took place within a matter of months. I have allowed myself since to feel that at least on that occasion I spoke with effect. I have been very selective about speaking since then for fear of compromising this record.
I must confess, however, to having already made a plea in respect of the subject that we are debating this evening in a publication entitled—I hardly dare say it—Kingsdown Revisited, which represented an assessment of where the United Kingdom's interest was likely to lie after the introduction of the euro. It was a report

999
sponsored by an organisation called Action Centre for Europe and it commended the line taken by the Government then in respect of EMU, subject to the typical schoolmaster's comment "could do better". There must be a much clearer signal not only of where the Government are going but also in order to justify the need and cost of preparation in advance of a decision by the UK to join. In such circumstances I can hardly fail to approve the plan that the Government have put before us today. I was pleased to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Simon, that progress in it appears to be greater than I had realised. I would regard it as irresponsible of a UK government at the present stage not to prepare for conversion.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. As he has mentioned one of his previous publications which deals with the wider issues, does the noble Lord believe that there are any political implications in sterling joining the single currency, or in his view is it purely an economic issue?
Lord Kingsdown: My Lords, I cannot deny that there must be a political element in this, although I see it very much more as an economic matter. That is the basis of my argument this evening, as it always has been.
The UK may or may not join in the foreseeable future, but I believe it would be disgraceful if it transpired that it was in the national interest to join and we were incapable of doing so and could not qualify. Only those who believe that they can say with conviction that the UK will never join, or not for, say, at least 10 years, can argue that preparations are not now necessary given the kind of lead times that the Government's plans show and the experience so far of those who are now full members of EMU.
It is worth contemplating just for a moment what is likely to be ahead of the United Kingdom in terms of the world economic scene five or 10 years from now—indeed, well into the next century. There will be two large single markets almost equal in size: the USA and Euroland. Next in size of economy will be Japan and after that, but in a very different league in terms of size, the United Kingdom. The UK is a country with a long tradition of living by international business and with a currency, albeit small in volume compared with others I have mentioned, that is still quoted and traded in foreign exchange markets.
I believe that the constraints on our macro-economic policy in such a scene will be severe if we are to avoid the attention of those ever-hovering vigilantes—the international foreign exchange markets—whose daily turnover outnumbers the total reserves of the country dozens of times. It will also be a world in which something that has been taken for granted for generations will increasingly change. The Industrial Revolution and the rise of nationalism were roughly simultaneous changes, as a result of which economies are seen in terms of individual countries. But the great international companies whose activities are the driving force of the modern world know no national boundaries. For example, the components of a modern automobile are likely to be manufactured in three or four different
1000
countries and the final vehicle assembled in a fifth. Investment decisions will flow to whichever country offers the most advantage. I believe that, increasingly, large investors will seek to incur their costs in the currencies in which they plan to sell the final product, thereby obviating exchange rate risk. In my view, these and other considerations make it increasingly likely that the United Kingdom may well not be able to reach the highest levels of productivity or competitiveness on its own but only as a full member in a large single market.
It is argued that we may be able to avoid single currency membership of the large single market of Europe by furthering our special relationship with the United States of America. My assessment of US policy, especially economic and trade policy, is that it is coldly realistic and without sentiment towards what is not directly in US interests and that we cannot rely on special economic sympathy there if we needed it. I recollect only too well the US Treasury Secretary on one occasion concluding a discussion in a G7 (or G.5) meeting on the US dollar exchange rate with the simple words:
"I am sorry—our currency, your problem".
I also remember Mr. Ray Seitz, US ambassador to London, saying in one of his farewell speeches that the UK's relationship with the US would be just as special as the UK's influence in Europe was great—a sentiment repeated in public by Sir Robin Renwick when he came back from his post in Washington. Whether we like it or not, Europhile or Eurosceptic as we may be at the moment, I do not believe that we can dismiss membership of EMU; and, if we cannot, given the long lead times needed for changeover, we must prepare.
Perhaps I have laboured the general point of UK membership too much when we are discussing a particular aspect of it. But the conversion plan will be expensive and involve a lot of work on a myriad of details. Somehow the Government have to convince business as well as their own departments that this expense and labour is worth while. I hope that my brief arguments this evening will help to show this to be so. I watched with interest the preparations here for the introduction of the euro on 1st January this year. Those preparations, as well as what will happen in Euroland over the next three years, will provide useful lessons for us. I believe one is that the greater the acquaintance with what is involved, the greater the readiness to approach it at least with an open mind.
My feeling is that the more the preparations proceed, the more the public reaction to the possibility of the single currency will become a matter of pragmatic judgment rather than instinctive reluctance towards drastic change—reluctance in which an emotive phrase like "economic sovereignty" is likely to play such a part.
As I have just touched on briefly, sovereignty—independence of action—is nowadays much at the mercy of forces beyond our control. What is not beyond our control is to ensure that a major decision affecting investment, economic progress—quite simply, jobs—is not beyond our capability because we have not prepared for it and cannot qualify. In this context, progress with the changeover plan is essential and I wish the Government well in that respect.
7.10 p.m
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kingsdown. I was not surprised to find that I agreed substantially with everything he said.
I very much welcome this debate and would like to begin by congratulating my noble friend the Minister both on the outline plan and his presentation of it. The high quality of the outline plan is a reflection of the skill with which he led the Business Advisory Group in its work which provided the Treasury's Euro Preparations Unit with the essential grist for its mill.
It is the settled policy of this Government that the people should be allowed to pick between the two options of entry into a successful single currency or staying out of it. I do not believe that the Official Opposition are against the principle that the people must have the deciding voice in a referendum in the event that the Government recommend entry and Parliament agrees. So I do not understand why they attack this outline national changeover plan as being presented in an intellectual vacuum. Do they reject the Government's logic that if we are to have the option of joining we must prepare? The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, asked why we cannot postpone preparations until the people have decided. But, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in his Statement on 23rd February,
"The sheer nature, scale and complexity of the arrangements require considerable time for preparation".
And as both he and the changeover plan make crystal clear, without preparation there simply is no practical option to offer to the people.
Instead of accusing the Government of trying to introduce the single currency by stealth—I regard that as an absurd charge—the official Opposition should instead be explaining to your Lordships the ridiculous inconsistency in their argument: that the people must be consulted but without a practical option on offer. That is the effect of their opposition to the publication of this perfectly sensible plan. If they think they can have it both ways, I suspect that the British people will think otherwise.
That is where the Opposition have got it wrong, and where, in my opinion, the Government have got it right. They have also got it right in recognising that even if the British people were to reject a firm and fully reasoned recommendation that we adopt the single currency, the welfare of our economy and our living standards would depend critically on how well we are able to maintain and conduct our economic trade and financial relations with our eurozone neighbours. Whether or not those against the single currency like it, the euro is with us, and every day more UK businesses are starting to trade in that currency. If, by a negative decision, we find ourselves coping with the consequences of remaining outside, we shall have given ourselves a better chance of making the best of our trade and financial relations with the eurozone by having prepared ourselves for possible entry—the point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Williamson—than by having stuck our heads in the sand in the hope that the whole thing will simply go away, which appears to be the preferred course of action of the official Opposition. If they feel that that is doing a service to Britain, I must most profoundly disagree.
1002
I move now from the general to the particular and address briefly three specific issues. The first concerns the government decision to join—if that is their decision—the first key stage on the "critical path". I cannot dismiss the five economic tests as totally irrelevant, as does my noble friend Lord Barnett. But commentators have been suggesting that the five tests were sufficiently broadly framed to allow some necessary flexibility in judging whether and when they were met. If that were the Government's intention, I welcome it.
The first test—whether the UK economy has achieved sustainable convergence with the eurozone economies—is obviously the most critical. Our economy has been moving measurably closer to that of the eurozone in recent months. No longer growing faster than its long term trend rate, it may not be long before it falls into step with those of the Euro 11. By reducing the eurozone's base interest rate by half a percentage point, the ECB has, of course, put more distance between our rate and theirs. But if the Government maintain their tight fiscal stance, and I pray that they will, there is no reason why the current downward trend towards convergence should not be maintained.
Meanwhile, if the European Central Bank is aiming for an average inflation rate of about 1 per cent., which seems to be the case, an adjustment in our own target, sooner or later, should be in the Government's mind.
A further sign of convergence is the fall in long-term bond yields here to close to German levels, and all those developments suggest that convergence is not a pipe-dream, even taking into account the list of divergences of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. I refer to them as differences rather than divergences. The Government assure us that there will be no need for sterling to shadow the euro for two years before joining, and that they have no intention of doing so anyway, whatever Commissioner Yves-Thibault de Silguy and other commissioners, acting or otherwise, have to say. But this presumably assumes that the Government foresee, without any shadowing, a period of sufficient stability for the pound in relation to the euro to head off any excuse for rejecting our entry into EMU if entry becomes the Government's recommendation to Parliament and the people.
I sincerely hope that the Government's confidence on that point is well founded. The European Central Bank appears to worry less about exchange rates than the Bundesbank did, so the euro could become more volatile against the dollar than the deutschmark was. Because our economic cycle has been better aligned to the US than to Germany, the pound has been more stable against the dollar than against the deutschmark. If the aim now is to bring the pound into a stable relationship with the euro, the greater the markets' belief that we will enter the single currency, the more surely and calmly will sterling move towards the rate at which the markets expect it to lock into the euro. Conversely, if the suspicion in the markets is that we will stay out, then there will surely be a more volatile relationship between sterling and the euro.

1003
If their expectation is, and it seems to be, that Britain will make a positive decision in the course of 2002, and if in the meantime interest rates continue to converge, the markets will most likely hold sterling in a range against the euro in the short term close enough to the rate at which they expect it to go in. Yes, my Lords, I think that the markets will carry huge weight in this big decision.
Expectation is now really the name of the game, and that is why I have always held the view that the earlier the Government can make known their intention to enter the better. At the very least they must demonstrate their determination to take a decision as soon as is practicably possible, for many reasons, not least because the public information programme foreseen in Chapter 8 will not begin until a positive decision has been taken. That worries me as much as it worries my noble friend Lord Peston.
The second of the three issues I want to address is the cost of the changeover. The Official Opposition have been making much of what they see as an unacceptable paucity of pound signs in the outline plan. There are plenty of independent estimates around. The British Retail Consortium reportedly estimates the costs to retailers at between £1.7 billion and £3.5 billion. A Lloyds TSB survey puts the cost to small and medium-sized enterprises at £6 billion, and there are others. But the Government are quite right to reject criticism of their decision to exclude estimates beyond the reference to some tens of millions of pounds that will need to be spent over a number of years to make the information technology systems of the DSS, the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excuse euro-compatible.
I find convincing the Treasury's argument that it is difficult to disentangle costs generated by the transition from those that would have to be undertaken anyway. Further, the CBI has reportedly suggested that cost estimates are likely to be spurious because the real cost is not the cash sum but the cost of financing the spending earlier than would otherwise have been necessary. I find that plausible, too.
My third and final point relates to small and medium-sized enterprises. I take my hat off to my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench for his huge effort, detailed in Chapter 2 of the outline plan, to raise awareness among SMEs of the implications for them of the euro's launch. It has obviously been very necessary, to judge by the results of the Treasury's EPU's two surveys which suggest a reluctance among many to face up to the challenge. While the second of the two surveys showed a doubling of awareness over six months, still only 13 per cent. had taken any action and that was principally related to information technology. Pricing strategies, marketing and staff training appear to have engaged only 1 per cent. of SMEs. This is serious and I applaud the Government for their determination to help turn this situation around.
However, here, once again, I suspect that expectation is a factor in the SMEs' reluctance to prepare. Doubts that are widespread around the country, encouraged by much of the tabloid press, that the people will approve entry into EMU in a referendum, are hardly an
1004
encouragement to make the effort to prepare. Those doubts will only fully subside when not only the SMEs but all those addressed by the changeover plan see a government wholly convincing in their arguments for entering and transparently committed in their intention to do so.
The outline national changeover plan is, in my opinion, a well conceived, practical and vital step in the right direction. We must not lose sight of the fact that meeting the five economic tests will not alone open the door to our participation in this great European enterprise which is economic and monetary union. Rightly, only the will of the people can ensure that. But only an informed people can make a decision worthy of the great question posed to them. I trust this Government to ensure that that is how it will be.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the Minister for bringing forward a debate on the subject so quickly after publication of the national changeover plan. However, we have had a slightly strange debate because, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, half of the argument has not been made. Normally, debates on European matters produce strenuous arguments against those put forward by the Government and European supporters. It is a great pity that when many Members of your Lordships' House play a part in public debate on these matters many are too busy to be here today.
As regard the line of the official Opposition, it is surprising that the conclusion of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, is that we cannot yet have a proper debate on the subject. It is impossible to open a newspaper without reading about a debate on the subject and why uniquely the Opposition in this place feels constrained to take part is difficult to understand.
As regards the Government, the great shift is that the "when" word instead of the "if' word is used for the first time in this document. That was qualified on the front page—Members must be careful to use their magnifying glass to see it—but we have reached the position where, on balance, the Government are prepared to accept the principle. My Leader in another place described the plan and the Prime Minister's statement as the Government crossing the Rubicon. If that is the case, there can be few occasions when the analogy has been used to describe such a timorous advance.
However, we welcome the fact that the Government are taking steps at this early stage in order to prepare both the public and private sectors of the economy for the changeover to the euro. We must cross some hurdles before we get to that point; namely, the five economic tests. They play the part which the renegotiations played for the Wilson Government in 1974–75; there must be a pretext to justify something which might be unpopular. Although in this case the pretext is not required to deal with splits within the Labour Party, it is required to deal with splits in public opinion.
It will be necessary for the economic tests to be met, but on that front I am an optimist. Two at least are broadly met already. Clearly it will be better for inward

1005
investment if we are part of the eurozone. Anyone involved in that world admits that. Secondly, there is a view that, on balance, the City and the financial services sector will be better in it.
Two tests will always be largely subjective. The first is the flexibility to adapt to change and the second is the outlook for employment. Again, casting one's mind back to 1975, Tony Benn claimed that if Britain remained in the EU half-a-million jobs would be lost. That was not borne out by reality but at the time the argument was difficult to refute. Therefore, those two tests will be argued about but will not be capable of conclusive proof.
The final test is on sustainable convergence. I agree with those noble Lords who have said that even though there are differences between the UK's economy and cycle and those of our EU partners, there can never have been a likelihood of the eurozone and UK economies being marked closely convergent. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said that there might be a need for a different inflation target in the UK. The rate of inflation in this country, calculated on the measure used across the eurozone, is not 2.5 per cent. but 1.4 per cent. Therefore, we are very close and already talking about fractions of per cent. There is already a considerable measure of convergence.
The one area where everyone agrees an issue must be resolved relates to the exchange rate. A number of suggestions have been made about how we move from what is generally considered to be too high a rate to one which would be more generally acceptable. On the one hand, we have the noble Lord, Lord Peston, seeking a miracle and on the other hand we have the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, who has in mind a more benign scenario; that when the markets realise that we shall not be joining the euro there will be a movement in exchange rates towards the level which we and the majority opinion in this country would find more acceptable.
I hope that that is the case, but if it is not it would be difficult for the Government to set and achieve an exchange rate target. Amendments to legislation would be required and in addition to the inherent difficulties in the project that would make it almost impossible to contemplate.
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, sees the Machiavellian option as going into the euro when our economy is at the bottom of the cycle and therefore our currency weak. Unfortunately, our economy is at the bottom of the cycle and our currency is strong. Therefore, I am afraid that that will not be the way forward.
I turn to some of the detailed issues which arise with the changeover plan. First, the issue of legislation and the timetable. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House, in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition when we discussed the changeover plan, said briskly, "Oh, well, you can get legislation through in a quick time and having a four month period between the decision and being able to hold a referendum would be no problem". My limited experience of this place suggests that on matters European and constitutional, if
1006
this House decides it wants to take more than "a quick time" it is adept at doing so. I do not believe that the Government should be too sanguine about taking through a referendum Bill in what, in the changeover plan, is a short period of time.
My suggestion for dealing with the matter, which I hope the Government will accept given that we are preparing, is to have the Bill introduced and passed before the next election. In my view, the most likely time for an election would be the spring of 2001, not 2002—as the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, suggested. The earliest that notes and coins could be introduced would be February 2004. The changeover plan makes it clear that February and March is the time one would want to do that, so flexibility would be constrained. Even with an election in 2001, one could find that it was not possible to introduce the new currency until February 2005, unless legislation for the referendum were in place earlier. I urge the Government to look at that option.
What cheered me more than anything else was the announcement in the Prime Minister's statement that the Government will spend tens of millions of pounds in preparation. That cheered me up because I cannot believe that this Government, or any other, would contemplate such expenditure unless their heart was in it. I took some satisfaction from that.
The Minister was asked what assumptions had been made in the planning process as to a date by which the money will be spent and Civil Service systems will be ready for the introduction of the euro. I look forward to hearing what he has to say about that.
One thing I will say about the document's description of that process—in response to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell—is that when it refers on page 46 to euro Ministers it is referring to domestic Ministers rather than euro Ministers from other member states. That is an example of the slight paranoia that can affect this debate—that if something has the word "euro" in front of it, it must be foreign and we must be against it. We are talking about Ministers designated by the Government within each government department to co-ordinate strategy.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, is not the point from whom they get their instructions; to who they are attached logically? If they are euro Ministers it does not matter if they are over here or over there—if they are getting all their instructions from European Commissioners.
Lord Newby: My Lords, if it were the case that they were getting their instructions from the European Commission, it would not matter if they were here or there. If they were not getting their instructions from European Commissioners, equally that point does not bear carrying any further.
As to the business sector, the Government have got their phraseology and substance the wrong way around. It is not realistic to expect business to prepare in advance of a decision, except in the case of very large businesses and banks. It is unrealistic to expect many

1007
businesses to incur substantial expenditure without a clearer lead from government as to their intentions and the timetable. One sees that in the way that business has responded to the introduction of the euro. Big businesses were spending money, time and effort in advance of the euro's introduction but many—including those that do a lot of business in the eurozone—only started invoicing in euros and taking the currency seriously after its introduction. It is wishful thinking to expect too much planning by too many businesses at this stage—although I am reassured that many of the larger banks are already devoting significant resources to the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, spoke about retailers and price conversion. It seems to me that that will be a major issue. It was a major issue in decimalisation and will be more significant with the introduction of the euro. Although I understand why the Government are reticent about considering legislation, pointing out that only in Austria has dual-pricing legislation been introduced, that aspect needs further consideration, if only to give political reassurance that customers will not literally be short changed when the euro is introduced.
It is only too easy to be critical of the national changeover plan because it lacks the two things into which it needs to breathe life—a clear rather than ambiguous commitment on whether the Government really believe that we should join EMU at some point, and an indication of the timing. We on these Benches believe that it is in Britain's long-term economic and political interest to join. The sooner that is clearly enunciated by the Government, the better it will be for the UK economy and our political influence and the sooner we can begin planning properly for the changeover.
7.34 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, there has been a distinguished list of speakers and we have not been disappointed by the contributions made. On the basis that the word "never" is not part of the vocabulary of those of us on this side of the House in this context, our objection to the plan is not so much its content. Any prudent preparation for entry into EMU, if and when it occurs, would require such preparation. Our objection is to its timing.
The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, rather wrote off the costs to various businesses. If the vote goes in the no direction Sir Stanley Kalms of Dixons has said that the cost to his company would be £40 million, which will largely be wasted if we do not go ahead.
The other notable omission from the document is the point at which the pound would be locked into the exchange rate. If the pound is locked into the euro shortly after a referendum, the pound would have to start shadowing the euro, as required by the Amsterdam Treaty, before the next general election. That is in direct contravention of a reply by the Prime Minister to my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition on 24th February. The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, indicated that a rather more flexible approach to shadowing will be taken. We shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments. I do not believe that the timetable of my noble friend Lord Cockfield will solve that problem.
1008
Lying at the heart of our objections is the lack of economic convergence. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that the points had already been rehearsed. They have but they will not go away. An omission from the plan is that no view is expressed by the Government as to whether or not the British economy is becoming more convergent with those of the eurozone. We reiterate, that is a vital condition before Britain even considers joining the single currency. It is worth repeating these facts. The domestic mortgage debt is a totally different shape. The pensions regime is totally different, in that ours is practically totally funded whereas those of members of the euro zone are largely unfunded. There is also the point about our trade outside the EU which was made by my noble friend Lord Skidelsky.
Lastly, and most importantly, the UK is the only member state that is a net exporter of oil. The Treasury confirmed in October 1997 that that is likely to remain the case for the forseeable future, with reserves possibly in excess of UK production to date. Changes in oil prices will surely have a mirror effect on our economy and those of the eurozone, affecting the rates at which we go in. Again, that point was emphasised by my noble friend Lord Cockfield. Given the Minister's particular background, I should much welcome his explanation on that point.
Despite the damage done by Labour's policies, the UK has far more flexible rates and lower unemployment than the rest of Europe. Our labour costs are lower than in Italy, France and Germany. Our concern is that, denied the option of exchange rates, interest rates and fiscal transfers, we would be left with the danger of imported unemployment.
Finally, I refer to the referendum. The Government are committed to a referendum. In view of the Neill report, perhaps I may sound a warning note to the Government that that referendum must be fair. Are we to have a recommendation to yes, to no or to neutral? I shall very much welcome the Government's response on that point.
Therefore, it is not the principle of entry which we on this side of the House dispute; it is the timing. In our view, the Government are forcing the pace and we urge them to reconsider their timetable.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, immediately, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I agree with the noble Viscount that it has been an extremely interesting debate with many high quality contributions which the Government will read with care.
I enjoyed the clarification from noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench that the real problem with the plan is the timing rather than the content. We can argue about that—and they would probably do so for at least another decade. Our intention is to do something about entering the euro. The first practical step that we can take, as we have said, is to prepare thoroughly so that the nation has the opportunity to take a decision which can then be carried out without delay in the interests of the nation, if that is its choice. Therefore, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, regrets that we rave put the plan on the table.

1009
The noble Lords, Lord Williamson and Lord Kingsdown, and my noble friend Lord Grenfell put forward arguments as to why we need to prepare to give ourselves clear options—and they did that much more succinctly and with much more weight than I could. I was glad to hear those arguments because it seems to me to be pertinent that the plan should make real the options for the country. Therefore, I make no apology whatever for the nature of the plan, its contents or, indeed, its timing. The decision cannot be delayed beyond—we have made this very clear—early in the next Parliament.
My noble friends on this side of the House made extremely coherent contributions; in particular, my noble friend Lord Barnett. They have asked me whether I can clarify the position between "if' and "when". The noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, asked me quite the most complex questions that I have ever received at this Dispatch Box about whether the election will be in 2001 or 2002. They have taken me into territory for which the Prime Minister did not hire me. My psephological skills have always been known to be far less developed than my commercial skills and I shall let the matter rest there.
However, I was asked whether "if" is becoming "when" and whether the eye of the beholder is becoming more fixed upon his future target. Couched in those terms, I would say "yes". Our Prime Minister said that it is our intention to join the single currency, but we maintain the proviso that it must be in the economic interests of the country. We shall not take that away because we need time to adjust our economy so that we can put clearly to the people that it is in their interests that we join the third stage of monetary union and enter the euro.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Will he explain the difference between saying, "It is our intention to join if the conditions are right", and saying, "We do not know whether we are going to join"?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, certainly there is a difference; that is what one does about attempting to make sure that the conditions are in place. The point of the five tests is precisely so that we can direct a route which will make our likely entry even more likely. The point of the five tests is that they demonstrate how the Government are setting out their progress towards changing the way this economy behaves and enabling the decision to be taken against a background of greater economic stability and predictability than we have had in the past.
Again, I am rather in the camp of my noble friend Lord Grenfell because I consider those five economic tests to be important, perhaps more important than some of my noble friends behind me have suggested in this debate. The key issues for our economy are convergence and stability with the economies on the Continent. I do not want to become involved with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, in too many discussions about trade figures, but the fact is that 54 per cent of our trade goes
1010
to our continental partners and 13 per cent goes to the USA. Therefore, whichever way one tries to turn the figures, the balance and the bias is towards a stable and competitive relationship with our European partners.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, that the absolute cornerstone of the single market, the free movement of goods, people and services for which we have been striving within the European Union, is the single currency because that demonstrates the competitiveness and relative productivity of the member states which are in the Union together. That is the advantage to consumers and that is why the five tests are so crucial to us.
The noble Lords, Lord Skidelsky and Lord Newby, asked me how we are doing in convergence terms and whether those tests are important. Yes, they are extremely important. It is important that we gain convergence with our inflation rate and our cost of money. It has been a major advantage to continental rivals to have a low cost of money and a sustainable investment environment which is brought about by low inflation. That is the cornerstone of our policy and is one of the five pillars on which we shall build our judgments. We are doing better. As was pointed out in the debate a year ago, there was a 400 basis points premium for short-term money which our businesses were having to pay in this country. That has been reduced to 275 basis points, broadly, in the current circumstances, and the five to 10-year money rate is also converging. It is now 60 basis points premium on the continent, or thereabouts. But we must bring ourselves into a state in which our front-end inflation expectations and cost of money are on par with those of our colleagues on the continent. They do not have to be exactly the same. Sustainability is not about single-point forecasting.
That takes me to the issue of the exchange rate, which has been raised. We do not believe that there will necessarily be a precondition of membership of the exchange rate mechanism. We do not intend to enter an exchange rate mechanism because we do not believe in a single-point forecast. We believe in following policies of sustainability, low inflation and encouragement of investment which will have outcomes in an exchange rate which the market will set, and the market will set the range of rates at which we make a judgment about the future sustainability of our position relative to our colleagues on the continent. That is how we intend to approach the negotiations with our partners which must take place in parallel with our own preparations which we have set out in outline in this plan.
Therefore, those are two key issues which have been raised on which I have tried to shed some light. As I said, the timetable will be set by the political calculations but also by our economic preparations. Our target is, as early as possible in the next Parliament, to take the decision to put this proposal to the nation.
On the exchange rate, there is no intention of entering the mechanism again, but we shall have a set of policies that will allow sustainability to be judged by the market-place, ourselves and the nation at a point at which we take the decision.

1011
Briefly, I should like to dwell on some individual points made about that market-place. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsdown, made an extremely valid point about the nature of the market we shall be entering and the nature of world-wide competition between three major blocs, the USA market-place, the European market-place and the Japanese market-place and its surrounds. It is absolutely important that we come to terms with the necessity to take a decision about the UK's place in relation to those future competitive structures. That will be absolutely vital to us. It is not about looking back at our history, but about looking forward to where competition and market-places will take us in the future.
I agree totally with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that we are debating these issues currently. When I open my newspaper every day, I see those issues debated all the time. It is absolutely right that they should be, but I do not understand the statement that this plan about the alternatives is being put forward in an intellectual vacuum. The alternatives about the market-place are debated quite correctly by companies all the time. Companies take their decisions.
That brings me to the points about the cost of the exercise and the risk that companies take. It allows me to answer a question raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, on the issue of oil. I can speak for the oil industry as I still understand that industry even after two years away from it. Once outside such businesses one's lifetime as an expert is short. I should not want to estimate either the date of the UK joining the euro or the future oil price. All I know of current levels is that they present a small problem to us in terms of the management of our economy because we do not receive many revenues at such price levels. I do not think that it is a significant feature of the economic structure.
Perhaps I may refer to major industries and their preparation costs. Major industries have been preparing, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, by and large because they understand risk, reward and opportunity costs. Preparation now means that the whole process will be much cheaper. Of course, a political judgment has to be taken, but that is what most business people are paid for. They do not view life as a certainty. They look at the risks and rewards and they make their judgments accordingly. I know, from my own company, that we took a judgment at least five years ago of how the market-place would develop and we placed our bets accordingly with, of course, the approval of our board.
That is the nature of the discussion about costs. It is about risk, reward, opportunity costs and who sees a competitive advantage and is prepared to take the risk. It may well be—that is why we have spent a lot of time on SMEs, the small business sector—that more understanding and preparation is needed of the risk and reward balance. When I started this work 18 months ago, I was shocked to find that most of our SME community assumed that an opt-out meant that we
1012
would have nothing to do with the euro and that it would not impact on their businesses. We now know that nearly 50 per cent. of our small and medium-sized companies are either trading with Europe, competing with Europe or are supplied from Europe. For SMEs to assume the euro would not impact on them was very dangerous in terms of business. I believe that the awareness and understanding of the small business community will grow by the nature of this exercise of preparation. The point of the national changeover plan is to make business more aware of the risk and reward profile which is in front of them.
I have tried briefly to cover some of the main points made by noble Lords on both sides of the House in what has been an interesting and helpful debate. To summarise, I believe that the Government's policy on UK membership of the single currency has been given much support in the House. It is the right policy. It is the policy that, ultimately, will give people a genuine choice. We must prepare and then decide. The decision will be made by Government, Parliament and the people. The task for Government and for business now is to continue to make the necessary preparations to ensure that British companies are fully equipped to do business in the euro while the UK is outside the euro and to make the practical preparations for the possibility of joining.
On 23rd February, when we published the changeover plan, we made it clear that we wished to have the option of joining the euro and that the British people must be presented with a genuine choice. Now we have made a change of gear in the preparations. The public sector is leading with IT investment and detailed planning. If the country decides that it wants to join the single currency, we estimate that the timetable for a positive referendum result from that date to the withdrawing of sterling could be completed within three years.
En passant, I would say to colleagues who raised the lateness of the time that the key issue in the timetable for most businesses is the joining date, the date when the currencies become fixed, which will be early in the cycle, as early as we can make it within the outline timetable plan. Of course, for the retail sector and the small business sector, notes and coins are also crucial. However, on the risk decisions that people have queried in the debate, we have outlined in the plan the joining of the currencies, which can happen quite early in the cycle.
I conclude by saying that we are grateful for the help that we have had from the business community to produce this plan. We look forward, using the ideas we have heard in the debate today and those that we shall receive in our further consultations, to making further real, practical preparations and to preparing the next document early next year. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at three minutes before eight o'clock.

  Defence Computer Infrastructure: Protection
  Defence Computer Infrastructure: Protection
  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
  Walking
  Walking
  Biosafety Protocol and GMOs
  Biosafety Protocol and GMOs
  M.74, Glasgow: Hazard Lights
  M.74, Glasgow: Hazard Lights
  Copyright: Amendment to Draft Directive
  Copyright: Amendment to Draft Directive
  Kosovo: Reported Killings
  Kosovo: Reported Killings
  Arms Exports to Turkey
  Arms Exports to Turkey
  General Pinochet
  General Pinochet
  Senator Arlen Spector
  Senator Arlen Spector
  MMR Vaccine: Adverse Reactions Study
  MMR Vaccine: Adverse Reactions Study
  NHS Audiology Services
  NHS Audiology Services
  Refusal of Hostel Places to Homeless People
  Refusal of Hostel Places to Homeless People
  Careers Service
  Careers Service
  House of Lords: Staff from Ethnic Minorities
  House of Lords: Staff from Ethnic Minorities
  Territorial Army
  Territorial Army
  Oil and Fibre Plant Seed Certification
  Oil and Fibre Plant Seed Certification
  Rabies: Incidence in EU
  Rabies: Incidence in EU