Sitting of 24 February 1999

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

Royal Ulster Constabulary
[Relevant documents: The Third Report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Session 1997–98, on the Composition, Recruitment and Training of the RUC (HC 337) and the Government's Response thereto (HC 1142).]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
9.32 am
Mr. Peter Brooke: I am delighted to introduce this debate on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee's third report of last Session on the composition, recruitment and training of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which was published on 27 July 1998. I am grateful to colleagues on the Liaison Committee for recommending this report for consideration by the House today. The Government's response was published as the Committee's third special report of last Session on 11 November 1998.
When the Select Committee first met in July 1997, we agreed that we would at all times have one inquiry in progress on a controversial subject and one on a more standard and general issue. This report falls into the former category. Our purpose was to evaluate the ways in which the RUC recruits and trains its members and how those processes can foster the widest possible community trust in the police force. The RUC has been at the centre of the fight against terrorist violence for the past 30 years. In the course of their duty, the officers of the RUC have borne the brunt of the danger and many have lost their lives or suffered horrific injuries. I pay tribute, as did the Committee in its report, to the sacrifices made by members of the RUC, and their families, over this difficult period. The Belfast agreement is intended to lead to an end to the sustained terrorist campaigns that have dominated life in Northern Ireland for a generation or more. Success in that will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the role of the police.
As a result of the Belfast agreement, the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland has been established, under the chairmanship of Chris Patten, to make recommendations for future policing arrangements in Northern Ireland. That is required to report no later than autumn 1999. One of the aims of the Committee's report is to contribute to the commission's work by setting out some of the relevant issues raised in evidence. As part of its work, the commission is required to include means of encouraging widespread community support for the arrangements that it recommends. Recruitment and training have a key role in fostering such support.
302
The Committee came to 33 principal conclusions and recommendations. They are listed at the end of the report and I do not propose to go through them all on this occasion. I will, however, mention that we visited both Madrid and Bilbao to examine the policing of the Basque country in the context of general Spanish policing, and likewise The Hague to examine Dutch experience in lower-tier policing. Today, I propose to comment briefly on each of the three principal areas covered in the report and to conclude with a few remarks about possible future developments.
On composition, the RUC is, and always has been, disproportionately short of Roman Catholic officers. Roman Catholics make up more than 40 per cent. of the economically active population of Northern Ireland, but in August 1997 constituted only about 7.5 per cent of the RUC. It is also short of women officers: only about an eighth of RUC officers are women and they tend to be clustered in the lower ranks. Even if 40 per cent. of new intake were Catholic and 50 per cent. women, it would take a generation to eliminate those imbalances. The Committee considered that the long-standing shortage of Roman Catholic officers in particular could only make the task of building understanding between communities and the police much harder and would encourage a "them and us" mind set to develop both outside and inside the force. Such a mind set can only exacerbate the deep divide that currently exists between the police in Northern Ireland and many of those they are there to serve. As the Committee said, that must be tackled urgently.
Recruitment is the key to resolving the compositional difficulties of the RUC. Many elements combine to hinder greater recruitment of Roman Catholic officers. Intimidation and fears over personal safety have undoubtedly played their part over the past 30 years in particular. However, that factor alone cannot by itself explain low Catholic numbers: the Committee concluded that that is a symptom of the present lack of acceptance of, or confidence in, the RUC among a significant part of Northern Ireland's community.
What can be done to improve acceptance of the force and to remove disincentives to Catholic recruitment? The Patten commission will, of course, be addressing this question too, following extensive consultation in Northern Ireland. The Committee recommended two particular practical steps as having a contribution to make: ending the flying of the Union flag over police stations on 12 July and placing restrictions on RUC officers' membership of organisations or exclusive groups that generally prohibit membership on religious grounds. It is perhaps worth mentioning in tribute to my colleagues on the Committee that, in the four reports that it has so far published, despite the wide spectrum of opinion on the Committee from five different political parties, those two recommendations are the only two on which it has divided. All other recommendations in all four reports have been unanimous, without the reports becoming bland.
In the Government's response to the recommendations, the Government reported that the Chief Constable had issued instructions that the Union flag would not be flown on any public holiday, including 12 July. That goes beyond the Committee's recommendation. On membership of organisations, the Secretary of State accepted the Committee's recommendations that police officers who already belong to organisations such as the loyal orders and the Ancient Order of Hibernians should

303
register their membership of such organisations. The Secretary of State also envisages that members of the Freemasons, which is not a sectarian organisation, should do so. Registration will initially be on a voluntary basis, and will be private, as the Committee suggested. We recommended that new recruits to the RUC should not be permitted to be members of such organisations. The Government rejected that proposition, pending the findings of the Patten commission, but accepted that
"there should be a more vigorous system in place for new recruits".
Perhaps the Minister can expand on that somewhat opaque statement, if he catches your eye, Madam Speaker,
The Government have also established a working group to co-ordinate implementation and consider further the implications of the Committee's conclusions concerning membership of private organisations in the context of membership of public service organisations in general, not just the RUC. The details were set out in the Government's response and I hope that the Minister can describe today the progress made to date by the group in that important area.
A greater level of Roman Catholic and female recruitment will bring no long-term benefits unless the new recruits can be retained. The Committee found that the proportion of Roman Catholics in the higher ranks was encouraging, but the proportion of women was less so. The Committee received considerable evidence about the corrosive effects of sectarian and sexual harassment, which can lead to unfair discrimination and, in extreme cases, resignation from the force. The Committee pointed out the crucial role of those in supervisory ranks in changing inappropriate behaviour. The Government's response states that eliminating those pernicious practices is a priority area for the Chief Constable, and rightly so.
The Committee made a number of recommendations designed to improve the operation of the recruitment process itself. One element to which it attached importance was that the process should not only be fair, but should be seen to be fair. As part of the process, the Committee recommended an appeal for unsuccessful candidates to the new police ombudsman. In their response, the Government note that the Chief Constable is devising a formal appeal procedure. It is vital to confidence in its findings that it is not simply an intra-RUC procedure but that it includes, as the Committee recommended, a respected independent element. I welcome the Chief Constable's acceptance of the Committee's recommendation that there should be a greater civilian contribution to the recruitment process.
One benefit from a stable peace process will be that Northern Ireland will not require so large a police force. The RUC envisages an establishment more than one third smaller than at present in those circumstances. It will be a major challenge to manage such a reduction while at the same time maintaining the necessary level of recruitment both to ensure the long-term effectiveness of the force and to improve its balance.
On the evidence available to the Committee, it would be a mistake to try to engineer any reduction in numbers in a way designed to redress partially the present imbalance. Instead, the Committee believes that the way forward must be through the recruitment process.
304
The Committee rejected positive discrimination in favour of Roman Catholic applicants. Such discrimination is unlawful and we could see no case for making an exception for the RUC. However, the law does not rule out positive action to encourage good candidates from under-represented groups to apply to join the RUC. That, combined with a clear goal of bringing the proportion of Roman Catholics in the force up to the proportion of Roman Catholics in the population as a whole, should provide an effective way of redressing the present imbalance within a reasonable time scale.
A fair employment report is due very shortly. Further goals and timetables will be agreed with the Fair Employment Commission, and published in the summer. I hope that they will be ambitious but realistic, and will send out an unequivocal message of equality and opportunity.
The Committee made a number of recommendations on training. It received evidence that some aspects are old fashioned, with a perhaps undue emphasis on drill, given the skills that are required of modern police officers in normal circumstances. The community awareness programme has made a useful start towards addressing training needs in the modern ethos of multiculturalism. Its scope should be widened and there should be greater involvement of outside trainers.
There is a need to enhance the present low consciousness among RUC officers of all ranks of the need to acknowledge community differences. A greater involvement of outside influence in RUC training will help to modernise the outlook of recruits and serving officers, and greatly enhance the public image of the police.
Finally, I should like to look to the future for a few moments. The RUC has faced with great fortitude the challenges of the past. It will face new challenges in the future, not least in responding to the changes that will undoubtedly come in the light of the report of the independent commission.
The Committee's report concluded by stating:
"A lasting peace will offer many opportunities for Northern Ireland, but the changes that will result will be profound. Officers of all ranks, but especially those in senior positions, will need to display considerable leadership in developing the role of the RUC in the future."
I commend the report to the House.
9.43 am
Mr. Steve McCabe: I was not a member of the Select Committee when the investigation took place, but I should like to begin by paying tribute to the work of past and present members of the Committee. I pay particular tribute to the Chairman, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), for his dexterity in steering a way through what were clearly difficult matters. That difficulty is shown by the fact that the Committee was divided on two issues, but the right hon. Gentleman was right to point out that there were only two.
One of the things that the report makes clear is that the tradition of policing in Northern Ireland is remarkably different. It is much more akin to what John Alderson, the former chief constable of Devon and Cornwall, once called the colonial tradition of policing, than to British community policing.

305
There are understandable reasons for that and, when I read the report, I was struck by the section referring to the dangers involved. It stated that it is more dangerous to be a police officer in Northern Ireland than it is to be one in El Salvador, and that police officers in Northern Ireland, rather than being killed as a byproduct of their activities, have been specifically targeted. We must all acknowledge the context in which policing takes place.
However, what comes through strongly in the report is that we must also recognise that it is almost inconceivable that a peaceful Northern Ireland will be achieved with the existing sort of police force. In particular, it is unacceptable that 40 per cent. of the population should be represented by only 8 per cent. of the police force. However much people might not want to engineer change or pursue a specific recruitment policy, it is inconceivable that there can be lasting confidence in the police without radical surgery as part of a settlement to transform that police force.
The report recognises questions of balance and the incompatibility of membership of organisations such as the Ancient Order of Hibernians with membership of the police service. As the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster noted, it also refers to the unacceptability of flying the Union flag on 12 July. Therefore, I was surprised that the report concludes that there is no argument for changing the name, uniform or symbols of the force.
People who have served in the force may be proud of its name, uniform and symbols, but they are part of a tradition that is unacceptable. So, too, are officers who belong to organisations that the Committee considered to be incompatible with membership of the police force and activities such as flying the Union flag on 12 July, which the Committee explicitly regarded as offensive and said should not continue.
If we are to change the police force and make it more acceptable, its symbols—name, uniform, and all the other elements that people associate with it—will also have to be changed. I find it strange that the Committee should have fallen short of making that recommendation.
Also, although the work of the community awareness programme is to be welcomed, the programme is very limited. It is interesting that the response to the questionnaire on harassment, which was cited in the report, was so poor. We are asked to believe that officers will be influenced by a programme to make them aware of their potential prejudices or even bigotry. However, the fact that that was not evident in their responses to the questionnaire suggests to me that the programme is extremely tentative.
In addition, the programme has not been subject to any reliable evaluation. The force may have good intentions with regard to drawing people's attention to the problems of prejudice and religious intolerance in Northern Ireland, but it is clear that the programme is not achieving that.
As we have seen in connection with the Lawrence inquiry report here, it is not enough to say that a member of a serving police force, in this country and in this day and age, will be aware of prejudice. We need to know that there are clear steps to change behaviour and to ensure that all members of the public are treated fairly and even-handedly.
There is nothing in the community awareness programme to suggest that it is going that far. I acknowledge the intent, but we are entitled to say that the
306
programme must go much further if it is ever going to be possible to create a police force in Northern Ireland that will be acceptable to the whole community. The difficulties of recruitment, because of the existing imbalance between Protestants and Catholics, raise the likelihood that it could take a generation to change the imbalance if we proceed with the present, or even an enhanced, recruitment policy. Because of that, it seems to me that the Committee may too lightly have dismissed the idea of a two-tier police force.
The RUC has developed around its security role almost a pseudo-military role at times. It will not be easy for the force to transform into what is more commonly understood to be a civilian police force. If we are serious about wanting a force acceptable to the whole community, creating a second tier of policing based more in traditional, civilian, community policing might offer a way forward. Perhaps some of the work that the Committee witnessed in the Basque country could be taken on board.
However much of a debt we owe to the Chief Constable of the RUC and his predecessors for their work in difficult circumstances, it is clearly wrong that any police force today should vest so much power in an individual, and that a force should be so little influenced by the community that it seeks to serve. If we genuinely want a force acceptable to the whole community, we must move significantly towards creating greater accountability. The people of Northern Ireland must genuinely be able to say that their police force belongs to all of them, and not just to one section of the community. I hope that the report will prompt urgent action to broaden accountability, and, in that sense, to weaken the power of the Chief Constable, which seems far in excess of what is tolerable today.
9.52 am
Mr. Lembit Öpik: Some reports show that four out of five nationalists or republicans feel that the Royal Ulster Constabulary must be radically reformed or even scrapped. I want to suggest a link with some undesirable behaviour in Northern Ireland, and to outline two suggestions of what we might do about it.
There is a direct link—at least in the justifications given—with paramilitary beatings, and with exiles, of whom we have not spoken much in the House. Exiles are individuals who have effectively been banned by paramilitary organisations, under threat of violence or death, from living in the Province. If we consider the connection between those two things and the RUC, we may see a link in that the paramilitaries justify their vigilante behaviour on the grounds that the RUC is not maintaining law and order in certain communities.
We would all agree that that is a weak argument for operating outside the remit of the law. However, if we are to tackle the issue, we must understand the difficulties in communities and the feelings of local people. We should challenge head on the assumptions underlying the vigilante behaviour of the paramilitary groups. One assumption of those groups and their apologists is that the RUC cannot operate effectively in some communities. Often, the low percentage of Roman Catholics in the RUC is cited as a reason for that.
My first point, therefore, is that we need to recognise the link within the logic used to justify outrageous and barbaric acts by those who perpetrate them. What can we do? My main concern is that Catholics, by and large, do

307
not feel that they are part of the RUC. There is anecdotal evidence that good Catholic applicants are overlooked for relatively poor reasons, such as minor traffic offences. We should be able to show that that is discriminatory against Catholics. There may also be some coercion to dissuade Catholics from entering what some communities regard as a Unionist organisation.
Secondly, we do not fully understand what may dissuade Catholic applicants from putting their names forward. We should consider the proposal to conduct a comprehensive professional research project so that we can understand exactly the attitudes and opinions of potential Catholic recruits who do not apply for a career in the RUC. We must also tackle the connected question of underlying attitudes in the communities that could supply those recruits. A project could throw up some interesting and previously unseen linkages involving the paramilitary beatings and the exiles.
Finally, we must be clear that the RUC is the established organisation for maintaining law and order. A name change alone will not fix the problems. A more comprehensive review of the type suggested in the Select Committee report would go a long way to beginning to tackle underlying attitudes that make it difficult for many people in the Province to take the RUC's role seriously.
9.56 am
Mr. Roy Beggs: It was a privilege to participate in the investigation into the composition, recruitment and training of the Royal Ulster Constabulary under our distinguished chairman. The RUC and its reserve have served Ulster well. I pay tribute to the courage and dedication of the force, and I do so on behalf of the greater number, by far, of Northern Ireland's law-abiding citizens. We owe the RUC a great debt of gratitude for the sacrifices that it has made, especially during the past 30 years. The RUC has provided protection to persons and property irrespective of class, creed or ethnic origin.
I also record my admiration and sincere appreciation of the support given by wives, husbands, fathers, mothers and family members to their relatives who have served Ulster in most difficult times. They have faced vicious and brutal terrorist onslaughts. The RUC has earned the respect and admiration of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, and that admiration goes worldwide.
Those who call for the complete disbandment of the RUC and for its replacement with a new force are, by and large, from that sector of Northern Ireland society that has endeavoured to destabilise and overthrow the lawful authority of that region of the United Kingdom since the first day that Northern Ireland was established. Let us not encourage the anti-RUC element whose evil deeds over the past 30 years and before have caused unlimited misery, created widows and orphans, mutilated bodies and damaged minds. Those people should not be rewarded with the satisfaction of destroying the RUC.
For as long as terrorists masquerade as politicians, and until there is evidence that the terrorist war is over—the destruction of explosives and weapons, the cessation of brutal mutilations, the break-up of structures of paramilitarism and an end to protection rackets and drug smuggling—the law-abiding in Northern Ireland will need
308
the protection of all those who serve in the RUC. The force's numbers cannot be reduced before all those things have happened.
Most people in Northern Ireland wish and pray for permanent peace. The law-abiding have never had anything to fear from the police force, and they should have nothing fear from future policing arrangements. Permanent peace will enable the RUC to become more representative of the whole community. I refute the insinuations and allegations that the RUC belongs to the Unionist community. I have never had any favours from the RUC: I have paid my fines and my debts, I have been prosecuted and I have been to prison. I have been deliberately made an example of in order to show the world that there is no favouritism—not even for Ulster Unionist politicians. So I do not want my colleagues to fall into the trap of repeating allegations that are intended to damage and discredit.
I believe that the report identifies the historic and particular reasons why there has been imbalance in the past and present composition of the RUC. We cannot minimise the targeting of Roman Catholics serving within the RUC as a deliberate means of dissuading others from applying. It is a great credit to the RUC that Roman Catholics' chances of senior promotion within the force are about twice that of Protestants. That reflects the fact that those who have joined the RUC from the Roman Catholic community have been dedicated in their service, have wished to be part of all that is good in Northern Ireland, and have received promotion on merit alone.
The report emphasises the need for a police force to reflect the religious, gender and ethnic balances of the community that it serves. We all agree with that aim, and I believe that genuine peace will enable that to happen in the case of the RUC. In the report's 33 summarised conclusions and recommendations, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has sought to assist the RUC to become a police force whose composition will command the respect, confidence and support of all citizens in Northern Ireland. We hope also that recruitment will come more readily from those sectors that are presently under-represented in the RUC. I commend the RUC for its self-examination, and do not dismiss the benefits that will flow from further development of the community awareness training programme and other on-going professional development within the RUC.
However, I caution Mr. Patten and his commission against pandering to those who seek to destroy the RUC because that will not make the police force any more acceptable. Permanent peace will assist in creating balance within the RUC and enable it to gain wider acceptance throughout the community.
10.4 am
Mr. Martin Salter: I, too, am delighted that the report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has been selected for debate—I wish that more Select Committee reports would receive this treatment. Like my colleagues, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) for the enigmatic way in which he chaired the Committee's deliberations. Our Select Committee must be one of the most diverse in the House of Commons. There are strongly held views on all sides—from Belfast, East to Brent, East—yet the vast majority of our deliberations are

309
conducted in a friendly and co-operative manner. That is certainly a tribute to the way in which the Committee is chaired, managed and, dare I say, directed by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster—although I wish that he would represent a constituency with a shorter title.
To some extent, I believe that our report has been overtaken by events. We have witnessed the signing of the Belfast agreement and the establishment of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, whose terms of reference are remarkably similar to our own. The terms of reference state:
"Proposals will be designed to ensure that policing arrangements, including composition, recruitment, training, culture, ethos and symbols, are such that in a new approach Northern Ireland has a police service that can enjoy widespread support from, and is seen as an integral part of, the community as a whole."
I believe that the report makes a significant contribution to the debate about policing—and a range of views have been expressed this morning. Furthermore, I believe that the report provides a signpost for the work of the commission and highlights issues that were thrown up by the Committee's extensive and beneficial evidence sessions.
Perhaps the main issue is to ask: how do we achieve widespread community support for a police service and ensure that that police service is representative of the community? This is a significant day upon which to discuss policing. We shall hear later from the Home Secretary about the Macpherson report—and there are some parallels with this report. It is regrettable that a report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has been leaked. I am also sorry that some of our more controversial recommendations were leaked to sections of the media in advance. That aside, I put on record my tribute to all those who are working for peace and fighting against terrorist violence in Northern Ireland and elsewhere.
The key question is: does composition and religious affiliation really matter in the context of a police force? The answer must be an overwhelming yes. If people do not believe me or other Labour Members, they should read the evidence provided by Colin Smith, Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary. He was asked:
"Should the RUC be concerned about the religious affiliations of its members? If so, why?"
Mr. Smith's answer was unequivocal. He replied:
"Yes. It is a basic precept of policing in a democracy that the composition of forces should reflect the composition of the communities they serve. 'Policing by Consent' requires the police to have the respect and trust of all sections of society, and in a divided society it is essential the police officers and civilian support staff reflect both sides of the divide. Policing inevitably involves intervention in conflicts between individuals and groups, therefore adherence to this principle is an important way of demonstrating impartiality and securing universal confidence and support."
I hope that we can ignore the argument that this issue does not matter—because it does.
In a society where there is a split in religious affiliations—there is some argument about the figures, but it is about 55 per cent. Protestant and 45 per cent. Roman Catholic—some 93 per cent. of RUC members come from the majority tradition. That clearly means that, in terms of composition, the Royal Ulster Constabulary fails the most basic test. There is no doubt about that. In the course of taking evidence, we observed examples of what I would
310
call institutionalised sectarianism. It exists—let us not deny that—from the level of canteen culture bigotry through to systematic religious harassment.
However, we also heard clear and significant evidence about intimidation of members of the Roman Catholic community who wish to pursue careers in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I had the privilege of speaking to several people who wish to pursue such careers but who have been prevented from doing so by intimidation and threats of violence. We cannot ignore such behaviour. There are those in both communities who have a vested interest in creating no-go areas for the police force. I had the opportunity to discuss those issues in the terrorist mutilations debate on 27 January, so I shall not go into them now.
There is a clear link between gangsterism and paramilitary activity dressed up as political protest. A few months ago in west Belfast, I had a private meeting with a former inspector there who highlighted a poignant situation. He wants to send officers to discuss personal safety with schoolchildren but cannot because picket lines prevent the pursuit of that basic tenet of community policing. He wants to provide home security advice for pensioners but cannot because officers might be at risk. That is clear evidence of a systematic campaign to prevent the RUC is from doing its job. It is not only nationalist areas; this occurs in many of the more front-line loyalist areas. Let us return to some of the internal problems.
Mr. William Thompson: If the RUC achieved this proper balance, would the situation change in west Belfast when police wish to visit some schools?
Mr. Salter: I believe that it would. If we signed up to the principle of policing by consent, it would be difficult to get community support for making areas ungovernable.
The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) will not like hearing about the evidence not of a propagandist but of the RUC's own internal survey of religious harassment in the work place. Some 63 per cent. of Roman Catholics have been subject to religious and political harassment in the RUC during the course of their careers. I do not want to expand on that at length but let us not deny the facts. There is intimidation of people who wish to join the RUC and, within the RUC, there is intimidation of people from the minority community. What are we going to do about it?
I suggest, especially to Opposition Members, that one of the first things that we must do is accept that there is an issue. We must accept that the people who call for reform and want to achieve policing by consent in Northern Ireland are not rebels. They are not all insurrectionists trying to overthrow the British state.
Mr. David Trimble: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that there is some harassment within the RUC of Roman Catholics, which, of course, we deplore. Does he accept that it is not institutional to the force but an example of what might be called the canteen culture, which exists in all police forces, and that the RUC is trying to address that? I acknowledge that he mentioned the intimidation of Catholics to dissuade them from joining. Does he also accept that there is a chill factor, which is not addressed in the report, in the nationalist community, quite distinct

311
from the intimidation and criminality that he mentioned? Does he agree that we will not succeed in changing the RUC's composition until the chill factor, which is reflected in the social ostracism of Catholics who join it, in the Gaelic Athletic Association ban and in the failure of the Catholic hierarchy to appoint chaplains, is changed?
Mr. Salter: Yes and no. Yes, I believe that religious harassment is institutionalised. Careful reading of the evidence shows that. I accept that there is a significant chill factor. Members of the right hon. Gentleman's party were at almost every evidence-taking session of the Select Committee and had ample opportunity to explore the issue but chose not to. I suggest that he talks to them.
We addressed some of the significant issues involving flags, symbols and the loyal orders. Let me highlight something that needs to be praised. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe). I do not believe that the RUC community awareness programme at Garnerville road is limited. If he had had the chance to visit it, I am sure that he would have been as impressed as we were. I pay tribute to the members of the nationalist and Roman Catholic community who were taking part at some personal risk. Like us, they have reached one simple conclusion: the achievement of policing by consent and a police force that tries to represent the community that it serves is a precondition for a peaceful democratic society. I believe that there is no case for revolution but there is a clear case for gradual reform. I hope that this report is a significant contribution to that process.
10.15 am
Mr. Andrew Hunter: I wish to address a controversial issue that emerged from the report: the membership of exclusive organisations. I was advised when the Committee met that, as a member of the Loyal Orange Institution of England, I have a non-pecuniary interest to declare. I have some doubts about that advice because I have no involvement whatsoever in the Orange Order of Ireland or any of its constituent lodges. Nevertheless, I make the declaration.
I strongly agreed with the Secretary of State's response to the report when she wrote:
"the overriding principle is that those who hold positions of public responsibility should be, and should be seen to be, impartial in the discharge of their duties."
I believe that that goes to the heart of the issue. The argument that membership of the exclusive orders runs counter to that lacks any evidence.
Some may love it to be otherwise, but the impartiality of the RUC, with members of the loyal orders in its ranks, cannot be seriously or significantly challenged. It is evident from the higher arrest and conviction rate for loyalist terrorists and from the fact that the RUC has been on the receiving end of loyalist terrorism. Most recently, PC Greg Taylor was kicked to death by loyalists in Ballymoney. PC Frank O'Reilly was critically injured by a blast bomb during loyalist rioting in Portadown last August. Most especially, the RUC's impartiality is evident in the continuing and sometimes ugly saga of Drumcree, where it demonstrates exemplary courage, valour and discipline in its confrontation with loyalists, some
312
of whom, no doubt, are members of the loyal orders. The fact is that the RUC, with many members of the loyal orders in its ranks, has served both sides of Northern Ireland's divided community with magnificent heroism and restraint.
In her response, the Secretary of State, pending the findings of the independent commission, chose not to challenge the assertion of the Apprentice Boys that there is nothing incompatible in membership of their organisation and of the RUC. Nor did she challenge, again pending the findings of the independent commission, their opposition to any move that would prevent police officers from following their religion and culture. I agree with that approach, which is why, in Committee, I tabled an amendment to the effect that RUC officers, both current and new recruits, should be allowed to belong to private societies such as the Ancient Order of Hibernians or the loyal orders, but be required to register their membership. That view is shared, according to the Secretary of State's response, by the police authority. I still believe that that is the right approach. If we were to deny members of those groups the right to be, or to become, police officers, we would be guilty of bigotry and prejudice comparable with that which we condemn in others.
10.19 am
Mr. Tony McWalter: In the five minutes available to me, I shall concentrate on paragraph 37 of the report. I associate myself with the many speeches of praise of the bravery of those who have sought to implement peace in Northern Ireland.
There is in England a gipsy camp known to me. In it, there are a number of young people who would be best described as hooligans. Despite that, that gipsy camp is an exemplary neighbour. Local people have no difficulties with the hooligans, because the person who is in charge of the gipsy camp says to the neighbours, "If any of my lads do anything which, in any way, invades your peace or your ability to enjoy your premises, let me know, and I'll deal with them"—and deal with them he does.
Mr. William Ross: By what means?
Mr. McWalter: By the strap or other such means, as families have done for hundreds of years; I do not commend that. In England, such a different source of authority from the law and the police force is very rare. In Northern Ireland, the number of people who regard themselves as appealing to some other authority or law is very much greater than in England.
The Select Committee report took seriously the plight of those who regard themselves as alienated. Although we of course dealt with the issue of under-representation of women in the RUC, the report specifically deals with the issue of under-representation of Catholics in the force. Some will see the report as pro-Catholic, some will see it as pro-nationalist, some will even see it as pro-republican.
I draw attention to paragraph 37, which establishes unanimously that the Committee took seriously the problem of under-representation, and recognised that some things could be done, within approved legal structures, to try to minimise the extent to which there is a law and a force other than that of the state. It states that one of the things that we must do is to say that the cause

313
of low Roman Catholic membership is not merely a result of intimidation. Even if intimidation contributes to the cause—how we quantify such a contribution, I do not know—and even if an element in the Catholic community is saying, "You will not join that; if you do, you are a traitor", there are nevertheless things that we can do to improve the situation.
I agree very strongly with the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) on the community awareness programme that the RUC has inaugurated. It is fantastic. It recognises the Catholic community's problems, and has made an enormous effort to understand why so many people in the Catholic community feel alienated from the normal processes of law. The programme is doing its best to try to address that issue.
Although exemplary in its content, the community awareness programme is not sufficiently extended. How much of the process of training is devoted to such problems of alienation? The answer is comparatively little. How many RUC members, such as those who have been in post for 10 or 15 years, or are members of the canteen culture that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) described, have access to the programme? The answer, again, is comparatively little. The community awareness programme is not sufficiently distributed throughout the RUC, and is not sufficiently taken on board, even in training recruits.
One of the things that I discovered as a lecturer in philosophy was that it is very difficult to address people's reluctance to take seriously ideas which their culture has treated as nugatory. It takes an awful lot of effort, training, essay writing and discussion. Just being given a relatively small snapshot of what life might be like on the other side is not sufficient.
Paragraph 37 says that confidence in the RUC must be achieved among a much wider number of people in the Northern Ireland community. The report begins that debate, takes that issue seriously, and does so with the approval of all members of the Committee, from Belfast, East to Brent, East.
10.26 am
Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: I echo the comments of my colleagues on the Committee on the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). We have all enjoyed working under him. It was a remarkable achievement to reach the level of consensus that is borne out in the report in a Committee comprising quite a diverse range of political opinion. I also pay tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which has suffered greatly during the past 30 years of terrorist violence. We ought to recall the level of sacrifice that its members have made in defending and protecting all of the community in Northern Ireland.
The main thrust of the report deals with the imbalance of membership of women and Roman Catholics in the RUC. It proposes improvements in training and recruitment procedures to deal with that imbalance, which I welcome.
I and some other colleagues dissented from two aspects of the report. One was the issue of flying the Union flag. It is worth bearing in mind that the Union flag is our national flag, and that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. It is appropriate, on occasions, for the
314
RUC to fly the national flag. Equally, I welcome the Committee's conclusion that there is no clear reason for making a special case for changing the name of the RUC. Members of that police force carry the name with pride. The name is also very important to the widows and orphans of RUC members who have lost their lives serving the community.
There is no case to be made against other aspects of RUC symbolism either. Considering that the force's badge shows the harp, the crown and the shamrock, nobody could reasonably argue that it does not fairly reflect both traditions in Northern Ireland. Similarly, I find it unconvincing that nationalists argue against a police force whose members wear a green uniform.
I and other colleagues also dissented from prohibition of the recruitment to the RUC of members of certain organisations. Such a prohibition would raise a number of issues, not least the question of fair employment. I am not convinced that existing laws on fair employment in Northern Ireland would permit such a prohibition. I believe firmly that recruitment to the RUC should be on merit, and merit alone.
I support the proposal for the registration of membership of such organisations. I welcome the fact that the Government, in their response, rejected the Committee's recommendation on prohibition of membership. It would be foolish to deny a sizeable proportion of the community in Northern Ireland access to membership of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, bearing it in mind that the organisations mentioned in the report represent a large proportion of the population. We are seeking inclusivity in our police service in Northern Ireland, and such a prohibition would mitigate against that.
If the Minister has time, will he clarify exactly the organisations which officers of the RUC will be encouraged to register their membership of? Will they include, for example, membership of organisations such as the Knights of St. Columbanus and Opus Dei, as well as the Ancient Order of Hibernians, the loyal orders and the Freemasons?
In his intervention, my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) mentioned the chill factor. It is not correct for the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) to suggest that the wider chill factor was not addressed in the report. Paragraph 4 of the conclusions and recommendations refers to intimidation, peer group pressure and so on. Those are symptoms of the wider chill factor towards the RUC within the nationalist community, which expresses itself in a number of ways. My right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann mentioned the Gaelic Athletic Association's ban on members of the RUC belonging to its organisation.
There have also been problems with members of the SDLP—the largest nationalist party—refusing to serve on local police liaison committees. That, too, sends out the wrong signal to the nationalist community about the acceptability of the RUC and creates and adds to the wider chill factor.
Impartiality has also been mentioned. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs). I add that one only has to visit the Maze and Maghaberry prisons to see that their number of loyalist prisoners equates to—indeed, in proportionate terms, is greater than—the number of republican prisoners.

315
We must accept that it was the RUC who put those men behind bars and in that respect it has been highly impartial.
It is ironic that we are having this debate on the day on which we anticipate the publication of a report on the investigation by the Metropolitan police into the murder of Mr. Stephen Lawrence. Without anticipating the findings of that report, it is fair to say that no police service in the United Kingdom or anywhere in the world is perfect. The RUC does not pretend to be perfect, but when we bear in mind what that police service has had to endure in the past 30 years of terrorist violence and the difficult conditions in which it has had to work, we realise that it has acted honourably and professionally. I hope that the RUC will continue to be the police force that provides an excellent service to the people of Northern Ireland.
10.33 am
Mr. Harry Barnes: I want to deal with aspects of the problem of recruitment of Catholics to the RUC. The leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), has recognised and condemned the canteen culture that exists, and that is important. However, paragraph 37 of the report, which deals with those matters, stresses that
"a picture does emerge: intimidation; peer group pressure; losing contact with family and friends",
and expresses concern for the safety of Roman Catholic officers. That obviously provides a tremendous bar to recruitment to people from Roman Catholic areas.
One of the factors behind that is the intimidation and beatings perpetrated by the IRA. If we were discussing other matters, I might want to talk about loyalist paramilitary activity, but it is sufficient in this debate to refer to IRA activity. It has sought to operate as a crude police force, judge, jury and executioner in the most barbaric fashion to contain and control its own communities. In those circumstances, it is difficult for people to contemplate a career in the RUC, yet the IRA can change its policy, as it did during Clinton's visit and in the run-up to the Belfast agreement. Recent publicity from the House and elsewhere means that during the past fortnight republican violence has ended, apart from perhaps one incident.
Sinn Fein is sufficiently worried about the violence to have thought of an alternative that it calls restorative justice, in which it brings together victims and those who have committed a crime to sort out matters. I am not against restorative justice if it is operated by officialdom, but I am not in favour of it being operated by a political party.
Responses to the beatings, such as that by the leader of the Ulster Unionists—who suggested that Amnesty International should monitor the situation; and the organisation responded to that—mean that the violence seems to have been called off for the time being. As long as the publicity is kept up, that situation will continue.
We now need to tackle the problem of people being forced into exile from Northern Ireland or particular communities. Several hundred people have been chased out of Northern Ireland by paramilitary groups.
316
In January, Families Against Intimidation and Terror assisted 15 families to leave Northern Ireland and has dealt with about 80 people this year. In Manchester, the Christian group Maranatha is dealing with 14 cases. It assists one family a week, but before the ceasefire it was dealing with only one family a month. That is a serious matter that could be tackled by 10 March.
The Peace Train organisation and New Dialogue, of which I am joint president, are calling for action by the IRA to stop exiling people. That could be done in two stages. The first is to ensure that no more people are placed in exile, then we must tackle the problem of returning people to Northern Ireland, which obviously is linked to ending violence and intimidation because people cannot return unless the circumstances are favourable.
Those approaches are hugely important for putting in place arrangements for people in Catholic communities to feel secure in applying for membership of the RUC. Our immediate situation is therefore highly relevant to the problems that we are discussing this morning.
10.38 am
Mr. Andrew MacKay (Bracknell): My party warmly welcomes the fair and well-balanced report produced by the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs under the distinguished chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke).
The debate has been useful and well balanced, and has proved timely because we have discussed the issues being considered by the Patten commission under the Belfast agreement. Many of the Select Committee's arguments and conclusions are reflected in our submission to the Patten commission, which we published last September. We look forward to the commission nailing the lies and distortions of those who wish to discredit the RUC and those such as Sinn Fein-IRA which would like it to be disbanded.
I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the RUC. My party is unstinting in its admiration and praise for that force. We shall do everything to uphold the integrity and reputation of the most courageous police force in the United Kingdom. For 30 years it has been in the front line against terrorism, protecting democracy. It has stood between the rule of law and the descent into anarchy in a part of the United Kingdom.
The RUC has paid a terrible price: 302 of its members have been murdered and nearly 9,000 have been injured. Intimidation continues, with many families driven from their homes. In 1998 alone, 71 families of past or serving RUC officers were rehoused owing to intimidation. Only a few weeks ago when I visited South Armagh, I learned of another police man and his family who have had to be moved under extreme circumstances.
Responsibility for that lies mainly with the Provisional IRA and other republican terror groups, although officers have suffered also at the hands of so-called loyalists. All hon. Members have seen the disgraceful scenes at Drumcree, where members of the RUC have been attacked and brutalised in quite unreasonable circumstances.
When Sinn Fein calls for the RUC to be disbanded, it is pursuing a long-held republican ambition that the IRA should be allowed to police nationalist areas. That would mean replacing the rule of law with knee-cappings and

317
beatings with baseball bats, as we have seen in recent months. In carrying out its duties, the RUC has never been above or outside the law, but always subject to it.
It is important that there should be change, and every hon. Member who has contributed to the debate has confirmed that. Let us not forget that the RUC has been a willing instigator of change. The force is unrecognisable from the force of 30 years ago, when the present troubles started. In recent years there has been a fundamental review of policing, the adoption of an annual policing plan, a three-year strategic plan, local strategic plans, the creation of local community police liaison committees—I was pleased to hear of the evidence that the Select Committee collected from those committees—and the setting of targets for sub-divisions and sub-departments.
In a survey carried out in September 1997, 78 per cent. of the people thought that the RUC does a good or a very good job. Significantly, 55 per cent. of the nationalist community came up with that response. That must be underlined and not forgotten.
The greatest change that the RUC requires is a permanent end to terrorism. That will allow the flak jackets, the guns and the armoured vehicles to go. It will allow the RUC to develop into a police force truly working in partnership with the community. No organisation would welcome that more than the RUC.
At the heart of my party's approach to policing is a belief that change should not be made for its own sake, and certainly not for political reasons. Conservatives believe that nothing should be done that undermines the effectiveness of the RUC in protecting the public and upholding the rule of law.
There should be no question of disbanding the RUC. It should remain the legitimate police force in Northern Ireland and it should remain a united force. The proposal to establish local forces or to separate the anti-terrorist function from what we would call normal policing would be inefficient, lead to two-tier policing and encourage those who wish to supplant the RUC.
The operational independence of the RUC must be retained at all costs to prevent the police ever becoming the operational tool of politicians of whatever political party—a problem that nationalists will recall from the Stormont period. That is not to say that accountability does not exist. The Chief Constable is accountable to Parliament, to the Police Authority and, above all, to the law. The Police Act 1998 introduces a police ombudsman and clarifies the tripartite relationship between the Secretary of State, the Police Authority and the Chief Constable. It should be given time to work.
With regard to control of the police, once the Assembly is working thoroughly, there is a case for transferring responsibility to Stormont for some matters currently carried out by the Secretary of State, but with strong safeguards, especially of operational independence. No change should be made to the tripartite structure without the consent of the House. No transfer should take place until the decommissioning of illegally held weapons has been completed, and until the routine support of the Army is no longer needed.
The crucial and sensitive issue raised by so many hon. Members in the debate is composition and recruitment. The RUC, as we have regularly been told, is 92 per cent. Protestant. We all want a police force that more accurately reflects the make-up of society, but the Minister and I
318
know that there are no quick fixes. The biggest deterrent to Catholics joining the force, as has been said in all parts of the House today, has been intimidation and threats from the IRA and other republicans.
Peace will help, but it will not bring results overnight. Merit must remain the basis of recruitment. The goal should be to recruit a much higher proportion of Catholics than exists in the population as a whole. I hope that that will happen.
The other sensitive issue is symbols, culture and ethos in the force. Like the Select Committee, we see no justification for changing the name of the RUC. It is a name granted by royal charter of which the force is justly proud. As the Chief Constable has pointed out, there is no evidence that the name is a significant barrier to Catholic recruitment. If there were, we would be prepared to be more flexible, to stamp that out. There can be no place in the RUC for religious or sexual discrimination. We applaud the efforts of the Chief Constable to stamp out that evil.
We support the view of the Select Committee that the Union flag should not be flown on 12 July. The Chief Constable's decision that flags should not be flown at all from police stations in the Province seems sensible, sensitive and the correct way forward.
The size of the force will be a problem. Any reduction in size from the present 13,000 members must be gradual. Even when peace is established, there will still need to be a larger force than the forces serving a comparable population in other parts of the United Kingdom. We strongly support the Chief Constable's estimate that owing to exceptional demands, the RUC should in future be, in his words,
"in the order of less than 8,000 strong".
It would be remiss of me not to conclude by condemning—I know that I do so on behalf of every hon. Member—the dreadful incident in Bessbrook in the early hours of the morning. It is another example of mutilation, beating, torture and intimidation in the Province. A young woman was attacked by eight hooded psychopaths. When they could not find the man whom they were looking for, and with her four young children lying in bed, they inscribed a death threat across her arms and legs. That is a vivid illustration of the dreadful problem of those who have not renounced violence, as the hon. Member for NorthEast Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) mentioned.
The conclusion is that one of the principal reasons for the continuing violence is that paramilitaries on both sides of the sectarian divide wish to control their own communities to such an extent that they will be able to persuade others that there can be a reform of the RUC and no need for the legitimate police force to be present in those areas. I believe that all hon. Members present totally reject that. That must a clear message from the debate today.
10.50 am
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): First, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) on bringing this subject to the Floor of the House and on his skilful chairmanship of the Committee. It is a measure of his chairmanship that there have been so few recorded differences between members of the

319
Committee, given the highly contentious issues with which they have to deal. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this important debate.
The volume of written and oral evidence to the Committee clearly bears testament to the fact that the subject matter is extremely complex. The Committee's work in taking, testing and probing that evidence could not have been easy. I know from the experience of having given evidence to the Committee, along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, how much effort went into the Committee's work, and I shared a very concentrated afternoon with them. I should like to say that it was an enjoyable occasion, but would not want knowingly to mislead the House. I have appeared before the Committee on a number of occasions and I know how thoroughly and exhaustively it goes about its task.
I have listened very carefully to what has been said this morning. Let me begin by paying tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I have noted the tributes paid to members of the RUC and its Reserve for what they have endured and achieved during the past 30 years. I should like to echo those tributes, which have been hard earned over many years of service and sacrifice in the interest of all sections of the community in Northern Ireland. It is important that those sacrifices are not forgotten or diminished.
The RUC has played a crucial part in maintaining stability through the past difficult 30 years. All those who have served over the years, and their families, will take comfort from the sentiments expressed today about their role.
Before I come to the core of the report, I want to put my response in context. This will show that the Government's priorities reflect the Committee's timely recommendations. The Belfast agreement of 10 April is an achievement that provides the opportunity for a peaceful future based on an agreed political settlement. Although much progress has been made to date, a number of fundamental difficulties remain, although those should not overshadow what has been achieved.
The endorsement of the agreement in referendums, the election of a new Northern Ireland Assembly, the passage of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the establishment of a Human Rights Commission and an Equality Commission will put Northern Ireland at the forefront of protecting people's rights. The Government have established the Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland and a criminal justice review, and we have seen the ending of routine military patrols in Belfast and elsewhere in Northern Ireland and other moves towards a more normal security environment.
The Committee said that some changes in policing—for instance, overcoming the RUC's religious imbalance, which formed recommendation No. 16—would follow change in the political background in Northern Ireland. The Government agree with that view. The Committee's recommendation No. 27 that the status of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary in Northern Ireland be regularised has also been taken on board. That function will become a statutory requirement as from April this year.
320
The Government agree with the Committee that changes to police governance are key to creating greater public confidence. That is set out in recommendation No. 30. We agree, too, about the need for clarity in accountability, set out in recommendation No. 31.
Those issues are fundamental to establishing confidence in the police service, which is why the Government are engaged in a wide-ranging programme of reform and modernisation of policing in Northern Ireland. We have carried through changes to strengthen accountability, clarify roles and responsibilities, and enhance confidence by the passing of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. For example, as hon. Members have recognised, the establishment of a wholly independent Office of Police Ombudsman is a ground-breaking, confidence-building reform. Its aim is to secure police and public confidence in the impartiality of the new system, and it is unique within the United Kingdom. We are in the process of appointing the ombudsman and hope to make an announcement next month.
Measures to enhance accountability by setting aims and targets for policing and the production of a policing plan were implemented in October 1998. The results of that will be made public next month when the first statutory annual policing plan will be issued by the Police Authority. Other changes clarifying the roles and management responsibilities of the Police Authority, the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State, with consequent benefits for efficiency and effectiveness, are on target to be implemented in April 1999 and are set out in the 1998 Act.
On the subject of accountability, I also welcome the rapid expansion of community and police liaison committees—from some 30 to 100 in the past two years—presided over by the Police Authority and the RUC.
The Committee was also concerned with issues of impartiality and the removal of disincentives for Roman Catholics to join, set out in recommendation No. 3 of the report. As other hon. Members have noted, the flying of the Union flag was an issue, and the Secretary of State said in her response to the Committee that the Chief Constable has brought practice in Northern Ireland into line with that in Great Britain.
On another symbolic issue, measures in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 to modernise the RUC "oath" were implemented in October last year. The Secretary of State recently laid before Parliament a statement of policing principles agreed between the Secretary of State, the Police Authority and the Chief Constable, highlighting the importance attached to the issue of impartiality.
I want now to deal with the future and the Patten commission. We cannot stand still on an issue as important as policing, but must take a balanced and evolutionary approach. It shows the willingness of the Government and the RUC to embrace sensible change. It is worth noting that some of those who call for the most drastic changes are not prepared to accept change in the spirit of the Good Friday agreement. If the RUC is prepared to embrace change, so should others. Those critics should move away from empty rhetoric and accept the democratic process. There can be no justification for bullying, intimidation and harassment, or for brutal summary justice on the pretext that the RUC is an unacceptable police force. Even if people want to see further changes, that is no excuse for failing to co-operate with the police.

321
The Committee has, quite properly, expressed its views on what is referred to as "two-tiered" policing. It is not appropriate for me to guess what the commission might recommend, and I suggest that that should be left to the commission to report on. However, the two extremes of no change and total disbandment of the RUC are not likely to be on the commission's agenda, and they are not on the Government's.
The Government's goal is to have the best possible police service for all of the people of Northern Ireland. We want policing that is acceptable and effective; impartial and accountable; truly representative; and takes account of differences within the wider community on this issue.
The focus should be on producing solutions that will meet the practical needs of the people of Northern Ireland, as the Committee has done in its report, rather than based on any sterile, ideological analysis. That is why the Patten commission was set up. It is an independent body that can approach the subject objectively and constructively. Its task is to take us from where we are at present to where it judges we should be in the future.
Change is inevitable and the RUC recognises the need for change. It wants to be a normal police service. How quickly that can be achieved will depend on how long the terrorist threat remains. Even set against the huge sacrifices that the RUC has made over the past three decades, its ambition is to use the skills that it has quietly developed over the years in non-terrorist areas to provide a policing service relevant to everyone in the community.
I have given examples of how the RUC is developing that approach. There are others. For instance, in the international arena officers have recently trained in the United States of America with colleagues from the Garda Siochana, and in April RUC officers will bring their expertise to help the efforts of the United Nation's international task force on policing in Bosnia.
Nearer home, I am sure that Committee members were as delighted as I was to see an RUC officer win a top UK award for community policing. It was a first-class achievement and belies those who seek to portray the RUC as a hostile force, remote from the community it is charged to serve. The Government's aim, guided by the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Policing, will be to build on those skills as we develop a policing service for the Northern Ireland of the future.
Many other areas require to be touched on, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt with those in her response to the Select Committee—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We must conclude the debate at that point and proceed to the report of the Select Committee on Agriculture. I call Mr. Luff.

Flood and Coastal Defence
[Relevant documents: The Sixth Report from the Agriculture Committee, Session 1997–98, Flood and Coastal Defence (HC 707), and the Replies by the Government and the Environment Agency thereto (HC 1117).]
11 am
Mr. Peter Luff: I am grateful to the Liaison Committee for the opportunity to debate this important subject. Politicians, much as they often like to pretend otherwise, cannot solve every problem. We certainly cannot change the power of the elements, nor alter inevitable geological processes. When we intervene imperfectly we can make matters much worse. So it is that Minehead is currently angry about losing its beach as a result of incomplete coastal defence scheme work. On the other hand, I believe that Eastbourne has benefited from a modest influx of geological ambulance chasers after the dramatic collapse of a section of Beachy Head. More seriously, the people of Northampton are still counting the heavy cost of last year's floods.
We must learn to be a little more humble about flood and coastal defence, although we can make sure that the organisations established to deal with those issues are well structured and appropriately financed. We must avoid counter-productive interventions with natural processes, while ensuring that the things we do to safeguard human life and property from those natural forces have a benign effect on the environment, wherever possible. Those considerations are what the Committee's report is all about.
This is a complex policy area in which a large number of organisations are involved in formulating and implementing policy. Many of the arguments are intractable—local level accountability versus policy efficiency and effectiveness, and the survival of coastal communities in the face of remorseless natural processes. That is all underpinned by a profoundly complex legislative base, as I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would acknowledge.
The mere announcement of the Select Committee's inquiry prompted the worst floods in living memory in my own constituency. Today I am speaking primarily as a Select Committee Chairman, but I am also a constituency MP and hope that I may be allowed a word of warning. If the Deputy Prime Minister visits your constituency—by helicopter, as he had to because that was the only way to get to Evesham at the time, to be absolutely fair—at the height of floods, promising full reimbursement for the unavoidable actions of local authorities, do not believe him. Wychavon district council is certainly well out of pocket for things it paid for off the back of precisely such an assurance, but which the Deputy Prime Minster's Department now regards as fully insurable risks.
I return to my main theme. The Committee is indebted to our specialist adviser, Professor John Pethick of the university of Newcastle, for guiding us through those complexities with such great aplomb. The Committee staff, too, responded magnificently to the many demands

323
that we placed upon them. Latest projections of climate change and sea level rise were central to our considerations.
Mr. Lembit Öpik: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a meeting is taking place in Montgomeryshire on the question of climate change? Does he agree that it is prudent of Severn Trent, the Environment Agency and other organisations to organise a major conference on that matter in May?
Mr. Luff: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Severn Trent has taken an enlightened interest in climate change and has certainly been helpful to me in my work in my constituency—an area that the company also serves.
On climate change, may I say to the Meteorological Office that we were grateful for its evidence and that we are sorry that it misunderstood our report? Nothing in the report should be construed as being critical of the Meteorological Office. It is a matter of fact that the Meteorological Office could not predict—and could not have been expected to have predicted—the severity of the 1998 Easter floods. The Committee's recommendations on funding were intended to be helpful to the Meteorological Office and I was disappointed that it did not understand that. Climate change makes dramatic events more frequent, but no easier to predict.
It is also right that I should point out that we found high and growing regard for the general approach of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to those complicated issues and for the policies that the Ministry seeks to implement. However, we commented on the
"relative failure of MAFF to instil a sense of drive, purpose and direction in the new policy among relevant operating authorities."
Our report was not simply about managed realignment of the coast in carefully selected areas, although the national press picked up almost exclusively on that issue last August, often misrepresenting us quite heroically. We were given some marvellous headlines: Anthony Bevins wrote a pretty fair piece in The Express, which certainly did not even begin to justify the paper's screaming front-page headline
"Let Britain Sink Say MPs".
However, I am grateful to The Express headline writers for giving me a chuckle and a good cutting for my office wall. Of course, the headline drove others back to read the report itself, for which I am also grateful.
In its reply to the Committee, the Environment Agency said that the report was timely and had recognised the issues facing flood defence in England and Wales into the next millennium. Its response stated:
"The Report challenges all parties involved to deliver a more efficient, effective and consistent service to the public."
The report was also fairly well received by the Government. Their reply described it as a
"valuable contribution to the debate on a highly important subject".
The Parliamentary Secretary—I am glad that he is in the Chamber today—characterised our findings as
"an important advance. It dealt with serious issues in a balanced, thoughtful and weighty way".—[Official Report, 20 October 1998; Vol. 317, c. 1088.]
324
Understandably, perhaps, there was a slightly more guarded response from the farming industry, but I was impressed by the considered response that came from an area affected by rapid coastal erosion. An editorial in the East Anglian Daily Times asked:
"Where would be the attraction of the (East Anglian) Heritage Coast if it were hidden behind what the MPs call 'an unbreachable Maginot line of towering sea walls and flood defences'"?
The East Anglian Daily Times recognised that our recommendation to realign the coast at appropriate locations
"would require sea defences to be moved back only a few tens of metres"
to yield considerable environmental and social benefits. It would affect hundreds, at most a couple of thousand, hectares of land on the east English coast, and not the vast tracts conjured up by some parts of the national press.
Most tellingly, the editorial continued:
"Accepting this change of policy is actually a matter of accepting the inevitable: there is no realistic alternative."
That is the central message of our report.
More recently, after the collapse at Beachy Head, a leading article in The Times expressed broad agreement with the Committee's conclusions, recommending greater reliance on soft engineering approaches to coastal defence where appropriate. The Times commented:
"Spending more taxpayers' money on concrete walls may well be akin to pouring money into the sea, a futile attempt to control nature."
In the limited time that I have at my disposal, I want to draw out three of the report's principal themes—institutions, funding and planning. First, in relation to institutions, current Government policy on flood and coastal defence faces considerable problems in being delivered on the ground. The Committee called for a national consultation on the administrative and organisational structures currently in place, and for the Government to rationalise the fiendishly complex legislative base of policy as soon as possible.
Mr. Paul Keetch: The hon. Gentleman mentioned flood defences. He will be aware that in Herefordshire, during the recent floods, a farmer was killed, and that one difference between those floods—which I know also affected Worcestershire—and previous floods, such as the Easter floods, was that the Environment Agency and the police monitored effectively a surge of water coming down the River Wye. Water levels rose and then fell. The generally accepted view locally was that that was because Welsh Water had opened the gates on the reservoirs to cause that surge. Would the hon. Gentleman like the water authorities to be included as part of the review?
Mr. Luff: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and I shall be interested in the Parliamentary Secretary's reply. I, too, heard those accusations locally, and they need to be addressed. Management of rivers is a complex issue, and one that I have no time to examine in my speech, although the Committee considered it in some depth. I agree that there are matters of concern, not only at the larger level to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but at local level in relation to the maintenance of non-main rivers. However, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks and hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will take them on board.

325
In essence, the report stated that the existing coastal groups should be put on a statutory basis and should address coastal issues, while regional flood defence committees should deal with rivers. There should be a slimming down of a number of local flood defence committees.
The Government's response was, to put it charitably, cautious. While they did not agree that a radical overhaul was necessary, the Ministry announced that it would discuss with the Environment Agency and regional committees the preparation of guidance on the continued need for local flood defence committees and the appropriate number and composition of those committees. That is an encouraging step towards the more wide-ranging administrative review for which the Committee had hoped.
The Environment Agency noted that
"we are sympathetic to the recommendation of the Select Committee that there should be a review to a single tier of Regional Flood Defence Committees".
Although the Government might have dismissed our suggestion for radical institutional reform, the Environment Agency noted its
"full support for the main emphasis of the Agriculture Select Committee's report … that there is an urgent need to streamline flood and coastal defence institutional and financial arrangements to achieve a more efficient, effective and value for money service that can deliver long term sustainable policies".
Even the Ministry admits—I quote again from its response—that
"more needs to be done to translate the national strategy into action on the ground".
We believe that that can be achieved only through reforming a system of policy delivery that has grown on a piecemeal, ad hoc basis over several decades. The current sticking-plaster approach advocated by the Ministry is not, in our opinion, the best way forward. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary has changed his mind since he responded to our report.
If Government policy is to be delivered effectively, current levels of funding, and the way in which those funds are allocated, must be reconsidered. Our report recognised the urgent need for extensive renovation and, in some areas, the replacement of coastal defence works over the next decade—so much for letting Britain sink.
A critical part of that process is knowing the precise state of repair of those defences. The Committee pointed out that MAFF and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions should undertake a joint review of the funding mechanisms currently in place, with two aims. The review should ensure that those mechanisms are the most efficient way of delivering funds to operating authorities and that they do not prejudice decisions against the maintenance of existing works in favour of the construction of new works, which can have unwelcome environmental effects.
We urged the Government to consult all operating authorities on current funding arrangements, with a view to simplifying those arrangements radically and achieving measurable improvements in policy efficiency by cutting out unnecessary bureaucracy and administration. The Government accepted our call for an interdepartmental review of funding mechanisms. What progress has been made with the review? Will it also suggest ways of streamlining the administrative and bureaucratic complexities of the current system more generally?
326
Has the Minister consulted the Environment Agency on restructuring funding mechanisms for flood and coastal defence? What further guidance is he considering for operating authorities on the balance to be struck between capital and maintenance? As for the state of repair of flood and coastal defences, what progress has been made on the development of an asset database for all defences, irrespective of ownership? Does the Minister agree with the Environment Agency's observation to the Committee that, even after the comprehensive spending review, there is a "noticeable shortfall" in national funding, which may result in
"the Government's priorities … not being adequately met"?
The third important issue is property development on flood plain land. We discovered a legacy of inappropriate development in flood-prone areas, and exposed a national planning system that still does not accord sufficient importance to flood and coastal defence priorities. That certainly contributed to the severity of floods in the midlands last Easter, in Evesham, in my constituency, and in Northampton.
We argued for a clear presumption against future development on flood plain land, where the flooding or erosion risk attached to a particular development, as determined by the Environment Agency, outweighs the benefits. We said that the agency should make it clear to property developers and local authorities alike that it will vigorously oppose all inappropriate development on rapidly eroding coasts and flood plain land, referring the matter to the Secretary of State where necessary. We said that, in exceptional circumstances when planning permission on land liable to flooding is considered, the agency should be granted powers to require developers to set aside sufficient moneys for the provision of all necessary flood defence works.
It is fair to say that the Government's reply did not go as far as the Committee would have liked. The Government noted, however, that they would consider whether the present guidance to local authorities on development should be strengthened. They also undertook to review whether stronger guidance was needed in relation to the financial contributions that developers should make towards flood defences. The large amount of new house building that the Government believe is necessary makes the issue genuinely urgent.
Clarification of the Government's latest thinking would be appreciated, especially in view of the unequivocal endorsement of the Committee's position from the Environment Agency. I should also like to hear from the Minister whether the agency is on course to complete its flood risk mapping exercise by September this year. In the light of last year's Easter floods, we said that should be its main priority.
There remain a number of other issues that the Government did not resolve to our satisfaction. I shall deal with just two: strategy and compensation. Those issues are related.
The Government have an enlightened strategic approach to policy aims and objectives, which has established the foundations for a more sustainable flood and coastal defence policy. The Minister, his predecessors and his Department deserve praise for their work. The Department must now turn its attention to gauging the long-term implications for policy of the approach that

327
the Government advocate. As the Department recognises, and as the Government say in their response, there is a need for
"thoroughly evaluated, flexible and imaginative responses"
to the future challenges posed by rivers inundating flood plains, storm surges on the coast and rapid rates of coastal erosion. On the east coast of England, those rates are as fast as any in Europe.
If the Government's response proves to be no more than warm words, they should at least, as a first step, assess the financial implications of their endorsement of soft defences and managed realignment. The Environment Agency broadly agrees with that, commenting:
"The Government should produce clear policy guidelines on current compensation mechanisms and how they should be applied in future".
Clarification from the Minister on the Government's guiding strategy on the coast and inland would be welcome. In particular, what is being done to encourage operating authorities to address the Government's policy aims by setting targets?
That leads me to my last point, which concerns compensation. I found that aspect of the Government's response particularly disappointing. If individuals are required to make sacrifices for some wider social benefit, they should be compensated. Let us take the case of Mr. David Rusbridge of West Wittering, which I have discussed with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie). Mr. Rusbridge wrote to me recently that managed realignment was a possibility in his part of Sussex, and that he might be required to sacrifice some 100 acres of his 400-acre farm. Before the 1950s, coastal landowners were responsible for the maintenance of sea defences. That responsibility was removed from them, but they were told that the land that they owned would be defended. On that basis, Mr. Rusbridge has invested in his land. Now he faces immense uncertainty. I believe that, if he is required to lose 100 acres of land worth £150,000 to £200,000, he should be compensated. It is not right for one individual to bear the cost of protecting the rest of us.
I understand that the Minister can sometimes provide compensation by means of environmental routes in such circumstances, but that is not the principle. Compensation should not depend on the lottery of environmental gain. We said in our report:
"We are firmly convinced of the need to put in place a robust financial mechanism for the reimbursement of property owners and landowners whose assets are sacrificed for the wider benefit of the community … In our opinion, the Ministry has postponed this task for too long and should investigate the practicalities of such a mechanism urgently."
If landowners are not compensated, what incentive is there for them to support the kind of sustainable solutions that our Committee called for, and which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food now rightly advocates? That complaint should probably be laid at the door of the Treasury, not MAFF, but Government as a whole must address it if genuinely sustainable policies are to be made acceptable to coastal communities.
Certain things are unavoidable. Climate change is leading to rising sea water levels, and, it seems, to increased storminess. The geological tilt of the United
328
Kingdom into the English channel and the North sea is making the problem worse. There will come a time when we cannot defend land that currently seems secure. London itself is not immune. No flood barrier can work for ever. In 200 or 300 years, the effects on London will be profound. We described them in our report. If the Government really want the millennium celebrations to do something good for London in the long term, when the dome reaches the end of its life they should not put new buildings on the site. They should pull it down, and create washlands on the Greenwich peninsula. That would be real joined-up government, providing an effective flood defence and a huge gain for London's environment. It would be one measure of the success of our report. Similarly, if the report gives planning authorities pause for thought, we shall have done our job. If we stop piling up new problems for future generations, I shall be well pleased.
Canute knew the limits of his powers, and sought to demonstrate them to his courtiers. For his pains, history remembers him wrongly as the king who thought that he could command the sea. He could not do that then, and we cannot do it now. We can, however, go with the grain of coastal processes, and develop sustainable answers to difficult issues. If we learn that lesson, the report will have made a difference that matters.
11.17 am
Mr. Alan Hurst: I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate, and to follow the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), who chairs the Select Committee on Agriculture. I agree with much of what he has said.
I have the privilege of representing a division of the county of Essex, and, although my division has no coastline, the county has an extensive coastline, running from London to Harwich and containing many inlets, estuaries, islands and coves. The soil on which the sea dashes is very soft, and people in Essex have been mindful of the risks of flooding for many centuries.
Canvey island, of historic and sad memory, was the scene of the 1953 flood disaster, in which 59 people lost their lives. In many respects, it represents the endless struggle of mankind with the elements. The Dutch reclaimed it from the sea in the 17th century, and it has been at risk of being reclaimed by the sea ever since then.
County councillor Ray Howard is a close friend of mine, although he is a member of another political party. He represents Canvey island, and is also a member of the Essex flood defence committee. I spoke to him earlier this week. He takes a great interest in the Select Committee's deliberations, and in what we are debating today. He has served on the flood defence committee for many years, and he is well aware that the barriers on the lower Thames are being closed much more often nowadays. That suggests that tides are rising, and that we face potential further disasters. Although protection mechanisms on the Thames and on other parts of the Essex coast are much more substantial and secure than they were in the 1950s, concern remains.
Councillor Howard would perhaps differ from one aspect of the Select Committee's conclusions, as indeed I do. It is with regard to democratic representation. Although I understand the logic of seeking co-ordination through regional committees, I am fearful, as I believe

329
other local people are, that the elected representation serving on those committees will be diminished. If we take that away, with less involvement by those who are aware of the problems in their localities, problems are almost bound to follow.
Recently, as part of the inquiry, I, the Chairman of the Select Committee and others visited Peterborough to discuss flood warning arrangements with the Environment Agency. It showed us in embryonic form fairly advanced and complex mechanisms, whereby computerised telephone systems would effect warnings to those in areas at risk.
In many ways, I applaud such progress, but we may be a little rash in overlooking more rudimentary defence devices such as the siren. I make a special plea for the use of siren to be considered more. The advantage that it has over advanced technology is that it is not put out if a sudden storm cuts out electricity. It is there for all to see. It is dramatic. It pierces the ear. It is clear to anyone who hears it that something is afoot. If use of the siren—which is used in parts of Essex to great effect—were more widespread, we would have extra assurance.
I agree entirely with the remarks by the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire concerning building in the flood plain. Developers have had easy incentive to go for profit because the land is normally easier to build on than more rugged or upland areas. The attraction is obvious. Local planning authorities have perhaps been a little too eager to grant those consents in those areas, some unmindful that the cost of the protection may not fall on the developer or on them, but on the state as a whole, in its various forms.
I support the remarks by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire concerning strengthening the planning process. Vendors of properties should make the views of the Environment Agency as to the flood risk known to the purchaser; indeed, it should be an obligation. There should be greater liaison with insurance companies as to the risk involved when properties are built in those areas. The views and recommendations of the Environment Agency as to the flood risk should be prominent in making a local authority search. One might reach the point where that recommendation or view is endorsed on the title deeds and on the land certificate.
All those matters would be governed by the principle of caveat emptor. The purchaser would beware, so the developer would also beware if there were a risk that he could not sell the properties that he had built. It is such a easy matter for him to build the property, to take the profit and to let the cost thereafter fall on the rest of us.
I address what is now euphemistically called managed realignment; only a few months ago, it was called managed retreat. I support the view of the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire. There is often a good case for proceeding in that way. Time does not stand still. The report refers to the fact that 21 villages in the county of Norfolk have disappeared into the sea since the 11th century, the most famous being the well-known rotten borough of Dunwich.
I have been there many times. I am always told that, in stormy weather, I should be able to hear the bells clanking from the bottom of the sea. I have not heard them yet, but I do know that that part of Dunwich is no longer there because it has gone back to the sea. However, on other
330
parts of the east coast—I have already mentioned Canvey island—we have reclaimed from the sea. Fenlands are reclaimed from the sea.
Mr. John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman refers to my constituency. Were it not for drainage, my constituency would not exist, or the vast bulk of it would not exist. [Interruption.] Whatever reaction that stimulates, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as well as holding the sea back, drainage is an important part of these considerations? It is about pumping water out, as well as stopping water coming in. That is critical.
Mr. Hurst: I am pleased to agree with the hon. Gentleman, as I often do in such less controversial matters. I am fully aware that, were Hereward the Wake alive today, he would not be able to evade the Normans as readily as he did in former times, but the hon. Gentleman is right. Were it not for the drainage patterns in those areas, any attempt to hold back the sea would be purposeless because the area would eventually flood in any event.
Where we take a view—often it is a sound view—that we should alter the line of the coast to take account of advances of the sea, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire said, it is right and proper that those who own the land adjacent thereto be properly compensated. Indeed, we need to achieve a balance between protecting rich agricultural lands, which are often found on the east coast, and preserving the natural environment as it once was.
The Ministry certainly deserves a degree of congratulation on that aspect. It has supported the European Union habitat directive, is committed to seeking to preserve sites of high scientific interest and, where that is not possible, to seeking a replacement to sites elsewhere.
There is not an inevitable conflict between farming and wildlife and habitat preservation. The two are indelibly part of the countryside. They are often perceived to be in conflict, but they are not. There is a strong case that, where society decides to draw back the line of coastal defence, the owner of the land should be properly paid for what he has given up because he is giving it up on behalf of all of us, not just on behalf of himself.
Where habitat is lost and cannot be replaced, there is also a case for compensation. The problem is that such compensation cannot be easily valued in monetary terms. We can ascertain through a land agent the price per acre of prime agricultural land, but we cannot determine so easily what the market price is of a reed bed. It is not possible to say. What would we pay for the nesting site of marsh harriers? There is no list of valuations.
That is why I am encouraged that, when there is a risk to such areas, we will seek to replace them if they cannot be preserved, but we need to ensure that those who preserve such parts of the country are not the losers, just as the landowner should not be the loser when he gives up his land to the advances of the sea.
The report has dealt with a number of issues that are highly pertinent to the important issue of coastal defence. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire on putting it forward in such a way.
11.28 am
Mr. Andrew George: In view of the number of hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate, I will keep my contribution short, in the hope also that the House will enjoy two contributions from the Liberal Democrats, if time allows.
I wish to make a few remarks on the key message of the report in terms of overviewing the whole approach to coastal and flood defence, on one issue of funding that causes concern in my area and on planning.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on his excellent introduction, which I entirely endorse. It has been a joy to be a member of the Select Committee on Agriculture and to produce what is a particularly pertinent, relevant and significant report, which I hope the Minister has taken on board.
I endorse the report's key message on managed realignment and the use of soft engineering. It recognises that we cannot win our battle with the sea and climate without bankrupting the country.
As the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire said, we cannot play King Canute with public finances and public policy. We have to accept that there are limitations to our ability to tame and control nature. Forecast sea level rises for the next 50 years of between 4 and 6 mm annually—which does not take into account the impact of other geomorphological changes—should help to concentrate the mind. Geologically, the land is moving at an alarming rate. As I explained to the Select Committee, it is perhaps symbolic that, as Cornwall is rising, England is falling.
I know that the Minister is aware that the current funding mechanism—particularly moneys from local authorities—is causing difficulties for regional flood defence committees. As we know, local authorities are under specific financial pressures. The advice of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is that local authorities should pass on to the Environment Agency all flood levies for flood defence—exactly in line with national provision of standard spending assessments for flood defence—whereas the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions says that SSAs are a mechanism for grant distribution based on a formula on which local authorities should exercise judgment in funding priorities. The funding mechanism is a source of growing tension between local authorities and the Environment Agency, and operates in a climate in which the Environment Agency's budget for some regions, such as mine, is falling. The issue certainly has to be addressed.
As the House knows, an additional 4.4 million homes will have to be built across the country, and somewhere will have to be found to build them. As the hon. Members for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) and for Mid Worcestershire rightly said, it is appropriate that the Government should be a great deal more robust than previous Governments have been in addressing the issue. It is nonsense to allow further development in flood plains or vulnerable coastal zones that have no flood or coastal defence.
The Select Committee and I seek the Government's acceptance that the Environment Agency should have a statutory right to be involved at every stage of the planning process in what will be—or should be—easily defined zones.
Mr. Keetch: Does my hon. Friend, and other Committee members, accept that the prime consideration
332
is not only planning and building on flood plains but the type of agriculture that is practised on those flood plains? Potato cultivation, for example, dries up water meadows—so that they cannot soak up water, silt runs off and rivers become clogged.
Mr. George: I agree entirely.
Flood plains and coastal areas may provide a picturesque or sublime view for private individuals, but too often the public purse has to meet the costs of sustaining those views. The matter will have to be reviewed, and I hope that the Minister will take it on board.
11.33 am
Mr. Derek Wyatt: Part of my constituency is under water. The Isle of Sheppey is always below sea level, and consequently has problems that other areas in Britain do not have. In 1897, and in the past century—in 1928 and 1953—we had floods in which three quarters of Sheerness disappeared.
Today, at 6.30 am, I woke up to the local newspaper, the Sheppey Gazette, which somewhat discourteously informed me that
"Sheppey was mopping up—and counting the cost—after massive floods hit the north of the island … Mrs Raymond said: 'It was terrifying. The lights failed and we were plunged into darkness. The children were very frightened and then water started to flood in downstairs. In places, the water was up to 3ft deep.
Island councillor Steve Worrall … voicing the fears of elderly and disabled people … said: 'There are so many old people living at ground floor level. They dread the waters returning.'"
Then I realised that, in today's newspaper, I was reading the memory section, which was describing the 1979 floods. However, my constituency is prone to flooding, as we are below sea level and have unique properties.
I should like to congratulate the Agriculture Select Committee on its work, which is outstanding. Although Select Committees are not often praised, I offer my congratulations to its members.
I was marginally amused by the picture of the Thames barrier on the cover of the Select Committee's report—only because the barrier has added to our problems in Sheerness. I wonder whether the Minister knows of any studies done by the Ministry, or of other studies that have been commissioned, on the barrier's implications for areas further down the Thames.
I also ask—out of interest, not as criticism—why, in the report's list of memorandums of evidence and list of appendices, on pages li and lii, no evidence from Kent was listed? There was nothing from Kent county council, from Swale borough council—which is part of my constituency—from Queenborough town council or from Sheerness. Although it may have been an oversight on their part—if so, more the fool them—I also wonder what happened in Kent to the Committee's request for information. A substantial part of Kent is coastal. Certainly some parts of the Isle of Sheppey—and of the former Isle of Thanet; it is no longer an island—are always below sea level. On the east side of Kent, we have had phenomenal coastal erosion.
I take issue on one matter. As the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) said, there seem to be a plethora of agencies and activities dealing with flood

333
and coastal defence. Although my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will reply to the debate, I wonder whether the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions should not be responsible for the matter. I wonder also whether, in England, the responsibility should not be given to regional development agencies. I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend's comments on the matter.
Coincidentally, we are able to consider not only the Select Committee's report, but the Environment Agency's plans for my constituency, which are in a document entitled "Isle of Sheppey Strategy Plan, Summary Document, January 1999". It contains some wonderful pieces, some of which I should like to quote.
The document states:
"An assessment of the current standards has concluded that although the standards of the northern sea walls are quite high (100 to 200 years), the southern clay embankments have standards of five years or even less. Without continued maintenance of the defences, the standard would fall even further and breaching would become inevitable. As the flood risk area is mainly below mean high water levels, breaching of the defences would eventually lead to permanent flooding of the entire flood risk area and abandonment of a great number of properties."
It is a nice way of describing Queenborough and Halfway, which are two of the largest villages on the island.
I should like to quote another section, which I fail to comprehend fully. It states:
"The present value cost of the Strategy over the next 50 years including works to the southern defences"—
of the island—
"is estimated at £22.6 million, including capital costs, preliminaries, contingencies, design and supervision … The present value benefits"—
whatever that means—
"(or damages avoided)"—
I pass
"are estimated at £369 million resulting in a benefit-cost ratio of 16.3."
That was certainly gobbledegook to me.
I thought that the section was saying essentially that the Environment Agency did not have a strategy for the island. I felt sadness in reading it because of the lack of warmth and humanity shown for the people of the island of Sheppey, which is constantly flooded. Flooding is not a new thing for us. High tides do not come only once every 40 years and affect other parts of Britain; my constituency is constantly being flooded and is always in danger of flooding.
I was very nervous about the idea of—whatever it is called officially—what I call "managed retreat", when the next spring tide arrives on the island. In the report's section on the history of flooding, the appalling hardships caused by flooding is scarcely dealt with. Poor people—Sheppey has had unemployment rates of 40 per cent.—cannot afford, or do not buy, home insurance. If they take it, they buy perhaps rather dubious policies. They are therefore doubly affected by flooding, because they are not able to insure themselves.
I should like to try to tease out where the legal and moral liabilities should lie in the flood and coastal defence recommendations. I take on board the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree on planning issues.
334
We have new houses all over Sheppey, but they have been built on bits of rough or dubious land. Planning permission should not have been given, and the planning side of the subject must be much stronger.
If managed retreat is introduced on Sheppey, the lives of eight farmers will be ruined for ever. The land at one of the farms—which I have visited—has been leased by, of all things, Crown Properties. By his own ingenious system of irrigation channels, the farmer has created a wildlife sanctuary and new land for sheep grazing, and he has maximised the land's potential to the fullest. It is an exceptional scheme. In addition, because he has been hit—as have most farmers—by the unusually difficult economic conditions of the past three years, he has had it tough twice.
The farmer sought permission for a change of use for an old barn which stored hay, and for some ancillary buildings. He was given it, and he has leased them to small, productive and profitable self-starter companies. Could we wish for more on the Isle of Sheppey? One of the buildings houses a company that makes tarpaulins and, in another, they collect and sell classic cars. Yet another is a stonemason's studio. Under managed retreat—which the Government could decide on in the next few months—who will insure the farmer if he has no insurance? If he is insured, and finds that he is under-insured, who will insure him then? I have not asked him this, as I have assumed that he is insured. However, if the spring tide wipes him out and he is left bankrupt, what then?
I understand that managed retreat is the cheapest option. I urge the Select Committee to analyse the financial implications of its recommendations when it next reports on the matter. I read far too many Select Committee reports—I am as guilty as anyone, as I am a member of a Select Committee—in which recommendations have no budget or financial model, so we have no opportunity to find the best option. With no resolution on a compensation package before the next flood, the eight farmers on the island are caught between assurance and insurance.
Managed retreat will affect confidence in my community and add to the insecurity that affects all islanders. It could also affect the town of Queenborough, which has a population of 5,000, and the large village of Halfway. From today, any business man thinking of investing will think again, and a downward spiral will then become inevitable—after we have spent the past 10 years trying to provide the island with as much European and Government aid as possible.
Islands are strange places—they feel protective. The first people came to live on Sheppey in the sixth century, and the island has never been connected to the mainland. We hope to have a new bridge by 2001, but it has always had a swing bridge or an up-bridge. It feels its identity as an island. Managed retreat will not sustain the psychology of the island—it will damage it. That has been overlooked by the Environment Agency and the Select Committee report.
Governments tend to be reactive—that is the nature of the beast. However, yesterday the Prime Minister explained the planning required if we were to go into the euro. As we know that there will be a major flood—there is no doubt about it—I wonder whether we could have the same level of planning, particularly as regards

335
compensation packages. I wonder whether we could look at this matter now, before thousands of claims are made. We need five or six ideas for compensation packages.
Ultimately, the island will be cut off from the mainland. How will the population of 35,000 get food and blankets? Are we prepared for that? This is a complex issue and it is easy to make simplistic remarks, but the island always suffers in bad weather. It cannot help that—that is the nature of the island. However, we put people there, we have given them authority to build and we have taken businesses there. We have a moral duty to look after people.
The matter is complex, and I would have liked to be able to explain some of the maps in the report, which are complex. I wonder whether the House would consider using the parliamentary channel to put slides or one-minute videos up during our speeches to show the implications and consequences of previous floods.
11.44 am
Mr. Tom King: The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt)—who has knowledge of information technology and new technology—ended on a most interesting note. I share his concern at a matter of growing importance to which the House will return, and to which the Select Committee has helpfully drawn attention. I have heard three members of the Select Committee congratulate themselves on their report and—as an independent, non-partial Member of Parliament—I congratulate them as well.
Members of the Select Committee will not be surprised by my interest, because they received evidence from Somerset county council, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Mrs. Katherine Bryan, the head of the south-west Environment Agency. In the appendices, submissions from Mr. Campbell Voullaire and Mr. Mark Blathwayt were published in connection with the Porlock shingle ridge, which is a retreat if ever you saw one—a managed retreat, in which 140 acres of prime farmland is turned into a salt marsh—that has caused great concern in that part of my constituency.
Somerset county council was right to give evidence—one fifth of Somerset is below sea level. We have talked of Hereward the Wake, and I would advance the cause of Alfred, who would not have been half so great had he not been able to hide behind the salt marshes—which are now the Somerset levels—where the pursuing Danes were unable to catch up with him because the tide came across 150,000 acres faster than a horse could gallop. He was able to burn his cakes in reasonable security. That is now important agricultural land, and its drainage and protection are matters of concern.
The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) referred to the evidence from the RSPB, which looked at areas that should not be drained and on which important wetlands exist—some in my constituency. I am familiar with the complexity of the issues, and I am concerned about them. I recognise that they are getting no easier. I have noticed that "retreat" is now called "realignment," which I see as meaning gain, as well as loss. In Somerset, we are in retreat—my constituency is shrinking—and there is no sign of any gain on any part of the Somerset coastline, which is under threat. I understand that Professor Pethick—who was an adviser to the Select Committee—is familiar with the coastline.
336
There has been an imperceptible change of belief, rather than a particular moment when the existence of climate change was publicly accepted. I have believed it, on a hunch, for a long time, in the face of the public dismissal by many authorities, who talked of the failure to understand the cyclical nature of climate, the history of the ice ages and the various patterns of climate and weather over the centuries. Now, there is a general recognition of it.
I do not know when the Environment Agency changed its policy, but it is now accepted that there is climate change, and that we must deal with the risk of more serious events happening more frequently. We have read this morning of the horrors of the avalanches in Austria, and two avalanches came down yesterday on a village that had never had one before and was regarded as completely safe. That is a further illustration of the changes to, and the severity of, the weather.
As well as global warming and rising sea levels, there is the increasing severity, and frequency of violent events. There are also man-made contributions to that frequency and severity. This hit me most forcibly when I was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Strabane was badly flooded. I was there 24 hours later, and it was impossible to understand why it had been flooded. Half the town had been flooded severely, and a lot of damage was done. By the time that I got there, the river level was right down. The water, which had been brimming to the top of an extremely high bridge, was looking harmless and low.
An old gentleman standing nearby, whom my officials tried to keep away from me because they thought that he was a bit of an old crank, made the pretty obvious point that such things did not happen in the old days, before all the drainage work on the farms, when the river took a long time to come up, stayed up for a long time and took some time to go down. I live in an old mill and have been flooded. I have seen the effects of adjacent motorways and new developments. When there is significant rainfall, it runs off faster and arrives quicker and in greater volume. The water stays for less time, but it does greater damage.
Curry moor in my constituency is the flood plain into which the River Parrett and the River Tone discharge themselves. The situation for the villagers of East Lyng, which is on the border with the constituency of the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), is more dangerous now. They say that the speed with which the floods arrive contributes to the danger.
I should like to contribute some brief messages of support for the Select Committee report. My only disagreement is on the odd recommendation that
"Insurance companies should be obliged to provide advice to individuals in flood risk areas as to how to mitigate the effects of flooding".
I agree that they should be encouraged
"to address property and asset claims afterwards to ensure their rapid settlement."
I do not know what feedback insurance companies have given, but the recommendation suggests that they should take responsibility for giving adequate advice about flooding. I do not instinctively think that that is the job of insurance companies, but others may like to discuss that.
There is a clear need for greater resources. I recognise that the Government have increased the resources available tinder the three-year comprehensive spending

337
review. Somerset has £500 million of assets for flood defence and coastal protection. Expenditure on those assets this year will be £8 million. Those assets could not be maintained with those resources if the situation were static or even if the threat were declining. In fact, the threat is increasing. We are faced with the appalling prospect of having to try to build another 50,000 houses in Somerset, with one fifth of our county below sea level. As the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey pointed out, we shall end up with housing in unsuitable places, which will increase the problems and the demand for help.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) has already referred to the problem at Minehead. Minehead has a desirable sandy beach, which is rapidly disappearing because we are two thirds of the way through an important coastal protection scheme. After the serious damage done to the sea defences in Minehead, important work has been carried out to put the main defences in place. The last element is a surcharge of sand across the beach. Unfortunately, there is a shortage of money, or the programme has run ahead of itself. I understand that the Environment Agency recognises that, unless something is done now, there is a serious risk that the work that has already been carried out will be damaged and further costs will be incurred. I believe that the Environment Agency is likely to approach the Minister for authority for certain facilities to enable the work to go ahead. I hope that he will be able to respond sympathetically.
Almost every Select Committee report recommends a reorganisation and finds reasons why something should be changed. I have lived through the same building bearing the successive nameplates of the Somerset River Authority, the Wessex Water Authority, the Wessex division of the National Rivers Authority and now the North Wessex Environment Agency. Change usually leads to problems of hiatus, delay and people not taking decisions because they are wondering what job they will have in the new organisation. Select Committees should proceed with great care when proposing further reorganisations. That is why I have some suspicion about the proposal for regional flood defence committees. A bit of evolutionary change would be better than wholesale reorganisation in this case. The Select Committee warned that such a change would require primary legislation. The chances of securing time for that in the short term are pretty slim, so why not accept that the best is the enemy of the good and go for evolutionary change that would secure rationalisation of the present confusing structure without the wholesale upheaval that regional flood defence committees would entail?
Mr. Luff: My right hon. Friend is probably right in the case of his area, but we saw the problems on the east coast of England, where one set of authorities is taking decisions that impact on another set of authorities with different responsibilities. One group deals with coastal erosion and another with coastal flooding. They work against each other rather than together. The evolutionary approach will not work in that case. Radical change is essential for coastal issues.
Mr. King: I have great respect for my hon. Friend's point. I have found the structure confusing and get muddled about who is dealing with what. There is some
338
playing off of one body against another. He will have heard my warning that major upheaval often leads to major hiatus, which we cannot afford.
I have always found internal drainage boards, of which there are several in my constituency, rather curious. There is every argument for changing them or getting rid of them, but they deal with minor problems at a local level that the Environment Agency should not be bogged down with. There are arguments on the Somerset levels about keeping levels to within 6 in, 3 in or even 1 in, so that the water is held up to a certain level in some areas that the RSPB is interested in, and lower in other areas where the farmers can harvest their crops. Those details are much better worked out locally. The Environment Agency's recommendation for a rationalisation of IDBs is better than a wholesale dismissal.
There is all-party recognition of the importance of the role of the Environment Agency—under its present and previous names—and its greater significance to the modern world. It has not yet understood that. There is a timidity about the agency's position. Hon. Members have spoken about the need for it to assert itself more on planning and other issues. It should be encouraged to realise that it has powers. It may have to face some tough times with developers and others, but it must be prepared to stand up and fight its corner and know that it will have greater support than it realises in the House and among the public.
I appreciate having had an opportunity to contribute to the debate and I congratulate the Select Committee on its report on an important issue.
11.58 am
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: My constituency is bounded by approximately 30 miles of coastline. Two of our communities—Formby and Hightown—are under threat. Formby is bounded by extensive woodland and faces significant erosion. It also contains a site of special scientific interest and has world status for its dune structure. However, the site faces many difficulties. Three or four miles down the coast, Hightown faces different problems. Formby has no property directly on the coastline, but in Hightown there are properties 200 ft from the shore. We are starting to contemplate the influence of climate change and rising sea levels on those two distinct communities.
During the past six months, Sefton council has got to grips with the difficult task of constructing a coastal management plan and a shoreline management plan. Both plans have been produced. They are 90 pages long and have been distributed to more than 100 organisations.
Opinions are being sought from everyone, from individuals with a vested interest in the development of the shore to societies such as the RSPB and myriad organisations. Therein lies a problem. Many of the individuals concerned are producing reports and views on the plans that will need to be collated before another plan is produced. There are conflicting views about how best to develop the shoreline and the different vested interests confuse matters. It would help enormously if we could rationalise the number of individuals involved. I continually ask who are the experts who will decide how to proceed and wherein lies their expertise.
I welcome the fact that the Government's response to the report says that they are considering an integrated coastal zone management plan. Many of our local

339
problems have been exacerbated by what is going on further along the coast adjacent to Sefton. Unless there is some attempt to integrate the various agencies along the coastline, many of us will be the victims of other people's protection.
A new development has been built in Southport, which is essential if we are to defend the economy and let the resort prosper, but it has exacerbated problems in Hightown. In the past, we could protect the small community of only 1,000 people in approximately 700 houses because there was a reasonable rate of erosion that could be managed by the dumping of sand; but now we simply cannot cope with the rate at which sand is being removed.
We seek sustainable solutions for some parts of the coastline and hard solutions for others. I expect that we will find sustainable solutions for Formby, provided that we can agree. English Nature, along with another 40 agencies, manages the Formby coastline. It is set on taking at least half the pine woods away in an attempt to develop the dune structure, but we do not think that it has developed coherent arguments to justify that and many people in my constituency firmly believe that it will reduce our flood defences even further.
Until we have expert opinions that can be accepted by the different factions in the community, the region will be insecure and lack the confidence to develop inward investment, albeit on a small scale. Hightown was allowed to develop. It is a lovely, attractive, isolated community. It is quite perfect: lovely modern houses and flats, protected, for the most part, by bluff sand dunes.
Most of the residents do not know what is happening behind the sand dunes, but many do. The dunes are being eroded more or less daily. Sea levels rising between 4 mm and 6 mm, every year for the next 50 years, can bring nothing but disaster for the community. We will need about £8 million to construct a hard sea defence to protect the residents of Hightown.
I understand that, in return for being allowed to build the properties in the area, the developers contributed £800,000. That is nothing in comparison with the cost of the defences that we will have to construct to protect the properties in the long term. I would commend any action that invites the developers to play a greater role in the defence of the properties before they are allowed to build.
We need far greater emphasis in the planning regulations on the role and responsibility of the developer and on appropriate flood and erosion assessments.
12.5 pm
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I strongly agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said about the report and about the fact that there has been some mutual self-congratulation by the authors, but as I am not an author I can congratulate them in all sincerity from some distance.
I have a constituency interest because Selsey was flooded just over a year ago. That was my introduction to this issue. I have had lengthy exchanges with the Minister, and I thank him very much for his courtesy and for the time that he has taken to listen to my concerns. By that alone, he has shown what is required to help to allay some local concerns.
340
Despite the Government's response to the report, I do not think that we will get the cost-benefit analysis that we need. First, the relationship between spending on maintenance and on capital needs to be considered. We are in a catch-22 situation in Selsey, as in many other areas, where money spent on maintenance comes from a budget that could ultimately be used to build permanent sea defences. That seems a crazy situation. I am also worried that the spending on Selsey could delay work on the Chichester flood relief scheme, and I seek an assurance from the Minister that that will not be the case.
Secondly, I am concerned that no serious consideration is being given to overall revenue flows from land that could be lost through strategic retreat. For example, there is a caravan site in Selsey that generates large revenues for the Exchequer, but I understand that those revenues, which could be lost, are not put into the pot to work out the cost-benefit of the proposed strategic retreat. The owner is not being given the opportunity even to say whether he would put up some private cash to maintain his site.
Thirdly, there is compensation. At first sight, compensation seems to be merely an issue of fairness, but in fact it is again a matter of cost-benefit analysis. To work out whether land should be lost, one must determine its value, which should be reflected in the compensation offered to the owner. A constituent recently wrote and said that, before the 1950s, he had been able to choose what to do with sea defences on his land—it was caveat emptor—but that now he has been told that he has no choice and that the land may be lost without his getting any compensation. The Government will eventually have to deal with that unacceptable situation.
The speed at which some decisions are being taken, certainly in my area, is unsatisfactory. The continued uncertainty in Selsey is the cause of great local concern. Few people have been convinced that strategic retreat, managed retreat, managed realignment, or whatever it may be called, is necessary on the west beach; but if it is—we have been expecting a study from the Environment Agency for about a year—that really must be brought into the open, discussed publicly and explained to local people. That has not happened, and I ask the Minister to do whatever he can to speed the decision, so that we can have clarity in Selsey.
12.9 pm
Mr. Norman Baker: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on a matter of considerable importance to my constituency. I approach the issue unashamedly from a constituency angle. I have tried to find out why essential flood defence works for the coast at Seaford and in Lewes town are not being funded. I asked the Library for information about the funding of flood defence works and it provided a helpful diagram.
Mr. Tom King: We need a screen.
Mr. Baker: If we had a screen, I could project the diagram for the House. It demonstrates the intricacies of the funding arrangements and the problems that exist. Lord de Ramsey, the chairman of the Environment Agency, wrote to me on 15 February admitting that
"we have an overall shortfall of some £4M in the funding which Flood Defence Committees have made available for 1999/2000."

341
His letter continues:
"Under current arrangements for funding Flood Defence the Agency has no powers to interfere in the democratic process whereby Flood Defence Committees approve their levies."
The problem seems to be that the Environment Agency, as the body responsible for assessing what work needs to be done, has determined that certain works should be done in my constituency, but the flood defence committee has elected not to fund those works. That leaves my constituents in an impossible situation. The county council's response to that—and it is the local authority members on the flood defence committees who have voted not to fund the work properly—is that levies from external bodies should be exempted when decisions on budget capping are being considered. I would be grateful if the Minister would respond to that specific point.
I shall explain the position in Seaford and Lewes by means of a quotation from another letter from Lord de Ramsey. He says:
"In addition, although the whole Flood Defence Committee endorsed the Agency plan for the coming 12 months, the voting Local Authority members felt that they could not meet the full levy requirement to fund the work. As a result, the levy settlement was cut from an 8 per cent. increase to 6.3 per cent., with a recommendation that major sea defence maintenance at Seaford be halted. Seaford is at the bottom of the Sussex Ouse below Lewes. Any problems or failure of the sea defences here have serious implications for Seaford, nearby Newhaven and Lewes."
A press release issued by the Environment Agency on 9 December after the flood defence committee had agreed not to fund the necessary work stated that it would mean that
"essential maintenance will halt. The Agency will be unable to carry out work at Seaford which it considers is essential to the security of the Ouse Valley."
That is worrying indeed and I have written to the Minister, who has kindly replied, on the general subject of the funding of flood defence committees. I do not underestimate the Government's difficulties in trying to deal with the situation, but the Minister will understand that my concerns arise from my constituents' concerns. In Seaford, essential work to protect the coast and properties along the beach will not take place this year, despite the fact that the Environment Agency has deemed it essential for the security of the Ouse valley. All those properties will be left unprotected this year, because the flood defence committee has not voted through the money. That is an irresponsible position, but the consequences for my constituents is that they are unprotected, and that is unsustainable.
I am also concerned about the banks of the Ouse in Lewes. According to the Environment Agency, there is a real danger that the banks will collapse, with all sorts of consequences for properties, business and tourism in the county town. The works that have been identified as essential by the Environment Agency will not proceed in 2000–01. They have been put back further and we do not even have a date for a proper assessment by the flood defence committee of when the work will be incorporated into its budget plan. Lewes and Seaford will be left defenceless because of the myriad arrangements for funding that apply to flood defence work.
The Minister replied to my letter within two weeks, which is amazingly quick for a Government Department. I have also written to the Environment Agency and the chairman of the flood defence committee. The buck is being
342
passed around, but the result is that none of the work that has been deemed essential by all parties will be carried out. Will the Minister consider the arrangements between the flood defence committees and the Environment Agency? Either the flood defence committees' powers should be taken away and given to the Environment Agency, so that one body deals with the issue, or the flood defence committees should receive the necessary finance and expertise so that decisions can be taken locally. The present arrangements do not work for my constituents. What comfort can the Minister offer to my constituents in Seaford and Lewes who have been left defenceless by the failure to fund essential works?
12.15 pm
Mr. John Hayes: I shall dwell on three aspects of the report. I was pleased to serve on the Select Committee and I am grateful for the positive comments that have been made about its work, although the bulk of the credit must go to our Chairman. I am sure that he will reward me for that compliment at an appropriate time in an appropriate place.
My first point relates to development in the flood plain and I wish to amplify some of the remarks that have been made already. There is not much more to say, except that it is important to increase the statutory responsibility on local authorities to take account of Environment Agency advice. There is already a responsibility to consult, but it should have more force than that. I speak as someone who is very interested in local democracy and who values the independence of local authorities, but this issue is so important and the record is so patchy under the current arrangements that we need to strengthen the arm of the Environment Agency.
I also entirely endorse the Committee's recommendations and the comments in the debate today about flood risk warning. The Government made helpful comments on that issue in their response and also on the warnings for the people who buy houses in the flood plain. Many of the communities affected have an incoming population who do not necessarily understand the history of the issue. The local population may be well aware of the problems, but those who move into an area of flood risk may not understand them. Such people live in blissful ignorance until the worst occurs.
The second matter about which I wish to comment is drainage. I felt that my right hon. Friend from Somerset—
Mr. Tom King: Bridgwater.
Mr. Hayes: I am sorry, I should have known. Mr. King: Of course you should.
Mr. Hayes: I was about to criticise mildly my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and I am tempted now to strengthen that criticism, but I will not. I disagree with him somewhat about internal drainage boards. He is right to say that they are important, but they are more important than he implied. They are a model of the public and private sectors working together, as lean organisations that act and deliver a product in a very cost effective way. They embody a degree of local knowledge and understanding that is unparalleled—as my right hon. Friend acknowledged. I strongly support IDBs.

343
The Committee probably paid too little attention to drainage, perhaps because coastal defence and protection from the sea is more dramatic. The need for such protection is more tangible, but drainage is the success story that cannot be seen. Its success makes it invisible and, with the benefit of hindsight, I think that we may have spent too little time on it. I wish to advertise the many benefits and qualities of IDBs, which are reflected in the Government's response. I know that the Minister enjoys a long relationship with those bodies and is well regarded by them.
The third aspect of the report on which I shall dwell is the management of flood defence and drainage, which the Committee considered in some detail. At first glance, the structure and organisation seems extremely complex. However, it is difficult to deliver a better alternative, with one exception—the district council's responsibility for coastal defence. When we visited Happisburgh in Norfolk, for example, the idea that the district council should be responsible for funding some of the significant strategic work there seemed to me to be a bit of a nonsense. It is too onerous and demanding a responsibility for a district council to accept. The Chairman of the Select Committee and I were chatting about that, and he asked whether I wanted local democracy for drainage but not for coastal policy. My response was, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Drainage works well and has stood the test of time, but coastal policy needs review.
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the three main points that I have made.
12.20 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): In the limited time that remains, I shall certainly try to respond to the points that have been made. All hon. Members who have spoken have mentioned the quality of the report produced by the Agriculture Committee. It is an excellent piece of work, which I enjoyed reading. It raised a great many questions, as I hope was evident from the Government's comprehensive response.
For the sake of the record, I should declare my involvement as vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities—a post that I am proud to hold. I echo what the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) said about drainage being very much a part of flood defence and coastal defence. The Government's belief that we should adopt an integrated approach to those matters informed our response to the Select Committee report.
I absolutely agree that we need sustainable defences, as they will allow national and local economies to prosper and will protect life and property. As has been noted, we must also take account of wildlife sites of international importance.
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) made a good and succinct opening speech, in which he made it clear that flood and coastal defences are a very complex matter. I do not know whether the Select Committee is psychic, but its report was produced in a year when we have had some of the worst floods and rains for more than a century. We must not forget the tragedy suffered by people who have lost homes, agricultural land
344
and even their lives as a result. I know that the House accepts that the bad weather caused disruption across the country.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: My hon. Friend will know of my interest in the Hatch End flood alleviation scheme. If implemented, that scheme would complete a programme of measures to protect against flooding in the north-east part of my constituency. Will he assure me that he will keep under review the funding and priority rating formula that he and his officials use to determine whether such schemes go ahead?
Mr. Morley: I know that my hon. Friend has raised this matter before, and that he has written to the Ministry about it. I shall write to my hon. Friend with the latest information and I shall take into consideration the points that he has raised.
I do not know whether the visit that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made by helicopter was occasioned by flood levels, but the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire very nearly also got a similar visit from me. I should point out that it is very rare for me to travel by helicopter, but I wanted to observe the floods in the Severn valley and to visit Bewdley. However, the helicopter developed engine trouble, which does not fill one with confidence before a journey, and the weather was so bad—perhaps not surprisingly—that it was impossible to fly and I had to make the journey by road. Unfortunately, that meant that I was unable to visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency, which was on my original itinerary.
I apologise for that, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I was aware of the problems his constituency faced as a result of the floods. However, I thought it was a little hard of the local newspaper to criticise me for not wearing Wellington boots that day. I must point out that I did not go to the Severn valley to wade through floods; I went to make sure that people were being looked after and that the proper procedures were in hand.
Mr. Luff: The newspaper has apologised handsomely.
Mr. Morley: I accept that apology with the good grace with which it was given.
We have to accept, in relation to coastal defence, that we cannot ring Britain with a concrete wall, and it would be undesirable to do so. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire was right to say that that is generally recognised. The report provoked a good debate, in which many sensible points were made. It got people thinking about the question of coastal defence and about the best strategies to be adopted.
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire raised three points. The first had to do with institutions and democratic input, a matter that was also raised by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker). The Government believe that it is difficult to draw a distinction between coastal defence and inland defence, and that effective delivery depends on co-ordination.
As a Minister, I am a great supporter of local government input in such matters. I believe that there ought to be local accountability and local democracy. I accept that in some cases, as a result of decisions taken locally about funding, the full standard spending

345
assessment has not been passed on by local councils to regional flood defence committees. I have written to a number of councils expressing my concern, but I have to tell the hon. Member for Lewes that some of the worst offenders are councils under Liberal Democrat control. I have written also to the Local Government Association, because this is an issue for the whole country. However, it seems that local councils have been better at passing on the increased SSA this year.
In connection with funding, we have pledged an increase of £23 million over the next three years for flood and coastal defence, and we have put in place a 6.3 per cent. increase in SSAs for regional flood defence committees. In addition, following the Bye report, we have earmarked £3 million this year to improve flood warning. A number of hon. Members raised the matter of flood plains. We intend to keep the present guidance under review, and we are also introducing flood plain mapping. We have made a start on long-term policy with the implementation of the Bye report. Targets have been set, and we recognise the case made by the report for managed realignment.
No Government can enter into open-ended commitments over compensation for land loss. That process has been going on for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. We have pledged, as part of the Agenda 2000 reforms, to widen our agri-environment schemes and, through managed realignment, give some support to landowners who lose land. However, those cases would have to be dealt with on their merits.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) that I have visited Canvey island, and I am glad to say that the defences there are in good shape and that we shall keep them under review. In addition, I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) that there is a balance to be struck between the local industry and some important environmental sites, such as the sites of special scientific
346
interest in the north Kent marshes. I accept that the regional development agency has a responsibility in that matter, and it will have an increasing role to play.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey asked about the respective roles of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We have no great ideological hang-ups about which Department should have lead responsibility in a variety of matters, but the question was considered in the Select Committee report. MAFF is responsible for land use: as the bulk of the land in question is farm land, it therefore makes sense, in terms of co-ordination, for MAFF to deliver flood defence and coastal defence planning as part of an integrated land-use policy. However, there is very close co-ordination between MAFF and the DETR, and both Departments are charged to develop joint planning as part of the comprehensive spending review. By that means, we will be able to integrate some of our activities.
The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) spoke about Minehead. I understand that the Environment Agency was unable to complete the beach defences within the ideal timetable, because of budgeting restraints imposed by the Somerset local flood defence committee. The level of the MAFF grant has been increased to help with beach recharge, and I hope that the matter is resolved as soon as possible. We are awaiting proposals from the Environment Agency, which we shall consider as soon as we receive them.
A number of other hon. Members made important contributions. However, time does not allow me to deal with them in this speech. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) and the hon. Members for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) and for Lewes that I shall answer by letter the points that they have raised.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We must now move on to the next debate.

Christopher Young
12.30 pm
Mr. Denis Murphy: I thank the House for allowing me this debate, for which I asked following correspondence with Christopher Young's regiment and with the Ministry of Defence. I have not received satisfactory replies to my questions, or to those of Christopher's parents. I speak today with the full knowledge and agreement of Christopher's parents—his mother, Heather, and his stepfather, Terry.
On 20 June 1995, Christopher Michael Young left his parents' home in the town of Ashington in the county of Northumberland. He travelled a few miles north to the village of Acklington, where he lay on the railway track of the east coast main line. He committed suicide. He was 23.
What could have triggered such a tragic and horrific end to a fine, healthy young life? I shall try to piece together the events that led to Christopher's death. He was an active young man who enjoyed life. He decided to join the Army with the full support of his family. He joined the 15th/19th King's Royal Hussars and threw himself wholeheartedly into basic training at Catterick camp. Out of the new intake, it was he who received the award as top driver—quite an achievement.
Christopher was posted to Germany, was trained on exercises in Canada, and served for six months in Cyprus. He was enthusiastic, and he hoped to progress through promotion. He matured into a confident and decent young man of whom his parents were justifiably proud.
Christopher was initially disappointed when, as a result of defence cuts, the 15th/19th King's Royal Hussars was disbanded, but he transferred to the 13th/18th Light Dragoons and he quickly overcame his concerns. He made new friends, and he distinguished himself when chosen to represent his new regiment in a boxing tournament. It would appear that Christopher had chosen an interesting and rewarding career that was proving beneficial both to him and to his regiment.
Things changed dramatically in the latter stages of 1993 when Christopher was posted to Bosnia. He was on attachment to the Coldstream Guards as part of the United Nations peacekeeping forces in the former Yugoslavia. Bosnia was his first encounter with the horrors of conflict and with the realities of death. The conflict in Bosnia inflicted much carnage on innocent men, women and children.
I cannot speak with any personal experience of war, but I went to Bosnia in summer 1997 as part of an international monitoring team to oversee the first municipal elections. I was in the town of Banja Luka, where Christopher was posted, and where he first came face to face with the horrors of so-called ethnic cleansing. I stood at the site of the most notorious atrocity, and it had a profound and harrowing effect on me, even though there were no bodies and only the charred remains of burnt-out buildings. I cannot begin to imagine the effect that a six-month tour of duty must have had on the young men who undertook it.
Christopher had particular problems in coming to terms with the deaths of young children. What a relief it was, therefore, to have home leave for Christmas at the end of such a terrible tour of duty. However, while he was
348
waiting for his flight home, his wallet, containing his identification, was stolen, and he was later involved in a fight with another soldier. He was subsequently arrested, and he received 28 days detention and loss of leave and pay as a punishment.
During his detention at Hohne, in Germany, Christopher asked to see Maggie Gibbons, a Women's Royal Voluntary Service volunteer attached to the Light Dragoons. From what she subsequently told Christopher's parents, it was obvious that he had a recognisable fear of returning to Bosnia. Maggie Gibbons's concern that Christopher was psychologically unfit to return to Bosnia was so great that she made strenuous representations to his commanding officer, asking that Christopher be granted a period of unscheduled leave as a respite. She felt that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
Christopher was granted home leave at the conclusion of his punishment. On seeing him, his parents were shocked at the change in Christopher. He hated the Army, and he was considering applying for a discharge. They were worried by the dramatic change, in only a few months, from his being a bright, enthusiastic young man who wanted a career and promotion to being a depressed shadow of his former self who wanted only to get out of the Army. Christopher was given an order granting an appointment with his commanding officer, and he informed his parents that if he was successful in seeking a discharge, it would be complete by August 1994.
It is important to note that part of Christopher's punishment was the loss of 28 days' pay. However, he received no pay for four months, forcing him to borrow heavily from the Navy, Army and Air Force Institute and a German bank. That was three months of extra punishment. The Army conceded that a mistake had been made, and Christopher was eventually paid for the three months. However, more pressure had been applied to someone no longer capable of handling it.
Christopher returned home to his parents in July 1994. Nothing then or in the following months suggested to his parents that there was anything irregular in the way he had left the Army. In fact, he was absent without leave, having left his regiment without authority and having failed to report to Bovington camp for final clearance and documentation.
As far as his parents were concerned, Christopher had left the Army without a problem. He made no attempt to hide the fact that he was living in the family home. He registered with the Department of Social Security and the Inland Revenue, giving his parents' address as his own. His driving licence, car registration and medical records were registered to that address.
It came as a complete surprise to Christopher's stepfather—then, and now, a police officer in Northumbria—to discover that Ashington police had received a fax from the Royal Military Police, Chichester, on Monday 19 June 1995. The fax listed Christopher as absent without leave from the Army since 2 August 1994—a period of nearly 11 months.
That evening, once Christopher had become aware of the police inquiry and a warrant for his arrest, he confessed to his mother that he was absent from the Army without leave, and that he owed money. He gave no other details, but told his mother that he feared that he would do serious Army time—at least a day for a day, and perhaps more. He was adamant that he would not return

349
to his unit in Germany, as he believed that he would be sent back to Bosnia. He told his mother that he would rather be dead than go back to the Army.
Christopher was calm when he left, explaining that he wanted time to himself to think things through. That was that last time anyone saw him alive.
I have presented what I hope are the undisputed facts of the case. I want to show now how the Army, in its responses to the tragedy, failed in its duty of care to Christopher Young. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will outline the Army's case more eloquently than I can, but I shall try to paraphrase it.
Christopher was sentenced to 28 days' detention and loss of pay and leave. At no time did he complain of post-traumatic stress disorder. Nor did he ask to see a medical officer or a psychiatrist. The Army concedes that Maggie Gibbons spoke on behalf of a number of soldiers, of whom Christopher was one. However, the Army claims that Maggie was not qualified to spot post-traumatic disorder, and that leave was granted out of kindness, not concern for Christopher's health.
Christopher lost a further three months wages. The Army admits that, but claims that it had no effect on Christopher as the money was later paid to him in full. The Army states that he left Hohne on 11 July 1994, prior to intended discharge procedures. He was ordered to report to Bovington on 1 August 1994 so that he could complete his documentation before being discharged. He failed to do so.
Between 2 August and 15 December 1994, Bovington made frequent attempts to contact Christopher, but to no avail. On 15 December, Bovington asked his regiment for help. On 7 January 1995, the regiment asked a friend of Christopher's, who had been discharged in summer 1994, to tell Christopher to report to Bovington. The message apparently reached Christopher, but he failed to report.
The Army claims that no action would have been taken against Christopher when he reported. Indeed, he would have been asked only to hand in his identification card and to collect his credit for pay.
A board was convened on 30 January 1995 to record the events, and responsibility for locating Christopher passed back to Bovington and, ultimately, to the records office. I have taken those facts from a letter sent to Mr. Haley from Lieutenant-Colonel Webb-Bowen, commanding officer of the Light Dragoons. The officer also sent his sincere condolences.
On the face of it, the Army's reply might seem reasonable. However, let us examine the case more closely. I submit that Christopher began to show signs of psychological problems when he asked specifically to see Maggie Gibbons while in detention. She spoke to Christopher's parents after his death and explained that he had had serious problems coping with his experiences in Bosnia. She also spoke to his commanding officer and argued successfully for a period of unscheduled leave because of Christopher's state of mind. That was Christopher's first cry for help.
It beggars belief that the Army could bestow an act of kindness on such an undeserving individual who was serving 28 days for a serious breach of discipline. In my view—which is supported by the WRVS volunteer—that leave was granted because of Christopher's mental state,
350
and for no other reason. How could the Army maintain discipline if it were the norm to allocate unscheduled leave as an act of kindness after a period of detention?
The important role that Maggie Gibbons played in this tragic case cannot be overstated. That was not the first time that she had met Christopher—indeed, she knew him quite well. She sent photographs of him taken before he went to Bosnia and stated that he was one of her "best boys". It therefore seems logical that Christopher would contact her as someone whom he could both confide in and trust to explain his fears and concerns. If leave was granted because of Christopher's mental state, his regiment failed to follow up the problem. How many other soldiers from Christopher's regiment were shown similar acts of kindness, in the form of unscheduled leave, after serving sentences for a serious breach of regulations?
The question of Christopher's pay is another important issue. The family have never disputed that it was eventually paid in full. The point is that Christopher borrowed heavily during that period, creating additional pressures at a time when he basically wanted to be away from it all. It could explain why Christopher felt that he could not complete his clearances and left a full two weeks before he was granted permission to do so.
Christopher left Hohne on 11 July and his papers gave him permission to leave on 25 July. How could he be deemed to be in "good order", as his commanding officer stated, when he left two weeks before the date shown on his discharge papers? It states quite clearly in his orders that failure to comply would result in disciplinary action. By leaving Hohne without permission, Christopher was surely absent without leave from 11 July. I submit that leaving in that way was Christopher's second cry for help.
That brings me to a significant area of contention with the official version of events. We know that Christopher was officially reported absent without leave with effect from 2 August 1994 even though he was absent from 11 July. It is stated that the usual procedures would have been put into operation—namely, that a signal would have been sent to central criminal records and information. The Chichester Royal Military Police would then have contacted the civil police authorities, who would have visited the address given and, if unsuccessful, would have maintained the details on file.
It is stated that visits were made to addresses in the Ashington area. Why were there no visits to Christopher's parents' home address? The address is on file twice under the headings "Family details" and "Next of kin". The same address was shown on Christopher's discharge papers that ordered him there before going to Bovington. What addresses were visited, when and by whom? If contact had been made with the local civil police, a locate trace or wanted marker would have been placed on the police computer. I remind the House at this important juncture that Christopher's stepfather is a serving officer in the Northumbria police force and was stationed at that time in Ashington. Why did it take 11 months to find Christopher?
Frequent inquiries were allegedly made to two addresses in Ashington, the last of which was on 15 December 1994. The Army then claims that it used standard procedures—namely, it contacted the Department of Social Security for the current addresses of any absentees. Christopher registered with the DSS immediately upon returning home 11 months earlier. While in his car, he was stopped twice

351
by the police during that period and asked to produce his documents at the police station. There was no "wanted" or "locate and trace" marker against his name. It took 11 months to find someone who was not hiding. Even though Christopher's parents moved into Ashington during that time, their change of address would have been easy to trace.
That brings me to the final point: Christopher would not have been punished for being absent without leave, and the Army wanted him only to hand back his identification and collect his pay. I have mentioned this point to several ex-service men of various ranks, all of whom said that 11 months absence without leave for whatever reason would have incurred severe penalties. Perhaps the regiment could provide details of the number of those who fall into the category of committing no offence for being absent without leave. The Army claims that there was to be no punishment for Christopher, who simply had to hand back his ID and collect his pay.
Christopher's ID was stolen, along with his wallet, on return from Bosnia and he was subsequently issued with a temporary ID, which expired on 16 July 1994. He had no ID, and the Army should have known that. As to his pay, a sum was deducted from his estate apparently for overpayment of wages in Germany. There was no pay to collect and he had no ID. Why did the Army send a "locate and detain" order to the local police—that is, an order to arrest him—if Christopher was not to be punished? Christopher obviously did not believe that he would not be punished, for there was no third cry for help. He believed that he would not receive any help and took his own life rather than face returning to the Army.
I believe that the Army has shown either incompetence or negligence in this case. As a result, a young man took his own life rather than return to the Army. How different might things have been if Christopher had been located within weeks rather than 11 months? I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to be able to answer all the points that I have raised in the short time that he has to respond to the debate. However, I formally request that he meet Christopher's parents with a view to conducting an open, Government-led inquiry into the events surrounding Christopher's death. The family have only ever sought answers to their questions. Nothing will bring Christopher back, and they must live with that for the rest of their lives. An inquiry may prevent a similar incident in the future.
We train and equip the finest service men and women in the world and we expect them to police the world's trouble spots in the name of this nation. Thousands of service personnel are awaiting instructions to move into Kosovo and, of those thousands, a number will undoubtedly end up suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. We have a duty to ensure that systems are in place to recognise that disorder and to deal with it professionally and sympathetically.
The Army has been described as a family—sadly, for some who join, it is their only family. Central to that family principle is surely a duty of care. I believe that the Army failed in that duty of care in Christopher's case. I ask the Minister to meet Christopher's parents and to hold an inquiry so that everyone connected with the case may find peace and we may ensure that such an incident as this never occurs again.
12.48 pm
Dr. David Clark: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy) on his eloquent, and sometimes moving, contribution. He clearly made a strong case regarding the tragic circumstances that affected his constituent. As I listened to my hon. Friend, I recalled that I might have met Christopher—I do not know whether I did. I spent some time with the Coldstream Guards and a detachment from the Light Dragoons in Bosnia during the period under discussion and I remember joking with the service men—who were full of life—about whether they supported Sunderland or Newcastle. Most of them were Newcastle supporters.
I am reminded of the rather delicate position in which the Army often finds itself. As my hon. Friend said, our armed forces comprise some of the finest young men and women in the world, who demonstrate their proficiency when we increasingly ask them to serve in places such as the Balkans. That puts great pressure on young people. At one level, they are very macho; at another, when they see the horrors of ethnic cleansing, it much affects them. That means that the Army must change and ensure that it has procedures to recognise cries for help of the sort that my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck showed that Christopher Young often made.
We must ensure that such events do not happen again. I am conscious of this because I have a similar case involving a young man from my constituency, Trooper Alex Jobling. He was from the same regiment, the Light Dragoons, and was at the same base, Hohne in Germany. Tragically, he committed suicide on 21 January 1997. I took the matter up with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and had a long and sympathetic reply. However, I am not completely satisfied with it. I return to the approach made to me by my constituents Mr. and Mrs. Jobling, who complained that they have been exasperated
"by trying to get to the truth surrounding the circumstances of our son's death."
This House and the Army must ensure that every effort is made to satisfy parents and relatives of people who die that at least they know all the circumstances. In this case, I do not think that all the circumstances are known. I have taken up the case because no action was taken even though a suicide note was found and reported to the corporal a few days before Trooper Jobling committed suicide. I do not blame the corporal; my point is that there must be clear instructions to the Army to ensure that the aide-memoire that has now been produced is adhered to and, crucially, gets through to non-commissioned officers. Our NCOs are the best in the world and the backbone of the British Army. They are the link between troopers and people who might be able to help them.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree to help my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck with the circumstances of the death of Christopher Young. I hope that he is also prepared to discuss with me the events involving Trooper Jobling because they are tragic and reflect a common point. I would be grateful if he agreed to my request.
12.53 pm
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson): First, I tell my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that I will ask the

353
Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar) to re-examine the circumstances surrounding the case that he raised, to examine the correspondence and to tell my right hon. Friend whether a meeting might help clarify the situation.
In the short time available, however, I want to address the main question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Murphy). I am grateful to him for raising the circumstances surrounding the tragic death of Trooper Christopher Young, which he did clearly and with great sympathy. I also take this opportunity to express my sincere condolences to his family on their sad loss. Mr. and Mrs. Haley have understandably thought much about the circumstances surrounding his death. It is right that they should receive detailed explanation of all the events relating to the situation. I will ensure that that happens in the most appropriate way.
Christopher Young was highly regarded by his superiors and well liked by his peers. He was a hard-working, efficient and capable young person who had been recommended for possible promotion to become a junior non-commissioned officer. He was a fit and active member of the troop and boxed for the squadron. I am advised that it was the view of the Army that he had a promising career ahead of him. Sadly, after three years of service, he decided to leave the Army and applied to be discharged. The discharge was to become effective on 2 August 1994. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck told us of the sad events that took place between then and a year later.
The Army takes very seriously its responsibilities for duty of care. In the six months that I have been in this post, I have visited many regiments. On each occasion, I have been impressed by the seriousness with which the Army accepts that responsibility. That is recognised by all in the Army—by those who lead and by those who serve. Apart from anything else raised by my hon. Friend, that would be an important reason why I would feel that we
354
have a full obligation to investigate the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Christopher Young.
I do not accept that there has been a failure in this case on the part of the Army. I know that there would have been no intentional failure, but several specific points have been raised and it is right that I further examine the circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck said that when Christopher Young was in detention, he approached Maggie Gibbons of the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and explained to her how he felt about his circumstances. She in turn had a discussion with Christopher's parents in which she expressed how she interpreted what he had told her. I undertake to revisit the issue and check with the commanding officer what advice, if any, was given him by Maggie Gibbons in respect of her assessment of Christopher's physical and mental state of health.
The Army's responsibilities in such cases were raised. The Army has a clear responsibility to retrieve documents, to settle possible outstanding wages and to ensure that proper procedures have been followed in any discharge. In emphasising that responsibility, I again undertake to examine some questions linked to it. I will check which address the military police initially contacted to try to locate Christopher Young in trying to meet the Army's responsibilities. I will check whether any other addresses were approached by the military police and, if so, what response was received. I will also check whether, after the initial attempt to locate Christopher Young, a "locate and trace" order was made by the military police; and if so, when it was issued and why the military police felt it was necessary. Finally, I will check what action the civil police took in the case and when they took it.
We have a duty to explain all the circumstances to the family of Christopher Young. I recognise that it is important in that explanation to make the most direct contact possible, and I undertake to do that.

West Country Ambulance Service
1 pm
Mr. Colin Breed: I am sure that the Minister shares the view that time seems to stand still for people who dial 999 and ask for the ambulance service. Every second seems to be a minute, and every minute an hour, until they hear the siren and see the blue flashing light—a heart-stopping moment in the rear-view mirror for most of us. For those who have picked up the telephone, the ambulance's arrival is a moment of comfort, security and help. The time between their telephone call and the ambulance's arrival is critical.
I shall describe three short scenarios. Let us think of a pregnant woman in north Cornwall who goes into labour early at 2 am. Very distressed, she phones for an ambulance to take her the 50 miles to hospital. Let us think of a young cyclist, who has been knocked off his bicycle in a road traffic accident in the middle of Somerset, and is lying unconscious in the road while somebody grabs a mobile phone to call an ambulance to take the boy to hospital. Or let us think of members of an ambulance team who are suddenly called to a major incident at the end of a long shift. They arrive at the scene, attend the victim and take him to hospital. The hospital, which has received enormous investment in recent times, has all the high-technology equipment and the most wonderful intensive care facilities, and trained staff are ready, willing and able, but the ambulance, which has done 300,000 miles, arrives five minutes too late. Those are not isolated incidents; such events happen.
The West Country Ambulance Services trust is one of the largest ambulance services in the country. It serves the counties of Devon, Cornwall and Somerset, covering approximately 5,700 sq m of a predominantly rural area. Last year, it was one of only four trusts to fail to meet the national targets set by the Government. It managed to reach 90.4 per cent. of emergency calls within 19 minutes—well under the target of 95 per cent. It responded to 42.9 per cent. of calls within eight minutes—substantially under the expected 50 per cent.
In April last year, new standards were introduced for some ambulance services, moving away from the old Orcon standard, which specified the 95 per cent. and 50 per cent. targets, to a criteria-based dispatch. For the West Country Ambulance Services trust, that means that it must respond to 75 per cent. of immediately life-threatening illnesses within eight minutes, and 95 per cent. of all other cases within 19 minutes. Other emergency services can be used to respond to calls, although the cost of training and of ensuring that such response vehicles are properly equipped will inevitably cut into the ambulance service budget, and, therefore, not help it to try to achieve the targets.
Over the past four years, the performance of West Country Ambulance Services has become progressively worse. That is not a result of the trust's inefficiency. Nor does it indicate that the service is lacking dedicated, hard-working staff. It reflects the fact that the ambulance service does not have sufficient funding to meet the Government's targets.
Between 1993 and 1998, there was a 35 per cent. increase in emergency calls resulting in a response. That is higher than the national average of 31 per cent. Figures show that the West Country Ambulance Services trust's
356
performance standards are dropping. The ambulance service is being asked to cope with ever-increasing demand, while under constant pressure to find cost savings. The ambulance service is the front-line emergency service, and we simply cannot allow standards to drop any further.
One of the fundamental problems for all health services in the south-west is that the overall funding formula does not reflect the real cost differences associated with the sparsity of the area. The funding formula provides for an allowance of 0.5 per cent. of available funding to be allocated on the basis of population sparsity, but such weighting in no way reflects the actual cost of providing services.
Call-out times are inevitably longer, and the cost of providing ambulance cover to scattered hamlets is obviously much higher than in a densely populated urban area. In addition, the south-west experiences an influx of tourists each year, resulting in a massive increase in population. The allowance in the funding formula does not take into account the fact that the daytime population in Devon and Cornwall doubles in the summer months.
We acknowledge that the emergency ambulance cost adjustment includes a small sparsity allocation. However, figures from the House of Commons Library show that, for most west country health authorities, the EACA rises slightly as a result of the sparsity adjustment, but is pushed down by the supposed low proportion of emergency journeys. That is surprising in the light of the fact that the increase in emergency calls to which I referred results in a higher than national average response in the west country. West Country Ambulance Services predicts a shortfall in its funding next year of £700,000.
Mr. John Burnett: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is impossible to reconcile 3 per cent. so-called efficiency savings with the additional burden of a 6 per cent. rise in call-outs?
Mr. Breed: That is absolutely correct. The service is expected to find 3 per cent. so-called efficiency savings, although one must consider extra burdens such as millennium compliance costs, which have fallen squarely on the authority. Staff pay accounts for 80 per cent. of trust costs. The trust is overspent on pay budgets, and therefore any deficit will have to be met from within such budgets. In order to keep within them, additional staff will not be called in when, for instance, someone is off sick. Instead, spare crew members will have to be allocated to other vehicles. That may mean that, at times, vehicles are without crews. The trust has also been forced to drop planned shift cover in order to curb overspend.
Last year, a target was set of reducing shift cover by 40 hours in each of the 11 station officer's areas. In order to eliminate overspend completely, the ambulance service would need to reduce shift cover by a further one fifth. Although reducing shift cover is the quickest way in which to compensate for the overspend, other initiatives may have to be implemented, such as a vacancy freeze, a freeze on non-clinical training and, very worryingly, slippage of some clinical training into the next financial year. None of those measures will enhance response times. Recent NHS pay awards and the implementation of the working time directive also concern the ambulance trust.

357
I acknowledge that the Government have allocated £100 million as part of the modernisation programme, but trust estimates show that that will account for only 0.6 per cent. of the additional funding required. For Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority, every 1 per cent. above the 2 per cent. inflation funding represents £41,000. That is the equivalent of one operational crew working for 40 hours a week.
Clearly, such cost-cutting exercises will not help the already overstretched service to try to meet national targets. The south-west yet again loses out under targets that are set for the entire population of the country. Targets for Cornwall have been reduced to 87 per cent.—8 per cent. lower than the national average. Just why the people of Cornwall are expected to accept lower standards has never been fully explained.
I am sure that everyone will agree that the ambulance service has a basic need for a reliable vehicle fleet. Ambulance staff already feel that the fleet is far from satisfactory. As I said earlier, some vehicles have almost 300,000 miles on the clock. Many old vehicles with such high mileage are still in frequent use. As the vehicles get older, they will inevitably be less reliable. This year, the ambulance service will need to replace 41 vehicles if its fleet is to be made up of vehicles under seven years old, but it can afford to replace only nine of them. No doubt the service will not forget that it had to replace vehicles in the not-too-distant past because their wheels were coming off.
The service must also meet the cost of warranties and maintenance for newer vehicles. According to UNISON, to which I am extremely grateful for providing information, a significant number of newer vehicles in the fleet will soon be outside their warranty period. That will mean that additional costs for repairs to those vehicles will fall on the trust rather than the supplier.
The effect of draft proposals by the committee for European normalisation—something that, I confess, I had not fully understood until recently—to standardise ambulances will also place disproportionate cost pressures on the west country ambulance service. The new regulations will involve phasing out the old two-stretcher ambulances and will effectively make it necessary to dispatch two vehicles to an incident where there are likely to be two casualties. Vehicles will, therefore, have to travel more frequently, which not only increases mileage, but reduces cover. It is important to remember that fuel consumption, which is a major cost and a great concern to the ambulance service, will rise considerably if the proposals are accepted and additional vehicles must attend incidents.
The proposals will also have a great impact on the St. John's Ambulance Brigade—the voluntary charity to which I am sure we all want to pay tribute—which supplements the ambulance service on an enormous scale. The charity purchases its vehicles, which are usually second-hand, from the ambulance trust. It is considering whether it will be able to continue to do so under the new regulations, and that is causing concern.
The plain fact is that the west country ambulance service does not have sufficient resources to meet national targets. The public have a right to expect ambulance staff to arrive on the scene of an incident as quickly as possible. The scenarios that I outlined earlier are true cases and are not isolated incidents. There is no cheap fix. If the
358
ambulance service is to be able to provide professional care and meet the targets specified by the Government, it must be able to afford the appropriate vehicles and provide the adequate level of staff and training.
The Minister ought to agree that, at the moment, the west country is losing out in many respects simply because the funding formula does not reflect the increased costs involved in providing that essential front-line emergency service for people living in rural areas. Our ambulance service is expected to bear those costs year in and year out for millions of tourists and the local population.
Finally, I want to remind the Minister of a fact of which I am sure he is aware, but which is often forgotten. The people of the west country fund, by voluntary contributions, two air ambulances. Week in and week out, people dedicate themselves to raising the money to keep those air ambulances going. People in Devon, Cornwall and Somerset put their hand in their pocket because they believe that it is a vital service, but people in Scotland and London benefit from air ambulances funded by the Government. That fact alone ought to mean that the Government should at least ensure that land ambulances receive all the necessary funding.
It is time for the Government to recognise that the West Country Ambulance Services NHS trust is severely underfunded. It cannot bear any more so-called efficiency cuts. Targets will not be met if there is a reduction in the resources available. The dedicated staff are struggling to meet the Government's targets with inadequate resources. I hope that the Minister will accept his responsibility and consider providing a fair formula to deal with that worrying situation.
1.15 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the hon. Member for SouthEast Cornwall (Mr. Breed) on securing this debate on a subject of such importance to his constituents and those of other hon. Members from the south-west who are present.
The Government have made it clear that high-quality care should be at the heart of the national health service. That applies to ambulance services, which provide the public and patients with round-the-clock emergency care and access to the full range of clinical services. Ambulance services are at the forefront of the modernisation programme set out in the White Paper, "The New NHS", which involves embracing new technologies to support better and faster patient care and playing an important part in the development of NHS Direct.
I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the inability of the West Country Ambulance Services NHS trust to meet the national standards for ambulance response times. That is a serious concern, and the local health authorities and the trust must work together to ensure that national standards are met.
I recognise the hard work and contribution of all the staff of the West Country Ambulance Services NHS trust who last year responded to nearly 90,000 emergency calls within the 19-minute target—more than ever before. In the past few years, the trust has experienced a steady rise in the number of 999 calls made to the service. Since 1993–94, the number of emergency calls has risen by over 44 per cent. to more than 105,800 last year.

359
Two initiatives are likely to have a major impact on the ability of the trust to deliver improved response times: criteria-based dispatch, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and NHS Direct. Last April, the trust introduced criteria-based dispatch, which is a method of prioritising all 999 calls into three categories: category A consists of calls about situations that are immediately life-threatening, category B calls relate to serious situations and category C calls relate to situations that are not life-threatening or serious.
By 2000–01, all ambulance trusts should have introduced call prioritisation systems and are expected to meet an interim new standard of responding to 75 per cent. of all category A calls within eight minutes. Category B and C calls should continue to be responded to within 19 minutes. Criteria-based dispatch is, therefore, an attempt to answer emergency 999 calls according to the seriousness of the patient's illness and not, as in the past, according to where they live.
I emphasise that category C calls are still included with category B calls in having to be answered within 19 minutes. Those calls make up about a quarter of the total emergency calls and the Department of Health recognises that the practice of responding to them in exactly the same way as to life-threatening emergencies needs to be carefully evaluated to ensure that valuable NHS resources are best deployed in providing first-class emergency care.
Ambulance services have been lobbying in the past couple of years to be released from the convention that every 999 call requires a fully crewed and equipped ambulance. They say that if they were freed from that obligation, they could concentrate on response times to the more serious emergencies.
Work by Sheffield university and the experience of ambulance services over the past two years with 999 call prioritisation shows that it is safe and reliable, and that there may be a case for considering different approaches to minor 999 or category C calls. However, the Secretary of State stated clearly at AMBEX 98 that before there was any change to the current system of sending an ambulance to all 999 calls, there was a need for careful piloting of alternative responses to category C calls.
Mr. David Heath: Does the Minister recognise that apart from the response time for an ambulance to arrive at the scene of an incident, a further problem in the west country is the distance to accident and emergency units, which are widely dispersed in rural areas such as the south-west? It takes a long time for an ambulance to get to a hospital, so there is a double bind for the patient.
Mr. Denham: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was listening to what I said. What he says is a fact of geography. I was setting out the measures that are or could be in hand to enable the ambulance service to deploy its resources most effectively to the patients in most urgent need.
The NHS executive intends to issue a health services circular in March outlining our approach to category C pilots in more detail. The circular will require ambulance services to register all category C pilots with the
360
executive. It will also stress the need for careful evaluation of the pilots before any decision is taken to change the current system, which enjoys huge public confidence.
Early indications are that many of the pilots will include linking appropriate category C calls into NHS Direct, which seems sensible. Any request from the West Country Ambulance Services NHS trust to register a category C pilot will be considered carefully by the NHS executive. Before such schemes are introduced, health authorities and the ambulance service will be advised to have locally agreed procedures and standards in place for dealing with minor emergencies. The pilots, as well as those procedures and standards, would need to be supported by the professions, take account of local concerns in the community and be properly explained to the public.
The second initiative that will have an effect on ambulance response times is that from April this year, the ambulance trust, in co-operation with local NHS trusts and general practitioner co-operatives, will be providing NHS Direct across the four health authorities in the south-west. NHS Direct is a major element in our efforts to use new technology and better information systems to provide faster care more conveniently. By the millennium, NHS Direct will cover up to 60 per cent. of the population in England.
Evidence from our pilots so far is that there is a great potential for the new service to assist in the handling of category C calls. It is also likely to help to avoid the clogging up of the 999 system, lessen the growing work load of GPs and reduce pressures on hard-working accident and emergency departments. If that potential is realised, it will enable the ambulance trust to concentrate on the more serious calls and thus improve response times.
It will be a challenge for the trust to achieve the new ambulance response standard, which requires that from 2000–01, 75 per cent. of category A—life-threatening—999 calls must be responded to within eight minutes. The trust has commissioned an independent review of the service from Operational Research in Health, in agreement with health authorities in Devon and Somerset. The report will review the current use of resources and establish the base line for achieving the new performance targets by 2000–01. It will then be for health authorities to develop plans to meet the targets and to ensure that the new standards for ambulance response times are met.
The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall called for additional Government funding for the health authorities in the west country. He said that he believed that the process whereby money is allocated to individual health authorities does not take into account the cost of providing health services in a rural area, particularly given the geography of the south-west peninsula.
I shall, therefore, say a few words about the way in which health authority money is allocated. I remind the House that the background to this is the investment in the health service of £21 billion over the comprehensive spending review period—a sum substantially greater than that envisaged by the Liberal Democrats.
Mr. Andrew George rose—
Mr. Denham: I will aim to give way if time allows, but first I must respond to a number of points.

361
The Department of Health uses a national weighted capitation formula as the basis for allocating hospital and community health services revenue to individual health authorities. The underlying principle of the formula is to distribute resources as equitably as possible, based on the health care needs of the residents of the various health authority areas.
Weighted capitation targets are not fixed in time, but are recalculated annually to determine each health authority's relative share of the overall resources that we make available to the NHS. Changes to the targets of individual health authorities are usually the result of routine updating to take advantage of the latest available data, such as population figures or boundary changes.
The weighted capitation formula has been reviewed. Last year we made four changes to it. The one most relevant to this debate was the introduction of a geographical cost adjustment for emergency ambulance services. That arose from an exercise to examine the effects of rural sparsity on the cost of providing certain services. Although a geographical cost difference was found for emergency ambulance services, no such difference was found in the cost of providing accident and emergency services in hospitals or patient transport services.
The resource allocation group recommended that we introduce an adjustment to reflect the costs of emergency ambulance services, which we have done. The new advisory committee on resource allocation has agreed that issues of rurality and cost should be part of its longer-term work programme.
The target figures that have come out of the formula are intended to provide a fair and equitable share of NHS resources for each health authority. It is important to point out that each of the health authorities that commissions ambulance services from the West Country Ambulance Services NHS trust currently receives more than its target allocation.
In 1999–2000, the hon. Gentleman's health authority, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, will receive nearly £6.5 million more than the formula would indicate is its fair share of NHS funding. Other health authorities in the region are in a similar position—North and East Devon will receive £5.4 million more than its target, Somerset more than £2.9 million, and South and West Devon an extra £7 million.
I am aware that Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly health authority, where the problems in achieving the response times are most marked, is faced with particular financial difficulties, and it will develop a financial strategy that addresses its deficit. To assist the health authority during the transitional period, I recently announced a £2 million grant for the coming year from the special assistance fund to that health authority.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of his concerns about a possible European Union directive requiring a change from two-stretcher ambulances to single-stretcher
362
vehicles. I believe that his worries have arisen out of the work being undertaken by the European committee for standardisation, which is trying to put in place standards that are similar across the European Union, to enable fairer competition. Hon. Members will be reassured to learn that no EU directive on ambulance specifications such as the hon. Gentleman describes has been signed. Hon. Members will also be pleased to hear that the current proposals on standards being examined by the committee relate to the space requirements in emergency ambulances and will allow two-stretcher ambulances to continue to be used.
There are sound clinical reasons why some ambulance trusts in England may want to consider the adoption of single-stretcher ambulances. For example, a single paramedic might find it difficult to treat two seriously injured patients adequately at the same time. Any decision to move to the use of single-stretcher vehicles will be for individual ambulance trusts to take in the light of best clinical advice.
I have been assured that if introduced, the changes being discussed will relate only to new vehicles. There will, therefore, be no need to renew entire ambulance fleets as a result of any forthcoming directive. I am also assured that old ambulances can continue to operate until the end of their operational life, so they could be sold on to organisations such as St. John Ambulance.
If the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) is still interested, I shall give way to him now.
Mr. George: I am grateful to the Minister. With reference to his remarks about screening emergency calls to the service, the problem in my constituency is lack of hardware, particularly for night cover. Will he comment on the number of ambulances available in rural areas, especially overnight, and the difficulty of meeting emergency response times? The target times could not be met without the support of the voluntary sector, especially the air ambulances.
Mr. Denham: That brings us back to a central point in the debate. There is a responsibility on the trust to work with the health authorities to achieve the necessary response times. Block capital is allocated to all NHS trusts according to a set formula. The West Country Ambulance Services NHS trust receives its allocations in the same way as all other ambulance trusts. The trust bought 17 new vehicles in 1998, plans to purchase nine in the coming year and hopes to purchase 14 new vehicles in 2000.
I remind hon. Members that the Government have provided real-terms increases in funding to all health authorities in the south-west for the coming year. It is the responsibility of the health authorities and the ambulance services trust to work together to ensure that the trust can improve response times and provide better care for patients.

Health Care Assistants
1.30 pm
Helen Jones: I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the role of health care assistants in the national health service. I do so confident in the knowledge that the Government are committed to the modernisation of our health service and to making it once again the best in the world.
Part of that modernisation is our commitment to supporting and valuing our staff. In that context, we hear much about doctors and nurses, and rightly so, because no one underestimates their dedication and skill. However, other members of staff are also an important part of the health care team; without them our national health service could not function. Those include the category known as health care assistants or, in some trusts, support workers.
The confusion of names is in itself significant. Over the years, we have failed to value the skills and input of those workers and to provide a clear definition of their roles and career path. Some trusts call them health care assistants, whatever their role. Others distinguish between health care assistants and nursing assistants. Some trusts have incorporated the old nursing auxiliary grades into their health care assistants' schemes, while others have yet to make progress on that.
Even more confusingly, some trusts have a health care assistant grade, but still designate some of the staff within that grade as nursing auxiliaries. We do not know exactly how far that integration has gone. In a parliamentary answer to me on 9 February about the number of trusts that have incorporated nursing auxiliaries into their health care assistant grades, my hon. Friend the Minister said:
"No figures are kept centrally."—[Official Report, 9 February 1999; Vol. 325, c. 168.]
That is confusing enough, but the position becomes even more bizarre when we look at the different pay scales on offer and the often confusing employment contract status of many of those staff. A survey done for Health Service Report a couple of years ago showed wide variations between trusts, and the position has altered little since then. Some trusts have three grades for their health care assistants; some have only two; and some use a single grade to cover a range of roles from housekeeping duties to direct patient care. Some have training grades while others do not. In some trusts, paid progression depends entirely on the length of service, whereas in others it is linked to performance factors. Indeed, it is possible to have staff doing exactly the same job on different rates of pay within the same trust because some staff retain the old Whitley Council contracts while others are on locally negotiated contracts.
That is profoundly damaging to the teamwork that we want to support and encourage within the health service and, ultimately, it is also detrimental to patient care. The problem goes back a number of years: when the grade was introduced, no proper assessment was made of the skills on offer or the way to enhance and use those skills. We did not set down proper qualification levels for the differing roles that health care assistants can perform, or the roles that should be subject to direct nursing supervision.
Although I say "we", this Government were not in power then, and the problems have been inherent from the beginning. That grade of health care worker began to be
364
introduced along with the changes in nurse education in Project 2000 and, as the role of student nurses on the wards diminished, the then Conservative Government promoted the use of that new grade, which they later called health care assistant. However, from the start there was no consensus on how the job should be defined. The nursing "professionalisers", if I may call them that without wishing to be derogatory, wanted the role to be strictly defined and clearly differentiated from nursing.
In their National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, the previous Government explicitly linked the introduction of health care assistants with the freedom for trusts to set pay locally. They then encouraged the use of that grade through a series of initiatives on re-profiling and skill mix, but without a national agreement on the qualifications that should be attached to the different roles or the proper skill mix that should be used in hospitals. As a result, there is a wide variation between different trusts. Job titles are interchanged and the boundaries of the different roles are becoming increasingly blurred. We do not even know for sure how many health care assistants there are. The Department of Health's statistical bulletins distinguish between health care assistants and support workers on the ground that the latter work mainly in the hotel and property areas. It is almost impossible to maintain that distinction in practice.
The Health Service Report survey to which I referred earlier looked at the roles undertaken by health care assistants in different trusts and found that they varied widely. They range from direct patient care to technical support in radiography and phlebotomy to clerical duties and housekeeping duties on hospital wards. Anecdotal evidence from health care assistants themselves, and a survey done by the public sector union, Unison, shows that that is still the case. The majority of respondents to that survey said that their work involved aspects of patient care and that substantial minorities were engaged in a wide range of other duties such as taking blood, plastering, assisting new mothers with breast feeding—the list could go on endlessly.
The job descriptions that the trusts gave Health Service Report on that occasion are revealing because they show that the role has not been clearly defined. For example, Bolton hospital NHS trust defined the role of an HCA grade 1 as being a
"combination of direct patient care, technical, clerical and housekeeping duties".
It did not help that it then went on to define the role of an HCA grade 2 in exactly the same way. Warrington hospital NHS trust, which is my local hospital, said that the work of what it calls a support carer 1 was "basic carer duties" and the role of a support carer 2 was "extended carer duties". That is as clear as mud to me and, I assume, to everybody else. In practice, it means that workers are switched between different roles, depending on staffing on the wards at any particular time.
There are even wide variations in the number of health care assistants employed by different trusts. I discovered from a parliamentary answer to me on 7 May last year that 13.3 per cent. of the work force of my local hospital—I know that it is concerned about this—are classified as health care assistants, whereas only 9.3 per cent. of the work force of Wirral hospital NHS trust, which is not far away, is so classified. That means either that we are getting the figures wrong or that there is no consensus

365
about the role that those workers should perform or the proper skill mix on hospital wards. It cannot be that one hospital simply needs many more cleaners and housekeeping staff than another.
It is time that we put an end to that confusion and looked clearly at the skills and competencies needed for health care assistants to perform their different roles. The previous Government said that that would be done through national vocational qualifications, but we do not know how far that system has been put into practice. When I asked, the Department of Health told me, as it frequently does, that that information was not available centrally.
Health care assistants themselves report wide variations in training practices. They often feel that the qualifications that they gain are not given the recognition that they deserve.
It would be folly to allow that situation to continue, because those staff have a great deal to contribute to our health service. Many of them are mature women with considerable caring experience to offer us, but if we want a modern and committed NHS work force, we must allow all staff to acquire the skills that they need and to benefit from a sensible pay and career structure.
I hope that I have shown through my remarks that those people are often front-line staff who have a great deal of contact with patients. It is vital that people who are ill and in hospital receive good nursing and medical care, but equally important to patients are the people who keep them clean and comfortable, who help them to eat if they are too weak to do so by themselves and who will even sit and chat and share a joke for a while. Those roles are often and increasingly performed by health care assistants, as well as by nurses, and it is time that we put their job on a proper footing.
We should move forward to arrive at a national framework of pay and employment, after consultation with all the various interested parties. I realise that that cannot be done quickly, but we should be moving in that direction. We should set down clearly the qualifications and the competencies needed for the different roles that health care assistants perform. It simply cannot be right that someone can move from cleaning the ward one minute to direct patient care the next, without us specifying the skills or the qualifications that they have to have to do that. That is not in the interests of patients and is not tenable.
We also must have clarity on training. We should move to a national system linked to NVQs and move away from the system of in-house competencies, which some trusts have been using. That system disadvantages staff and is not fair to patients. Staff have the right to equal treatment, wherever they work in the NHS, and patients have a right to expect the same standard of care, wherever they are being treated.
I am pleased, too, that the Government have introduced proposals to allow health care assistants to train as nurses without any loss of pay. I hope that we will expand that system, because many of those people, most of whom are women, have valuable skills to offer. Many of them could not train as nurses when they were younger for various reasons—often because of family responsibilities. I hope that we will value them and allow them to move forward, but if we are to achieve that we must underpin it with sensible career progression through the various grades of health care assistant grade 2.
366
I want to discuss the question of supervision and regulation. I hope that I have shown that many health care workers switch roles and are often involved in patient care. We need to set clear skill levels and qualifications for those roles and we also need to look carefully at which of those tasks ought to be supervised by qualified nurses and which ought not. Although it is often reported, it is unfair to leave staff working on the ward unsupervised when there are not enough staff on duty—or when the ward is pushed—and then move them back to other duties, and tell them that they cannot work unsupervised, when there are plenty of staff available. That is unfair to staff and to patients.
I strongly believe that we must have some form of regulation. I was pleased that the JM Consulting report on the regulation of nurses, midwives and health visitors mentioned health care assistants. No one wants to introduce a system that is too bureaucratic, but it cannot be right to leave vulnerable people in hospital when there are not proper checks on the staff who are dealing with them. Nor can it be right that, in extreme cases, someone can be struck off the nursing register, but can get a job as a health care assistant dealing with vulnerable people.
We need action to be taken for the benefit of staff and of patients. The previous Government tried to run the NHS on the cheap. They created a dog's breakfast of a system, which was in no one's interest. That system exploits low-paid staff and does not protect patients properly. I do not envy Health Ministers, who have to sort that situation out; it is a bit like the old Irish joke: "We wouldn't have started from here." But that situation has to be sorted out if we are to have a health service that is fit for the 21st century.
We need a system that values the staff, keeps them working and allows them to progress in the NHS—and provides the best possible care for patients. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to take those points on board and that we will gradually move forward, to sort out the mess that currently exists and to put into place a much more efficient and fair system. I look forward to hearing his response.
1.46 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) on obtaining the time for this important debate. It is clear from her speech that she has taken an interest in the subject for a long time and knows a great deal about it. Making the most of the contributions of all staff, including the valuable work carried out by health care assistants, is absolutely integral to our ability to deliver the ambitious programme for modernising the national health service and to meeting the increasing expectations of patients and staff.
We need health care staff to be adaptable and responsive, and able to work effectively within teams where role boundaries are flexible. Health care assistants are an invaluable and important part of the NHS. As my hon. Friend has said, they make an important contribution to the direct care of patients as well as supporting a range of health professionals in a wide variety of ways.
There is no fixed definition of what a health care assistant is or does. The latest figures show that there are almost 18,000 health care assistants and almost 67,000

367
support staff employed in the NHS. The majority of health care assistants work in trusts and many work with the elderly. A significant number work with vulnerable adults, such as those with psychiatric illnesses or learning difficulties. Others work with mothers and babies, with children, or in the community.
Support staff work to provide essentials such as ensuring the cleanliness of the hospital environment, and food and drink for patients. The term "health care assistant" has also developed as an umbrella term for a variety of staff groups. Those include staff whose work is supervised by chiropodists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, radiographers and speech and language therapists.
For statistical purposes, the guidance on occupation codes used in our census of NHS staff defines health care assistants as support staff who are trained, or who are undertaking training, in job-related competencies through national vocational qualifications or other local training. In the service itself, the term "health care assistant" is often used interchangeably with titles used for other staff who undertake similar roles and provide similar support, for example health care support workers, nursing auxiliaries and nursing assistants.
Ultimately, the responsibility for determining the job role of a health care assistant lies with the employer. Different skills and different levels of skills will be needed in different working and clinical environments. We feel that local managers need to be able to provide the right sort of services for their locality and a rigid definition would restrict their ability to meet local service needs.
Similarly, it is a matter for employers to provide the necessary training and resources to enable staff to undertake their duties. We are aware that many NHS employers use local and national frameworks to train their health care assistants. Many use NVQs, or their component occupational standards, to specify the competence and performance outcomes of health care assistants in the workplace. Those standards provide a measure of quality and enable clear specification of the roles and responsibilities of staff. The attainment of NVQs is supported by on-the-job training and assessment, as well as off-the-job training. The latter is provided either directly by the employer or by an education provider.
The national health service executive has, for some time, supported the use of NVQs and occupational standards. It did so in 1995 and in subsequent education and training guidance issued to the NHS. That approach has been reinforced by the approach taken in the first human resource framework for the NHS, "Working Together", which we published last September. One of the aims of the framework is to make the NHS a better place to work in. Developing the commitment and skills of staff, including health care assistants, will be one way of achieving that. The House should not underestimate our commitment to strengthening the role of human resources in the national health service, ensuring that we are a good employer, and ensuring that we can develop the skills of our staff. That means that NHS employers will increasingly have better human resources planning, and better development plans for individual members of staff.
368
As my hon. Friend said, some health care assistants will wish to make progress in their NHS careers. Recognition of the skills and experience of such staff provides them with increasing opportunities to gain entry to programmes leading to professional qualifications, particularly nursing qualifications. Education consortiums are working with higher education institutions to open up nursing careers to as wide a range of people as possible, including existing NHS staff such as health care assistants. As has been said, we have already opened a route whereby NHS employers can second health care assistants on to pre-registration nursing diploma courses. That allows local education consortiums to fund up to 80 per cent of an employee's salary—up to a certain limit—with the employer funding the remainder.
That new approach has proved to be of considerable interest in the service. Therefore, as part of the £50 million nurse recruitment plan announced in September by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), up to 200 additional secondments have been funded this year, with up to 1,000 additional places being made available over the next three years. The package also includes measures to provide non-means-tested bursaries for enrolled nurses who wish to return to work and convert to first-level registration, and an expansion of part-time and flexible pre-registration nursing and midwifery diploma programmes.
There are also a number of local schemes established by the NHS, which recruit health care assistants, support them in the achievement of level-three national vocational qualifications in care or modern apprenticeships, and, using the funding that I have described, second them to nursing diploma programmes. I understand that in my hon. Friend's constituency such a scheme is operated jointly between Warrington and Halton NHS trusts and the north and mid-Cheshire training and enterprise council.
The scheme has three stages. Young people are employed by the trusts, and, in collaboration with the TEC, undergo a two-year modern apprenticeship course. Provided that students secure an NVQ, they are then placed on a nursing diploma course at Chester college, funded by the local education and training consortium at the college. Placements are undertaken at Warrington and Halton NHS trusts, and, on successful completion of their diploma courses, students are guaranteed employment. The scheme is an example of the way in which the NHS, TECs and education providers can work well together, helping individuals to achieve their potential, addressing nursing shortages and helping patients at the same time. Those developments are supported by the Government's wider approach to lifelong learning, which seeks to enable those capable of progressing to do so through education and training opportunities.
More recently, we have published proposals for the modernisation of the NHS pay system in our paper, "Agenda for Change". Our aim is a modern pay system that will enable staff to do their best for patients, working in new ways and breaking down traditional barriers. We want a system that pays fairly and equitably for work done, with career progression based on responsibility, competence and satisfactory performance: a system that will simplify and modernise conditions of service, providing national core conditions and considerable local flexibility.

369
Our proposals identify people—such as health care assistants—who should have more scope to develop their jobs. Those people will be encouraged to take up training opportunities and secure NVQs. Our proposals for pay reform recognise that, in many cases, employers have created health care assistant posts to provide flexible support for nurses and other staff. Postholders often fulfil a wide variety of different roles. We want to preserve the benefits, while giving staff the security of core terms and pay minimums. "Agenda for Change" sets out the means to do that, recommending a national system with meaningful local flexibility.
We are also committed to working with unions and employers to agree the basis of a national job evaluation framework on which all NHS jobs can be assessed. That will be an essential underpinning to ensure equal pay for work of equal value, and will be relevant to groups performing a wide variety of roles, including health care assistants. Staff should receive equal pay when they are performing the same role; differences should reflect variations in skill, role and responsibility.
The skill mix that an NHS organisation requires locally will depend on a number of factors: the type of services that it delivers, the type of patient who is being treated, and the environment in which patients are treated. NHS organisations must therefore determine the mix of skills, roles and staff that they need at local level. But, although training is available for health care assistants, they cannot be a substitute for professional staff. The current national average ratio between qualified and unqualified staff is more than two to one—about 70:30—although I understand that in my hon. Friend's constituency it is about 60:40, and that the local NHS trust is taking action to define the roles and training needs of its support workers.
It is important for health care assistants to be properly and adequately supervised to ensure the safety of patients in their care, the quality of the care offered, and the accountability of individuals involved in providing care. Support staff should carry out assigned tasks involving direct care in support of, and supervised by, other registered health professionals. Employers also have a role to play: they should ensure that employees are suitably qualified and competent to perform the duties for which they are employed, and that high standards of patient care are maintained at all times.
Concern has been expressed by, among others, my hon. Friend, about the development of the roles undertaken by health care assistants, and it is well known that concern has been expressed in the past about the need for the regulation of support workers. On 9 February, my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Lady Hayman, announced that the Government had accepted most of the recommendations of the body that conducted an independent review of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997, whose report was submitted in autumn last year. During extensive consultations, fears were
370
expressed about the threat to public protection that might be posed by unregulated support workers, including health care assistants. The reviewers recommended, and we have accepted, that a short review should be commissioned to explore the scope and need for regulation. It will be a UK-wide review, and UK health Ministers will want to consider its terms of reference carefully.
The Government have already announced plans to regulate social care staff by setting up a statutory general social care council. The driving force behind the council will be the need to increase the protection of service users, their carers and the general public. Any review of health care assistants will have to take account of the Government's proposals for a general social care council, published in the social services White Paper, "Modernising Social Services".
Systems of professional self-regulation and protection of title play a vital role in ensuring public protection, but flexible role boundaries will help to meet changing health care needs and public expectations. Flexibility provides the scope that is necessary to develop health care teams to meet patient's needs. Well-trained health care assistants, working under the supervision of registered and accountable professionals, make an important contribution to care, and provide the ability to tailor skill mix to patient and service need. Cost-effectiveness and efficiency are maximised by appropriate skill mix. It is inefficient, and a misuse of highly and expensively trained professionals, to let them undertake care tasks that others, with the appropriate training and supervision, could undertake to the required standard.
We must ensure that we have enough nurses to support and supervise our health care assistants. Registered professionals are required to delegate appropriately to support staff, and employers are required to ensure that their staff are competent to undertake the tasks required of them. We must also have enough nurses to provide the treatment and care that patients need. The new human resources framework is a major step forward in our drive to meet those aspirations.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

ELECTION EXPENSES
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there will be laid before this House a Return of the expenses of each candidate at the General Election of May 1997 in the United Kingdom as transmitted to the returning officers pursuant to the Representation of the People Act 1983, and of the number of votes polled by each candidate, the description of each candidate, the number of polling districts and stations, the number of electors, the number of postal voters and the number of rejected ballot papers.—[Mr. George Howarth.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—

  Good Friday Agreement
  Mr. Roger Stott: What recent meetings she has had with the Irish Government concerning the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. [71198]
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): I last met representatives of the Irish Government in Dublin on 3 February. We agreed on the need for the Governments and all others concerned to make intensive efforts in the coming weeks to bring about the full implementation of the Belfast agreement. That is what the people voted for, north and south, and that is what we must do.
  Mr. Stott: When my right hon. Friend met the Taoiseach on 3 February, clearly, a lot of serious and difficult issues still had to be resolved in the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement. What progress has been made on the implementation of the north-south bodies, which are clearly an important element in the agreement?
  Marjorie Mowlam: Agreement in principle on the north-south bodies was reached by the parties on 18 December and that determination was approved by the Assembly on 15 February. We are now going through the negotiations and consultations on the particular legislation and the detail of that, which is why the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), is not with us today; he is taking part in those negotiations. The Government are doing everything that they can to ensure that all necessary preparations are put in hand, ready for 10 March. I trust that other parties will do the same.
  Mr. David Trimble: In her discussions with the Irish Government, has the Secretary of State raised the issue of the British-Irish Council? Can she tell us what steps have been taken to ensure that the British-Irish Council is in place with at least as significant a role as the North-South Council on devolution day?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is in hand, so that the particular structure, priorities and all aspects of the British-Irish Council are in place on 10 March, as we hope all different parts of the Good Friday agreement will be, so that everything is ready is move together. Visits have been paid to Scotland and to Wales by both me and my right hon. Friend the Minister, who also had the pleasure of going to the Channel Islands, to ensure that all the parties involved are part of those discussions and that positive progress is made.
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: I am sure that the Secretary of State, and indeed the House, would welcome the decision by the new Northern Ireland Assembly by a
  372
  75 per cent. vote to accept the structures of the north-south implementing bodies. Does the Secretary of State agree that, to enhance the prospects for full implementation of the agreement and devolution in particular, if her Government and the Irish Government together could persuade the IRA, UVF and UDA to make even a gesture of decommissioning, it would unlock the blockages that are possibly there at the moment and would be in the spirit of the Good Friday agreement, if not in the letter of the law?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I agree with the general comments that the hon. Gentleman makes. Our position has been that decommissioning needs to take place now and movement on the Executive needs to take place. Those two steps need to happen not just in the letter of the Good Friday agreement, but in its spirit and the obligation that the progress that has been made be matched elsewhere.
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: It seems that, where the letter of the Good Friday agreement remains silent, the spirit of the agreement is moved forward by the public pressure within the Province. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is that public pressure that has probably led to a reduction in paramilitary beatings? If so, can she give any idea of how she sees that public pressure being brought to bear to ensure that the spirit of the Good Friday agreement addresses the problem of exiles—people who have been exiled by paramilitary edict? How does she think that spirit can be brought to bear on decommissioning?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I agree with the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman's question. The spirit of the agreement—and the efforts made by many members of the public, party leaders, the Government and others to ensure that punishment beatings are reduced—is having some effect: beatings have declined in the past couple of weeks. However, that does not hold for last night's events—one of the most barbaric, inhuman and sadistic punishment beatings. Last night, as a husband was not home, a wife had carved on her body a death threat against him. It was a very clear example—if we needed any more of them—of why punishment beatings must end. Condemnation by the public and by political parties across the board exerts some pressure. Ultimately, however, as another step in encouraging the end of punishment beatings, it is equally important that we break the cycle of violence and implement the Good Friday agreement.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Have the issues of violence, intimidation and the continuing exile of many families been discussed with the Irish Government? If so, what was their response?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I should like to acknowledge the work that my hon. Friend has done to increase public pressure on resolving the issues of exiles, the disappeared and paramilitary assaults. We have, obviously, discussed the issues with the Irish Government and with the political parties. I assure the House that the security forces and the Government—like everyone else involved in the matter—are doing everything possible to try to stop them.
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does the Secretary of State agree with the Taoiseach, me and others who

  373
  passionately share her view that an Executive should be established as soon as possible in the interests of good governance in Northern Ireland; that an Executive can be established only if Sinn Fein-IRA commence proper decommissioning of illegally held weapons; and that, without that, it is not possible for their representatives to take ministerial positions?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I share the Taoiseach's view that decommissioning should happen now, and that the Executive should be formed. Both need to happen for the process to move forward.
  Mr. MacKay: Does the Secretary of State further agree that, in the past nine months, the British Government, the Irish Government and all the democratically elected parties that have never taken part in violence have done everything possible to ensure that the Executive is established? They have fulfilled all their obligations, and ensured that all the structures are now in place. The last thing that needs to happen is decommissioning of illegally held weapons. The only people who are now obstructing creation of the Executive that we want are Sinn Fein-IRA, who have not yet decommissioned.
  Marjorie Mowlam: There has been only one decommissioning—which we welcome—that by the LVF. Decommissioning is now needed of the other parties represented in the talks; it is not only Sinn Fein-IRA but the loyalist paramilitaries. We have made it very clear that decommissioning has to happen for progress to be made. It is not a precondition but an obligation. As the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) said, it is in the spirit of the agreement. It is no good for us simply to say, "This must happen, that must happen," although we both may fundamentally believe that both are necessary. What has to happen is that the parties in the process who signed up to the good Friday agreement do what they are doing in Belfast now: keep talking and find a way forward.

  Energy Market
  Mr. Lawrie Quinn: What actions she has taken to improve the working of the energy market in Northern Ireland. [71199]
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): Discussions are taking place with the Government of the Republic of Ireland on north-south gas interconnection. The regulator has recently invited applications for gas licences for areas outside Greater Belfast. The regulator is now concluding his generator contract negotiations, and liberalisation of the electricity and gas market is proceeding.
  Mr. Quinn: Does the Minister realise the tremendous work that is being done by a team of civil engineers, led by Professor Adrian Long, at Queen's university, Belfast, to investigate alternative energy sources? Northern Ireland has a great opportunity to be in there at the beginning of development of alternative energy sources. Will the Minister consider asking his officials to start discussions with that important, internationally recognised team on whether there is greater potential for Northern Ireland to benefit from such alternative methodologies?
  Mr. Ingram: I am aware of the work that has been done, and we take a close interest in such research and
  374
  development activity, which is critical to the economy of Northern Ireland. The Government have established a target of 45 MW of renewables plant by 2005 and, in pursuit of that objective, the Government have made two non-fossil fuel obligation orders, requiring Northern Ireland Electricity to purchase some 32 MW of power from renewable sources. Obviously, any local research and development activity hopefully will be exploited.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: My colleagues and I appreciate the Government funding that has provided electricity and gas interconnection. Does the Minister agree that that will help to drive down energy prices? Does he further agree that, if Northern Ireland as a whole is to benefit economically, the gas should be distributed more widely than to the Greater Belfast area? Will he seek to bring that about?
  Mr. Ingram: We inherited a botched electricity market in Northern Ireland, with a structured system resulting in high prices, making Northern Ireland way out of line with elsewhere in the UK. We have had to address that and, as the hon. Gentleman outlined, we are trying to encourage more electricity into Northern Ireland through the interconnector with Scotland and to encourage more gas, both north-south and east-west.

  Prisoner Releases
  Mr. Ian Bruce: What percentage of prisoners convicted of scheduled offences has been released to date under the Good Friday agreement. [71200]
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): To date, applications have been received from 503 indeterminate and determinate prisoners. Of those, 12 per cent. have not been processed; the prisoners being, in the main, ineligible under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. Some 48 per cent. have already been released, and a further 30 per cent. have received specified dates for release in the future. Some 10 per cent. remain to be processed by the sentence review commissioners.
  Mr. Bruce: The Minister is saying, effectively, that about half the prisoners who are due to be released have been released. He will know that the terrorist organisations and their political mouthpieces signed up to the Good Friday Agreement only because they knew that they would get their prisoners out. One of their obligations is to decommission their weapons. Would it not be sensible simply to say to all organisations, both loyalist and republican, that no more prisoners will be released until they start delivering on the decommissioning of weapons? That does not destroy the agreement—it simply fulfils it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
  Mr. Ingram: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and the support that he receives from some of his right hon. and hon. Friends. However, there ain't no simple answers to a peace process. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has spelt out the way forward. To do what the hon. Gentleman suggests would be to rewrite the Good Friday agreement. Maximum pressure must be brought to bear from all parts of Northern Ireland—from the community, the parties involved, the UK and Republic of Ireland

  375
  Governments and any other international support—to impress upon those who hold illegal weapons that they must be removed from Northern Ireland if peace is to prevail.
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: How many of the prisoners who have been released early under the agreement have had to be recalled for a breach in their licence conditions?
  Mr. Ingram: None.
  Mr. William Cash: Does the Minister therefore say that he has no knowledge of any involvement by any of the released prisoners in any mutilations or beatings?
  Mr. Ingram: We have no knowledge of that in terms of the way in which the hon. Gentleman raises the point. The Chief Constable has said that all of the paramilitary organisations have been associated in some way with paramilitary assaults. I would suggest to right hon. and hon. Members that we do not share detailed intelligence across the Floor of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I have confirmed the Chief Constable's assessment, and we have accepted it. The effective way of dealing with those people is to bring evidence forward, to bring them to trial and to put them in prison for their acts.
  Mr. William Thompson: Does the Minister recognise how demoralising it is for the police force to see the release of those whom they have gone to great efforts to arrest and get convicted? Will he confirm that, if the terrorists who committed the outrage in Omagh are caught and convicted, there will be no accelerated release for them and that the recommendations of the judge or judges who take part in the trial will be honoured?
  Mr. Ingram: We have made it clear consistently that the issue of prisoner releases is difficult to handle. The Good Friday agreement laid it out as a clear prospect. The Government have implemented what was requested of them in the Good Friday agreement, to which the people of Northern Ireland signed up. The Omagh tragedy happened after 10 April, so those who may be brought to justice for it will not be covered by the existing legislation.
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: Is it true that a released prisoner was living in the house in west Belfast where IRA weapons were found recently?
  Mr. Ingram: If the hon. Gentleman has such information, he should pass it to the RUC. I do not have that intelligence information. If he has more specific evidence that would help the RUC with its inquiries, he should pass it on.
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: While we accept that there ain't no simple answers to the peace process, it is clear from the figures that the Minister has given the House this afternoon that the majority of prisoners will soon have been released. Does he accept that, although the Government have honoured all their
  376
  commitments, including prisoner release, Sinn Fein-IRA have not started decommissioning? Does he find it acceptable that the majority of prisoners will have been released without decommissioning having taken place?
  Mr. Ingram: I do not know that to be the case. There is still momentum in the process. Discussions are taking place as we speak to find resolutions to that complex issue. As my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have said, we want all illegally held weapons in Northern Ireland to be decommissioned. We never said that that would happen overnight. From the way in which he asked his question, I take it that the hon. Gentleman has not understood the import of the Good Friday agreement.

  Sure Start Initiative
  Caroline Flint: If she will make a statement regarding the application of the sure start initiative to Northern Ireland. [712021
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John McFall): This morning I launched for consultation a Northern Ireland child care strategy entitled "Children First", seeking views on proposals for strengthening and expanding pre-school provision, child care and family support. Views are specifically sought on how best to address the aims of sure start. My discussions with key child care organisations have already identified the need to consider a different approach in Northern Ireland.
  Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I welcome the launch of the "Children First" child care document. Sure start is a UK-wide initiative and plans are already under way in Scotland, Wales and England. With the launch of the document today, I hope that we can be certain that community groups in Northern Ireland, which has the worst child poverty rates, the worst child care provision and the highest number of lone parents in the United Kingdom, will get access to the resources that they need to meet the demands.
  Mr. McFall: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I should like to elaborate on the launch of the document this morning. I was in contact with Childcare Northern Ireland and Barnardos to examine child care. The document, which was agreed by the voluntary groups, translates the sure start aims to a Northern Ireland context. That process starts today. There is a different context to sure start in Northern Ireland. We are building on the good work that has already been done by the voluntary and statutory services. Several organisations have told me that there is great merit in not sticking to the proposals that have been outlined for England.
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I am sure that the Minister will join the Prime Minister in agreeing that sure start is a vital element in looking after children and families. Will he assure the House that all the money allocated by the Treasury for that programme in Northern Ireland will indeed go towards its implementation?
  Mr. McFall: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, and I have very good news for him: today,

  377
  I announced a £51 million package for child care, £27 million of which is specifically for an extra 7,000 pre-school places, so that, by 2001, more than 85 per cent. of parents in Northern Ireland will have a choice, whereas, before the Government came into office, the figure was less than 50 per cent. I think that he will agree that that is tremendous progress. The money will also provide 2,500 jobs and an extra 26,000 places, and I hope that he will agree that that is good news.

  Good Friday Agreement
  Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: If she will make a statement on progress in implementing the Good Friday agreement. [71203]
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): The Government aim to have completed the legislative preparations for a transfer of powers to the new institutions by 10 March. I welcome last week's approval by the Assembly of the determination on the number and functions of ministerial offices and on areas for north-south co-operation. The Government are honouring their commitments and I look forward to others honouring theirs.
  Mr. Temple-Morris: We all wish my right hon. Friend well in not very easy times in the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. Does she agree that the removal of tensions is a most important factor? One particular tension relates to the communities in Portadown, where there is a real and long-standing problem. What impact is that having, one way or the other—I fear that it is the other—on the implementation of the agreement?
  Marjorie Mowlam: The successful implementation of the Good Friday agreement depends to a large extent on confidence. The situation at Drumcree is a corrosive influence on progress. The only way in which progress will be made at Drumcree is for both sides to talk and try to find a way forward. We are doing everything that we can to help with that. We have recently asked the head of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service in Scotland, Mr. Frank Blair—no relation—to act as a negotiator and facilitator in that process. No one in Northern Ireland wants a repeat of last year's events at Drumcree, and we will do all that we can to avoid it. [Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. Will the House please come to order? It is very noisy, with people shouting across the Chamber. We need a little order before we can proceed.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the Secretary of State confirm that no institution of government in Northern Ireland can claim to be democratic if it contains the representatives of a party known to her to be inextricably linked with an organisation of tenor that has publicly declared its intention to remain fully armed and in an aggressive state?
  Marjorie Mowlam: As I have often said to the House, I base my judgment on the information, facts and evidence that I am given. On that basis, I do not agree with the assumptions built into the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, so I have no difficulty in believing that the
  378
  parties in the process are on ceasefire. If he has information to the contrary, as his question implies, he should send it to the RUC.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I remind my right hon. Friend that two important aspects of the agreement relate to the North-South Council and the British-Irish Council and urge, on the latter, that no strategic decisions be taken by Dublin and London before the elections in Scotland and Wales? If the Council is to have a fixed location, as is the case with the Nordic Council, may I suggest Glasgow?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I find it difficult to give my hon. Friend a categoric assurance, on the first part of his question, that no strategic decisions will be taken, because that would involve timing and would put the implementation of the Good Friday agreement—if progress were made on 10 March—in difficulty if certain parts were implemented and not others. We have seen the tensions that can develop if some parts move quicker than others and it is important that all move together. If the real crux of his question was a request for the headquarters to be in Glasgow, I hear what he says, but he is not the only one to make suggestions along those lines.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Last August, the Secretary of State provided the Assembly with the draft standing orders necessary to fill ministerial posts. Since then, she has not forwarded the finalised copy to the Assembly. Does she contemplate any changes and will the orders be forwarded immediately?
  Marjorie Mowlam: It is difficult for me to answer that question, because I am not in Belfast. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), is dealing with the draft standing orders in Belfast today. We look forward to sending them to parties as quickly as possible, but the details and arrangements are being worked on at this moment.
  Ms Margaret Moran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the key elements to achieving the Good Friday agreement is the future of policing in Northern Ireland? Does she agree that making fast progress with the introduction of the police ombudsman, the community awareness project and the ending of the RUC canteen culture will bring great benefits to the people of Northern Ireland and could signal the way ahead for policing in the rest of the country?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The future of policing, as she rightly points out, is a difficult question and one of the big problems that we have to cope with in Northern Ireland. I hope that the introduction of the police ombudsman will happen quickly. We are interviewing this afternoon for the post, and a number of other aspects of the legislation are being implemented. The Patten commission will report in the summer and I wish to wait and see what it proposes so that we can maximise the improvements on offer.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: The Minister earlier referred to the peace associated with the Good Friday agreement. Does she agree that it is a fragile sort of peace when arms are not being decommissioned, and a strange

  379
  sort of peace when people are being beaten and maimings are happening on a daily basis in Northern Ireland? Can she foresee any circumstances in which the early release of prisoners could be stopped to ensure that more progress could be made towards a real, lasting peace in Northern Ireland?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that it is a difficult period. It is a difficult, tense time and it is not easy. I do not agree with the assumption in the second part of his question that stopping early releases would improve the situation. I would like to know what evidence he has to support that view, because all the evidence that I have is to the contrary.
  Judy Mallaber: What consultations she has had with the Northern Ireland parties on the regulations arising from the legislation to implement the Good Friday agreement. [71204]
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): We are continuing in intensive consultations with all parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly over all aspects of the legislative and preparations for the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. We shall work as closely as possible with them.
  Judy Mallaber: My right hon. Friend knows the importance attached to the equalities and human rights provisions of the Good Friday agreement by those of us who tabled amendments to the legislation, which were eventually accepted. My right hon. Friend has to deal with many difficult issues, but is she able to give the House any idea of any plans in progress to implement the equalities and human rights provisions and, in particular, to set up the two commissions?
  Marjorie Mowlam: I can assure my hon. Friend, as I did the House earlier on the other aspects of the Good Friday agreement that are being put in place in time for 10 March, that the appointments procedure for the new equality commission is in progress. We are looking forward to the working group established on setting priorities and new structures for the equality commission reporting soon. Then we will be able to move, I hope in a matter of weeks, to an announcement on the equality commission. As for the human rights commission, we have appointed the chairman, Brice Dixon, and I expect to be able to announce the other commissioners next week. I assure my hon. Friend that progress is being made on both those institutions.

  The Prime Minister was asked—

  Engagements
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 24 February.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
  Mr. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party does not deserve to be in office if it does
  380
  not promote justice and fairness, especially by ensuring that people of all races and colours enjoy equality and that all creeds are respected? Does he agree that we should be happy to be judged at the next election on our record in promoting that?
  The Prime Minister: I am proud that it was this Government who set up the Lawrence inquiry. I am happy to accept its judgment, and the judgment to which my hon. Friend has just referred. I should like to add that I think it right today to praise Doreen and Neville Lawrence for their courage and dignity. As a nation, we should confront honestly the racism that still exists in our society: as a nation, we should find within ourselves the will to overcome it.
  The publication of today's report on the killing of Stephen Lawrence is a very important moment in the life of our country. It is a moment to reflect, to learn and to change. It will certainly lead to new laws but, more than that, it must lead to new attitudes, to a new era in race relations, and to a new more tolerant and more inclusive Britain.
  Mr. William Hague: Does the Prime Minister agree that every decent person in the country, regardless of politics, will wish to show sympathy and support for the family of Stephen Lawrence, and will feel shame and disgust that his murderers have not been brought to justice? Does he also agree that, if some good is to come out of that appalling crime, we must all learn the lessons of what went wrong and commit ourselves to build a nation in which every citizen, regardless of colour or creed, is treated with justice and respect?
  The Prime Minister: I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman's sentiments. It is also important today to recognise that the report and its findings should not lead us to conclusions about only the police service, or any other service in British society; the report is about the whole of British society and its public services. It is also about what we must all do—collectively, across the political parties—to make sure that those appalling events lead to an improvement in race relations throughout the country.
  Mr. Hague: Following on from that, does the Prime Minister agree that our police force will need—and will want—changes to be made to root out racism and to prevent such an injustice happening again? However, will he also agree that to condemn every police officer in London or the country as racist would itself be prejudiced and wrong? The great majority of men and women in the police force do their best in an incredibly difficult job, on behalf of their fellow citizens. Does he share my hope that we will debate the lessons of today's report with frankness and honesty, and that a hunt for scapegoats will help no one?
  The Prime Minister: I agree that it is important that we debate the report honestly and properly, and that we act on its recommendations. What is important today, not only for the Lawrence family but for the whole of our society, is that the report's recommendations—whose implementation my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will set out later—deliver the most comprehensive agenda

  381
  for improving race relations for many decades. The test of our sincerity as law makers in this House is not how well we can express sympathy with the Lawrence family, but how well we implement the recommendations to make sure that such an incident never again happens in our country.
  Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read The Western Morning News today? If so, he may have noted that in a exclusive survey commissioned by the newspaper, seven out of 10 firms in the west country would welcome being able to join the euro. Will my right hon. Friend note that people who know about and care about British jobs, investment and trade warmly welcome his statement yesterday that we have a national changeover plan, which is good, decent, British common sense?
  The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, I take a keen interest in all the regional press, and in The Western Morning News in particular. Her point is surely right. The vast majority of British business wants the sensible, balanced course set out by the Government yesterday, in which we indicate our direction, set down the conditions in our national economic interest and make sure that we make the necessary preparations so that the British people can have a proper choice. That is the true way, no matter what is said by that part of the Conservative party that is hostile to everything to do with Europe. That is how properly to implement British national interests.
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: In a few moments, the House and the country must consider the very public consequences of the private tragedy of the death of Stephen Lawrence. I hope that, as the Prime Minister has said, those consequences will extend well beyond the police force and bring changes to our society as a whole.
  I see no point, however, in seeking to anticipate a report that will be published in a few moments time.
  May I, therefore, ask the Prime Minister a question of concern to the people of Scotland? Is he aware, and can he confirm, that under his Government the education budgets of 29 out of 32 Scottish local authorities have been cut by £100 million in real terms?
  The Prime Minister: From this April, we have given the largest single increase in education over the next three years that our country has ever known. That money is going to schools in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It had been denied them for years by the previous Conservative Government.
  Mr. Ashdown: I am surprised to hear the Prime Minister attempt to deny my figures, which came from his own Scottish Office. Will he confirm, therefore, some further figures from the Scottish Office? For every £100 invested in Scottish education by the Tories, his Government are investing £96. The figures also show that by the end of this Parliament, Scottish education and schools will be more underfunded than they were three years ago under the Tories. Why should Scotland put up with second-class education under Labour? Does the
  382
  Prime Minister not realise that if he will not fund first-class education in Scotland, the Scottish Parliament will have to do so for him?
  The Prime Minister: On the budget for Scotland and education, what the right hon. Gentleman says is complete nonsense. We have made an increase in education spending, not just for Scotland but for the whole of the UK. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland recently set out a programme to ensure more nursery education and more people going into higher education. A school building programme outside local authority budgets is also providing literally millions of pounds for rebuilding Scottish schools. With the greatest of respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I must tell him that what he says about the figures is nonsense. If people want to increase provision for education, they should vote for the party that is, in government, putting through the largest education increase that the country has ever seen.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: While I utterly condemn violence from whatever source it may come, does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that Turkey would be wise to accept the advice of the European Union by ensuring that the trial of Abdullah Ocalan is both fair and seen to be fair? As one who visited northern Iraq at the beginning of last year, may I assure the Prime Minister that now is the time for all parties to come together to heal old wounds? In the light of new evidence of ethnic cleansing, would my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will support and defend Kurdish organisations that are genuinely and passionately committed to peace and to individual human rights?
  The Prime Minister: We condemn terrorism in all its forms. However, we have said repeatedly that Ocalan should receive a fair trial and that his physical safety should be assured.
  As for the Iraqi Kurdish groups, my right hon. Friend knows that the Government have long-standing contacts with both main groups. We welcome the agreement that their leaders signed in Washington last September to enhance full reconciliation. I also point out that we support the Kurds through the United Nations oil-for-food programme, and our bilateral programme for northern Iraq is worth £3 million a year. RAF aircraft continue to patrol the no-fly zone precisely in order to protect the Kurds from Saddam Hussein. The Kurdish groups have told us how much they value the work that the Government have done, in the form of aid and military assistance, to protect the Kurdish people.
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Five years ago, the French Government were prepared to invoke the Luxembourg compromise to save a few thousand jobs in French shipyards. This Thursday, will this Government be prepared to invoke the Luxembourg compromise to save 5,000 jobs in the British art market? [Interruption.]
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is right [Interruption.] It is a very serious issue. We obviously oppose the directive and we shall continue to do so. We rule out absolutely nothing with regard to the tactics that we employ in this area. We will ensure that we get the

  383
  best deal possible for Britain. As a result of the Government's previous efforts, substantial concessions have been made available to Britain. However, they do not go far enough and we cannot agree to the directive at present.
  Mr. Andy King: Does my right hon. Friend recall, as I do, the previous Government's promise that rail privatisation would result in major improvements in rail services? The only changes that my constituents have experienced are higher fares and poorer services. [Interruption.] Will my right hon. Friend ensure that tomorrow, at the rail summit, which will be chaired by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister—[Interruption.]—and at which all key players in the rail industry will be present, the fare-paying public and the taxpayers get a better return for the £1.1 billion subsidy that the rail industry has taken from them?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend should pay no attention to the catcalls from the other side. After all, rail privatisation is one of the many scandals that we inherited from the previous Conservative Government. It has delivered a poorer service for the customer and, because of the way in which the Conservatives sold it, hundreds of millions of pounds have been lost to the public purse. If the Conservatives had any sense of shame, they would apologise for that. However, as with so much else, we will clean up their mess.
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that the present situation is unacceptable. Rail companies that cannot or will not deliver will simply have no future in the industry. It will take time, but we will put the rail industry back on its feet and save it from the predicament in which the Conservatives left it.
  Mr. William Hague: Will the Prime Minister now answer the question that he failed to answer yesterday every time that it was asked? Will he make the pound shadow the euro before the next election?
  The Prime Minister: I certainly did answer that question yesterday: I said no.
  Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister did not say no yesterday. [Interruption.] No, he did not.
  Madam Speaker: Order. This noise is very time consuming.
  Mr. Hague: In any case, the Prime Minister is not being straight with the people of this country on this subject. That is because article 121 of the Amsterdam treaty says that to join the euro requires
  "the observance of the … margins provided … for at least two years, without devaluing against the currency of any other Member State".
  The Chancellor's advisers say it; the responsible European Commissioner says it; so why does not the Prime Minister come clean and admit to people that that is what he would have to do to join the euro?
  The Prime Minister: Because it is not, and I do not accept it. I have been asked this many, many times—is it our intention to go back into the exchange rate mechanism
  384
  and to shadow the euro? The answer is no, but what we will do is conduct economic policy in this country's national interest. That is precisely what we are doing, and that is the right thing to do. This is the latest of the euro scares, and it will fail like the other ones.
  Mr. Hague: It is the Prime Minister's friend Gavyn Davies who says that
  "at some point the Bank of England will have to be told to 'shadow' the euro (instead of inflation) for a two-year period".
  Is that a euro scare from Gavyn Davies? It is the European Commissioner responsible who says:
  "If and when the UK decides to join the euro it will have to comply with the same conditions as … the first wave countries. There were five criteria for membership".
  Is the European Commission spreading a euro scare? Is Gavyn Davies spreading a euro scare? Is not the truth that the Prime Minister does not want to admit that he will have to run the economic policy of this country in the interests of joining the euro and not in the interests of Britain?
  The Prime Minister: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he is trying to catch up on what he lost yesterday. [Interruption.] After all, after yesterday we have got two Tory parties. One says, "No never," the other agrees with us, and he is the leader of neither of them. The answer is that, as other countries have not been members for two years of the exchange rate mechanism, there is no obligation upon us to do it and we do not accept it.
  Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister tries to refer to who lost yesterday. Is he aware that in the last six hours, 100,000 people have called The Sun to say that they want to keep the euro? [Interruption.] What is more, they regard him as a love rat. He has produced a national handover plan that does not come clean on the costs of joining the euro, that does not explain how the business cycles would converge, and that does not come clean about the fact that with convergence nowhere in sight, his plan means running the British economy in the interests of his campaign to join the euro and not in the interests of this country.
  The Prime Minister: A more interesting poll may be how many of the right hon. Gentleman's Back Benchers will wish to keep him. I do not want to start another debate in the Conservative party. The national changeover plan has been produced with the consent, and at the request, of the vast bulk of British business so that we can make sensible preparations for entry into the euro, provided that the economic conditions that we have set out are met. It is supported by the overwhelming majority of people who understand that irrespective of one's view of the euro, it is surely important to make preparations. What is utterly absurd is the position that he has landed himself in, which is to say that the euro will be a disaster next Parliament but may be entirely acceptable the Parliament after. The truth is that our position sets out a clear direction and the economic conditions. It is balanced, sensible and right, and it is what this country, I believe, will accept.
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: After that, may I ask a sensible question? Is the Prime Minister aware that at lunchtime today a petition containing 31,000 signatures was handed to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) protesting against proposed closure of the Coastguard station in Liverpool? Given that Liverpool is now developing rapidly again, that gas and oil production in Morecambe bay and the Irish sea is continuing, and that Blackpool seaside resort attracts 18 million visitors a year, will my right hon. Friend instruct the appropriate Minister to reverse the decision before lives are needlessly lost?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot instruct the Minister to do that. I am sure that the Minister, who will have the petition, will have heard the representations. If my hon. Friend would like to arrange a meeting with the Minister, we will arrange that. I shall take a personal interest in the matter and respond to my hon. Friend in detail, setting out the reasons for the Government's decision when we take it.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Is the Prime Minister proud of the fact that a Labour Prime Minister and a Labour Government are introducing means-testing of widow's pensions?
  The Prime Minister: We believe that the reforms of bereavement benefits are right in order to ensure both that the money goes to the people who need it most, and that we can afford, within public spending, to extend widow's benefit to widowers. It is a compromise, but we believe it to be a sensible one.
  Mr. Tom Levitt: Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirm today's figures, which show that 36,500 people, including almost 3,000 qualified nurses, have sought to rejoin or join the staff of the national health service? Does not that reflect a massive vote of confidence in this Government's plans for the future of the NHS?
  The Prime Minister: The nursing line that has been set up to try to attract people back into the nursing profession has, I am very pleased to say, been immensely successful. As my hon. Friend says, more than 36,000 people have already contacted it. Over the next few years, we are making available funds for another 10,000 nursing places. There are already 2,500 more nurses in training. Although there are many other problems with which we need to deal, and are dealing with, at least many people working in the national health service see a Government who are making a start on rebuilding it.
  Mr. Robert Walter: It is some time since Ministers announced European agreement on lifting the beef export ban, but farmers in my constituency tell me that no beef has yet been exported. The reason for that is that the Government have not yet invited European Commission inspectors to look at the abattoirs that will be involved in the trade. When will that invitation be issued, and when will the first side of beef be exported?
  The Prime Minister: It was always anticipated that beef exports would not begin immediately. As the hon.
  386
  Gentleman rightly says, the inspection needs to happen. We have of course invited the inspectors, and I believe that they will be visiting in the next few weeks. However, the matter is for the European Commission as well as the Government. We also want to make absolutely sure that, when the inspection happens, it is successful. A successful inspection is necessary for the final stages of the lifting of the ban.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the Deputy Prime Minister's announcement last week of much needed investment in inland waterways? Will my right hon. Friend give every encouragement to the Deputy Prime Minister's Department to bridge the last gap in the canal link between Lancashire and Yorkshire in the Rochdale area, which will benefit not only the environment and jobs but tourism in the wonderful borough of Rochdale?
  The Prime Minister: This is an act of reconciliation that, obviously, we shall try to encourage. I am pleased to say that British Waterways is meeting the chief executive of the council later this week to discuss whether it can assist in any way.
  Mr. Paul Keetch: It says here.
  The Prime Minister: Well, it does say that here. Not even I can pretend to be an expert on the Rochdale canal. As it also says here, there is an application for Millennium Commission funding to ensure that the last part of the link is completed. Obviously, I cannot say whether that will be successful, but I wish the council well.
  Sir Michael Spicer: If the euro goes on collapsing at its present rate, will the Prime Minister consider using the pound to prop it up? By the way, I asked about shadowing yesterday, and the Prime Minister did not say no.
  The Prime Minister: I have always said no to that question. We shall not use the pound to prop up the euro and we shall not shadow the euro. We are setting out a sensible future course for this country. People, such as the hon. Gentleman, who are opposed not only to the euro but to everything European, are perfectly entitled to that view, but it is not in the country's interests.
  Mr. Mark Todd: Will my right hon. Friend extend his support—I am sure that he will—to the Minister who is involved in the negotiations on common agricultural policy reform, which will improve rural diversification, increase the market focus of agriculture in our country and extend the care of our environment? Will he comment on the supposedly helpful remarks of the Leader of the Opposition?
  The Prime Minister: Those remarks were very unhelpful to our negotiating position. We believe that it is possible to achieve significant reform of the common agricultural policy and we shall argue for that. That is right not only for British farmers but, more importantly, for consumers in Britain and across Europe.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that we have often been told by advocates of British membership of the exchange rate mechanism that it proved so disastrous for British industry and agriculture because we went in at the wrong exchange rate? Will he now tell us what he thinks may be the right rate of exchange for the pound sterling to enter a single European currency, not just on the day, but for ever?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that it would be sensible to start negotiating that at the Dispatch Box. I remind the hon. Gentleman that his Government took Britain into the exchange rate mechanism at that rate and then had us exit from it with colossal cost to the nation.
  Q11. [71238] Mr. John Heppell: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that when he made his statement on the euro yesterday, it was welcomed by an ex-Deputy Prime Minister, an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, an ex-Prime Minister and an almost ex-leader of the Liberal Democrats? Is my right hon. Friend sure that he has got this right?
  The Prime Minister: I think that their remarks were of rather more value than those of someone who may, in time, be an ex-leader of the Conservative party.
  Mr. David Trimble: I remind the Prime Minister of the recent forthright and unequivocal comments by the Irish Prime Minister, Bertie Aherne,
  388
  about decommissioning and the formation of an Executive. In the light of those remarks, what advice would the Prime Minister now give to the Irish republican movement?
  The Prime Minister: The advice is very clear: they should decommission their weapons. We have always said that, and I repeat it. I agree with what the Taoiseach said. The whole agreement must be implemented and we must know that violence has been given up for good, as we have always said. It is unreasonable to expect people to sit down together unless they know that that is the case.
  Mr. Michael J. Foster: The people of Worcester have been on a promise for over 40 years to get a new hospital. When my right hon. Friend visited Worcester last July, he promised to give the project a shove. Has he anything to report to the people of Worcester?
  The Prime Minister: When I visited Worcester last July, I gave my hon. Friend a personal assurance that the hospital would be built under the private finance initiative. I am delighted to say that there is a decision that allows the Worcester PFI scheme to progress. Of course, not only will a new hospital be built which was not built under the previous Government, but the large amount of extra investment in the health service in Worcester and elsewhere from this April will allow us to provide capital equipment in our hospitals, more doctors and nurses and better primary care and to start rebuilding the national health service after 18 years of neglect under the Conservative Government.

  Stephen Lawrence Inquiry
  3.30 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Madam Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a statement about the report of the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence.
  Copies of the inquiry's report and the appendices are available from the Vote Office. I know that hon. Members will want time to read and consider the report, and I can therefore tell the House that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has agreed that there should be a full day's debate on the report as soon as possible.
  Stephen Lawrence was a bright 18-year-old student with a promising future. He wanted to be an architect and was studying hard for his A-levels. At about 10.30 pm on Thursday, 22 April 1993, Stephen was waiting at a bus stop with his friend Duwayne Brooks in Well Hall road, Eltham, in south-east London. He was set upon in an unprovoked knife attack and was killed. There was only one reason for his murder. Stephen was black.
  Any parents faced with the death of their son in such circumstances would have been devastated, but for Stephen's parents, Doreen and Neville Lawrence, their sense of despair has been compounded by the failure of our criminal justice system to deliver them justice—to secure the conviction of those responsible.
  I think that I can speak for the whole House when I say that Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence's campaign for the truth has been pursued by them with huge dignity, courage and determination. I should like to pay my personal tribute to them today.
  I first met the family in early 1997, and saw both parents again shortly after becoming Home Secretary in May that year. They persuaded me of the case for a thorough, independent scrutiny of the investigation into their son's murder. In July 1997, I therefore announced to the House that I had appointed the former judge of the High Court, Sir William Macpherson of Cluny, to conduct a full judicial inquiry. This was the first such inquiry under the Police Acts since Lord Scarman's into the 1981 Brixton riots.
  The terms of reference the new inquiry were as follows:
  "To inquire into the matters arising from the death of Stephen Lawrence on 22 April 1993 to date, in order particularly to identify the lessons to be learned for the investigation and prosecution of racially motivated crimes."
  The inquiry examined the handling of the case in comprehensive detail. It held 69 days of public hearings, heard 88 witnesses and received some 100,000 pages of evidence. I wish to put on the record my deep gratitude to Sir William Macpherson and his three advisers. They were Tom Cook, the former deputy chief constable of West Yorkshire police; the Right Reverend Dr. John Sentamu, the Bishop of Stepney; and Dr. Richard Stone, chairman of the Jewish Council for Racial Equality. I would also like to thank members of the inquiry team for their commitment and sensitivity in handling this very important inquiry.
  The report is divided into two parts. The first part covers the police investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence; the second part the wider lessons to be learned.
  390
  The main findings of the first part of the inquiry are as follows:
  "The conclusions to be drawn from all the evidence in connection with the investigation of Stephen Lawrence's racist murder are clear. There is no doubt that there were fundamental errors. The investigation was marred by a combination of professional incompetence, institutional racism and a failure of leadership by senior officers. A flawed Metropolitan Police review failed to expose these inadequacies. The second investigation could not salvage the faults of the first investigation."
  The inquiry finds that that first investigation of the murder was "palpably flawed" and deserves severe criticism. The inquiry concludes:
  "there can be no excuses for such a series of errors, failures and lack of direction and control."
  A review of the case was conducted in autumn 1993 by Detective Chief Superintendent John Barker. The inquiry has found that this review was factually incorrect and inadequate. The inquiry was concerned that no senior officer at any level tested or analysed the review and that Mr. Barker had produced a "flawed and indefensible" report.
  In 1994, a second investigation of the case was established and this attempted to salvage the situation. The inquiry makes it clear that the second investigation, led by Detective Superintendent William Mellish, was conducted with great imagination, skill and sensitivity by the officers involved.
  The inquiry also identified work by police officers and others at other stages of the investigation which it said was exemplary. Those officers are praised for their unstinting commitment to bring the racist killers to justice, but their efforts, in the view of the inquiry, were not sufficient to overcome the catalogue of errors and basic incompetence in the handling of this investigation.
  The report concludes that
  "no collusion or corruption is proved to have infected the investigation of Stephen Lawrence's murder."
  The Government accept the findings and conclusions of the first part of this inquiry, which relates to the investigation into Stephen's murder.
  The House will share my sense of shame that the criminal justice system, and the Metropolitan police in particular, failed the Lawrence family so badly. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir Paul Condon, has asked me to tell the House that he shares that sense of shame. He has also asked me to tell the House that, as head of the Metropolitan police service, he fully accepts the findings of the inquiry, including those relating to him.
  Sir Paul Condon took over as Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in February 1993. Since coming into office, he has given strong personal leadership to improving the quality of service that the Metropolitan police provides to all sections of the community. A great deal has been achieved. For example, reported crime in London is at its lowest for nine years and Sir Paul is tackling the problems of police corruption with great vigour.
  I have asked Sir Paul to continue to lead the Metropolitan police to deliver the programme of work that is now required. He has agreed. He will use the remaining 10 months of his office to take that work forward, including the agenda set by this report. I will support him and his successor in the work that lies ahead.

  391
  The central and most important issue for the inquiry was racism and whether and how that affected the handling of the case. The inquiry addresses that matter with care and with sensitivity. On the critical issue of institutional racism, its definition is:
  "Institutional racism consists of the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people."
  The inquiry found that, on that definition,
  "institutional racism exists within … both the Metropolitan Police Service and in other Police Services and other institutions countrywide."
  The report says that institutional racism was apparent in a number of areas of the police handling of the case. The inquiry emphasised, however, that its findings do not suggest or imply that all police officers are racist or that the Metropolitan police service is racist in its policies. Indeed, the inquiry emphasises that, by the establishment under Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Grieve of the Metropolitan police's racial and violent crime task force, the
  "signs are that the problem is being recognised and tackled."
  The report then expresses the hope that
  "the catharsis of this Inquiry will lead to constructive action and not to further divisive views and outcomes".
  That is a new definition of institutional racism, which I accept—and so does the Commissioner. The inquiry's assessment is clear and sensible. In my view, any long-established, white-dominated organisation is liable to have procedures, practices and a culture that tend to exclude or to disadvantage non-white people. The police service, in that respect, is little different from other parts of the criminal justice system—or from Government Departments, including the Home Office—and many other institutions.
  The report makes 70 wide-ranging recommendations, and I welcome them all. I am sure that hon. Members will not expect me to go through each of the recommendations in turn today. I will instead lay a detailed response and action plan before the House, before the promised full day's debate on the report. However, I want to use this opportunity to spell out how we are implementing the main recommendations of the report, as part of our major and continuing programme of change for the police service and for the criminal justice system.
  First, on the police service, I have ordered an immediate inspection of the Metropolitan police service by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, which will include thorough scrutiny of unsolved murders and reviews of such cases. To pick up one of the recommendations of the inquiry, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary already incorporates much of the approach of Ofsted in its inspections of the police service and it will be moving further in that direction.
  A new police discipline regime will be introduced from 1 April. I will ensure that that is subject to effective monitoring and I will consider any further changes in the light of that experience. I will make an improvement in the trust and confidence in policing among ethnic
  392
  minority communities a key ministerial priority for the police. I will use my statutory powers to ensure that every police force sets clear objectives to deal with racist crime better and to establish effective ways of demonstrating fairness in all aspects of policing.
  I will set targets for the recruitment, retention and promotion of ethnic minority police and civilian staff. I announced last October our plans to ensure that every force reflects the ethnic diversity of the communities that it serves. I will chair a national conference of all chief constables and police authorities on that issue in April.
  Stop-and-search powers under current legislation will remain unchanged, as recommended by the inquiry, but I will ensure that those powers are used more effectively and fairly. Londoners will, for the first time, be given a proper say in the running of their police service. From July next year, a police authority for London will sit alongside the new mayor and assembly. Legislation for that is already before the House.
  Clear standards of performance will be put in place to ensure more effective police investigations of racist crimes. We have already changed the law to establish new offences of racially motivated crimes and the report makes wider recommendations for the criminal justice system. From next month, new guidelines will enable parties to an inquest to receive advance disclosure of evidence and documents. I have asked the Law Commission to consider the inquiry's proposal that the Court of Appeal be given power to permit prosecution after acquittal where fresh and viable evidence is presented.
  As the inquiry proposes, we are already ensuring that victims, victims' families and vulnerable witnesses are treated more sensitively and fairly. The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill, which is currently before Parliament, will extend greater support to vulnerable witnesses, and yesterday I announced a 50 per cent. increase in funding for the victim support scheme. Next week, I shall publish a report by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, which examines police community relations across the country. It supports and reinforces the messages that have emerged from the inquiry.
  The Macpherson report challenges us all, not just the police service. I want to use the opportunity that it gives us to tackle discrimination wherever it is found. I can announce today that we shall extend the Race Relations Act 1976 not just to cover the police, as the report recommends, but to cover all the public services. That means that in the civil service, the immigration service, and the national health service, for example, the law will back those who have been the subject of discrimination. The new law will allow the Commission for Racial Equality to investigate what is happening within individual police forces and other public services. Companies and other organisations in the private sector have long been subject to this legislation, but so far the Government have failed to keep their own house in order.
  The Macpherson inquiry has demonstrated the failings of one very important public institution, the police service. The police have a special responsibility in our society, because day by day they are the immediate guardians of fairness and justice; but we would all be deluding ourselves if we believed that the issues thrown up by the inquiry affect only the police, for the report's

  393
  implications go much wider. The very process of the inquiry has opened all our eyes to what it is like to be black or Asian in Britain today, and the inquiry process has revealed some fundamental truths about the nature of our society—about our relationships one with another. Some of those truths are uncomfortable, but we must confront them.
  I want this report to serve as a watershed in our attitudes to racism. I want it to act as a catalyst for permanent and irrevocable change, not just across our public services but across the whole of our society. The report does not place a responsibility on someone else; it places a responsibility on each of us. We must make racial equality a reality. The vision is clear: we must create a society in which every individual, regardless of colour, creed or race, has the same opportunities and respect as his or her neighbour. In terms of race equality, let us make Britain a beacon to the world.
  Many countries already envy our record on race relations, and the race relations legislation of the 1960s and 1970s has made a significant difference to the treatment of black and Asian people in our country; but it has plainly not been enough. Over the coming weeks, the Prime Minister and I will spell out what the Government will be doing to drive home the programme of change. The report must mark the beginning of that process, not the end.
  In her evidence to the inquiry, Mrs. Lawrence said:
  "I would like Stephen to be remembered as a young man who had a future. He was well loved and had he been given the chance to survive, maybe he would have been the one to bridge the gap between black and white".
  This report was born of the courage and determination of Neville and Doreen Lawrence: of their desire to get to the truth of what happened; of their desire to ensure that their son was never forgotten. The report is a testament to them, and upon the report we must build a lasting testament to Stephen.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I welcome the Home Secretary's statement and his promise of an early full day's debate on the report.
  The death of Stephen Lawrence was an appalling tragedy. It was a particularly savage and cowardly murder. It was, without doubt, a racist murder. The family have clearly been through a traumatic time. I associate myself entirely with the Macpherson report when it says that the persistence and courage of the family in the face of tragedy and bitter disillusionment have been outstanding. Our aim must be to ensure that, as far as it is in our power, a case such as the Lawrence case never recurs.
  Equally, it is totally objectionable that the killers of Stephen Lawrence remain free. That is an affront both to the Lawrence family and to the community. The report makes it clear that the investigation was entirely inadequate. Those responsible for that investigation deserve censure, but we must ensure improvements in the effectiveness of the police to prevent such failures of justice from recurring.
  I reassert our opposition to racially prejudiced behaviour. It must have no place in the police. It must have no place in any other organisation, public or private. It must have no place in this country.
  There is now an urgent need to build trust in the police where it does not exist, and to rebuild it where it has been destroyed. There is a massive task and no one should underestimate what is needed.
  394
  As it happens, I have, over a number of years, studied the police not only in this country, but in other European countries such as France, Holland and Germany, as well as looked at the position in the United States. In my judgment and, even more important, in the judgment of those overseas, the reputation of the police here among the public generally is higher than probably anywhere else in Europe and, arguably, the world.
  That is not remotely an excuse for doing nothing—doing nothing is not an option—but it is an argument for recognising that there is a foundation of public trust on which we can build. Many people in this country look on the police as friends, not enemies. We must extend that feeling. Many people see the police as a service to which they can turn when in trouble. We must extend that perception. The police must be there to serve equally all our citizens, but let us for our part recognise that they often have to operate in very dangerous and very difficult situations.
  In that respect, I am concerned about the use of the phrase "institutional racism"; I am concerned not about the way in which it is used in the report, but that it should not be used as a generalised condemnation of the whole of the service. I do not accept that and nor does Sir William Macpherson. As the Home Secretary said, he is talking of the failure of an organisation to provide
  "an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin."
  No chief constable would deny that there have been serious failures of that kind, as there have been in other organisations, including, as Macpherson says, the criminal justice system itself.
  As the report says, accepting that definition of institutional racism does not entail accepting that all policemen and policewomen in London are racist—which is an entirely unjustified charge. It also does not entail accepting that the policies of the Metropolitan police are racist.
  The aim of the report's 70 proposals is to increase trust and confidence in policing among ethnic communities. We support that aim, and the important proposals intended to improve, for example, training of police, provision of family liaison officers and handling of victims and witnesses.
  I have questions, however, on several issues. I believe that one of the most fundamental proposals is that there should be an increase in the number of men and women recruited into police from ethnic minorities. I was a member of a Select Committee of the House that proposed such an increase 25 years ago. Progress since then has been painfully slow, and we must improve it.
  The Home Secretary said that he wants to have recruitment targets—to which, as it happens, I am not opposed in principle. However, it would be difficult to have targets in one sphere and for the Home Secretary simultaneously to say that overall police strength has absolutely nothing to do with him. We are talking about police effectiveness for all our people. The Home Secretary should note that most people in the United Kingdom want more police, not fewer, which perhaps indicates how the service is generally regarded.
  On race relations legislation, I welcome the Home Secretary's recognition that race relations is an issue not only for police but for all other public services, such as

  395
  the civil service and the health service. The private sector has long been subject to current legislation, and it is difficult to appreciate the case in principle for exempting the public sector from it. However, will he say more about his plans and the evidence on the issue, including when he plans to introduce such legislation?
  On double jeopardy, the report proposes that consideration should be given to permitting prosecution after acquittal when fresh evidence is presented. I believe that we should be cautious with the recommendation, and welcome the fact that he is referring it to the Law Commission. It is by no means certain that such a change would have helped in the Stephen Lawrence case. Before we make such a change, we should consider all the implications of doing so. I fear that there are too many examples of Governments—of either complexions—legislating in anger but living to regret it.
  The crucial issue now is to take forward the process of reform. There have, regrettably, been some efforts to undermine the position of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; I deplore such efforts. I welcome unreservedly the Home Secretary's comments on the Commissioner's position. I believe that it would have been a disaster for the service if he had gone, and there seems to me to be nothing in the report that would have justified that action. I believe that he is the right man to start the process of reform—as I am sure that he will.
  I agree with Sir William Macpherson that a new atmosphere of mutual trust and confidence must be created. The onus of beginning the process lies with police. Every individual must be treated with respect. However, that goes both ways. Although we unreservedly condemn racist language, we must not use language against police that is almost as extreme.
  The best action that we can take is to do everything in our power to ensure that the events surrounding the murder of Stephen Lawrence and the investigation into it do not recur. Reform is necessary, and reform should be pursued. I emphasise that the Opposition will do everything to help in the reform process. What we will not do, however, is to support any generalised attack on police, who, in my view, remain one of the best services we have in this country, not one of the worst.
  Mr. Straw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman sincerely for his support for Sir William Macpherson's report, and for his measured response. I agree entirely with his remarks about the definition used in the report of "institutional racism". It is important to draw public attention to the fact that this definition is very carefully crafted, and—not least because of that—I am glad that it is one that the Commissioner is happy to accept.
  The most important point made by the right hon. Gentleman was that the report is not saying that, because it finds institutional racism within the Metropolitan police service, other police services and other institutions, it is therefore saying that all police officers are racist. We know that, in almost every case, the reverse is true. However, the reverse can be true, but we can still have an institution that is displaying characteristics of institutional racism. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to targets. We can, I suggest, debate at a different time questions of the strength of the police service. Whatever the strength of
  396
  the service, there are bound to be retirements taking place—and, therefore, opportunities for recruitment. The Metropolitan police service is anticipating larger levels of retirement because of the bulge of recruits in the 1970s and early 1980s. Therefore, there is an opportunity for the Metropolitan police and other forces to give a real emphasis to the recruitment, retention and promotion of black and Asian officers.
  I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman put on record his support for my outline proposals on race relations legislation, and he asked when we can bring that forward. He knows what Leaders of the House are like as well as I do, but the intention is to do so as quickly as possible. However, in all seriousness, if cross-party co-operation were offered in both Houses, we could propose such legislation much more quickly.
  On autrefois acquit, I share the view of the right hon. Gentleman that we must be careful. It is not an absolute principle at the moment. Following the recommendations of the 1993 royal commission, the law was changed in 1996 in terms of tampering by a jury. However, the report—in rather short order—proposes much more substantial change, and it is sensible to have that considered first by the Law Commission.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: My right hon. Friend's decision to set up the inquiry has been entirely vindicated by the outcome, and I welcome his robust approach to the recommendations. I agree that this is not a moment to declare open season on the police. However, it is a moment to make sure that some serious lessons are learned: first, that the public are entitled to expect value for the considerable sums of public money invested in the police; secondly, that when mistakes are made, they are owned up to and not covered up; thirdly, that where flagrant misbehaviour by police officers occurs, consequences should follow swiftly; and, finally, that the best way to end the canteen culture is to spend a little more time outside the canteen.
  Mr. Straw: I think that that applies to Members of this House as well.
  I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks, and I pay tribute to his work as Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, and that of his colleagues. We would not have been able to bring forward the changes in respect of police discipline on 1 April this year without the Committee's important report. We are looking forward to the Committee's report on police training, which should provide an agenda for changing the way in which we train officers, both initially and during their service—not least in the nature of our multiracial society.
  The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) talked about the past. He was right in saying that this country has higher standards of policing than many other European countries, and—as I implied in my statement—we have much higher standards in terms of race relations than some other European countries. However, one of the dangers of that recognition is that we can become complacent. If one looks at police training on race relations in the 1980s—following the Scarman report—one sees that people went through rote learning without understanding that what was required was significant cultural change right through the organisation, and an openness and accountability that the police service

  397
  did not enjoy at that stage. I hope that all the changes that we are making will help to change the environment in which police officers operate, for their benefit as well as for the benefit of the rest of society.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the report not tell an horrific story of incompetence, bad management and ignorant racial stereotypes, which together ensured that the perpetrators of this murder and of other violent racial attacks have escaped justice? The people who emerge with the most credit and dignity from the report are Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence, whose terrible grief was compounded by the dreadful way in which they were treated. Few people can have achieved so much for race relations as that family have by the tremendous qualities that they have shown.
  Is it not of great concern that the report concludes that throughout the United Kingdom there is a lack of trust between police and minority ethnic communities? Is not the disproportionate use of stop-and-search powers a clear cause for concern? Does the Home Secretary agree that, although blanket condemnation of the police would be unfair and unproductive, there can be no excuse for the failings outlined in the report? Does he accept that calls for the Commissioner's resignation are a distraction from the real issue? The question for Sir Paul and other chief officers is whether they have, in the words of the report,
  "an unequivocal acceptance of the problems of institutional racism"
  and whether they are going to take decisive steps to deal with it.
  Britain has always prided itself on policing by consent, but the report clearly shows a failure to establish that consent in minority communities. Is the Home Secretary aware that we welcome his decision, for which we called, to extend the full force of the Race Relations Act to the police and all other public services? I wonder whether that includes the armed forces.
  Will the Home Secretary implement in full other key recommendations in the report that represent a change in Government thinking? Recommendation 6 says that the London police authority should have the full powers available to other police authorities to hold the Metropolitan police accountable. That goes beyond what the Government are proposing. Recommendation 9 says
  "That a Freedom of Information Act should apply to all areas of policing, both operational and administrative, subject only to the `substantial harm' test".
  Recommendation 58 says that serious complaints against the police should be investigated independently, not by another police force. Does the Home Secretary accept that, throughout society, there should be no compromise on racism and no hesitation in implementing the recommendations of this landmark report?
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments about the report and, above all, for his comments about the Lawrence family. It is important to point out that the report says that the legislation on stop-and-search powers should not be changed, but goes on to make four recommendations about how the police should use those powers better so that there is not the gratuitous discrimination against black and Asian people that comes through graphically from the statistics. I shall deal with that.
  398
  The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the Race Relations Act would be extended to cover the armed forces. The answer is yes. Race relations legislation already applies to public service employees—so it already applies to soldiers—but not to those who receive the services of public institutions. Civilian services such as the police, the immigration service and the national health service are more often in contact with members of the public and British citizens than are the armed forces, although the armed forces also come into contact with the public from time to time.
  The London police authority will have the same powers as police authorities outside. I shall set out our view on that in the detailed response that I provide before the full day's debate. That was one of the few recommendations for which I did not entirely understand the factual basis. We intend to give the police authority for London the same powers as other police authorities. The only difference will be that the Home Secretary will have some involvement in the national security functions of the MPS. I do not think that that is unreasonable.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked about freedom of information. The White Paper made it clear that the police would be subject to a freedom of information regime with a harm test, save in respect of the investigations of crimes. I ask him to await the publication of the draft Bill to see what we have proposed.
  Recommendation 58 proposes an independent investigation of serious complaints, as the Home Affairs Committee proposed last year. I have always been sympathetic to that in principle. I said last year, and it stands, that we will wait to see how the initial changes bed down and consider the costs and consequences of setting up an independent system. Northern Ireland is there already. It will have an independent police ombudsman to investigate serious complaints from April, I believe, and we will take account of the experience there.
  Mr. Clive Efford: I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to the call from Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence for the inquiry to be set up, and I welcome his statement, and especially his commitment to a strategy for implementing the recommendations as soon as possible. I urge him to proceed without delay and enable the House to have a full debate on the issue. Does he agree that the recommendations represent the minimum that we should do to tackle the racism in our society and improve race relations, and that there is now an opportunity for every Member of Parliament to unite, go back to their communities and play a leading role in tackling that racism, in order to create an equal society in which people are not discriminated against on the basis of their skin colour?
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. We will produce that strategy as soon as possible. A fair amount of work has been done in the past week, since I received the report on Monday, nine days ago. He is right to say that every Member of Parliament has responsibilities. As I said, implementing the report is not somebody else's responsibility; it is the personal responsibility of each of us.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: In a world in which all too many countries are blighted by

  399
  racial tension, we have long been proud of a tolerant attitude which is intermittently shattered. At the time of the Brixton riots 18 years ago, I was chairman of a juvenile court, and I remember the anger, despair and sense of horror at the events, and the anxiety that was spread throughout the country. I thank the Home Secretary for identifying the real progress made as a result of the Scarman report; but, once again, the anger and despair that have arisen from this case have permeated us all. I simply hope that we will be able to emulate the dignity and determination of the Lawrence parents in the search for results: not for a witch hunt and for scapegoats, but for practical change.
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for saying that: we do not want scapegoats; we want action and change, and scapegoats will not help us to achieve either.
  The interesting thing about the Scarman report, which I recently re-read, is that it was implemented more within the police service than outside, and therefore in something of a cultural vacuum. For that reason, much of the initial impetus behind the change that it should have initiated was lost. I hope that we can achieve a much wider agenda with the new report and that there will be constant monitoring, so that, in a year's time, when other issues have overtaken us, we have not forgotten that we must ensure continued progress if we are to avoid similar trauma in the years ahead.
  Mr. Bernie Grant: First, I want to pay tribute to the Lawrence family, their friends and supporters, for the stalwart nature that they have shown. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on sticking to his promise, made before the general election, that we would have a public inquiry, but may I also warn him about the situation?
  We have been here before. I remember being very optimistic in 1981, after the Scarman inquiry. We thought that it was a watershed and that things would change, but 18 years later—I have read both reports—we are back to almost the same recommendations that the Scarman inquiry made. This is a last chance for British society to tackle racism and to push for racial equality. The black community is giving British society a last chance. Although I agree with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that institutional racism occurs throughout society, the police have the power to remove one's freedom and we have to be especially careful about how they operate.
  Although I agree with almost everything my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said today, I do not agree with his conclusion on the position of the Metropolitan police Commissioner. The black community does not have trust and confidence in Mr. Condon. I do not say that he should be sacked or that he should resign—I am not a bad-minded person. However, Mr. Condon should take early retirement, because we cannot move into a new phase with the same old faces.
  We appear never to be able to tackle the supervising officers of the rank and file police men and women. My feedback from the street is that the attitudes of rank and file police officers have changed dramatically, probably
  400
  because of graduate recruitment and race relations training. However, the attitudes of desk sergeants and those behind them remain the same. Those are the attitudes that permit institutionalised racism. We have to begin to call to account the actions of some of those detectives, superintendents, chief superintendents and police commissioners. I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider that question, because the black community is watching closely what happens to those posts. I shall leave the rest of my observations to the debate.
  Mr. Straw: May I first say how delighted I am to see my hon. Friend back in his place in the House after a period of illness?
  My hon. Friend is right to say that we have to take the chance that we have been given. The difference with 18 years ago and the Scarman report is that many white people thought then that the answer to the problem of racial prejudice and discrimination was to treat everybody the same. The suggestion was that all one had to do was to be colour-blind. We now know that the answer is not about treating everybody the same, but about treating everybody equally, including respect for and recognition of people's diversity and different needs. That is one of the most profound changes that we must introduce.
  In some respects, I am optimistic, and I wish to pick up my hon. Friend's point about the change in the attitudes of police officers. In my view, attitudes have changed further in the Metropolitan police than in many provincial forces and that fact will emerge in the report of the inspectorate, which I will publish next Monday. I am sorry, but I disagree with my hon. Friend about the attitudes of officers at more senior levels. These days, many such officers are profoundly committed to an agenda of change and to making their forces anti-racist and agents for driving out racism in our society.
  My hon. Friend also raised the position of the Commissioner, and I am sorry to say that I disagree with him on that point, too. I do not believe that it would have been justified or appropriate to ask the Commissioner to resign. He is in a position to take forward the recommendations. He has accepted the findings of the report; its conclusions, including those that relate to him; and the definition of institutional racism, including as it applies to the Metropolitan police. As a result not least of his personal commitment, and of the Lawrence inquiry, huge change has already been made in the Metropolitan police service. That is evident and, as I said in my statement, I believe that he is the man to take the programme forward. He will do so over the 10 months that remain of his normal period of office, which in any event comes to an end early next year.
  Several hon. Members rose
  —
  Madam Speaker: Order. May I urge hon. Members to reserve their comments for the debate that has been announced and that will take place soon? I can call only one or two other hon. Members, as I have the rest of the day's business to safeguard, and I hope that hon. Members will ask brief questions.
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: Does the Home Secretary agree that we must be very careful about how

  401
  we define the terms and phrases that we use? The Oxford English dictionary defines "racism" as
  "a belief in the superiority of a particular race … prejudice based on this belief'
  and as
  "antagonism towards other races."
  Yet today, we seem to have moved to a definition of institutional racism that can involve accidental conduct whose consequences are not intended. Does the Home Secretary recognise that difficulty with definitions? Does he agree that, according to the first definition that I gave, 99 per cent. of London's police pass the test with flying colours?
  Mr. Straw: One of the reasons why we have arranged a full day's debate in due course is to ensure that hon. Members have the time to read the report. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read the good debate in chapter 6 of the report, which explains why the Committee came to the view that its definition of institutional racism was the appropriate one.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: I, too, pay tribute to the Lawrence family and to the Home Secretary. The report is a shocking document. It reflects tragically on the vulnerability of the black and Asian community, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend expects its recommendations to be implemented in full. I am proud to live in a multiracial country, and to represent a multiracial constituency. However, I am desperately disappointed that our institutions are not multiracial.
  I welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals about targets, but I would like them to be extended to the civil service as well. Will he say what he proposes to do with those chief constables and others who refuse to meet those targets?
  Mr. Straw: We have not got there yet. I think that they will meet their targets and that there is wide recognition of the importance of improving the number of ethnic minority officers in the police service. I am grateful for the fact that the policy has the backing in principle of Conservative and the Liberal Democrat Members. It enjoys a broad consensus, and I expect and believe that every chief constable—and every police authority member—will take it on. If not, I may have something to say.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I support what the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) said. People in this country who want to approach their Member of Parliament about racism or bad treatment will now know that every hon. Member will act as the hon. Gentleman has acted.
  In addition, I welcome the support that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) has given the Home Secretary on the approach to the inquiry. May I ask the Home Secretary to recall that some people involved in the tragedy seldom get remembered? For example, Duwayne Brooks had to suffer the tragedy of watching his friend get stabbed: much of the media coverage devoted to him has been adverse, and quite wrongly so. Moreover, no one has to suffer the loss of a brother to understand what Stephen's brother and sister, Stuart and Georgina, felt when Stephen was killed.
  402
  Finally, will the Home Secretary try to resurrect a report for which Sir Michael Quinlan at the then Department of Employment asked in about 1986 from the Race Relations Employment Advisory Service? That report, which attracted little attention outside the Department, examined the cultural and behavioural problems associated with employment, even in Government Departments. That report deserves to be updated, and spread to other Departments.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman was right to point to the many human tragedies that are part of the dreadful story arising from Stephen Lawrence's murder.
  As for the report, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the tip, and we shall dig out that 1986 Department of Employment report. A good deal of work is going on already, but it is interesting how often Government Departments, like other bodies, tend to reinvent the wheel. It might be worth discovering whether it has been invented already.
  Joan Ruddock: My right hon. Friend will know that his tribute to Doreen and Neville Lawrence is shared by me and by the people of south-east London. Does he accept that there will be a great sense of relief among my constituents—one third of whom are black—that institutional racism in the Metropolitan police has at last been accepted by the House, and that he has undertaken to take positive action as a consequence? I welcome the action that he will taking in putting Her Majesty's inspectors into the Met to examine unsolved deaths and murders, and the reviews of such cases. Can he confirm that the inspection will include the review undertaken at my request into the deaths of 13 young people in the New Cross fire in 1981?
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend referred to my acceptance, and that of the House, of the concept of institutional racism as defined by the inquiry. I should make it clear that the definition is also accepted by the Commissioner, who has issued a statement today, saying:
  "The Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Condon has accepted part one of the Macpherson inquiry report and its proposed new and demanding definition of institutional racism for all public institutions."
  On my hon. Friend's second point, I cannot say without notice whether the inspection of the Metropolitan police will include a review of the 13 young people's case, but I shall write to her on that.
  Mr. David Tredinnick: May I refer the Home Secretary to recommendation 58 for a fully independent investigation of complaints against the police? May I remind him that many of those who gave evidence to the Scarman inquiry into the Brixton riots argued strongly for an independent inquiry then? The replacement of the old Police Complaints Board with the Police Complaints Authority, which is semi-independent, has not won sufficient confidence. Does the Home Secretary not believe that the independent investigation of serious complaints should be at the top of the agenda, rather than some way down it, as he has suggested it is?
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is right. He might have mentioned that I produced a ten-minute Bill in 1981, which proposed an independent police complaints

  403
  authority, an idea to which I am still sympathetic. I have made my position clear. We have taken forward many of the recommendations of the Select Committee. This is a piece of unfinished business, and it is important that we get it right. If broad agreement is emerging among the political parties in the House about the future structure of an independent police complaints investigative body, pursuing the policy will be made much easier.
  Ms Jean Corston: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on establishing the inquiry in the first place. Does he agree that the report lays on all of us both a duty and an opportunity to ensure that employment in, contact with or use of our public services should not depend on conformity to a white, male culture? Does he accept that policing in multicultural areas such as my constituency requires the police to take an open attitude, and to be in contact with, and have the confidence of, local groups? May I commend to him the work done at Trinity Road police station, which works with the Bristol race equality council against racist incidents? May I suggest that, as part of their training, every police officer should be required to read "Faces of Britain: A Cultural Guide", a booklet produced by that police station?
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office has just given me a quick briefing on the value of the work done at Trinity Road police station, and he will visit it shortly. A great error was committed 15 to 20 years ago when people thought that they had to bother about anti-racist policies only in areas in which black and Asian people lived in any numbers. In fact, we need to bother more about anti-racist policies in areas that are all white. I do not want the police service to get the idea that, just because an area is predominantly white, they do not need to recruit black and Asian officers. Regardless of whether areas are mainly white or not, officers will, in the course of their careers, come in contact with black and Asian people. In any event, we must ensure that officers of the law treat people equally, regardless of the colour of their skin, race or creed.

Kosovo
4.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Madam Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a statement on the Kosovo talks.
In my statement three weeks ago, I reported that the Contact Group had agreed to summon both sides to negotiations for a political settlement on the basis of the documents tabled by that group. Both sides responded to that summons and took part in peace talks held until yesterday at Rambouillet. As co-chair of the talks, the United Kingdom was fully engaged in brokering agreement between the two parties, and the House will wish to recognise the immense effort put in by officials, some of whom have worked without break and occasionally without sleep. I record the appreciation of all the British team for the close co-operation of France, both as co-chair and as host of the talks.
At the outset, both parties to the talks had a large number of reservations about the Contact Group's proposals for the constitution of a self-governing Kosovo. The great majority of them were resolved. However, the Yugoslav delegation still has some difficulties, such as the limited role of the Serbian courts; and the Albanian side is still particularly concerned about the absence of a commitment to a referendum on independence at the end of the three-year period. Those problems remain. Nevertheless, we obtained consensus from both sides for a democratic, self-governing Kosovo, and agreement to the main elements in the detailed texts on its constitution.
Those texts provide Kosovo with its own assembly, constitution, president, Government, taxes, laws, and police and security. They provide a sweeping measure of autonomy for Kosovo, including the right to conduct foreign relations in respect of the areas within the competence of the Kosovar assembly. The constitution also provides full protection for the national communities within Kosovo, including the right of both Serb and Albanian communities to have representative bodies to protect and promote their respective languages, cultures, religions and educational curriculums.
There was broad agreement on both sides regarding a major international presence in support of the political settlement. Elections to the assembly, local communes and community bodies are to be supervised by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Both parties agreed to the appointment of an international ombudsman to monitor human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the texts provide for the European Commission to take the lead role in co-ordinating the economic reconstruction of Kosovo.
The most difficult issue was the proposal for an international military presence in Kosovo. The Yugoslav delegation refused to accept that the presence of foreign troops was consistent with Yugoslav national sovereignty. There were also serious difficulties on the Albanian side—particularly among representatives of the Kosovo Liberation Army, who found it hard to accept that a condition of an international military force must be that they demilitarise and surrender their weapons.
Throughout the talks, I made it clear that Britain was willing to provide ground troops to underpin the interim settlement, but that there could be no question of us or

405
our allies doing so without a clear commitment to such a ceasefire and to the withdrawal or disarmament on both sides that is necessary to make it a reality.
Both parties agreed to meet again on 15 March to discuss all aspects of the implementation of the new constitution of Kosovo, including the civilian and military international presence. My colleague Hubert Védrine and I are considering how we can use the interval between now and then to convince the wider public in Kosovo and Serbia that the outcome is a good bargain for both, and the best deal that they will have to end the conflict.
I regret to inform the House that violent conflict continues in Kosovo. On Monday, there was fighting near Vucitrn. Yesterday, there was further fighting at Bukos, in which we know that at least one Serb was killed and five were injured. We do not yet have figures for casualties on the Albanian side. Today, there has been further fighting near Suva Reka.
Last night, Javier Solana confirmed that NATO expects both sides to respect the ceasefire and remains ready to use whatever means are necessary in support of it. Yesterday, all the NATO members of the Contact Group repeated their support for decisive NATO action if Belgrade makes a disproportionate response or takes violent reprisals against the civilian population. We also hold the Kosovo Liberation Army responsible for its part in maintaining a ceasefire. Both sides should use the next three weeks to build on the new agreement for peace, not to break down the existing agreement for a ceasefire.
When I last spoke to the House on this issue, I ended by saying that I could not confirm that the talks that we were seeking would take place, nor guarantee that they would succeed. We were successful in getting both sides to take part in the talks. As a result, we have created a peace process, and the end of the Rambouillet talks is not the end of that process but only the conclusion of its first phase. Both sides have committed themselves to taking part in its next phase.
I cannot report to the House that we have yet reached complete agreement to the Contact Group texts, but we have secured agreement to the overwhelming majority of them. That result proves that we were right to try for peace by summoning the talks, but also demonstrates the extra mile we still have to travel. I can assure the House that we will maintain our pressure on both sides to end the conflict through negotiations.
Neither side is going to end this conflict through military action. Neither side can gain from prolonging it. The longer Belgrade continues to try to resolve the conflict by military repression, the more difficult any final outcome that stops short of independence for Kosovo is made. The longer the Kosovo Liberation Army continues to provoke conflict, the more difficult it makes it for the international community to stop the bloodshed among its people.
Both sides have recognised the value of the Contact Group proposals. I urge them now to work with us in implementing them, and to turn their commitments on paper into reality on the ground: the reality of a Kosovo free from fear and governed by free elections.
Mr. John Maples: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that no agreement has been reached or signed at Rambouillet, and that the sticking points were Kosovo's insistence on a referendum on
406
its future and Serbia's refusal to allow a NATO peacekeeping force on Kosovan territory? Both sides have refused to give way on those points and appear unlikely to do so. The Kosovo Albanians would rather fight than give up the prospect of independence and Serbia would—apparently—rather be bombed than have NATO troops on its territory. Both calculate that this would enhance their positions.
As I understand it, the strategy was to get the Kosovo Albanians on side quickly and then threaten the Serbs, but it fell apart early and proved to be misconceived. Why was there such a miscalculation? Why was the Kosovo Albanian position not better understood in advance? That was the fundamental fault. The Foreign Secretary had a carrot for the Kosovo Albanians and no stick, and a stick for Milosevic but no carrot. This obvious flaw in his strategy led to Milosevic being allowed off the hook.
Now we are to have a three-week delay. All hon. Members hope that things will work on 15 March, but each delegation is probably going to spend the three-week hiatus talking to its hardliners, seeking unity not behind an agreement but behind sticking points to strengthen its negotiating position. There is a danger that the situation on the ground will deteriorate by 15 March. It is happening already and will inflame both sides.
Why was the Rambouillet format chosen for the talks when the Dayton model—shut all the parties away in a remote, unattractive location without access to press or home capitals, with all the principals present, and refuse to let them go until an agreement has been reached—was known and successful? [Interruption.] Well, it worked and this has not. Why choose a French chateau just outside Paris with free access to the media and perpetual contact with delegations' capitals? All the principals were at Dayton, including Milosevic and Holbrooke. The key character, Milosevic, was missing at Rambouillet. Of course, Holbrooke was at Dayton, where having one's arm twisted by him was pretty effective. Apparently, it is not quite as effective when done by the Foreign Secretary.
There were the additional mistakes of for ever setting deadlines, and extending them, and having a Contact Group of five nations that did not agree among themselves. The Contact Group had no real coercive threat, and Russia disagreed with the imposition of what threat there was. The only real coercion was from the United States, which had to try to rescue the process. Surely the lesson is that only the United States is a credible threat—at least that is what Milosevic seems to think.
I have some questions, and I would be grateful if the Foreign Secretary addressed them. The Rambouillet process was supposed to last two weeks. Despite extensions, it has failed in its objective. In the Foreign Secretary's words, the talks have become "a process". I hope that that process will succeed on 15 March, although we have serious doubts. What will the Foreign Secretary do if the Kosovo Albanians refuse to sign without a commitment to a referendum? What will he do if the Kosovo Albanians agree, but Milosevic refuses to have a NATO force? Would we bomb Serbia, or would the Foreign Secretary agree to any other force? If bombing were to start, how could he guarantee the safety of OSCE monitors? Does Russia still wholly oppose a NATO force?

407
The Foreign Secretary said in his statement that NATO will take action if Belgrade makes a disproportionate response, or instigates violent reprisals. What exactly does that mean? If the process fails, can he absolutely and unconditionally guarantee that the very large NATO army in Macedonia will not be used except under the terms of a peace agreement, and to help to implement that agreement?
Does the Foreign Secretary think that the Rambouillet process has enhanced Milosevic's respect for NATO? Does he think that Britain's credibility in the world has been enhanced by his conduct of the process? Does he think that Milosevic regards him personally with more fear and respect than before Rambouillet? The House knows the answers to these questions. We have witnessed all the Foreign Secretary's final warnings, all the unfulfilled expectations that he has aroused, his summonses of the parties, and the posturing incompetence with which these matters have been handled. Unfortunately, the people of Kosovo are also only too aware of the consequences.
Mr. Cook: Let us begin with the questions for which the hon. Gentleman managed to find time in his little speech. First, if there is any question of bombing, the monitors will be withdrawn. Secondly, it is nonnegotiable for us that any force to which we commit British forces must have a tried, trusted and tested command structure. For us, that means a NATO command structure.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether Russia continues to oppose a NATO force. Russia's position throughout has been that it is willing to take part in a military presence if it is invited by Belgrade. He asked exactly when we would commence bombing Belgrade. I cannot think of anything more helpful to Milosevic than to spell out exactly when we might do so.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether this process has increased respect for Britain and the conduct of its foreign policy. I reported only on Sunday to all European Union Foreign Ministers, all of whom are in support of the Rambouillet process, and all of whom understand both the effort that went into it and the difficulty of securing success.
I turn to the hon. Gentleman's preamble. Remote though the prospect is at present that he will find himself in government, I am always tempted by the thought of his having two weeks in office, just to discover the reality of the problems of carrying out international negotiations. What he described was pure fantasy. Richard Holbrooke has already had a go at trying to twist arms. He produced the Holbrooke package in October, which we welcomed and supported. Since then, we have been seeking to build on it, and to improve it by working on areas that were missing from it, especially the question of the guarantee for the implementation of an agreement.
As far as I could tell from the hon. Gentleman's contrast of Rambouillet and Dayton, the only difference that he found was that Rambouillet was attractive and Dayton was certainly unattractive. I remind the hon. Gentleman that what happened at Dayton came as a result of several months of bombing in Serbia and the Serbian side then recognising that, for them, the military conflict
408
was over. If the hon. Gentleman wants us to follow a model in which we achieve peace only after several months of bombing, I have to tell him that at present there are not many takers among his allies.
No, we have not let Milosevic off the hook and we have not let the KLA off the hook. Both are now confronted with having to come up to scratch on the agreement that they have made. Yes, there was an agreement at Rambouillet. That agreement was not perfect or complete—that is in the nature of international negotiation. However, as the Serbian side acknowledged, there was major progress towards substantial autonomy for Kosovo and, for the Kosovar side, an agreement that it could accept subject to consultation.
That justifies our efforts at Rambouillet; indeed, there was greater agreement than I predicted when we started. I did not predict that the process would be easy or end in triumph; I predicted that it would be difficult and that we would not necessarily get agreement. We have done so, and it would be helpful in pushing Milosevic and the KLA into abiding by that agreement if the hon. Gentleman recognised what had been achieved.
Mr. Donald Anderson: After that rather sour performance from the Opposition Front Bench, would not the House have been better served by the lofty statesmanship of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)? The better view is surely: so far, so good. The agreement is not ideal, but it is far better than one might have hoped at the start of the process, and all involved must receive our congratulations on stopping something worse.
Is my right hon. Friend confident that the will exists on both sides of the conflict, among the Kosovar Albanians and the Yugoslavs, to prevent a substantial deterioration on the ground before 15 March? Did he get that message from the representatives at Rambouillet? What role is envisaged for the OSCE monitors after the eventual agreement?
Mr. Cook: It is recognised in the text that there will be a strong role for the Kosovo verification mission, particularly its head, as we implement the new constitution for Kosovo provided for by the documents. Indeed, the head of the mission will be responsible for nearly all aspects of civilian and political construction in securing agreement to them.
The verification mission continues to do vital work in seeking to make sure that the ceasefire is maintained, and by and large is successful in doing so where it is present. I regret that there are only 1,200 members of what should be a team of 2,000. One of the points that I agreed with my colleagues at the close of the talks is that we must consider how we can increase the pace at which we fill those remaining places.
My hon. Friend asked a grave question that goes to the heart of the conflict that we face in Kosovo. I have to tell the House that I did not receive assurances that I would regard with confidence about future conduct in the conflict. Both sides have to recognise their responsibility and they have to recognise that neither of them can win by conflict. It is in their interests to agree to the process that we have started and to accept the constitutional and political settlement on offer.
Mr. Menzies Campbell): I begin by acknowledging and applauding the efforts of officials and

409
the Foreign Secretary, but I hope that he will forgive me if I strike a more pessimistic note than that contained in his statement.
Must we not properly acknowledge that the outcome of Rambouillet is inconclusive—we have only a provisional agreement on political structures, we have no agreement on the peacekeeping force and we have no peace in Kosovo, as events of the past 72 hours have eloquently demonstrated? Is not the position further complicated by the power struggle taking place within the KLA and the risks of provocation and retaliation to which the Foreign Secretary referred in his statement? Realistically, what physical steps can we take to prevent deterioration in Kosovo between now and 15 March?
Mr. Cook: I have been clear that the agreement is not a complete agreement—indeed, it is a partial agreement. However, I believe that that is better than no agreement at all. We did make progress at Rambouillet, but I am not pretending to the right hon. and learned Gentleman or to the House that we have completed that task.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to stress the importance of the process being able to continue when we meet on 15 March, in order to achieve an observance of what is now a grumbling ceasefire, without escalation. He asks how we can secure that. The first barrier to escalation is the verification mission. We are looking at how we can complete its numbers and make sure that it is brought up to full strength.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's second question concerned what other measures would then be available to us. The best measure that we have to secure compliance from Belgrade is to make it clear to Belgrade, as I have already done, that the NATO planes remain on alert, and that the order for Javier Solana to authorise their use remains in force. We are all clear within NATO that, in the event of disproportionate military action by Belgrade—if there was any repeat of the atrocities that have taken place in the past—that authorisation is available and could be used in those circumstances.
The Kosovo Liberation Army must also accept its share of responsibility for maintaining the ceasefire. Too often in the past, action has been initiated from the Kosovo Liberation side. We have made it plain to the Kosovo Liberation Army that we are well aware of the way in which it has broken the ceasefire. We will not allow ourselves to be trapped into ending up as the KLA's air force, as a result of provocation that it initiated.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that for many people, including myself, the one outcome from the Rambouillet talks is that bombing has not begun? The most terrifying argument put from both sides of the House at one stage was that the credibility of NATO would be the justification for bombing.
Is the Foreign Secretary also aware that, whatever the outcome may be, if, without the authority of the Security Council, the United States and Britain or other countries bomb or enter a sovereign state without the consent of that state, that will be a breach of international law? If, as he said, quite rightly, the problem inside Yugoslavia cannot be solved by conflict, it certainly cannot be solved by the conflict being entered by people pretending to be the world's policemen.
410
Will the Foreign Secretary further consider that, when one thinks of the problems affecting minorities such as the Kurds, the Palestinians and the people of East Timor, the position occupied by the American and British Governments is not really very credible?
Mr. Cook: There is no question of our entering Kosovo with military force in circumstances in which there is no peace agreement to police. We have made that clear repeatedly. We do not intend to fight our way into Kosovo. Unless we were clear about what we were going to do there by way of peace settlement, such an undertaking would be pointless.
Secondly, with reference to the Security Council, there was broad agreement at Rambouillet among all the members of the Contact Group that, in the event of a settlement, we would invite the Security Council to approve and endorse the settlement.
In the event that we are faced again with a humanitarian crisis as a result of excessive military repression in Kosovo—if, once again, we are faced with tens of thousands of refugees on the hillsides, or if, once again, we are faced with innocent civilians being executed at close range, with no suggestion that that was happening in fighting—I do not believe that my right hon. Friend's constituents or those of any other hon. Member would understand it if we did not respond.
Sir Peter Emery: The Foreign Secretary must know that all of us hope that on 15 March solutions can be found and we can go forward without resorting to bombing. If that is the case, all sides will deserve to be congratulated.
Can the Foreign Secretary say what will happen after the three-year period? Is there to be Serbian law in Kosovo? Is there to be an entire new structure of law? What is the position with regard to education? How will that be dealt with, if Kosovo is given a measure of independence? Only if such matters are dealt with satisfactorily will there be a long-term solution of the problem.
Mr. Cook: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's questions on the issue of law is that it would be for the Kosovo assembly to apply the laws of Kosovo as they are at present, or to amend them as it chooses. The document throughout is carefully balanced and calibrated to respect the rights and aspirations of the other communities of Kosovo, particularly the Serb community, which is why it provides for the right of appeal to the Serb courts for representatives of the Serb community. One issue that we have been looking at lately is the right of Serb judges to take part in the Kosovo courts.
The right hon. Gentleman also raised the question of education. That, too, would be a matter for the representative bodies of the national communities, both Serb and Albanian, who would have control over the curriculum, cultural questions, religion and matters that trench closely on their different approaches to education. However, education would be a devolved competence of the Kosovo assembly.

411
As I hope my remarks have shown, enormous ingenuity and thought have gone into providing for Kosovo maximum self-government of a sweeping character, while ensuring that the rights, privileges and customs of Kosovo's other communities are fully protected.
Mr. Mike Gapes: I welcome my right hon. Friend's even-handed and balanced assessment of the situation in Kosovo. He must deal not only with two warring parties but with the carping critics in the House and with the difficulty of Europe influencing a United States Administration who sometimes find it too easy to look for quick-fix air strike solutions to complex problems. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Europeans will continue to work patiently and assiduously for a political outcome of the conflict and do their best to ensure that the United States follows that process over the next few weeks?
Mr. Cook: In response to my hon. Friend's observations, I recall that throughout the period when we were in opposition, whenever the then Government sought to achieve a peace initiative we did not regard it as our function to score party political points when they responded to the House.
Mr. Maples: That is silly.
Mr. Cook: I should have thought that a more serious approach to this matter would be to regard it as a grave international crisis, not a matter for partisan politics.
My hon. Friend is right to say that there is no quick-fix solution to the problem. Nevertheless, I would counsel him against falling into a trap similar to the one that the Opposition spokesman fell into in suggesting a clear break between Europe and the United States. We shall solve this problem only if Europe and the United States work closely together, as we have over the past three days at Rambouillet.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: It is widely reported that relations between Serbia and Montenegro have deteriorated sharply in recent months. The Montenegrin authorities have said that they will refuse the Yugoslav army access to their territory. Have NATO powers received such representations about the use of force on their territory from the Montenegrins? Will the Foreign Secretary acknowledge that, for good or ill, a likely by-product of the initiative of the past few weeks is the destabilisation of former Yugoslavia? In the light of the initiative, is it feasible in the long term that Montenegro can remain part of the Yugoslav federal republic?
Mr. Cook: I met President Djukanovic of Montenegro last week when we had a full discussion lasting an hour and a half about both the current situation in Kosovo and the tensions within the federal republic. I have assured President Djukanovic of the full support of Britain and the west for his measures to achieve a more open market economy and society within Montenegro—measures that we supported financially during the British presidency of the European Union. I have also assured him that our quarrel is with Belgrade and that we shall do all that we
412
can to ensure that our actions in respect of Belgrade are not applied in relation to Montenegro. He has been a valuable and supportive critic of Belgrade's role in so many of the actions that have led to the present crisis in Kosovo and elsewhere. I very much hope that we shall be able to support him whenever possible.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Foreign Secretary referred to what the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) would think. On Saturday night, I was talking to some of the Foreign Secretary's constituents and mine—we share the same local authority—and some mutual old friends of ours. They are serious people and political associates of 30 years, and they are deeply concerned about the whole question of bombing and the effect that it has.
Is not the truth that, when people are bombed, they become far more resistant to a solution than if they had not been bombed? May I gently ask my colleagues on the Front Bench whether they understand, because they are of a younger generation, the effect of bombing on people? The Secretary of State for Defence knows that I sent his office an obituary of a distinguished group captain, who said that, during the war, Hitler had ordered a fortnight's leave for any German—in the Afrika Korps or on the Russian front—whose house had been bombed. Why? Because they would return and, with greater determination than ever before, fight for the cause, which we may think is entirely wrong. On the whole question of bombing, cannot the Government have a think about the effect of it?
Mr. Cook: I am not sure to what extent my hon. Friend's question arises from the content of my statement, because I am here to discuss a peace process that we started to try to achieve an end to the conflict in Kosovo. It was not the objective of Rambouillet or of the peace process to embark on a bombing campaign, but I have said, and I repeat again, that there should be no misunderstanding in Belgrade that the authorisation for action by NATO remains fully in place.
Mr. Dalyell: Not by the Russians.
Mr. Cook: They are not members of NATO and we would not allow them to have a veto on what we were to decide within NATO.
I say to my hon. Friend that the issue in Kosovo is not bombing by Britain or by any other member state of NATO, but the fact that so many of the villages of Kosovo have been demolished by artillery and mortar fire by Serb forces, and so many civilians in Kosovo have been shot and made homeless; and that 200,000 people are still displaced in Kosovo and elsewhere in the region as a result of the fighting. In order to stop that, we went to Rambouillet, and, in order to prevent further serious escalation of the violence, we are ready to take action, if it is required.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the Foreign Secretary address the problems that will arise if his strategy is successful? First, British forces will have to be deployed to support any agreement. He has already alluded to the fact that only 1,200 of the 2,000 monitors have been forthcoming. The United Kingdom has offered 8,000—the largest share—for the force for Kosovo, but

413
such a deployment could be maintained for only six months before it caused serious problems of overstretch for the Army. The clock is already ticking, because those people are preparing for that operation. How will we ensure that, when we want to reduce the British contingent, others will take its place to safeguard the agreement?
Secondly, will the Foreign Secretary address the problem of what will happen in three years' time if we force the Kosovars into the agreement and to withdraw their insistence on the right of self-determination at some stage in the process? Will we find ourselves doing Serbia's dirty work in preventing the Kosovars from exercising a democratic freedom that, for example, we in the United Kingdom would be happy for the people of Scotland to express?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman's last point is flatly in conflict with the agreed strategy of all members of the Contact Group and throughout the wider international community, which is that we will support a democratic, self-governing Kosovo. We will create the structures for a three-year interim accord, in order that that can take place. There is no commitment in the international community to the independence of Kosovo. We are not proposing, therefore, to have an independent Kosovo at the end of that time, but we will go in only if the Kosovars also accept a ceasefire, also accept the interim accord and also accept that they have to surrender their weapons.
On the issue of overstretch, the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps, which would go in as the headquarters of the operation, would go in on the standard basis that it would be providing the headquarters for six months. We would expect the alliance to carry through its standard procedures to make sure that there was a permanent headquarters at the end of those six months, and that we could withdraw the ARRC headquarters.
I will not deny that there would be considerable strain on the British Army as a result of this deployment. That strain would be a lot less if the British Army had not been cut in real terms by one third under the previous Administration, when he advised the Ministry of Defence.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I shall not comment for the moment on the murderous conduct of the Serbs, but is not the belligerent intransigence of elements of the Kosovo Liberation Army strongly reminiscent of the behaviour of those fascist mobsters in the IRA? Should not the KLA's friends in the
414
region urge its members to play the long game? They have been offered a remarkable degree of autonomy, and autonomy must precede independence.
Mr. Cook: I am not sure that those friends whom the KLA has are necessarily seeking to benefit from a cessation of the conflict, but I agree with my hon. Friend's judgment about the value, on balance, to the people of Kosovo. The settlement would offer an end to the bloodshed and repression. It would mark the start of democracy and freedom of expression, and would create self-governing institutions that could run Kosovo's affairs.
At the end of the conference, we engaged in much discussion about whether there should be a referendum on independence in three years' time. I suspect that, given their present position, if the people of Kosovo were offered a referendum now on whether to accept the political settlement, the result would be an overwhelming yes.
Mr. Mike Hancock: On behalf of all whom I represent, I wish the Foreign Secretary and everyone else involved well in their attempts to secure a settlement on 15 March, and thank the right hon. Gentleman for the efforts that he has already made.
Given that nearly 40 per cent. of the KLA's troops now come from outside Kosovo, what steps is the international community taking to ensure that, when those fighters return to Albania or Macedonia, they do not take the conflict back with them? What will the international community do to prop up Albania's economy so that such people return with more than the inspiration to fight another war there, and to create a decent environment for them in their own country?
Mr. Cook: Our evidence suggests that, by and large, the Macedonian Government—and, indeed, the Albanian population in Macedonia—have remained distant from the conflict in Kosovo. Indeed, Macedonia is playing host to a substantial build-up of NATO forces, and we welcome its close co-operation.
Northern Albania is more or less outside the rule of law and the remit of the capital of Albania. We have offered the Albanian Government support to try to improve the situation—in particular, we have offered help with the training of the local police force—and we shall continue that work; but, given the present conditions in northern Albania, it has proved well nigh impossible to prevent extra troops and weapons from crossing the border.

Sierra Leone
5.8 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Madam Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a statement arising from my parliamentary answer of yesterday on the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on Sierra Leone.
Yesterday, I set out the circumstances in which the Foreign Office received a draft of that report. In view of comments made subsequently by a number of hon. Members, I assure the House that neither the Foreign Office nor Ministers took any action on that draft. We did not in any way seek to interfere with the work of the Committee, or to offer comments on the draft. Indeed, the record shows that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) did not table any amendments to the draft. Nor did we publish or disclose any part of the draft to the media or to anyone else. I am therefore confident that neither I nor anyone else at the Foreign Office has committed any impropriety on the basis of the draft, or broken any of the rules of procedure set out in Erskine May; but, Madam Speaker, I shall of course accept any future ruling which you or the relevant Committees may give on the matter.
In the meantime, I remind the House that I gave the Select Committee unprecedented access to Foreign Office documents and telegrams. Indeed, its report acknowledges that the access that it obtained was a quantum leap in openness with Select Committees. I did not obstruct or impede the work of the Committee; I did not interfere with the deliberations of the Committee; and I have fully respected the role of scrutiny of both the Committee and the Chamber.
Sir George Young: No one doubts that the Foreign Secretary has pressing matters before him, on which he has made a statement, but the issues that we are now discussing relate to events in his office in January and early February this year.
Should the Foreign Secretary not have prefaced his statement with an apology to members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, on behalf of the Government, for rubbishing its report in advance of publication, using a document that he and his colleagues knew that they should never have received?
May I ask the Foreign Secretary some specific questions? When did he first see the draft, and did he discuss it with any of his ministerial colleagues or officials? What action did he take to report the leak? Did he show the document to anyone else and, if so, to whom?
Did the Foreign Secretary tell the Chairman of the Select Committee that his office had received a leaked copy of the draft and, if not, why not? Did the Foreign Secretary, his Parliamentary Private Secretary or anyone in his office pass copies to, or discuss the leaked document or subsequent leaked conclusions with No. 10 and the Prime Minister's Office?
We now know who leaked a copy of the draft report in January, but can the Foreign Secretary tell the House how he subsequently became aware of "certain key conclusions", of which he made no mention in his statement, but which were referred to in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham
416
(Mrs. Gillan) yesterday? Can he say whether either document was solicited by anyone in his Department or his PPS? What action did he take to report the second leak? Did he initiate any action as a result of the second leak?
When the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—replied on 16 February to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham by saying that copies of the report were collected on 9 February, did he know that the Foreign Secretary had received a copy of the draft in January, and that he had received a subsequent leak of certain key conclusions before the report was published?
If the Minister of State did not know, does that not reveal a breathtaking lack of liaison between two senior Ministers? If he did know, was his reply not calculated to give the House the wrong impression? If the House was knowingly misinformed, should the Minister concerned not immediately resign?
How does the Foreign Secretary's dismissive treatment of the leak square with the high moral tone that has been adopted by the Home Secretary and No. 10 about leaks over the past few days? Does not the whole sorry episode confirm all the criticisms of the entire handling of the Sierra Leone affair by Ministers, and reveal that the Government have been caught red-handed doing what we all know they have been doing since they were elected—treating the House with contempt?
Mr. Cook: First, as a number of Conservative Members have asked where the Minister of State is, I can tell the House that he is currently going around all the countries that are party to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, trying to achieve a ceasefire. I would have thought that he would have the good wishes and support of hon. Members on both sides of House in that effort.
Secondly, I have to correct the right hon. Gentleman. There was no briefing—no leak to the press in advance of publication by the Foreign Office or any Minister in the Foreign Office. There were two leaks published in the press on the Friday and Saturday before publication. They were both hostile to Ministers in the Foreign Office. They plainly came from someone in or around the Select Committee, but they did not come from the Foreign Office.
The right hon. Gentleman asks when I saw the document. I understand that the draft was received in the second week of January. I discussed it only with the permanent secretary. We did not disclose it to No. 10 or to anyone else.
On the issue of the key conclusions, my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West has already indicated to the Select Committee the circumstances in which he informed a special adviser in my Department of the key conclusions of the final report.
The Minister of State saw the same draft that I saw, but his answer was an accurate, factual and correct answer to the question that he was asked. The right hon. Gentleman appears to wish that the Minister of State had answered a different question from the one he was asked. That is a matter for which those who asked the question have to take responsibility, not those who answered it.

417
Of course I understand that it is proper for the House to discuss these matters and for the right hon. Gentleman to raise them, but his indignation would carry more conviction if he were to assure the House that such an event never happened when he was in office during the period of the previous Government.
Mr. Donald Anderson: May I on behalf of the Select Committee give you, Madam Speaker, and the House an undertaking that, in this matter, the Foreign Affairs Committee will follow to the letter the procedure that is set out in "Erskine May"? The Committee has agreed—I have already, on behalf of the Committee, written to the Chairman of the Liaison Committee—that the matter will be discussed by the Liaison Committee on Thursday this week. I anticipate that there will be then be a reply to the Committee, which, if it is so minded, will then make a special report to the House. It will then be for the House, not for the Committee or the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, to decide what future steps, if any, to take. The role of the Committee will cease because it is a House of Commons matter.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for setting out the way in which the Select Committee will proceed with the matter. I am absolutely clear that I can robustly defend my conduct and that of my officials, in that we have at no stage committed any impropriety under the provision of "Erskine May" that we should not obstruct or impede the work of a Select Committee. We plainly have not done so.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) has a long interest in foreign affairs, particularly the middle east. It is a matter of great personal regret to me that he should have found himself compelled to resign from the Select Committee.
May I ask the Foreign Secretary a number of specific questions? To whom was the envelope containing the document addressed? By whom was the envelope received? Is there a system in his Department by means of which any document received is registered? Was that document registered as having been received in his Department, and is there an entry in the appropriate document to vouch that?
Was the document placed in the red box of any Minister? Did the person who received the document understand the rules relating to Select Committee reports? If he or she did, why was not the document simply sent back?
Mr. Cook: The right hon. and learned Gentleman raises a number of questions. I cannot say whether the document was registered, but I certainly undertake to write to him and to clarify that point.
Sending back the document would not have undone the fact of transmission of the document to us. [Interruption.] Nor would any of those braying on the Opposition Benches for one moment have believed me if I had then said that I had sent it back without having read it. It would have been a pointless gesture. There is no obligation in "Erskine May" to return a document in those circumstances. There is an obligation to ensure that one does not interfere with the work of a Select Committee or give premature disclosure. That we have observed.
418
I share the right hon. and learned Gentleman's tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West. My hon. Friend has a great interest and great experience in foreign affairs. He will continue to use that experience and interest to advantage.
Ms Diane Abbott: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the matters that we are discussing, although serious, are by no means as serious as the suffering and slaughter that are still going on in Sierra Leone, and should not be allowed to divert from that? However, does he also agree that one of the principles arising from this and other debates is the principle of the independence of Select Committees?
Select Committees are Committees of the House; they are not an arm of Government. No one, from whichever side of the House, should seek to bully, to pressure or to manipulate Select Committee members for party advantage. Select Committees have not just a right, but a duty, to exercise scrutiny over Government. That is the important principle that I have held throughout all the debates on the Floor of the House about these matters.
Having had so much time to look at our report, will my right hon. Friend carefully study our recommendations, which go further and are wider than those in the original Legg report, particularly those on the arms trade and regulation of mercenaries? Will he in due course come back with a considered response to what was a serious and considered report?
Mr. Cook: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall indeed be producing the considered response that she seeks, and we shall seek to do it as rapidly as we can. I also entirely endorse her view that bloodshed continues in Sierra Leone, and that there is still no stability there. Britain remains the country which is providing more material and more practical support to ECOMOG forces than any other nation, as we are providing more humanitarian relief. Currently, it is an uphill task trying to restore stability to Sierra Leone. I also tell my hon. Friend that I am under absolutely no illusion about the independence of the Select Committee system; the Foreign Affairs Committee often reminds me of it.
Mr. David Wilshire: If I heard the Foreign Secretary correctly, he said that his Minister of State also received, and therefore saw, a copy of the leaked document. Will he therefore say whether the Minister of State saw that document before or after he signed the written answer of 16 February—to a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan)—in which he said that he saw the official document only at 8 o'clock that morning? If the Minister had seen the document before he signed the answer, he was misleading the House by painting a half-picture. If the Minister believes in the ethics that the Foreign Secretary preaches, he will resign if he signed that question knowing that there had been a leak.
Mr. Cook: Of course he saw it before he answered that question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes—the Select Committee report itself was published eight days before the answer. Therefore, manifestly, he had seen it. I should say also that the hon. Gentleman was incorrectly

419
paraphrasing the answer that was given. My hon. Friend the Minister was asked when he first saw the Command Paper; he answered that accurately and factually.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Today, we are getting some high-octane humbug from the Opposition. Does my right hon. Friend share my suspicions that, in the previous Parliament, it may well have happened that Conservative Members occasionally gave Ministers fair warning—or, perhaps, unfair warning—of impending criticism of them? Does he agree also that the big difference in the case we are considering is that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) is an honourable man and that he—someone—has resigned?
Mr. Cook: I cannot improve on my hon. Friend's comments.
Mr. Shaun Woodward: The Foreign Secretary has told the House, both today and in written answers, that he has twice been in receipt of leaked information—the draft report and subsequent conclusions. He therefore has undoubtedly "failed deliberately" to inform Parliament—to use words that he used in the House on a previous occasion. Today, he has told the House that the Minister of State also has effectively "failed deliberately" to inform the House. Does not the Foreign Secretary have a duty to report wrongdoing when he knows that it has happened? Is there not a duty on the Minister of State to report wrongdoing when he knows that it has happened? What standards does such behaviour set in public life? Cannot the public deduce from it, "Don't commit the crime, but you can receive the stolen goods"?
On 16 February, in reply to a written question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), the Minister of State gave essentially the same answer as the Foreign Secretary has given today to the House. The answer is simply a clever attempt at obfuscation. However, the Minister of State understood the question. Will the Foreign Secretary now tell the House whether he cleared the answer to that question, and whether he will apologise to the House?
Mr. Cook: No, I did not disclose the draft that I received to the House; I would be in breach of privilege if I had disclosed the report to anyone else. As to the other matters that the hon. Gentleman raised, it was his question yesterday that was fully, frankly, openly and comprehensively answered by us. There is no way in which he can possibly argue that the reply that he received to his question was an obfuscation. Indeed, it is precisely because of that that we are here now. If the previous Government had been as honest and as full in answering questions, they would not have got into so much trouble.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I tell the Foreign Secretary that, as a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, I accept his statement on this sad affair? May I also point out that, from 1983 to 1987, as a then Opposition Member on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, I was aware of wholesale leaking by Government members of that Committee? May I tell him also that I have benefited enormously from
420
the comradeship given to me, both in that Committee and elsewhere, by our hon. and old Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross)? He committed a grievous error of judgment, but has behaved honourably in his resignation. That should not be lost on the odd-job lot who comprise what I call the English rural party.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I note that, as the proceedings have developed, we have still not had a further intervention by Opposition Front Benchers to give us the assurance I sought that leaking was never known to happen under the previous Government.
Sir John Stanley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Minister who accepts and retains a document leaked personally to him by a member of a Select Committee makes himself complicit in the leak?
Mr. Cook: I have already said to the House—I say it again to the right hon. Gentleman—that I have been through "Erskine May" and am quite clear that I have fully complied with the obligations on me as a Minister not to impede or obstruct the work of the Committee, with which I fully co-operated during its inquiry.
Mr. Tom King: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, in the Nolan committee, we drew to the attention of all hon. Members—most of all, to Ministers and senior Members—the responsibility that we all share for maintaining the highest standards of conduct in public life? May I say to him that we also drew attention to the damage that leaks cause to confidence in the integrity of officials, in the civil service and in the working of Government and of Parliament? As a very senior parliamentarian, he knew that the document he received was a document that should not have been given to him.
In those circumstances, does the right hon. Gentleman not believe that the response he has given so far is not maintaining the highest standards of conduct in public life? May I urge him very seriously indeed to consider—in the further representations that the Chairman of the Select Committee said will be made—whether the attitude and approach to what he considers to be his responsibilities should usefully change?
Mr. Cook: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. If there had been a leak of the report, if I had received it and if I had used it to disclose the report, I would indeed deserve all the strictures that he has offered. There were two leaks in advance of publication of the report. Neither of them came from the Foreign Office; both of them came from people who were motivated to be critical of the Foreign Office.
Sir Peter Emery: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, on the date of publication of the report, the Prime Minister went public, and on television two hours before the report was published, made references to recommendations in the report and rubbished the report as he could not have done unless he had been shown part of the report or it recommendations? How is it possible that that could have happened if the

421
situation is as the Foreign Secretary describes it? Should not we be condemning not only the Foreign Secretary, but the Prime Minister for the whole matter?
Mr. Cook: If I followed the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he was referring to the Prime Minister's interview on the "Jimmy Young Show", which took place two hours after the press conference in which the right hon. Gentleman participated. Therefore, there was no difficulty in knowing what the report contained or what the right hon. Gentleman's view was. For the record—once again—the Prime Minister did not see the draft that I saw.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will my right hon. Friend please clarify his answer to a previous question: was the draft report handed over personally to the Secretary of State himself by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross); if not, to whom was it handed over; and to whom was the envelope addressed?
Mr. Cook: No, it was not handed over to me; I understand that it arrived by fax. I do not know to whom the envelope was addressed, but I shall happily answer the questions.
Mr. David Heath: When the right hon. Gentleman calls in aid the performance of the previous Government, does he not appreciate that he and other Labour Members were elected to do rather better than the previous Government? Does he not accept that the appropriate response is frankness, not the type of sophistry revealed in the reply that the Minister gave on Monday? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, given the seriousness of the criticisms in the Select Committee's report of senior officials within his Department, he was quite wrong to have prejudged the issue before giving the Committee's report the reading that it deserved?
Mr. Cook: My answer yesterday was fully frank, as I think would be accepted even by those who tabled the questions. On the subject of prejudging, I must remind the House that the report did not arrive suddenly; indeed, probably no Select Committee report has been longer in gestation than this one. The findings of the report were no surprise to those of us who gave extensive evidence to the Select Committee at repeated sessions. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's last question, I do not think that I was wrong; whether it was that day, the next day or now, I believe that I was right to defend officials against what I thought was disproportionate and unfair criticism.
Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am totally opposed to the leaking of reports, which does Select Committees no good? I do not understand why our hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) did it, but he has admitted it and apologised. However, what would the people of Sierra Leone—who are suffering brutality, deprivation, crimes and atrocities—think of the scene in the House of Commons in the last 10 minutes? Are there not more important matters in the country concerned than this particular minor issue?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend highlights something which, throughout the past seven months, has been an area
422
of bewilderment to the people of Sierra Leone, who know perfectly well that Britain has given more support to their elected and legitimate Government than any other nation. They cannot comprehend the way in which this has become a matter of deep division within our Parliament. They themselves only wish that they were allowed to have a Parliament in which they could have such debates.
Mr. Eric Forth: Which fax machine received the message? If the Foreign Secretary cannot tell us now, will he undertake to do so subsequently? Will he put into the public domain a copy of the fax received, so that everyone can see where it came from and where it went to?
Mr. Cook: Everyone knows where it came from—my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West has already said that. I cannot say which fax machine it came on. The Foreign Office has many fax machines.
Mr. John Randall: Did one copy come out of the fax or several? [Laughter.] I would appreciate if the Foreign Secretary could listen for a moment. If there was just one, did the Foreign Secretary show it to the Minister of State, or did the Minister of State show it to him? Does that constitute a leak?
Mr. Cook: All I can confirm is that it came on fax paper—which is normally white—and had black lettering. The descent of this question into trivia illustrates how little of substance there is actually here.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Foreign Secretary clarify something? He referred earlier to other leaks in the press. I do not know whether I misunderstood him, but I understood him to suggest that those emanated from the Select Committee. Will he reconsider that and state that there is no basis whatever for that assumption about reports which were, in any event, inaccurate?
Mr. Cook: What I said was "in or around the Select Committee". It certainly came from somebody who had the ability to obtain the draft of the report. [HON. MEMBERS: "Your office."] The reports that appeared in the press were certainly not inspired by the Foreign Office. The one in The Independent was fairly accurate about exactly what was to happen, and was placed by somebody who was hostile to the interests of the Foreign Office.
Mr. John Bercow: Why does the Foreign Secretary not simply admit that, when the Minister of State said on 16 February that his Department received copies of the final report on the morning of 9 February, the impression that he was seeking to give was that Ministers in the Department had no foreknowledge whatever of the likely contents of that report? Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept, in retrospect, that by splitting hairs in his pathetic fashion this afternoon, he has managed to discredit himself further even than he has accomplished in the past 21 months?
Mr. Cook: The Minister of State answered the question that he was asked. Yesterday, I answered the question that I was asked. We both answered those questions fully and comprehensively, and the full facts are now in the public domain.

Points of Order
5.35 pm
Mr. Shaun Woodward: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If an hon. Member or a Minister finds himself this evening or tomorrow in receipt of an advance copy of a Select Committee report which has not been published or given to the House, what would be your advice? Should the Minister or hon. Member sit on the document, or should he immediately report having received it?
Madam Speaker: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is trying to continue questions on the statement.
Mr. David Wilshire: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman trying also to continue the questioning of the Foreign Secretary?
Mr. Wilshire: I am seeking clarification, Madam Speaker. if I understood the Foreign Secretary correctly—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but we have had quite some time on this matter. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understood the Foreign Secretary correctly. That is not a matter for me. If he has a point of order, I will listen to it. However, I do not want an interpretation of what he thought the Foreign Secretary said.
Mr. Graham Brady rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber when the Foreign Secretary started his statement.
Mr. Wilshire: Madam Speaker, I believe that this is a genuine point of order. I heard it said that reporting a leaked document to the House amounted to a breach of privilege. Could you confirm whether that is a correct interpretation of the rules of this House?
Madam Speaker: I will have to have notice of that question, as I want to be clear and careful in my answer. If the hon. Gentleman will not mind, I would like notice of the question.
Mr. Wilshire: Thank you.
Mr. Tom King: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: It can hardly be further to it, because I cannot answer it.
Mr. King: I understand that you do not want to prolong this matter, and I entirely understand your answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). However, may I suggest that you address his point in the same way as you have decided to address the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire)? This is a serious matter, and the House
424
is entitled to ask for the Speaker's guidance on the correct procedure. Will you reflect and report to the House on what the response should be?
Madam Speaker: I do not undertake to report to the House, but I will reflect on the matter. I quite understand that, from time to time, the House needs the Speaker's guidance, and I am willing to give it. Over the past few days, I have considered this matter carefully, and I am aware of our procedures according to "Erskine May". I will take the advice of the right hon. Gentleman and look into the matter.
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), as you rightly observed, was assuredly not present in the Chamber for the start of the statement on Kosovo, but he categorically insists—simply for the record—that he was present in the Chamber for the start of the Foreign Secretary's second statement. I can vouchsafe that he is telling the truth, because he has been sitting next to me throughout.
Madam Speaker: I accept the hon. Gentleman's word. I always watch hon. Members on both sides of the House who appear late for a statement, and then try to ask a question or raise a point of order. I accept that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) was not here for the first statement, but was here for the second, and I will take his point of order.
Mr. Brady: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you give some guidance to the House and to Ministers on the correct procedure for answering written questions? Is it sufficient merely to answer with what is deemed to be the most narrow definition possible within the question, or should the answer seek to give the information that is required by the questioner?
Madam Speaker: I fear that I cannot advise Ministers or their offices as to how they might answer questions.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I refer you to page 221 of "Erskine May", which refers to the publication in Hansard of written answers given by Ministers? I understand that there has been guidance from the Editor of Hansard that he will not publish answers of more than five pages. Will you consult the Editor, or look into the matter?
I was given an answer two days ago by the Minister for Local Government and Housing, which went on to five pages. However, one page contained very little information. Therefore, the Minister stated that the requested information had been placed in the Library of the House. The question was about educational expenditure across all local authorities.
We often see full lists of local authorities published in Hansard, because that is a way of giving comparisons. I could have split the question to ask about shire counties and unitary authorities separately, but the Table Office would probably have told me that I should put down one question rather than two. It is important that the answers should be available in Hansard and we should not have

425
to go to the Library for the information. I hope that you will ask the Editor of Hansard to reconsider the ruling, and will give it some consideration yourself.
Madam Speaker: I had some indication of the hon. Gentleman's point of order. The House knows that the substance of replies to questions is a matter for Ministers, not for the Chair. However, Speakers have ruled that there should be a limit of four A4 pages to replies, to avoid Hansard being filled with a few long answers each day. That is sensible and the Minister's action in this case is reasonable. That is the ruling that Speakers have given in the past. Because I knew of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter, I had an opportunity to look up the ruling.

Misuse of Drugs (Amendment)
5.41 pm
Mr. Paul Flynn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow the production, supply, possession and use of cannabis resin for medicinal purposes.
Yesterday, in Swansea, a pensioner was given a cruel and unjust sentence of 12 months. He was given that sentence in the name of this House and all hon. Members. Mr. Eric Mann is known to me and to other hon. Members through his correspondence over several years. He is clearly an intelligent man. This decent and otherwise law-abiding man committed the crime—in the eyes of the court in Swansea and of the House—of using his chosen medicine to relieve his chronic pain.
Like many others, Mr. Mann had tried many conventional and unconventional cures. None of them worked for him, so he decided to use cannabis, with which he found relief from the pain. He was not selling it to anyone. He was not involved in any way in the illegal market. He grew his own. For that, this pensioner is facing a 12–month term of gaol.
There have been many similar cases. In a case last month in Hove, the jury—like many others in such cases—wanted to be compassionate and asked the judge whether they should convict a man who was confined to a wheelchair even if they felt that the law was unjust. The judge told them that it was up to Parliament to change the law, and that they must abide by that and return a verdict. It is up to us to decide the sentences. The responsibility for the savage injustice that has been meted out to Mr. Eric Mann in Swansea lies here.
The House of Lords Select Committee is hardly a bunch of drug-crazed teenagers. Its members are senior and elderly scientists. The Bill reflects their recommendations on the matter—that it should be possible for cannabis to be prescribed by a limited number of doctors in an unlicensed form to named patients, just as heroin and cocaine are supplied. It may come as a surprise to many that heroin and cocaine are prescribed legally. That cannot be done with cannabis. As the Lords Committee recommended, the Bill would also allow further research without the need for a special licence from the Home Office.
The Government's reaction to the report came within nanoseconds of its publication. They said:
"The Government's view is that cannabis should not be available on prescription unless or until the safety, quality and efficacy of a medicinal form had been scientifically established and a marketing authorisation issued by the Medicines Control Agency."—[Official Report, 18 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 607.]
Superficially, that may seem reasonable, but a more telling comment came in The Pharmaceutical Journal, which quoted a Labour party source as saying:
"Whatever the evidence, this administration is not going to risk being seen as soft on drug taking."
That shows the true position. When reading the press releases from the previous Government and this Government, it is impossible to get beyond a couple of sentences before finding the word "tough". Governments regard it as electorally damaging to be seen as soft on drugs.
I hate my party to be seen in this way, but the Government are not tough on drugs, but tough on multiple sclerosis patients, tough on cancer victims and tough on

427
Aids sufferers. The Government seized on the word "unlicensed", as though it is rare to have an unlicensed drug. Some 36 per cent. of the medicines that are prescribed to children in hospitals are unlicensed. They have not gone through trials. The trials for a new drug are rightly very tight, given all the tragedies that have occurred.
However, all the problems that we have had have come from chemical drugs—substances that do not occur naturally in the form in which we are taking them or injecting them in various ways. Cannabis is a natural substance which has been used for at least 3,000 years, according to the records. No medicine has been tried and tested like cannabis sativa. It was used by the people who built the pyramids to help with their eye problems. They did not know why it worked, but it did. Cannabis has been used as a medicine throughout the centuries on every continent. The word in Chinese means "big medicine". Unfortunately, our judgment has been clouded by recreational use, which has come about almost entirely since cannabis was banned.
Many other drugs are given unlicensed. Many of our established medicines would never get through the licensing rules. Several hon. Members have told me that they thought that the problem had been solved and the Government were carrying out trials. Sadly, there is no hope under the current policy of any patient receiving cannabis for at least five years, possibly much longer, because of the complexity of cannabis, which has at least 400 naturally occurring ingredients. The trials may finish in five years, 10 years, sometime or never.
Hon. Members should speak to people suffering from multiple sclerosis who are looking forward to a good night's sleep, which they cannot get without cannabis. Tens of thousands of people are taking it, including those suffering from the foul side effects of chemotherapy and the awful nausea and vomiting that can go on for days, so debilitating the cancer victims that they lose the will to struggle against the cancer. Some who suffer from the dreadful pain of Aids have found solace in this ancient medicine.
When I raised the subject some years ago, I brought three master criminals to the House to hear the debate. They were all women. One of them was in her 30s and a mother of young children. She had MS and found it impossible to control her bodily functions without the use of cannabis. There was another lady in her 60s with
428
cerebral palsy. She was a lovely lady who had a cannabis plant the size of a bush in her garage and kept her spliffs rolled up in a silver cigarette case next to a bust of Queen Victoria, who took cannabis every month of her adult life. The third, Carol Howard, told a moving story of how she cared for her daughter Sara, who was dying from a rare form of cancer. Sara knew that she was dying. Chemotherapy was all that was available, but it had dreadful side effects. The chemical drugs left her a zombie. She could not communicate; but if she took cannabis she could talk lucidly to her family and say those precious things that one wants to say when one realises that death is at hand.
I challenge anyone in the House to say that, in that position, they would not supply their loved ones with cannabis, if that was the only thing that offered relief. If we are not prepared to obey the laws ourselves—and I am sure that none of us would in such a case—how on earth can we continue to justify them?
The principal reason for the recommendation of the House of Lords Select Committee was compassion. Members of the Committee looked into the face of Clare Hodges and of the people from the Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics, which is a patients' organisation that does not, unlike many, get money from drug companies. All its members are seriously ill, most with multiple sclerosis, and suffer exhaustion. They have few resources, but they are behind the Bill and behind previous Adjournment debates on the subject.
Dare we say to those people, as the Government are saying, that they will have to wait for the long time that it takes for this ancient medicine, one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to humankind—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Gordon Prentice, Mr. Brian Cotter, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Dr. Jenny Tonge, Mr. James Wallace, Dr. Brian Iddon, Mr. Andrew George, Mr. Donald Gorrie and Dr. Peter Brand.

MISUSE OF DRUGS (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Paul Flynn accordingly presented a Bill to allow the production, supply, possession and use of cannabis resin for medicinal purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 26 March, and to be printed [Bill 50].
Orders of the Day
  Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Clause 3

  GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF BOARD
  5.53 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 16, leave out line 16.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 18, leave out from 'prosecutions)' to end of line 19.
  Mr. Davies: The most irrefutable evidence of the fact that the Government are determined to disguise from the general public the full moment and purport of what they are trying to achieve in social security by running down and eroding the national insurance system is that we have had two debates on social security Bills this week—one yesterday and one today—and they have done everything possible, using all the tricks available, to curtail debate and distract attention.
  Yesterday, the Government clearly chose to have Second Reading of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill on a day when there was a major statement on the euro that was bound to take the time of the House and capture the headlines. Today, a Bill that abolishes the Contributions Agency and merges it with the Inland Revenue is to be discussed after we have had three ministerial statements. Our debate will again be necessarily, but very unfortunately, curtailed.
  Yesterday's Bill represented the policy aspect of the Government's attack on our national insurance system, while today's represents the administrative side of the same project. Until now, the Contributions Agency has had a separate role, with responsibility, which it has taken very seriously, for collecting national insurance contributions and for the integrity of the separate national insurance fund. All that is to be abolished and the agency will be folded into the Inland Revenue, which collects direct taxation revenue, so in practice there will be no distinction between the national insurance fund and the general Consolidated Fund. That is exactly what the Government are aiming for.
  Clause 3 has a peculiar quirk—it disapplies certain provisions of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890. The amendment would prevent the disapplication, in subsection (3)(c), of the provisions allowing officers to conduct proceedings before justices. It is a matter of common sense that it would not always be in the public interest for the Contributions Agency or, henceforward, the Inland Revenue, to have to brief solicitors and banisters, at their usual fees, to present matters to the courts. It is sensible to provide for officers of the Revenue to have rights of audience. Why, though, is that to be disapplied in the clause but reapplied in paragraph 21 of schedule 1?
  430
  I made that point in Committee and received no satisfactory answer. The whole point of Report is to pick up either problems that have been identified and not resolved in Committee or assurances that have been given in Committee by Ministers and not fulfilled. That enables the House to take a view, in the light of those failures, on how the Bill should be amended before it finally proceeds to Third Reading.
  Amendment No. 2 is, again, a commonsensical amendment. The rights under the 1890 Act of the relevant authority—the Inland Revenue subsuming the Contributions Agency—to mitigate fines and stay proceedings are to be abolished, and that is a thoroughly retrograde step. It is extremely important that any bureaucracy with the wide-sweeping administrative powers that the Revenue has should be able, when it is clearly not in the public interest to proceed against a citizen, to decide not to do so, or indeed to mitigate fines. That negative discretion should be retained, and a positive discretion could be very dangerous to the liberties of the subject.
  The Minister told me in Committee that subsection (3)(f), disapplying section 35 of the 1890 Act, was there because the discretion was already provided, or would be provided, elsewhere in the Bill or in other statutes. She gave me an assurance at column 59 of the Official Report of our Committee that she would give me chapter and verse before the conclusion of our proceedings. She did not do so, and I hope that she will rectify that now. I am afraid that the Opposition intend to continue to take seriously such assurances given by Ministers in Committee.
  6 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): As the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) will recall, we had some interesting discussions on the points covered by amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in Committee. Since then, we have had a further, detailed look at the exceptions provided for in clause 3(3). The technical point spotted by the hon. Gentleman and covered by amendment No. 1 has also been spotted by my officials.
  Clause 4 and schedule 4 of the Bill were introduced at the Lords Report stage for very good reasons. The power for the Revenue to recover small national insurance contribution debts, such as tax debts, in the magistrates courts will make the process of collecting contributions more effective. We agreed on that point in Committee. Unfortunately, at that time it was not noticed that there would be less room for doubt if the Bill also allowed section 27 of the Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890 to apply to NICs, so no consequential technical amendment was tabled in the other place.
  There is unlikely to be a problem in practice, but there is, in principle, the possibility of challenge to the right of a non-lawyer official addressing the court in any proceedings that have not been commenced in their name. Having said that, amendment No. 1 would go too far, because the wholesale removal of clause 3(3)(c) would cause duplication by section 27 of the 1890 Act of other express provision for non-lawyer representation elsewhere in the Bill. If amendment No. 1 were accepted, the whole Bill would have to go back to the other place, taking up time there which could be used much more usefully than in considering a minor technical amendment. For those

  431
  reasons, I cannot accept the amendment, but I can reassure the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford that the application of section 27 to NICs will be secured by a Government amendment to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. Meanwhile, we intend to postpone the commencement of clause 3(3)(c).
  Amendment No. 2 returns to an issue that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford also raised in Committee. It reflects his concern, which I share, that the Inland Revenue should be able to mitigate penalties that apply in relation to national insurance contributions. I can assure him that the amendment is not required to achieve that effect.
  As I stressed in Committee, the main provisions governing what the Inland Revenue can do in relation to penalties are in the Taxes Management Act 1970, and not the considerably more ancient Inland Revenue Regulation Act 1890, which amendment No. 2 would bring further into play. Those provisions apply, among other things, to pay-as-you-earn and national insurance contributions that are recovered alongside PAYE, and will be extended to national insurance contributions generally by clause 3(2) of the Bill. It is those Taxes Management Act rules which provide the reassurance the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford is seeking.
  I promised the hon. Gentleman chapter and verse, and I refer him to section 98 of the Taxes Management Act. Hon. Members will have seen that paragraph 1 of schedule 5 to the Bill extends the penalty provision to cover failure to comply with a contributions inspector's enforcement powers, by bringing section 110ZA of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 into the table in section 98. While section 98 allows the Inland Revenue to charge penalties, it also provides—this is the crucial reassurance the hon. Gentleman seeks—for the Inland Revenue to seek less than the maximum possible penalty.
  Sections 100 to 100B of the Taxes Management Act apply where the Inland Revenue decides to levy a penalty in some amount. They ensure that the person affected by the penalty charge has the right to appeal against the levy of the penalty, and its amount, to the general commissioners or the special commissioners, who are independent of the Inland Revenue. The commissioners can decide that a smaller or no penalty is payable.
  There is more. Section 102 of the Taxes Management Act gives the Inland Revenue a further power to mitigate any penalty. Section 102 is short, and it may help the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford if I read it out:
  "The Board"—
  the Inland Revenue—
  "may in their discretion mitigate any penalty, or stay or compound any proceedings for a penalty, and may also, after judgment, further mitigate or entirely remit the penalty."
  In the light of those reassurances on both points, I hope that the hon Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I am grateful to the Minister. She has now given the House full details in answer to the point raised in amendment No. 2 and I accept her comments in good faith that she has had legal advice that the protections we sought are in the previous legislation.
  432
  I do not know whether to be pleased or sorry about amendment No. 1. Most of us feel chuffed if we manage to spot a technical error in a Bill, but if I have contributed to improving a Bill of which I thoroughly disapprove, I feel unhappy. In either event and in the light of the assurances we have had, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10

  DECISIONS VARYING OR SUPERSEDING EARLIER DECISIONS
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 5, leave out lines 30 to 39 and insert
  'for an officer of the Board to resubmit a case to the Commissioners if, in his view, a material change of circumstances has occurred since an earlier decision was made by the Commissioners; and in any such case it shall be for the Commissioners to determine whether any such change of circumstances which would warrant their setting aside their earlier decision has indeed occurred.'.
  This is not a technical amendment. Indeed, we take strong exception to the present form of clause 10, which, as it stands, is extraordinary. We debated the issue in Committee, but we did not get satisfactory assurances from the Government and we felt that we had to revisit it on Report. Clause 10 would mean that if there had been an appeal by a national insurance payer—a citizen—to the commissioners, and they had found in his or her favour and against the Revenue, that decision could be arbitrarily set aside by an officer of the board on the ground that circumstances have changed.
  It is extraordinary that the two parties to a quasi-judicial process are not treated equally. Far from it, because if the appeal goes against the board, the officer can overrule the commissioners without taking the case back to them. That is completely wrong. The appeal procedure should be a genuine procedure. Under the Government's proposal, the appeal procedure would be bogus and it would be a deception to refer to it as an appeal. It would be a cruel and cynical charade, because the citizen would believe that he had a right of appeal, but, even if he won the appeal before the commissioners, the Revenue could subsequently overturn the decision.
  The Bill provides that the decision of the commissioners can be changed
  "in the event of a material change of circumstances".
  However, that provides no protection, because it is the officer who decides whether there has been such a change of circumstances. Clearly, clause 10 undermines the jurisdiction of the commissioners, who have a right to decide on points of law and points of fact. We cannot have one party to an appeal overruling the commissioners in such a way. That would be arbitrary, tyrannical and bureaucratic government. Amendment No. 3 would make it clear that if the board claimed that there had been a material change in circumstances, it would have to go back to the commissioners and argue the case. That is reasonable. Then, the commissioners could decide whether there had been a material change of circumstances and, if so, whether it warranted a different judgment in that case. That is how any legal procedure should work in a country whose systems are based on the rule of law, as I hope ours always will be.
  Ms Hewitt: As the hon. Gentleman said, we also discussed this issue in Committee, and I hope that I can

  433
  reassure him this time. However, I want to point out that his amendment goes much further than I think—and hope—that he intends. It would mean that the only decisions that could be varied or superseded would be precisely those in which an appeal against the original decision had been determined by the commissioners.
  It may help if I explain the difference between varying and superseding a decision that has been made by an officer of the board. Varying a decision involves amending, in some respect, a decision that has been made; superseding a decision means that a decision that has been made covering an open-ended period of time, and which is correct for the period up to the date on which it was made, later on ceases to be correct after there is a change in the relevant circumstances.
  I can illustrate that with the example of employment status. When a person is engaged to carry out some work, the question of employment status may arise in relation to income tax or national insurance contributions. The decision on the employment status might be that the person is engaged on terms that make his or her status that of an employee from the date of engagement. If it later transpires that the information on which that decision was based was incorrect or incomplete, the decision could be varied to say that, from the outset, the individual in fact had self-employed status.
  However, if the decision was correctly based on the full facts and there was, later on, a change in the terms on which the person was engaged, that decision might cease to be appropriate at that point in time. In that case, the Inland Revenue could make a superseding decision that defined the point in time that the original decision ceased to be applicable and incorporated a fresh decision that was relevant from that point of time onwards.
  The Bill provides that an appeal can be made against both the variation of decisions and against superseding decisions. In practice, few decisions will be the subject of an appeal, essentially because the people affected by them will be content with their terms. However, the amendment would prevent decisions from being varied or superseded in any circumstances unless there had been an appeal against the original decision which had been determined by the tax appeal commissioners and followed by a subsequent change of circumstances. That would mean that most decisions could not be varied or superseded even where it was in the contributor's interests that they should be. If we were to require that, all superseding decisions to be made by the commissioners would mean quite unnecessary hearings in cases where the contributor and the Inland Revenue were in full agreement that a change had occurred. That would mean extra costs to the national insurance fund and extra costs and worries to the contributor.
  That is why we think that it is better, and fairer, to allow the Inland Revenue official to make the fresh decision and to trouble contributors with an appeal only where they disagree. I stress that there is no question of Inland Revenue officials being able to overturn commissioners' decisions at will. Each superseding decision will carry its own right of appeal, and it would be absurd—and potentially a case of maladministration—for an Inland Revenue official to supersede a decision of the commissioners unless the facts had changed, as the appellant would return to the commissioners who would, no doubt, return their original decision.
  434
  I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the powers in clause 10 do not give the sweeping power to officials that he fears, but are instead a necessary provision to save time and worry for contributors. I hope that, in the light of these reassurances, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I am grateful to the Economic Secretary, who has shown that she is capable of giving a lucid and extensive exegesis of the Bill. She seemed less willing to do so in Committee.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Vernon Coaker: That is insulting.
  Mr. Davies: On the contrary, I am making a complimentary remark. I see no reason why the hon. Gentleman should object, and we are making some progress as a result of the Economic Secretary's change of attitude.
  I hope that the Inland Revenue officials unfortunately charged with the future administration of national insurance will read the explanation that we have just heard whenever they come across difficult cases, and that they will be guided by the limiting interpretation of the Bill's powers.
  However, on the basis of what the Economic Secretary has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25

  ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 15, line 4, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 5 and insert
  'not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.
  The reason for the amendment is that the Bill is marked—deformed, even—by an extraordinary number of what are known as Henry VIII clauses. Those are clauses in which the Government simply write themselves a blank cheque for powers to produce regulations on just about everything under the sun. They give no indication of what those regulations might contain, or of any limitation on them.
  The Bill contains even more such clauses than most Bills brought forward by this Government—for example, clauses 9, 10, 13, 14, 15—which is especially sinister—and 24, which deals with Northern Ireland. There is far too much of that sort of thing, and we have tabled the amendment to protect the House and to place some limitation on the freedom of the Executive.
  Power has gone to the Government's head, so the amendment would replace the Bill's provision for resolutions to be passed by negative procedure with a requirement that affirmative resolutions be passed. That would ensure that the House has the opportunity to examine the resolutions when they are put forward.
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): This amendment would require a debate in both Houses before any Order in Council or

  435
  regulations could be made by the Secretary of State or the board of Inland Revenue under the powers in the Bill. However, regulations primarily will be about the detailed procedures for appeals to go down the tax appeals route.
  I suggest to the House that these are not matters of such sufficient moment that we should set down a mandatory requirement for debates on them. The House will recall that the powers in the Social Security Act 1998 to make regulations about decisions, and appeals to the unified appeals tribunals against those decisions, generally use the negative resolution procedure, as do the Taxes Management Act 1970 powers to make regulations about tax appeals.
  I freely accept that the Bill, in clauses 23 and 24, contains broader powers to make secondary legislation, which will also be made under the negative resolution procedure. The appropriateness of this was considered by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation in another place. It is worth quoting from its first report of this Session, dated 9 December 1998, at some length. It states:
  "All the powers in the Bill are subject to negative procedure … the Department's memorandum gives an account of each and the Committee finds it necessary here to refer only to the Henry VIII powers discussed in the next paragraphs."
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said that the Bill had an extraordinary number of Henry VIII powers, but in fact it has only two. The paragraphs mentioned at the end of the quotation from the House of Lords Select Committee cover what are now clauses 23 and 24. In both cases, the Committee considered it appropriate that the negative procedure, as provided in the Bill, should apply. Accordingly, the Committee's recommendation, at paragraph 7, was as follows:
  "The Committee has noted the two Henry VIII powers. There is nothing in the Bill which it is necessary to draw to the attention of the House."
  Let me add to that reassurance. For the avoidance of any possible doubt, nothing in clause 25 downgrades an existing requirement in social security legislation for the affirmative procedure into the negative procedure. If there were any such downgrading, the hon. Gentleman would be quite right to express concern. For example, section 176(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 puts under the affirmative procedure those regulations that increase the rate of class 2 national insurance contributions for certain earners. It would not be right to convert such important matters to the negative procedure, and the Bill does not do so. Paragraph 30 of schedule 3 says:
  "In Section I76(3)(a) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 (statutory instruments subject to affirmative procedure), after 'Secretary of State,' there is inserted 'the Treasury or the Commissioners of Inland Revenue,'."
  Paragraph 30 makes it clear, therefore, that powers subject to the affirmative procedure retain that procedure on their transfer to the Treasury or Inland Revenue, and it is right that that should be so.
  In the main, social security regulations are made under the negative procedure, as has long been the case. Nothing in the Bill changes the degree of scrutiny to which the
  436
  House has been entitled in the past. In the light of those assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I am grateful to the Minister, but I cannot pretend that I am happy with those assurances. The Government are taking far too many powers to make resolutions that are subject to the negative procedure. There is a strong argument for considering how the House handles statutory instruments upstairs, but that is a different subject and I cannot go into it now. The fact that rafts of new powers to make regulations of this kind are being created both in the Government's social security legislation and in many other Bills should give urgency to that argument. In the light of what the Minister has said, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1

  TRANSFER OF CONTRIBUTIONS AGENCY FUNCTIONS AND ASSOCIATED FUNCTIONS
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 22, line 8, at end insert—
  '(4AA) All such deductions, withholdings and payments by the Inland Revenue from sums due to the National Insurance Fund in each financial year shall be subject to a specific audit and report by the Audit Commission.'.
  Again, this is unfinished business from upstairs to which we thought it right to draw the attention of the House. The explanatory memorandum refers, on page 251, to a large number of costs, amounting in gross terms to something in the order of £50 million, which will be incurred as a result of bringing together the Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency. It also talks about savings of £1.4 million in 2000–01, rising to £5.5 million in 2002–03.
  Anyone who reads the explanatory memorandum will therefore reach the reasonable conclusion that there will be a net cost to public funds of several tens of millions of pounds at least. It was with more than some surprise, therefore, that we heard the Under-Secretary say in Committee:
  "There will be savings in public money".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 16 February 1999; c. 12.]
  We never heard what those savings would be. I am perfectly prepared to believe that, despite the substantial initial costs, the Government may count on some savings in future. I am prepared to believe that they will be so great that even when properly discounted to proper value, the net position is positive. However, if that is so, it does not appear in the evidence that the Government have produced, and the only reasonable conclusion that one may draw from the explanatory memorandum is the reverse impression that there will be a net cost to the taxpayer. It is clear that a further explanation is required, and I hope that we shall hear one now.
  Ms Hewitt: I fear that the hon. Gentleman has addressed amendment No. 5, which was not selected, rather than amendment No. 6, which he moved. If I may, I shall explain why amendment No. 6 should be rejected, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman will be content with that.

  437
  Amendment No. 6 deals with the question of the Inland Revenue charging its administrative costs to the national insurance fund in relation to the collection of national insurance contributions. That was an issue on which the hon. Gentleman expressed considerable concern in the Standing Committee, and I trust that I shall be able to reassure him this evening.
  My first point is that there is nothing new in the Inland Revenue charging the appropriate amount of its expenditure to the national insurance fund. That happens already, because the Inland Revenue is responsible for collecting 94 per cent. of national insurance contributions and for carrying out most of the associated administration. Of course, the Revenue charges only the cost belonging to its functions in relation to contributions to the national insurance fund.
  The second point is that Parliament has already addressed, quite comprehensively, the matter that concerns the hon. Gentleman. The existing law—primarily part XII of the Social Security Administration Act 1992—specifies the expenses that can be charged to the national insurance fund, whether by the Department of Social Security or the Inland Revenue. The Act also rightly requires the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine and certify the accounts of the national insurance fund, in a report that is laid before us annually. In other words, the National Audit Office acts as the external auditor of the national insurance fund as well as of expenditure by the Inland Revenue. The NAO also provides us with an annual report detailing the outcome of its independent scrutiny of the national insurance fund. Nothing in the Bill changes that situation.
  Thirdly, the amendment would involve the Audit Commission in the scrutiny of expenditure. Although I have a high regard for the work of the Audit Commission, that extension would not be sensible or appropriate. It would duplicate effort, with both the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission acting as external auditors of the national insurance fund. It would confuse the division of responsibilities between the National Audit Office, which examines the accounts of Government Departments, and the Audit Commission, which audits local authorities and national health service bodies such as hospital trusts.
  I hope that I have made it clear that amendment No. 6 is both unnecessary and inappropriate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw it; if not, I must urge the House to reject it.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I am extremely grateful, as may be imagined, to have had an opportunity to put on the record the considerable concerns expressed in amendment No. 5. The Government have been saved from answering those concerns, and I can see both Ministers laughing, doubtless with great relief. Amendment No. 5 relates to a serious question about the use of public funds, and our points are now on the record. Had I been allowed to do so, I should have wanted to call a vote on it if I had not received the assurances that I required. We do not know whether the Bill will cost or save the taxpayer money, although it seems certain that it will cost the taxpayer a substantial amount. We shall return to that point in another context.
  I accept the Minister's assurances on amendment No. 6. The Audit Commission will plainly have a dual responsibility to audit the Inland Revenue in the normal
  438
  way and to audit the national insurance fund for as long as there remains a national insurance fund, which, unfortunately, seems increasingly something of an illusion. If any future problem is identified by the Audit Commission, or in any other way, and if excessive expenses are being charged to the national insurance fund by the Revenue, we shall certainly remind the Minister of the assurances that she has given the House. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 4

  RECOVERY OF CONTRIBUTIONS WHERE INCOME TAX RECOVERY PROVISIONS NOT APPLICABLE
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 40, line 46, at end insert
  'provided that, where such proceedings are brought without either distinguishing the amounts the employer is liable to pay or specifying the employees in question, the employer, if he be found guilty of any material default in his obligation to pay National Insurance, shall be entitled to be indemnified by the Inland Revenue for any costs and expenses incurred in defending himself in any such proceedings.'.
  This is an important amendment, which would ensure that the Inland Revenue in its new guise—having taken over the Contributions Agency—would not be allowed to conduct fishing expeditions. That is not desirable. It wastes public money if agencies go through companies' books hoping to find something amiss somewhere and it creates tremendous costs for businesses—most of which are entirely honest and should not be burdened with excessive costs of that kind. Such activities can easily destroy the trust that should exist in a free society between the state revenue-raising agencies—in this case, the Inland Revenue—and the public.
  We were concerned about the existing text of the Bill, which states that the Revenue will be allowed to proceed in these inquiries and investigations and to launch proceedings
  "without distinguishing the amounts which the employer is liable to pay in respect of each employee and without specifying the employees in question".
  That is ludicrous. We have provided alternative wording, and I hope that the Government will accept it.
  Ms Hewitt: I think perhaps the hon. Gentleman has invented a new way of speeding up proceedings in the House: he puts on record his concerns about an amendment that has not been selected and I give him the assurances that he seeks on the amendment that has been selected. It is a case of two for the price of one.
  As to amendment No. 7, I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns about fishing expeditions, but I am extremely puzzled about the amendment's wording. It appears to introduce indemnities funded by the national insurance fund—which will remain in existence and is specifically preserved by the Bill—but makes those indemnities available only to those found guilty of a crime. That is curious, and I think that there is a technical fault in the wording of the amendment.
  I stress—I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman—that employers will have every opportunity to discuss with the Inland Revenue what amount of

  439
  contribution is due before recovery proceedings are contemplated. Neither employers nor any other contributor should be compelled to defend recovery proceedings brought by the Inland Revenue just to say that they have been overcharged. However, that situation will not arise.
  Under clause 11 of the Bill, the employer will have the right to take disputes about liability to the tax appeal commissioners and, beyond that, to the courts if some point of law is involved. Recovery proceedings in the magistrates court or the county court will be taken only after disputes about the amount of contributions due in law have been resolved or the time limit for an appeal has passed.
  I turn to the part of paragraph 5 that provides that it is unnecessary for a recovery action to distinguish the amounts due in respect of each employee. Hon. Members may find it helpful if I give an example illustrating why that is a sensible provision—apart from the practical difficulty involved in listing possibly thousands of employees in a court document.
  Suppose an employer allows private use of company cars. Class 1A contributions will be due from the employer, and he must make a return identifying the employees and the cars provided and pay the contributions due. If the employer does not account to the collector of taxes for those class 1A contributions, but chooses instead the alternative payment method, the rules in schedule 4 apply.
  Let us suppose that such an employer simply puts down on the form something like "20 cars of such and such a make" without specifying each employee who uses those cars and then fails to pay some or all of the contributions that are due on those 20 cars. In the first instance, the employer will receive an informal request to pay what appears to be due. However, if the employer repeatedly fails to respond, what can the Inland Revenue sensibly do? The important point is that the Inland Revenue will depend on the employer for information. So the only practical option is for the Revenue to take proceedings for the sum that appears due and to put down what details it has in the legal paperwork, even though it cannot list each employee affected because it does not know who they are. That is what paragraph 5 allows.
  If, on the other hand, the employer responds to informal requests to pay contributions by explaining why, in his view, the amount requested is not due, matters will follow a different course. If agreement cannot be reached, an officer of the Inland Revenue will make a formal decision under the provisions of clause 8 against which the employer can appeal to the tax appeal commissioners.
  Paragraph 5 of schedule 4 in no sense breaks new ground. There is an equivalent provision on the statute book in respect of unpaid income tax due from employers under PAYE procedures. There is also a similar provision for contributions that are payable directly to the collector of taxes—already some 94 per cent. of national insurance contributions. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: It is clear from the Minister's response that some explanation was necessary regarding
  440
  the way in which the powers will be used. We have received that explanation and, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 6

  INFORMATION
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 46, line 3, at end insert
  'except that, in the case of the authorities listed in sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) above, such information shall exclude the names or addresses of individuals.'.
  This amendment involves the important issue of protection of privacy. The Inland Revenue has a very good reputation in this country for preserving the privacy of taxpayers and not revealing personal information to unauthorised parties. We are proud of that tradition and want to preserve it. As the Inland Revenue is expanding its empire and absorbing another agency, concerns naturally arise about this issue.
  Amendment No. 8 arises in connection with paragraph 3 of schedule 6. Schedule 6 provides a list of agencies and Government Departments to which the Revenue will be able to pass information. The amendment deals with paragraph 3 which lists, among the authorities that are entitled to receive information from the revenue, the Health and Safety Executive, the Government Actuary's Department and the Office for National Statistics. Those bodies have thousands of employees, and the House should be concerned at the thought that personal information might be passed unnecessarily into their hands. Hence our amendment.
  We understand that aggregated, impersonal information regarding people's life expectancies, for example, may be required by the Government Actuary's Department and the Office for National Statistics. However, we see no reason why personal details should be revealed, and the purpose of our amendment is to protect the names and addresses of individuals. We received no explanation in Committee as to why that protection could not be afforded. I hope that the Government have reconsidered the matter and will accept our amendment in order to achieve that purpose.
  Ms Hewitt: I will, if I may, expand on the points that I made in Committee. I hope that I shall again be able to reassure the hon. Gentleman on this occasion.
  My first point is that the new section 122AA, as inserted by paragraph 3 of schedule 6, is not about creating new flows of information. The Contributions Agency already passes information to the Health and Safety Executive, the Government Actuary's Department, the Office for National Statistics and the occupational pensions regulatory authority. There is no statutory provision to permit those disclosures: the Department of Social Security makes them on the basis that they are in the public interest.
  However, the Inland Revenue has a statutory duty of taxpayer confidentiality that does not permit the disclosure of information unless there is a specific statutory provision. So to enable the existing disclosures to continue once the Contributions Agency is transferred

  441
  to the Inland Revenue, we must give the Inland Revenue appropriate statutory powers. That is the purpose of this section.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: We have said all along that we do not object to information being provided for the obvious purposes that I have listed. Why does that information have to include personal details? If it does not—if it is only aggregated and impersonal information of the kind to which I referred—why cannot the Government accept our amendment, which offers explicit protection in that regard?
  Ms Hewitt: I shall deal immediately with that point. The Contributions Agency currently provides information to the Health and Safety Executive so that it can conduct studies of mortality rates in certain industries, for example. The HSE provides a list of individuals to the Contributions Agency, which asks whether those individuals have died and, if so, the date of death and the office to which any claim for death grant was made prior to 1986. In those cases, the HSE will have the names and, usually, the national insurance numbers of the individuals involved, so it is not a question of the Contributions Agency disclosing individuals' medical records to the HSE without their prompting. The information permits identification of an individual, but only in so far as it relates to individuals whose names are already held by the HSE.
  The Contributions Agency needs to be able to respond to the HSE's requests for information. To carry out the epidemiological studies for which it is responsible, it has to have information about actual individuals. If it cannot provide the details to match to the name, which would be the practical effect of the amendment, the work would have to stop.
  On the Government Actuary's Department, the Department of Social Security collects statistical information from the national insurance record keeping system and the P14 employer returns—the returns of PAYE tax and national insurance contributions deducted—not least to enable me to answer statistical questions from hon. Members. This information includes personal identification details such as the national insurance number so that longitudinal studies of an individual's history of employment and pensions may be made. Some of that information is passed to the Government Actuary's Department. The identifier in this case is the national insurance number rather than the name or address, but it is unique. There may be two gentlemen called Quentin Davies, but they will have different national insurance numbers.
  The Contributions Agency also provides statistical and financial information direct to the Government Actuary's Department to enable it to forecast contributions and contributory benefits. In those cases, and with transfers to the Office for National Statistics, it is highly unlikely that the information would be sufficient to identify individuals.
  New section 122AA provides a statutory basis to allow the Inland Revenue to disclose certain information to four organisations to whom the agency already discloses information. It may identify individuals in the sort of situation that I described, but only so far as is necessary for those organisations to carry out their business. I hope that I
  442
  have reassured the hon. Gentleman that his amendment is unnecessary because most of the information will not permit the identification of individuals, while his amendment would prevent the effective operation of, in particular, the HSE. With that reassurance, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: I am glad that the hon. Lady has evidently thought carefully about this. Once again, the assurances are on the record. It is important for the agencies that will administer the Bill that they should be. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  6.43 pm
  Mr. Timms: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The Third Reading debate traditionally provides an opportunity to thank hon. Members who have taken part in our debates. I am grateful for the work and help of my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary. This has been a good example of joined-up government and of how our Departments work together.
  The Bill has also been an interesting example of disjointed opposition. It has rightly been asked why, given the clear Treasury interest in the Bill, and with Social Security and Treasury Ministers working together, no member of the Opposition Treasury team appeared during our deliberations. I can reveal the reason: the shadow Chancellor supports the measure. When the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) was challenged on the point by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security on Second Reading, he said that the shadow Chancellor's position would become clear when he voted that evening. He was right; it became crystal clear. The shadow Chancellor did not vote that evening. He declined to support his colleagues in the Lobby on Second Reading because he has always been a strong supporter of this measure.
  The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) has been indefatigable in his questioning, for which I pay tribute to him. He is also on record as having supported measures along these lines. He put his name to the report last February of the Tax Law Review Committee, which called for a merger of the appeals processes for tax and national insurance. It is difficult to reconcile that with the position that he took in our debates. Nevertheless, I pay tribute to his energy.
  The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) has been supportive, if, thankfully, less vociferous. I pay tribute to his diligence, and am pleased that he is in his place. Once we rid the debate on the Bill of the baggage that Conservative Members tried, and failed, to attach to it, we are left with a sensible administrative measure that reduces burdens on business. I have referred several times to the report of the 1994–95 deregulation task force, chaired by the shadow Chancellor, which recommended the merger of the Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency. That urged the Government to action. The Bill takes forward that action. I urge Conservative Members to join the Government, the business community, the Liberal Democrats and even the shadow Chancellor in supporting the Bill, which I commend to the House.
  6.46 pm
  Mr. Quentin Davies: We made clear yesterday what we thought about the Government's project to undermine the national insurance system. We think that it is a very damaging and thoroughly disreputable project which not only breaks the consensus on the national insurance system that has existed since the coalition Government in the second world war, but goes against all the assurances that the Government gave the electorate in the past. As we saw last night, it is much against the principles and conscience of many Labour Members. It is a thoroughly bad project which we shall continue to oppose. We shall have many opportunities to do that in Committee on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, which goes upstairs next week.
  I do not want to repeat arguments that are important but which the House has heard in the past 24 hours, so I do not believe that there is any useful purpose in proceeding with discussion this evening. This is a very bad Bill for a very bad and nefarious purpose. It does no credit to the Government, who have used every trick in the book to try to disguise from the British public the reality of what is going on.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 344, Noes 89.

  Division No. 74]

  [6.48 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Browne, Desmond

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Ainger, Nick

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Burden, Richard

  Allan, Richard

  Burgon, Colin

  Allen, Graham

  Burnett, John

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Burstow, Paul

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Campbell, Menzies (NE File)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Banks, Tony

  Caplin, Ivor

  Barnes, Harry

  Casale, Roger

  Barron, Kevin

  Caton, Martin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cawsey, Ian

  Beard, Nigel

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Chaytor, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Church, Ms Judith

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Clapham, Michael

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Benton, Joe

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Berry, Roger

  Clelland, David

  Best, Harold

  Coaker, Vernon

  Betts, Clive

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Blackman, Liz

  Cohen, Harry

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Coleman, Iain

  Blizzard, Bob

  Connarty, Michael

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Brake, Tom

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Cranston, Ross

  Breed, Colin

  Crausby, David

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Cummings, John

  444

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Dafis, Cynog

  Hurst, Alan

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hutton, John

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Illsley, Eric

  Davidson, Ian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jamieson, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jenkins, Brian

  Denham, John

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Drew, David

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Edwards, Huw

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Ennis, Jeff

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Etherington, Bill

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Keetch, Paul

  Fisher, Mark

  Kemp, Fraser

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Flynn, Paul

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Follett, Barbara

  Kidney, David

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Laxton, Bob

  Foulkes, George

  Fyfe, Maria

  Lepper, David

  Gapes, Mike

  Leslie, Christopher

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Levitt, Tom

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Linton, Martin

  Gerard, Neil

  Livingstone, Ken

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Livsey, Richard

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Lock, David

  Goggins, Paul

  Love, Andrew

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McAllion, John

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gorrie, Donald

  McCabe, Steve

  Graham, Thomas

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McDonnell, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McFall, John

  Gunnell, John

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hain, Peter

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hancock, Mike

  McNulty, Tony

  Hanson, David

  MacShane, Denis

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Harvey, Nick

  Mallaber, Judy

  Healey, John

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Heppell, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Marshall—Andrews, Robert

  Hill, Keith

  Martlew, Eric

  Hinchliffe, David

  Maxton, John

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Hoey, Kate

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Home Robertson, John

  Meale, Alan

  Hood, Jimmy

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hope, Phil

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  445

  Moore, Michael

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Soley, Clive

  Morley, Elliot

  Spellar, John

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mountford, Kali

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mudie, George

  Stevenson, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Norris, Dan

  Stott, Roger

  Oaten, Mark

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Olner, Bill

  O'Neill, Martin

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Pearson, Ian

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pendry, Tom

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Thompson, William

  Pickthall, Colin

  Timms, Stephen

  Pike, Peter L

  Tipping, Paddy

  Plaskitt, James

  Todd, Mark

  Pound, Stephen

  Touhig, Don

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Trickett, Jon

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Trimble, Rt Hon David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Truswell, Paul

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Purchase, Ken

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Tyler, Paul

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Wallace, James

  Radice, Giles

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Rapson, Syd

  Wareing, Robert N

  Raynsford, Nick

  Watts, David

  Rendel, David

  Webb, Steve

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  White, Brian

  Rogers, Allan

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Rooker, Jeff

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wills, Michael

  Salter, Martin

  Winnick, David

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wise, Audrey

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wood, Mike

  Sheerman, Barry

  Woolas, Phil

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wray, James

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Singh, Marsha

  Wyatt, Derek

  Skinner, Dennis

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mr. Greg Pope and

  Mr. Kevin Hughes.

  446

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Johnson Smith,

  Amess, David

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Key, Robert

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Baldry, Tony

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Bercow, John

  Lansley, Andrew

  Blunt, Crispin

  Leigh, Edward

  Boswell, Tim

  Lidington, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Loughton, Tim

  Brady, Graham

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Brazier, Julian

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Butterfill, John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Cash, William

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Norman, Archie

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Page, Richard

  Pickles, Eric

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Randall, John

  Collins, Tim

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Colvin, Michael

  Ruffley, David

  Cran, James

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Swayne, Desmond

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Fabricant, Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Garnier, Edward

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Gill, Christopher

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Townend, John

  Gray, James

  Trend, Michael

  Green, Damian

  Viggers, Peter

  Greenway, John

  Walter, Robert

  Grieve, Dominic

  Waterson, Nigel

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Willetts, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Wilshire, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Hayes, John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Heald, Oliver

  Woodward, Shaun

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Yeo, Tim

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Horam, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Sir David Madel and

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Mrs. Eleanor Laing.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.
  It being after Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), further proceedings stood postponed.

  City of London (Ward Elections) Bill (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before the start of the debate, will you clarify the exact process whereby declarations of interest, specifically with regard to the City of London corporation, should be made before contributions are made to the debate? In particular, I refer you to the code of conduct together with the "Guide to the Rules Relating to the Conduct of Members", which says on page 8, in paragraph 11:
  "Any Member having a registrable interest which has not at the time been registered, shall not undertake any action, speech or proceeding of the House (save voting) to which the registration would be relevant until notification has been given to the Commissioner for Standards of that interest."
  As you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are various categories, including a miscellaneous category that covers any relevant interests not falling into the other categories, as well as gifts, benefits and hospitality.
  Will you rule whether being a Freemason falls within any of those categories, in particular the miscellaneous category, and is therefore an interest that should be registered and declared by a Member and, if it is not declared, that Member should not be taking part in this debate, save by voting?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): That is not a matter on which I can rule at this point. Any further clarification that is required on the standards to be observed by hon. Members must come from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, not from the Chair on an occasion such as this.
  Mr. McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like clarification. It has been alleged that the Bill—and therefore the debate—contravenes the first protocol of the European convention for the protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms, which was conferred into British law by this Parliament after the passing of the Human Rights Act 1998. That protocol relates to the right to free elections. It states in article 3:
  "The High Contracting Parties"—
  the United Kingdom Government—
  "undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people"—
  not business—
  "in the choice of the legislature."
  The issue is that, our having passed the convention into UK law, the Bill is in contravention of the Human Rights Act and the debate is therefore illegal. I ask for your ruling on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not a matter for the Chair to make that determination. It is a matter for the courts. The point that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make as a point of order can certainly be raised in the debate.
  Mr. McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you therefore clarify the
  448
  Speaker's role in guiding the House on any illegal activity? Surely it is a matter for the Speaker to ensure that the House remains within its powers and does not overstep any international commitments or legislation that we have signed up to.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman flatters the Chair in thinking that the Chair can rule on such matters. The role of the Chair is entirely to rule on matters of order in this House, dealing with the business that comes before the House for debate. What the hon. Gentleman seeks is outside my capacity.
  Mr. Stuart Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It should not be allowed to remain on the record that the House could be in any way conducting an illegal sitting or proceedings. The House of Commons is entirely sovereign and we are duly elected to represent our constituents. It should not be thought for a minute that the House could in any way act illegally.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that no such implication was made in the exchanges so far.
  Mr. McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course, there was no such implication. However, we have enacted the human rights legislation, and it makes illegal any act in the United Kingdom that is in contravention of the European convention for the protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms or the furtherance of any such act. It is therefore important that, before the debate proceeds further, we should have clear guidance, if necessary from the Lord Chancellor's Department. I accept that this body is sovereign, and in our sovereignty, we passed the human rights legislation, this time last year, to sign up to the protocol. It is therefore critical—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now clearly straying into the realms of debate. He may have an opportunity to catch my eye if he wishes to develop that argument, but the Bill before us has patently not yet been passed into legislation. If there were any suggestion that it was incompatible with other legislation, that would be a matter for the courts, certainly not for the Chair on this occasion.
  Mr. McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to strain your patience—you have been exceptionally good to me so far.
  The debate takes place under Standing Order No. 20 of "Standing Orders of the House of Commons—Public Business 1999". The Bill is private business and the Standing Order relates to private business. The motion in my name and that of my hon. Friends to delay consideration of the Bill proposes:
  "That the Bill be read a second time upon this day six months."
  I accept that, under Standing Order No. 20, it is open to the Chairman of Ways and Means to appoint business, but will you clarify the grounds on which the Bill has been timetabled for consideration today and what reasons there are for doing so before the end of the six-month period?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is entirely within the discretion of the Chairman of Ways and Means when to

  449
  set down business for consideration, and that cannot be questioned on a point of order. I have made a ruling and determination that this is the evening on which the Bill should be considered, and that is the end of the matter.
  Mr. McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any method by which the Chair must explain his or her ruling on those matters and the grounds on which that timetabling has been decided, and other business has not been given priority? I would welcome, as I am sure other hon. Members would, the opportunity to debate that procedure.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, there is no such opportunity. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to criticise decisions of the Chair, he must do so on a substantive motion. I am merely trying better to order the business that comes before the House. Certain slots have to be provided for the disposal of private business, and I have tried to discharge that function in a perfectly impartial way.
  Mr. McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No criticism was intended; I am engaged in an honest search for the truth and clarification, and I thank you for that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
  7.9 pm
  Mr. Peter Brooke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Many things in the City of London have a very long history. The local electoral system dealt with in the Bill is certainly one of them. In recent times, the shortcomings of the system have been the subject of some criticism—shortcomings that have been recognised by the City corporation itself.
  Dealing with those shortcomings legislatively has, however, been less straightforward, but it is what the corporation seeks to do in the measure. It does so in the context that none of the political parties now has a policy of abolishing the corporation, so the issue is one of reform and of how the City's various interests may be more evenly represented.
  Although the Bill is corrective in nature, it would be quite wrong to infer that local government in the City has failed to work. The reverse is the case. The common council, which discharges the local authority functions in the City, is widely credited for its innovative activities. Indeed, one of the foundations of the success of the City as the leading international financial centre is the support that is given by its own dedicated local authority, to which the present Prime Minister testified in a lecture in the City in September 1996.
  The corporation's support for democratic rights also has a long history. This speech is not the occasion for that trawl through history, but it is perhaps worth recalling that the passage of the Great Reform Bill of 1832 through the House followed strident petitions to Parliament from the City civic urging those reforms.
  The last royal commission on London local government, which sat for three years between 1957 and 1960—perhaps I should declare an interest and say that it
  450
  was appointed by my father—recognised the distinct nature of local government in the City, and recommended its retention.
  The approach of the commission has been continued by the present Government. In their Green Paper "New Leadership for London", the Government stated in paragraphs 1.10:
  "We have made it clear that we do not intend to abolish the City Corporation. In recent years the City Corporation has sought to play a much more positive role in order to promote inward investment and to fund schemes and studies for the benefit of London as a whole. The Corporation has assured the Government that it will continue to develop this work and has accepted that it must respond to the need to improve its electoral arrangements."
  Paragraph 1.11 continues:
  "The Corporation is currently devising detailed proposals to improve its franchise, including that for Aldermen, so that it represents more accurately the various interests in the Square Mile".
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Brooke: I had not quite finished shall give way when I have done so.
  The Green Paper goes on:
  "We look forward to detailed discussion with the Autumn."
  I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Leigh: My right hon. Friend mentioned aldermanic elections. A friend of mine, Mr. Malcolm Matson, was elected in an entirely proper way by his ward to the aldermanic bench. Then, for no good reason that I can divine, he was prevented from taking his place on the aldermanic bench. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the Bill goes through, that unfortunate state of affairs cannot arise again?
  Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I, too, know Mr. Matson, and have known him for a long time. My hon. Friend describes accurately the circumstances of that episode. It is the case—arising not out of the Bill, but out of the rules of the City corporation—that such an event will not occur again. I can confirm that to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Andrew Love: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Throughout the rest of local government, aldermen have been abolished. Does the Bill contain provision for that, and if not, should it include such provision?
  Mr. Brooke: I understand the hon. Gentleman's question. As local government in the City of London goes back many centuries before it was developed in other parts of the country, the tradition of aldermen is a particularly old one in the City—older than in much local government that was formed in the 19th century. The royal commission to which I referred acknowledged that the City of London was different from other local government, it acknowledged that the City was an anomaly, and it argued that it should continue to exist, with reform. When aldermen were abolished elsewhere by legislation in the 1970s, the aldermen in the City of London were retained and are not affected by the Bill.

  451
  The discussions referred to in the Green Paper have taken place and have been fruitful. The White Paper entitled, "A Mayor and Assembly for London" records in paragraphs 1.25 and 1.26:
  "In New Leadership for London we made it clear that we do not propose to abolish the City Corporation. In reaching this decision we were relying upon the assurance that the Corporation would continue its work in promoting inward investment and financing studies for the benefit of London as a whole, and had accepted that it must respond to the need to improve its electoral arrangements. The Corporation has produced its own proposals for reform which have been the subject of consultation and discussion with those who live in the City and the variety of bodies which operate there."
  Mr. McDonnell: I sit with the right hon. Gentleman on the Committee that is considering the Greater London Authority Bill, and am now the secretary of his fan club because of his articulateness in that Committee.
  On the statement by the Labour party before the election, does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the commitment not to abolish the City corporation was conditional on adequate reform proposals being brought forward as a result of the Bill, and that if adequate proposals are not brought forward during this Parliament or this Government's term of office, abolition may well proceed? The reforms must therefore be genuine, proper and democratic.
  Mr. Brooke: Perhaps I made the mistake of not completing the quotation before I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, as I did in the case of my hon. Friend. However, I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman. I am not, of course, privy to what went on in the Labour party in the run-up to the election. I detect, however, that the City corporation got the message that was being communicated to the City about the need to reform its electoral arrangements. The corporation has presented the proposals to the Government in order to verify that the Government were seeking that degree of electoral reform.
  It may be helpful if I quote the paragraph in the White Paper, which states:
  "These proposals involve both reforming the existing franchise in order to prevent abuse and the extension of the electoral system to give a wider variety of bodies and organisations voting rights within the Square Mile. We shall continue to maintain an interest in the Corporation's proposals for reforming its franchise as they develop."
  In that sense, the hon. Gentleman is quite right—we are in real-time business.
  I happily give way to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).
  Mr. Tony Benn: The right hon. Gentleman will know as well as any of us that there has never been any change in our electoral system without a Speaker's Conference. It has always been understood that the Boundary Commission and electoral reform of all kinds have developed in this way. Can he explain to the House what it is about the City that allows it to change its own electoral system, without considering the impact that that would have on the rest of the country, or the interests of the parties involved? What gives the City the right to draft its own constitution? Is it a city state? Is it an offshore island? What is the status of the City that allows it even to contemplate such a change?
  Mr. Brooke: I take the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's question. I have had the pleasure of listening
  452
  to many of his speeches down the years. The fact that the City was so early into democratic principles—much earlier, I fear, than even Parliament—means that much of what we are discussing is hallowed, but there is a charter going back to the reign of Edward III in 1341.
  The right hon. Gentleman will recall that when we were discussing the White Paper on reform of the House of Lords, I raised with him the fact that he had omitted from his list of House of Lords reforms the 1857 proposal that there should be life peers in the House of Lords, which was defeated in the House of Lords. It was in exactly the same year that the last comprehensive reform of the City of London occurred.
  The ability for modification has persisted. When the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Cabinet in 1969, three wards of the City of London had their boundaries altered within the City, without reference to the Boundary Commission. I am not in any way holding him responsible for that—it would not naturally have fallen to the Postmaster General, although in a funny sort of way it might have done, because postcodes might well have been involved. It has been a persistent fact that the City has that ability.
  Mr. Benn: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Representation of the People Act 1948, which abolished the business vote, is to be repealed in part by this Bill, which will restore the business vote in contradistinction of the law laid down for the whole country by the post-war Parliament?
  Mr. Brooke: I am very hesitant to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, whose historical knowledge is much greater than mine. In 1948, neither he nor I was in the House of Commons, but he was a member of the Cabinet in 1969 when the business vote was taken away in local government elections. There is a slight hazard in his using parliamentary elections as a read-across into what happened within the City of London. When the 1969 Act was passed, the then Home Secretary, the noble Lord Callaghan, specifically accepted the business vote in the City and retained it because the City was different from other entities of local government. In that respect, he was echoing the judgment of Lord Herbert in the royal commission approximately a decade earlier.
  Mr. Tony Baldry: Having heard almost "The Guinness Book of Records" number of points of order, I wondered whether my right hon. Friend could help me. If the Bill is passed, will more or fewer people living and working in the City of London be entitled to vote for the common council?
  Mr. Brooke: The number of people who will cast votes in the City of London will go up substantially. The number of residents voting will be the same as the number of residents allowed to vote now, but the number of people voting will rise by 39,000.
  Dr. Brian Iddon: What is the percentage of the total votes that residents would have in future, compared with now? Would it remain the same, would it go up—or would it go down, as I suspect is the case?
  Mr. Brooke: In the natural order of things, and in the light of the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member

  453
  for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), the percentage of votes cast by residents would fall if the number of residents' votes does not go up, and the number of business votes does go up. However, it is not quite as simple as that. The residential vote is concentrated largely in certain wards, where the percentage of votes held by residents will continue at the same level. Therefore, no change will occur in terms of the election result.
  Mr. Iain Coleman: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the percentage figure in terms of resident voters will fall from one in four now to less than one in 10?
  Mr. Brooke: I think that the hon. Gentleman is approximately right. However, that does not contradict the points that I have made to the hon. Member for Bolton, SouthEast (Dr. Iddon), who asked me about the percentage of residential votes. As residential votes are primarily concentrated in what I might call certain residential wards, their ability to influence the corporation will be exactly the same as before, because residents will cast votes in the wards where they are very much predominant.
  I was saying that the proposals before the House deal primarily with how a wider range of bodies and organisations are, consistent with the comments in the White Paper, to be given voting rights. Because the City is overwhelmingly a place for doing business, it is inevitable that the business dimension will be prominent. The wholly atypical nature of the City hardly needs restating, having been recognised by the last royal commission, the local government commission and by the 1969 Labour Government, to which I referred in response to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), when they kept the business vote of the City while abolishing it elsewhere.
  Mr. McDonnell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brooke: I do not wish to ration the hon. Gentleman. It was perfectly clear from his points of order that he has a profound interest in this subject. Of course I shall give way.
  Mr. McDonnell: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that the City is profoundly atypical, yet in my constituency is a location called Stockley park, a vast expanse of land containing numerous businesses but only two residents. It is as atypical as the City because it deals with almost as many individual companies pro rata within a smaller area. On that basis, would the right hon. Gentleman advocate a business vote within that area, and therefore the withdrawal of the democratic right of individuals to control the area via their local authority?
  Mr. Brooke: I respond gingerly to that question, in case you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should rule me out of order, for the hon. Gentleman takes me into the realms of the total reform of local government. Moreover, he turns
  454
  his back on the noble Lord Callaghan, who specifically singled out the City from every other local authority in the country.
  Mr. Peter Bradley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brooke: Yes, provided that I can remember my place in my speech.
  Mr. Bradley: May I take the right hon. Gentleman back to the proposition that he made a couple of minutes ago that, as residents of the City of London are concentrated in certain wards, their democratic leverage on the corporation of London is somehow enhanced? I took my time considering this and cast my mind back over the 10 years that I spent on the other most democratic local authority in the country, the City of Westminster, to see whether, in my experience, his proposition was correct. Does not the fact that there will be 39,000 additional electors—all members of the business rather than the residential community—outweigh any leverage that 5,000 people, no matter how concentrated they are in certain wards, have over the policy making of the corporation of London?
  Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the point that I was making. I am grateful to him for his remark about Westminster, which enables me to mention briefly what I left out of my draft. I referred earlier to the 1832 reform Bill. So liberal was the franchise in Westminster in the run-up to the 1832 Bill that after it had been passed the people of Westminster still had a more generous franchise than the rest of the country was getting under the Bill.
  In response to the hon. Gentleman's question, the point remains exactly the same: the proportion of members of the common council representing residential wards will be the same in the new common council as it was in the old, because members will continue to be elected for the residential ward. To be fair to myself, I do not think that I used the word "enhanced". I was saying that their position was effectively unchanged by the move.
  As the hon. Gentleman mentioned Westminster, I shall return to my speech, in which I was about to make a comparison with Westminster. May I give a flavour of the distinctiveness by reference to figures taken from the two halves of my constituency? In the W1 postal district I have as many businesses as I have households. Obviously, there are a number of wards in that area. In the City, 50 times as many people are engaged in business as there are electors. The density of employees per square kilometre is more than 88,500 in the City, whereas in Westminster it is 22,325, or approximately a quarter.
  The proposals in the Bill are novel, but they deal with a novel situation. They build on the existing business franchise. Clauses 1 and 2 set out the short title and define the terms used in the Bill. Clause 3, which is the principal provision, replaces the existing residential and business electoral qualifications with the qualifications in subsections (1)(a), (1)(b) and (1)(c). Subsection (1)(b) is straightforward and deals with the residential voter. Subsections (1)(a) and (1)(c) deal with the business or commercial voter. The subsections have a common thread, which is that personal physical presence for what

  455
  the Bill terms "relevant purposes" is needed. The relevant purposes in the context of the Bill will normally be business purposes.
  In the case of an individual in business on his own account as a sole proprietor or partner, that individual will have to satisfy the requirement of personal physical presence—that is, he must actually work in the City. In the case of an incorporated body—usually a limited company—or an unincorporated body, the personal physical presence must be satisfied by those representing or working for the company in the City. In other words, companies cannot be "shells". They must have people working on the premises—[Interruption.] I see the pleasure that that thought gives the right hon. Member for Chesterfield.
  Dr. Iddon: My question is simple: could such persons work in the City for only one day?
  Mr. Brooke: No, not for only one day. To respond with intellectual honesty to the hon. Gentleman's question, I should say that the figure goes down to a rateable value of £200, but £200 is calculated as being the rateable value that someone is required to have in order to have a person working in the City, even if he is working as a single individual. One day would not be sufficient. Indeed, the rateable value has been chosen to get away from transient problems, which other proposals might have involved.
  In the case of an individual—
  Mr. Love: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brooke: I have started on this paragraph so I shall finish it, as I have a degree of curiosity about what is at the end of the speech myself.
  An individual in business on his own account as sole proprietor or partner must have people working on the premises. That approach prevents giving the vote to notional occupiers—I should not have allowed the hon. Member for Bolton, SouthEast to interrupt me at the moment he did—which is a distortion that can arise under the current system.
  I should also mention that subsection (4) makes it clear that no individual can vote more than once, whatever the capacity by which he satisfies the electoral qualifications. That cures another latent defect in the present system. That will please the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, although it is not matched in the affairs of this House. If there are two by-elections on one day in different parts of the country, and a particular individual has a vote in both places, he is, under the laws of the land, able to exercise both votes, but he cannot vote more than once in each of the elections.
  Clause 3(2) sets the period of currency for the new ward lists as annually beginning with 16 February. That aligns the City with the general law in the Representation of the People Acts. There are consequential amendments on dates in schedule 2. The administration of the City's system, particularly the compilation of the provisional ward lists, has, however, required the setting of a somewhat earlier qualifying date for entry on the ward lists–1 September as opposed to 10 October, under the general law—to enable the operative date for the annual ward lists to coincide with the national scheme.
  456
  Apart from dealing with various exceptional circumstances relating to multiple occupation, schedule 1 sets out the entitlement of limited companies and other qualifying bodies, as the Bill terms them, to appoint individuals to vote. The basic requirement is that a company—
  Ms Karen Buck: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brooke: I will, of course, give way to my parliamentary neighbour.
  Ms Buck: The right hon. Gentleman is very kind. Will he confirm that voters, as opposed to the occupiers who nominate them, need not be workers in the City or, indeed, need never have set foot in the City, which they will then purport to represent?
  Mr. Brooke: The hon. Lady makes a correct statement, but—not least because of pressure from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), whose intervention I have been constantly expecting as the debate has progressed and which I am confident that I shall, in due course, receive—the code by which qualifying bodies will choose the people who will cast their votes for them will be made public. That code carries with it the "Clapham omnibus", sensible and reasonable assumption that people will be chosen who actually have something to do with the City, for there would be little point in putting them on the body if they did not.
  The basic requirement is that a company will be entitled to appoint individuals according to the rateable value of the premises occupied. Up to a rateable value of £10,000, they will be entitled to appoint one individual. Over that figure, and up to £1 million, there will be an entitlement to appoint additional individuals based on £10,000 rateable value bands. Over £1 million, they will be entitled to appoint additional individuals based on £100,000 rateable value bands. That, therefore, gives a taper to the entitlement.
  The standard local government qualification—
  Mr. Love: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brooke: Yes. The hon. Gentleman has been extremely patient; he might have drawn my attention to the fact that I had completed the paragraph.
  Mr. Love: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I did not intervene to show that he was not showing favour to his parliamentary neighbour. May I confirm that hon. Members always enjoy his contributions, so we will be listening carefully through to the end?
  You have laid out for us the basis of the—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that he should be addressing the right hon. Gentleman, not the Chair.
  Mr. Love: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The right hon. Gentleman has laid out for us the basis of the new franchise, which will concentrate control in the hands of business, but the City of London authority is a local government authority. It provides a considerable

  457
  number of services to those who live in the City. If the franchise is to be changed in such a way, is not there an argument that the authority should no longer be part of local government, as it has been in the past?
  Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman takes me into a semantic jungle that I am ill-equipped to traverse, but in any Bill applying to the City of London—when he has seen as many Bills as I have, he will begin to learn the phrase-there is always a separate, particular and specific reference to the City of London, because it is not a local authority like any other. That is a statutory observation, not simply something born of Lord Herbert's decision in the royal commission.
  The standard local government qualifications governing aspects such as nationality will apply to all electors. In other words, the voting rights will be the same as for local government elections. The system proposed acknowledges that the rating list is a convenient source, and that the size of premises bears some relationship to what the occupier pays in rates for the premises and also to the number of people likely to be working there.
  Clause 4 deals with the procedures by which—
  Mr. Peter Bradley: Can the right hon. Gentleman clarify one issue? If the building is vacant and no one is working there, but the landlord is paying rates, will he still be entitled to the same franchise as someone who is trading from a building?
  Mr. Brooke: No. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been hanging on my every word, but there must have been a moment in which he missed a sentence of mine. I have specifically said that an empty building would not have representation.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I delayed until the last possible moment before intervening.
  I have two specific questions. First, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, as a matter of law, in the Bill as drafted, it is entirely up to what the Bill describes as the qualifying body to decide how to allocate its votes? For example, it could raffle them. Secondly, will he confirm that there is nothing to prevent someone being nominated by a qualifying body, even if he works for the City of London—the corporation—or has some commercial interest linked to it?
  Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct in respect of his first question, although anyone who engaged in a raffle would have to pay attention, not only to the laws relating to raffles, but to those relating to criminal proceedings in British elections. That would be a slightly hazardous way of choosing a candidate.
  I may have to respond later, under advisement, to the hon. Gentleman's second point. I am not conscious of a restraint in respect of the individual, although I think that he should be an employee. Even on that I am not certain, so I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to him for raising the question.
  Clause 4 deals with the procedures by which the individuals appointed to vote will be entered on the ward lists. The town clerk, who is responsible for administration of electoral matters, will undertake inquiries to identify the
  458
  qualifying bodies and will request details from them about their appointments. The individuals concerned will then be entered on the ward lists.
  Clauses 5 and 6 and schedule 2 deal with amendments and repeals and a saving for elections to be held under the current system before the new ward lists become operational. Some aspects of the reforms are not dealt with in the Bill. That is because they are being provided for through the City's legislative powers, about which the right hon. Member for Chesterfield asked me earlier. The corporation will deploy those powers to provide for four-year terms of election, consistent with the arrangements in London boroughs. The date of ward elections will be aligned with the election season for the boroughs; elections in the City currently take place in December.
  The corporation will examine the ways in which turnout may be enhanced by means of practical voting arrangements, including the location of polling stations. That, too, was a worry for the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. The corporation has already said that it will publish a code of practice on the appointment of individuals to vote by qualifying bodies, and work on that is in hand. In the corporation's view, it is appropriate for the allocation of appointments to reflect the nature of the organisation and its work force, including its gender mix. I hope that will reassure the hon. Gentleman.
  I should refer specifically to the position of residents. A number of Labour Members have already given me ample opportunities to do so. Under the existing system, some wards in the City are predominantly residential. The corporation recognises, and has always recognised, that the interests of residents should be maintained in the new system; therefore, the system has been designed to ensure that wards that are predominantly residential in character remain so. Likewise, the corporation will review the distribution of voting capacity in each ward, with the aim of ensuring the maintenance of a reasonable balance between the size of wards and their electorate.
  Mr. Benn: May I take up the right hon. Gentleman's point about the interests of the business community in the City? Can he assure us that every shareholder in businesses there will have an opportunity to vote, and to determine who should vote on his or her behalf? One shareholder, one vote: that is the one principle that I want the right hon. Gentleman to establish.
  Mr. Brooke: I am delighted to learn that the right hon. Gentleman still espouses the principle of one man, one vote. I understand that the Labour party no longer espouses that principle in internal elections in certain parts of the country.
  I have already said that the decision on who will vote will be made by the businesses concerned. As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the element of the business that is in the City may be only a small part of a much larger business. Although 118 of the 500 largest companies in the European Union have their headquarters in the City, there are many small businesses there as well, and I feel that a shareholder system would be unwieldy.
  Considerable efforts have been made to involve, and seek the views of, City residents, and the corporation has no evidence to suggest that there is a significant amount

  459
  of dissatisfaction with what is being proposed. Let me add that the proposals are not intended, or expected, to have any effects on services provided from funds outside the local government finance system, such as the provision for open spaces for which the City is responsible.
  Mr. McDonnell: The corporation has asserted that there is no substantial opposition to the proposals. In fact, petitions have been received opposing the Bill; but, in any event, has the City organised a ballot of residents? If so, have the results been published? Has there been any consultation of the electorate of Greater London overall?
  Mr. Brooke: I enjoy the hon. Gentleman's interventions, but I think that the idea of involving the whole of Greater London in the decision is a bit rich. As for the question of consultation, the corporation publishes a magazine called City Review, which is widely distributed and which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has seen. It is published every two months, and for the past 18 months or so every issue has contained references to the Bill, and invitations to readers to write in. It has produced a booklet, which I have here. People have written, and there has been an opportunity for discussions with residents. Any resident who was not aware of what was going on must be living a somewhat hermit-like life.
  Mr. McDonnell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brooke: I do not want people to forget what I was saying before the hon. Gentleman intervened. I have been pretty generous to him. Let me finish what I was saying about open spaces.
  Open spaces such as Epping forest are subject to statutory protection through legislation promoted by the corporation itself, which demands that they be maintained and conserved to a high standard. That legislation is unaffected by the Bill, and the corporation has no intention of changing it.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: As Epping forest is in my constituency, this concerns me very much. The right hon. Gentleman says that the legislation will not change; but will the money change? If there were more members of the common council interested only in keeping costs down in the centre, with no commitment to open spaces outside the centre, could they, under the proposed voting system, have more power to cut financial support for the open spaces?
  Mr. Brooke: I was going to deal with the money aspect, because I knew that the hon. Gentleman was concerned about it. I can say, however, that in addition to the many initiatives, costing about £40 million a year, that the City maintains—initiatives that are available to everyone in London, which are supported by the City fund and include the Barbican—there is a separate resource, known as City's cash, consisting of the accumulated wealth of merchants who have left money to the City for eight centuries. It is with some of that money that Epping forest is maintained. Although councillors will continue to take an interest, and, presumably, will make decisions, the funds supporting Epping forest are nothing to do with local government finance.
  460
  Although the expenditure involved in administering open spaces and the like outside the City does not constitute public expenditure, I am advised that the corporation will make available the annual estimates for them. I am sure that the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) will be able to see those estimates.
  The Bill is the culmination of wide-ranging consultation within the City business community, and with residents, as well as with the Government and other interested parties. It offers a solution that, in the corporation's view, addresses the particular circumstances of the City, consistent with the White Paper.
  7.47 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: I am the first listed objector to the Bill, but I presume that others will wish to speak.
  I am grateful for the way in which the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) expressed his support for the Bill. He accepted a number of interventions, and tried to respond to them. At one point, he said that he wanted to get on because he wanted to find out how his speech would end. We are pleased to have heard the end of the speech—but I am not sure that it was worth it.
  The last time I crossed swords with the right hon. Gentleman on a private Bill was when he sponsored a Bill that related to the City of Westminster. I spoke against it for nearly three hours. I do not intend to speak for anywhere near that long tonight, but as I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I recalled that his Bill dealt with a number of businesses in Westminster, such as porn shops. I wondered whether, if the principles being applied to the business community of the City of London—allowing that community all the votes—applied to Westminster, the right hon. Gentleman would represent the porn shops.
  The Bill creates a huge democratic deficit. In fact, "deficit" is a kind description; it is really a democratic negation. My hon. Friends will say more about this, but the City of London Labour party has pointed out that the residents' share of the franchise will fall from its current 25 per cent. or thereabouts to less than 10 per cent., and that voters could be nominated by occupiers or agents who might live anywhere: they might not even be United Kingdom citizens, and might not even have set foot in the City of London.
  The City of London Labour party also points out that there are no guarantees in the Bill for residents, and that their position will be worse. It states:
  "Business interests should not be allowed to override those of residents, as they do now, in matters like planning, traffic and the environment."
  That is a fair point. Like any other local authority, the court of common council will discuss those local issues: planning, traffic, the environment in the City. It should be the residents—because they are the ones who will be affected by decisions in the main—who exercise that democratic element.
  Mention was made of representations by Malcolm Matson. I have his letter. Presumably, it was sent to other hon. Members.
  Mr. Baldry: In certain parts of the City, there are practically no residents. For example, the ward of

  461
  Farringdon Without has a substantial electoral roll, but it is made up mostly of members in the Temple, and people working in Smithfield and a diversity of other trades. There are few residents, so how will such an area in London and the City be properly represented? Who will represent it? Who will vote in that ward? Will it be left just as a void, or will residents in some other part of the City be expected, under the hon. Gentleman's ideas, to represent the people who live and work in Farringdon Without?
  Mr. Cohen: I am surprised at that intervention. The key principle is that residents should be the voters, rather than businesses, which are in many ways absent in terms of business interests; perhaps their headquarters are elsewhere, too. However, some constituencies for this Parliament are very far flung because that is the way in which we achieve an equal number of residents voting. I do not see why all the wards have to be of an equal size in any system. Therefore, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's point applies.
  Mr. Matson sent a letter on the Bill to hon. Members. It said:
  "the Corporation of London wants to extend … the undemocratic 'business vote'.
  Actually the proposal is even more bizarre.
  The Bill is the first retreat from the principle of universal suffrage since the Reform Act of 1832 … which began a long march to 'one person one vote'.
  The Bill will give votes to companies and other bodies according to the rateable value of their offices. The higher the rateable value the more votes they will get.
  For the first time in a modern western democracy you will be able to buy as many votes in an election for a local authority as you can afford—just keep on adding to your property portfolio!"
  He calls on us to stop "the last rotten borough". That is a good summary of what I politely describe as the democratic deficit. My hon. Friends will want to say more about that, but the corporation of London should rethink that aspect.
  As I have said, there are no guarantees to residents, but nor are there any guarantees to those who enjoy open spaces that are outside the City of London, but which are owned and run by the corporation. My main reason for objecting to the Bill—it is not just the democratic deficit—involves the representations that I have received from the Open Spaces Society.
  Bernard Selwyn, honorary parliamentary consultant of the society, said that the Bill could affect the character of the court of common council and how the corporation's extra-mural duties are carried out, including, of course, those on Epping forest. He says that some constituencies have
  "open spaces outside the City which the Corporation has acquired and been proudly and conscientiously maintaining for many years."
  I agree. It has done a relatively good job. He says that those open spaces could be put at risk.
  Mr. Selwyn adds that the corporation is responsible for the London metropolitan archives, that they should be protected, and that assurances should be given on them as well. He says:
  "Over 40,000 new business votes will be created, but some of the existing votes are expected to be replaced by them so that the total electorate will reduce to more than 54,000 of which some 49,000 will be business voters."
  462
  He goes on to say:
  "Many of the qualifying bodies will be foreign and have no attachment to London except as a financial centre. While we hope that they will take some pride in the traditions and wider interests of the City, some may only wish to ensure that any money raised by rates or from other sources is not used more than can be avoided for purposes of no benefit to themselves, and they may seek to appoint representatives who have no personal connection with London and can be trusted to vote and even stand as candidates for election to the common council solely to protect the selfish concerns of the body appointing them."
  That is my concern. If we get more people with that selfish interest, who will be on the common council to stop them spending money on open spaces or to restrict it?
  The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster was right to say that the councillors make the decisions on the Epping forest land for which they are responsible, but it will be councillors with that pressure on them—with that electorate. They may say, "That is something that we are not interested in."
  Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman may have missed a sentence that I said in response to a question that he had asked me. Epping forest is not paid for out of the rates. The pressure that he is describing would not apply in the context of Epping forest. Ever since the City saved it from enclosure in 1878 and subsequently doubled it in size, the forest has been paid for by separate City funds.
  Mr. Cohen: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says and I heard what he said about City's cash, which presumably is a separate fund, but he said that councillors take the decisions regarding Epping forest. Those councillors will have an electorate who may not be interested in Epping forest, so that is the main basis of my objection. I look to protect the interests of my constituents who enjoy Epping forest land. I am grateful that the corporation of London has run it relatively well up to now, but I want that to be maintained and improved.
  Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman fairly concedes that the City has looked after places such as Epping forest and Burnham Beeches very well. How will the Bill change that? Already on the court of common council there are business people, men and women. The difficulty at the moment is that the franchise is restricted to certain trades because of the nature of the franchise. There are butchers, barristers and chartered accountants, but those people have not restricted the money that is spent on Burnham Beeches and Epping forest. So why, if one extends the franchise to encompass all sorts of other trading activities in the City, should the City somehow become more selfish and more inward looking?
  Mr. Cohen: I hear the hon. Gentleman's point. I have not been critical of the corporation of London. In certain respects, I have—in individual cases where I do not think that it has done a good enough job for my local area—but the general point is that it has run matters well. However, we will have an altered balance of the franchise and businesses. Some will have foreign interests, as the Open Spaces Society has said, little interest in the City and even less interest in the area outside the City for which the corporation is responsible.
  The hon. Gentleman may be right in suggesting that the policy will not change. I certainly hope that that is the case, but by changing the franchise it puts at risk that

  463
  commitment. That is why I object—to ensure that that commitment is absolutely maintained. That is my main concern.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I apologise for the fact that, although I have been here for all the hon. Gentleman's speech, I was late in arriving.
  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although the businesses may be owned outside the United Kingdom, the people whom they will be nominating to vote—
  Mr. Benn indicated dissent.
  Mrs. Lait: May I finish my point? The people whom those business will be nominating to vote have to be qualified to vote in a British election. Although they have to be either British citizens, European Union citizens or Commonwealth citizens, they have to live here, too. They are therefore not people who will have been parachuted in for the pleasure of sitting in on endless common council meetings.
  Mr. Cohen: I appreciate the hon. Lady's point, but the Open Spaces Society does not agree with it. The society stated that the businesses that will now have the vote
  "may seek to appoint representatives who have no personal connection with London and can be trusted to vote and even stand as candidates for election to the common council solely to protect the selfish concerns of the body appointing them."
  That is a very real concern to the Open Spaces Society.
  I am therefore not convinced by the point made by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait)—that the new representatives will be dead keen to live in the City, to be active there and to work 100 per cent. in the City's best interests. I am certainly not convinced that they will automatically be interested in the City's functions outside the square mile. I also suspect that they will not be much interested in the Epping forest land in my constituency—but I am. I am very concerned about it, as are my constituents. We want to ensure that we receive assurances that the current commitment will be maintained and even increased.
  Mr. McDonnell: It is critical that we clarify the point. I have searched the Bill, and—as my hon. Friend has pointed out in the letters he is quoting from the City of London Labour party and the Open Spaces Society—it would impose no residency condition. There is no residency qualification.
  Mr. Cohen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying the point.
  The Open Spaces Society points out that the corporation is responsible for the management and conservation of more than 10,000 acres—more than 15 square miles—of open space. Those spaces are paid for out of the City's cash account—the private fund which
  464
  has been built over the centuries and was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. Mr. Selwyn said:
  "However, we regret that no accounts of this fund are published although the expenditure has to be approved by the common council and the duties are subject to statutory requirements."
  I heard the comments made by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster on annual estimates. Although that concession is welcome, it is wrong for there to be such secrecy surrounding details of the fund, which is so important to Londoners. The matter should be opened up.
  I should like to provide an example—in which my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction might be quite interested—of the effects of the secrecy. The Government have a new deal policy, in which one option for young people is to serve on an environmental task force, doing environmental work. The City of London corporation should want to assist the Government in the project. Perhaps we should expect the corporation to help financially with the project. However, the corporation might say, "We don't have the funds to do it", or, "We're not really interested in helping the Government or in getting young people into training and working on an environmental task force." All the time, it could be sitting on top of secret funds totalling millions of pounds, which could be helping young people and the Government's policy. That is only one example of why there should be accountability of and transparency in City's cash.
  The public might have some interest—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point on that matter, which seems to fall well outside the scope of the Bill.
  Mr. Cohen: I take the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am saying only that there should be some transparency and accountability about City's cash. The new representatives, who will be elected on the basis of the new franchise, might say, "We don't have the money to maintain current open-spaces policies and commitments", whereas in secret they will have the money. I think that people should know the exact situation.
  I should like to deal with a few local issues, if my hon. Friends will allow me to do so—I know that they would like to return to the main issue of the democratic deficit. Nevertheless, there are a few constituency matters in relation to the open spaces and the corporation's policies. I should like to mention some of them, not least because I might get them in the local newspapers and please the local residents.
  The Hollow pond is run by the City of London corporation, at Whipps Cross, and is heavily used. Parts of it have become quite barren, and it requires proper replanting. There should be a better policy to that end. The land is used very heavily, proportionately more than other parts of Epping forest. Moreover, there has been much work on the M11 link road in the neighbouring area.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has flagged this section of his speech too obviously, as it were. I really cannot accept that it is within the scope of the Bill.
  Mr. Cohen: I do apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

  465
  In his reply, I should like to hear from the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster how the new franchise and election of a new common council will impact on those local issues. That information would interest my constituents, who clearly want the Hollow pond at Whipps Cross to be maintained and improved. The pond that has dried up and was just left at the junction—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now acting in defiance of my ruling. I tell him that the matter is outwith this debate. He has made his point generally, which is permissible, but he is now going far too far.
  Mr. Cohen: I shall not pursue the matter further today, but I will pursue it in writing with the corporation, as it affects my constituents—such as an individual who wants, for example, to locate a bench with a plaque to his mother, but has been turned down.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has understood my ruling. I make it quite clear that he will be out of order if he continues on the same line.
  Mr. Cohen: I do apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not do it again.
  All these matters show the importance to my area—and many other areas of London—of maintaining the corporation's open spaces commitment. I have, up to now, had no quibble with the policy—other than those little individual ones, about which I shall be writing. However, the little matters also clarify the general issue, which is that we want the common council to maintain and improve the policy. The assurances that I seek are therefore vital. I remain concerned that the franchise change will worsen the situation for those who, like my constituents and others, enjoy open spaces. It is also important to have greater accountability.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. Martin Bell: I shall be extremely brief, as I am trying to set an example of brief speeches. No one pays any attention, but I hope that it will assist anyway.
  I speak in the debate not because I have any political interests or ambitions in London; my only political ambition is to complete one term as Member of Parliament for Tatton. There are, however, some important issues of democracy in the Bill, and the people of Tatton have shown rather clearly that they care a great deal about that. We are grateful especially to Mr. Matson for pointing out that this is a suggested retreat from the principle of the universal franchise and we should think very seriously before we go along with that retreat.
  It has been a long march since the Reform Act 1832, with many difficulties, adversities, stops and obstacles along the way—one of which has been the property qualification. It is strange to see that that remains in any form to this day—yet it does, in that there are 5,000 residents of the City of London who are entitled to vote because they are residents, and 15,000 people who work there who are entitled to vote because they have offices there. It would be bad enough if all we were doing was
  466
  perpetuating that—but we are extending it. We are proposing to add another 35,000 or 39,000 on an extraordinary principle.
  Mr. McDonnell: The hon. Gentleman is well travelled, and has gained his reputation from reporting from cities across the world. Is there any city of which he is aware where the franchise is given to the business vote—not as a business district or as a section of a community overlaid by a democratic body, but in its own right?
  Mr. Bell: I have covered elections in about 20 different countries and in none of them have I found such an archaic and strange way of voting as that which we are discussing tonight. The proposed system involves a vote for £10,000 of rateable value; two votes for £20,000; three votes for £30,000; 100 votes for £1 million. What is this—votes for sale? Can we not buy them over the counter at Harrods? It is extraordinary, and out of keeping with the kilter of the times.
  It is suggested that we are being asked tonight to vote for a world-class City, but that is what we already have. We need a world-class City with democratic institutions from end to end, and that is not on offer in the Bill.
  It may be said that the present system, even as amended—and the amendment is worse than the original proposal—is at least quaint and British, and that it sort of works. However, we are saying that about the House of Lords, and the reason we are in the process of ending the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords is because it is undemocratic. The reason we need full democracy in the City of London is because the proposed system is undemocratic. I suggest that right hon. and hon. Members consider the Bill well, and vote as far as is possible in a free vote. The Bill is undemocratic, anti-democratic and oligarchic, and we should have nothing to do with it—except to reject it.
  8.12 pm
  Mr. Tony Benn: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) on a speech of great charm, skill and knowledge. I congratulate him also on extending the principle of the private finance initiative to the electoral system. With the help of private capital, you can get more voters, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I suppose that I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for not adopting the full principle that instead of an election, a ward councillor's job would be put out to tender. That would be the simplest thing. Then, on polling day, the common clerk would announce the bids that had been submitted. That would save the cost of the election and would introduce a system in line with the philosophy that is becoming more widespread.
  I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction on the Front Bench because, knowing as I do Government Front Benchers' commitment to modernisation and democracy, I know that he will advise the House to reject the Bill, for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell). It is an act of brazen effrontery, as we approach the end of the century, to say that voters should be bought and appointed to run a city of such distinction.

  467
  The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said that he had a hereditary interest—and so do I. My grandfather was a founder member of the London county council in 1889. I have been looking at what he said at the time, and he said that
  "the city remains socially and municipally isolated, as if it still hated the enemy without its invisible gates and feared contagion from contact with the world."
  Being a scholarly man, my grandfather referred to the legislation. In 1837, the commission set up to look after the administration of the legislation in various towns said that
  "there was no argument for applying the Act to other towns which did not apply with equal force to London."
  London was excluded from the legislation. I can go back 160-odd years to argue that the case for reform has always been there. The House is a motorbike with four-wheel brakes—it deals so slowly with any movement that it detects. That is what I fear about the second Chamber. However, I will not go into that at all.
  A Select Committee was set up in 1856 and, in 1867, another Select Committee was set up. In 1884, legislation was proposed to unify the City of London with the rest of London. Surely that is not too speedy for the House, even in its present mood. The Home Secretary, Mr. Harcourt—who used to have a dining room here, but lost out to Churchill—said that he could not give London control of the police because of "Irish outrages". Therefore, it was not possible for the Metropolitan police to be controlled by London. Maybe if it had been, we would not have had the Lawrence inquiry, because there would have been some local accountability.
  From the beginning, there has been a tremendous struggle to make the City of London not only democratic, but a part of the greater city from which it draws much of its wealth. The commission of 1837 declared that it was
  "unable to discover any circumstances justifying the distinction of the City from the rest of the metropolis".
  Mr. Asquith—if I may cite some Liberal support in the spirit of consensus politics—said that it was both
  "constitutional law and common sense that the Corporation of the City holds its property and privileges in trust, not for that square mile".
  Mrs. Lait: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a separate police force, called the City of London police, and that the force is responsible to the police authority, known as the court of common council?
  Mr. Benn: The problem is that there are two police forces in London. There are the bobbies with the big hats which make them look like Roman centurions, and the Metropolitan police. If the police had been handled as they were in every other city, they would have been accountable to the police authority. The Lawrence case did not arise in the City of London—maybe it would have been different.
  In response to a question from the hon. Member for Tower Hamlets on 21 February 1893, the President of the Local Government Board said that the Government intended to appoint a commission
  "to consider the proper conditions under which the amalgamation of the City and the county of London can be effected, and to make specific and practical proposals for that purpose."
  468
  That was 110 years ago—the man who asked the question was my grandfather. Alas, I did not know him—he died before I was born. However, he would turn in his grave if I did not speak on the matter to which he devoted his life.
  In 1894, the royal commission presented its report. It said that it had
  "conceded the whole case for unification, and for the inclusion of the City in the new London. It was proposed that the governing body of London should be elected in the same way as the existing County Council".
  However, the Government lost office. A new Government came in, and Lord Salisbury—the Salisburys are always in there when skulduggery is to be done—addressed the Conservatives on 7 November 1894 and delivered a violent attack on the London county council. He described it as
  "the place where Collectivist and Socialistic experiments are tried … a place where a new revolutionary spirit finds its instruments and collects its arms."
  That was before the Labour party was formed. I can understand why Lord Cranborne and others are still at it.
  You either believe in one man—or one woman—one vote, based on human rights, or you sell it all off, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, with great charm, advised us that the centre of our great city—our capital city—should be subject to commercial purchase. The hon. Member for Tatton—I think that the Tatton doctrine will go down with the Nolan doctrine and others—said that that was unacceptable.
  The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster is such a nice man—he is such a good loser. I hope that he prepares himself to show that talent again when the House votes at 10 o'clock.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am happy to follow the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) who, like the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), has made it clear that the case for the Bill is a difficult one to make.
  It is unfortunate that we are having to have such a Gilbertian debate about the government of such an important place. Whatever our view about the outcome, the City of London is hugely important to Britain. I hope that nobody will confuse the ridiculous set of propositions and counter-arguments that we are having to go through with a view that the City is not important and should not continue to be important, in the interests not just of London, but of Britain.
  I should declare my interest, although even that too may have become a bit Gilbertian. As a member of a set of chambers in the Temple, although it is outside the City, I am a City of London elector, because tenants of chambers currently get a City business vote. I said somewhere else the other day that I had an interest because I was a voter, and was then telephoned by one of the elected representatives, who told me that I did not appear on this year's electoral roll. My clerk told me that he had left me off by mistake, so I may not be a voter this year, but I am normally a City of London voter and I have sometimes voted.
  I have a second interest to declare. My borough and my constituency—Southwark: south walk; south ward—were nearly part of the City. We also should be a city, but that

  469
  is a separate debate. We further have a lot of interest in the City because many of my constituents live in properties owned by the City of London. They are in the unsatisfactory position of being council tenants, but, like private tenants, being unable to choose the people who are their council landlord. They are, however, grateful—perhaps this is the only point that will offend Labour Members—that the City of London runs its housing stock much better than the London borough of Southwark. Many tenants are happy to live in City of London properties rather than Southwark council properties.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I think that I lost my vote when I changed chambers, but I was one of the 15,000 voters in the City of London. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Bill goes through, if two or three major companies get together in any ward, they will be able to control the elected person? If that happens on a large enough scale, the City could be sold over the head of the citizens by the common council, without any recourse to justice.
  Mr. Hughes: I shall come to that. The hon. Gentleman's proposition is in the right direction. We should be careful, because the Bill has some worrying aspects, while it also does not contain certain other measures that should be enshrined in law rather than in a document that does not have the force of law.
  Picking up on a point of order made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), as someone who once took a case to the European Commission of Human Rights and also worked there for a while, I believe that there may well be a case, though not necessarily a winnable one, for claiming that article 3 of the first protocol of the European convention, which says:
  "The High Contracting Parties"—
  of which this country is one—
  "undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature".
  could be difficult to uphold properly if the free expression of the opinion of the people who live in the place can be overridden by the free expression of the opinion of people who live outside. I am not saying that such a case would definitely win. I have not taken legal advice on that, but it is an arguable point.
  Mr. McDonnell: Is the hon. Gentleman offering to undertake that case on a no win, no fee basis? If so, we shall talk about it later.
  Mr. Hughes: The current state of my finances might mean that I would have to negotiate a different arrangement, but the hon. Gentleman was right to raise the issue.
  There is no Liberal Democrat whip on the Bill, so I am not speaking on behalf of my party. I am just making a contribution as someone who has followed the issue. My hon. Friends are free to vote or not as they choose.
  I should like to put a logical sequence of questions. Should the City of London have its own local government? We have been persuaded, as the Labour party was nationally in recent years, that that is acceptable, reasonable and appropriate.
  470
  What sort of local government should the City have? Should it be different from the rest of local government, which has just residents electing the people who administer their affairs? Like the London Labour party, the Liberal Democrats in London have debated the issue and come to conclusions, some of which are central to the debate: the City must have procedures and practices that are transparently democratic and accountable; the electorate and service users must be involved in decision making; and, most importantly, the system should be based on a democratic franchise under which City residents can elect their government, but which recognises that the City is an exceptional case and requires the business community to have some contribution to corporation policy.
  Can we have local government for the City that has more than just residents as electors? We believe that the case can be argued. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington made a linked point on that. There is no logical reason why other places in Britain cannot have business voters if the City of London can. There are good reasons why cities such as Glasgow or Birmingham might want similar business votes. There is no reason—other than the historical reason—why the City has different rights from other places.
  However, we believe that City of London residents should have the majority say. They do not at the moment and the Bill is defective in that it will not rectify that. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) said, as the chairman of the policy and resources committee—the effective leader of the City council—has also told me, that there has been consultation with residents and that they are happy with what is proposed. I am satisfied that that is true. A system that does not give the majority of votes to residents would, however, be more satisfactory if there had been a proper referendum with a clear, independently scrutinised result. The City might think of doing that.
  We had a debate on this issue in a Committee of the whole House on the Greater London Authority Bill a couple of weeks ago. I said that the City's proposals to reform itself—like us, the Labour Government said, "City, reform thyself', and the City has come back with some proposals—are pretty timid. I repeat that: they are pretty timid proposals. Although, on balance, the Bill would make the system slightly better than before, there must be much more change for the system to be a democratic form of local government. I hope that those in the City who support that view will be able to persuade those who do not that they need to change quickly in that direction.
  Is the City willing to be braver? The jury is out. There is no suggestion of that in the Bill, but there are other encouraging signs. I thank those in the City and outside who are enlightened enough to realise that considerable further reforms are needed.
  What is the effect on residents? Are they being disfranchised by the Bill? They are not. Are they being given less power? The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster correctly said that they are not. I have learnt something about the City in preparing for this debate. It has a strange anomaly; there are 25 wards in the City, four of which currently have a majority of residential votes. Under the proposed reforms, there will

  471
  still be a majority of residential votes in four wards, so the relative balance of power for the residents will remain the same.
  There are also plans, although not in the Bill, to increase the residents' power as against that of businesses, even though—this is one of the Gilbertian circles—the number of businesses and business people with votes increases as a result of the Bill.
  Mr. Love: I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) when he tried to explain this matter, and I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's explanation, yet I still have some difficulty. If there is a vast increase in the number of electors, and representation on the common council is not based on a specific number of electors, there will be a considerable increase in the number of representatives of the business interest, which will dilute representation of the interests of those who live in the City. How can that be called protecting their interests?
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right to ask questions, because the subject becomes almost fiendishly complicated. I do not want to give a seminar on it, but because it is germane, I will try to answer the question in a few sentences.
  Mr. Love: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would prefer to write to me.
  Mr. Hughes: I would rather talk to the hon. Gentleman than write to him.
  There is a proposal that the number of business voters should increase, but not the number of people who will be elected. There is another proposal, which is not in the Bill, to reduce the number of councillors. At present, there are more than 100 councillors and aldermen, and the City is already reducing the number of councillors per ward. There is a debate about how far that should go, but I share what I think is the Government's view—that the objective should be that the City council ends up being about the same size as any other local council, with about 50 or 60 people. Greater influence and power can be achieved by allowing residents to elect more of the representatives even while businesses are given the right to have a say in the electoral system.
  The business vote change is, on balance, welcome. At present, only sole traders and partners get votes in the City. That group is diminishing: there used to be about 40,000 electors in this group and now there are about 15,000. Many accountants, for example, who would have been partners in the past, are now in companies. If we are to have a business vote at all, it would be nonsense to keep only the present category of business voter.
  Mr. McDonnell: It is critical that we understand the hon. Gentleman's mind. As soon as one takes the first step on that path, one accepts the principle of the business vote. There are no compromises on democracy. Either we have one person, one vote or the system is not democratic. What is his view?
  Mr. Hughes: My view is clear: the majority of people elected in the City of London as local government
  472
  representatives should be elected by residents, but I am prepared to accept that, because of the authority's particular nature, a minority could come from a business franchise. I do not comment on whether that should be limited to the City or whether, if other places wanted to do it, they should be allowed to.
  Mr. McDonnell: That is a startling revelation of Liberal Democrat policy. I fear for the hon. Gentleman's leadership chances as a result. He is willing to countenance in his own borough businesses having control in some areas, or having a direct vote on the delivery of services. That is a startling development.
  Mr. Hughes: It is perfectly proper to have a debate on the subject. Personally, I would countenance such a proposal only if the electors, who are the residents, agreed to it by ballot. In my borough, I would countenance some business votes only if the people of Southwark voted for that to be the structure of their council. Ideally, the whole of this debate should have taken place in the context of a debate about local government, so that we could first sort out the rules by which local government is structured before considering specific councils.
  Mr. McDonnell: On that logic, if the electorate of the hon. Gentleman's constituency were willing to give a vote to business for his parliamentary election, would he support that? That is the logic of the path down which he is going. We cannot differentiate between elections. Either we have democracy at the local, regional, national and European levels or we do not have it at all. As soon as we trespass on the right of individuals to have a say via the ballot box, we undermine the whole principle and, eventually, the practice.
  Mr. Hughes: We in Parliament should decide about elections to Parliament. I have no doubt at all that the House will retain the view that the only people with the right to vote for Members of Parliament are those who vote on the basis of residence. The debate about whether we should allow business a vote in local elections should start in Parliament, and if Parliament here thought that a sensible option, as some countries do, we could allow it to be implemented. I am not arguing that it is my preferred model, but if the residents of the City of London want a majority resident vote with a minority business vote, I am not prepared to say that they should not be allowed to have it.
  Mr. McDonnell: If the majority of the hon. Gentleman's constituents agreed to businesses being able to vote for or against his being elected to Parliament, would he support that? That is the ultimate logic of what he is saying.
  In business districts elsewhere, for example in the United States, the system is based not on a business vote, but on an overarching democracy in the city, allowing businesses, largely in an administrative or advisory role, to have some involvement in their area. The ultimate responsibility lies with the overarching authority; and the new strategic body for London will be such an authority.
  Mr. Hughes: There is a difference between deciding how councillors are elected, which could reasonably be left in part to local determination, and deciding how

  473
  Members of Parliament are elected. How Members of Parliament are elected is clearly a matter for Parliament to decide, or for the electors of the country as a whole to decide by referendum; those are the only two ways of deciding that matter. However, it is perfectly logical to argue that it is for the people of Southwark or those of Hillingdon to have a say in how their local government representatives are elected.
  Let me try to link that to the hon. Gentleman's second point. I am not trying to defend the propositions in the Bill. I would not have chosen to start from the Bill; nor do I think that, in logic, it is easy to persuade people to vote for the Bill. However, on the issue of how to arrange business votes, there might be a logical argument in favour of giving certain powers, influence over and contributions to decision making to business, but within a remit that is ultimately controlled only by those who are residential electors. That is a model used in other parts of the world.
  Mr. Benn: To put it crudely, in constituencies or boroughs where there is a Conservative majority, the majority of electors would see the case for a business vote to keep that seat or that council Conservative; but in Labour or Liberal areas, there would be no such advantage, so the case would be rejected. The result would be a two-tier system in which Conservative areas backed by business were always Conservative, but other areas were not. The hon. Gentleman's reading of his speech is taking him back to a Liberal position that has not been seen since the Whigs disappeared.
  Mr. Hughes: I am not taking the Liberal Democrats back to any such position. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's points, which is why I said that business votes should be contemplated only if they have first been discussed by Parliament in the context of local government; and only if Parliament agrees the framework should they be agreed to, for exactly the reasons the right hon. Gentleman cites. I am not saying that the proposition is one that is, in logic or in democracy, defensible. However, given the starting point of this Bill, the proposition to allow other than single traders or partners to have a vote is better than keeping the current system. That is all that the Bill is about.
  Mr. Peter Bradley: The trend of the hon. Gentleman's thinking is extremely worrying, and it is greatly to his advantage that none of his Liberal Democrat colleagues are present to hear him—I hope that they do not read Hansard tomorrow. He suggests that it would be open to a majority of residents in a borough or a constituency to vote to dilute the value of their own democratic vote by ceding part of it to the business community, but what about the minority of residents who might vote against such a proposition? Do the majority have the right to undermine the value of their vote and their democratic rights?
  Mr. Hughes: I think that I have dealt with that argument by pointing out that the Bill is here, being debated, because it is Parliament that has to decide such matters; Parliament has to set the framework and decide what is acceptable. Under our constitution, lacking a bill of rights or a written constitution, Members of Parliament are the only people who can ensure that the rights of
  474
  minorities are defended. At the end of the day, it is Parliament which must act, and that is why the Bill is here—in spite of its history and its statutes, the City cannot get proposals through unless it puts them through this place. I should add that I have none the less discovered that some measures, such as boundary changes in the City, can be carried out without their having to pass through the normal processes of Parliament, but that is another matter.
  Mr. Bradley: To complete the circle: when we started, my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) was trying to identify the hon. Gentleman's own position on the concept that he has unveiled to us. If he had the vote in his borough or constituency, would he vote for such a proposition? Would he cast his vote in favour of enfranchising the business community, or against it?
  Mr. Hughes rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We should confine our arguments to the subject of the Bill and not stray beyond the boundaries of the City of London.
  Mr. Hughes: To answer the question put by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley), I would support the retention of the status quo, in which only residents should vote. The only argument that I would make in strong support of the Bill is that, given where we start from, it is better that there is a slightly wider electoral base than currently exists. That is the only proposition that can be advanced if the Bill is the only measure put before us and if it represents one inch of movement in the right direction. However, I hope that I have made it clear that, if the City is not bolder than is shown in the Bill, it will be in trouble before long.
  Mr. McDonnell: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's generosity in giving way. I have not tried to pin him down before, but I fear that I must do so now. The Bill would clearly extend and confirm the right of the business vote, which goes against every tradition of the hon. Gentleman's party since its foundation in the philosophy of liberalism and individualism. Does he support the Bill?
  I believe that the Bill is unamendable and that we may well ask for another Bill, one that can be properly debated and discussed. The element—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making speeches during his interventions. Interventions should be brief.
  Mr. Hughes: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question and then endeavour not to give way again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I clearly expressed my view during the Committee stage on the Floor of the House of the Greater London Authority Bill. My personal view is that the Bill does not represent sufficiently adequate reform; the City should go away and come back with a different Bill, because the current one does not meet the test of democracy. However, the Bill is here and the question we have to ask is whether or not it is amendable in Committee, if it gets that far. I shall not be a member of the Committee; nor will the hon. Gentleman.

  475
  The right hon. Member for Chesterfield and the hon. Member for Tatton asked who would get the business vote. It is difficult to defend the proposals in the Bill that would allow votes to be dished out by business with no legal control over that process.
  I have made my position clear to the City, which must come up with rules. The guidance is to be improved, but, without the power of statute, any system to control the mechanism ensuring fair voting seems to me to be one that could leave voting in the hands of a very small number of people.
  Mr. Ian Pearson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: In a second. As the Bill stands, that small number of people could be made up only of directors, or rich people, or men—all unacceptable propositions that would have to be amended.
  Mr. Pearson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that the City of London is unique, and that separate franchise arrangements can and should apply? Does he also agree that the City's financial institutions are Britain's only world-class industry cluster? We must think very seriously about any proposals to change that. On balance, although I accept that the Bill, in many respects, is defective, should we not consider giving it a Second Reading and then amending it in Committee, given that we need to modernise arrangements?
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has identified the central question. Will the Bill, as drafted, improve people's participation in voting in the City, or will it make it worse? I repeat what I have said already: the Bill is an improvement because it gives the little newsagent and the City firm a chance to have a say, whereas before they had no say. However, I hope that the City comes up with something more because the Bill is still not good enough to pass the democratic test.
  The Bill also does not deal with ward boundaries, or with the fact that some wards have fewer than 100 electors, but my final point has to do with the aldermen. No qualification is necessary for that position: if I understand the Bill correctly, a person could live in Cornwall and still become an alderman. However, the Lord Mayor of London can be chosen only from among the company of aldermen. That is entirely indefensible. The City has improved matters a bit recently, by providing that aldermen are elected only for six years, rather than for life. However, I do not think that anyone could defend the proposition that the senior representative of the council—its figurehead—should be selected only from a group of people who have so little in the way of electoral justification. I hope that the City deals with that, too.
  It is clear from the debate that, although the Bill's sponsor, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), may win the vote, the argument has not been won. I do not think that it can be easily won. As the right hon. Member for Chesterfield said, if we are reforming the House of Lords, introducing
  476
  devolution to other parts of the country and trying to modernise the constitution, the City of London must realise that it cannot go on in this way, and that it cannot expect to persuade the House with a proposition that is so timid and still so far from being democratically acceptable.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. John Cryer: I, too, oppose the Bill. I found the speech by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) absolutely extraordinary. He took his party's views on democratic representation back to the era before that of Earl Grey, who saw the great Reform Bill through Parliament.
  I was also amazed by the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson). He seemed to want to take us back to an era before the Labour party even existed. When we challenge the principle of one person, one vote, and hand power and votes to people because they have property or a certain amount of wealth, we start to undermine the whole democratic process.
  Ms Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend share my surprise that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who once aspired to be the Liberal Democrat party's mayoral candidate for London, should take democracy in London so lightly?
  Mr. Cryer: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is fortunate that no other Liberal Democrats are in the Chamber because his speech was quite extraordinary.
  I may be called a sentimental old fool, but I have always believed in democratic accountability and in one person, one vote.
  Mr. Pearson: I do not want to stop the flow of my hon. Friend's Liberal bashing, but he referred to my earlier intervention and I wanted to make it clear that my view is that the City of London is a unique institution for which unique arrangements might apply. I would by no means support any arrangement other than one person, one vote for any other franchise.
  Mr. Cryer: I support nothing but one person, one vote anywhere, at any time, under any circumstances.
  The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) seemed to argue that the City is unique in part because of its radical history. It is true that the City once had a radical tinge when the coffee shops were radical centres. It was so, for example, during the campaign to abolish slavery.
  However, things have changed a bit since then. Two hundred years ago, the City was not full of toffs in red braces, driving Porches and moving large amounts of money around the globe. The City is no longer a radical centre. Far from it; it is a centre for wealth, privilege and power. I have always seen the City as one of the great bulwarks of the unfair capitalist society, to coin a phrase that is none too fashionable these days. The City has stood in the way of every reforming Labour Government, and even in the way of a few reforming Liberal Governments.

  477
  Despite what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said, changing the franchise to reduce, as the Bill would, the residents' share from 25 to 10 per cent. would be an attack on democracy. I do not think the present system worth defending; we should get rid of the corporation completely. However, to reduce the residents' franchise would be to extend the power of wealth, privilege and business in the City.
  A minimum rateable value of £10,000 would entitle companies to one voter, and they could have another one for every additional f10,000. That is indefensible under any circumstances. Those who would nominate the voter would not have to be resident in Britain. They could be resident anywhere. It could be that a business man in the City who was resident in Peru could nominate a voter who was resident in Sri Lanka.
  My main objection is not residency, however. The real objection is that political power will be distributed according to wealth. That takes us back to before the great Reform Act of 1832. Earl Grey—hardly a radical figure, ready to man the barricades on behalf of working people—managed to get that Act through because the system was so patently unfair. I have looked over some figures from before 1832 to judge how much power individuals wielded. The Society of the Friends of the People estimated in the 1800s that 154 individuals sent 307 Members of Parliament to Westminster. That might go down well on the Tory Benches; it would certainly give them an edge at the next election.
  A Tory Member of Parliament, Croker, estimated in the late 1820s that 276 Members of Parliament—which was about half the House of Commons in those days—were returned by individual patrons. We are reverting to that sort of system, whereby a handful of individuals could potentially control thousands of votes on the City corporation.
  I am concerned about the cosy relationship between the Tory party and the City—my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) mentioned that earlier in a point of order. I wonder how many Tory Members who will vote for the Bill tonight have close connections with certain City companies. The Tory party has always had a cosy relationship with the City and its institutions: banks, corporations, and so on. That relationship became much closer in the 1980s when the then Conservative Government passed legislation that gave great breaks to those corporations—the big bang, for instance—and allowed even greater profits to be made.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must discuss the Bill before us, not events in the City. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) should keep his remarks within the scope of the Bill.
  Mr. Cryer: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was simply drawing attention to certain connections that I hope will be apparent tonight. I hope that Tory Members who speak in the debate will be honest about their interests in the City.
  Several defences of the Bill have been offered, but none of them holds water. The documentation that I have received from the Corporation of London does not attempt to defend the Bill. It simply says that the present system is pretty awful so we must move to a different system that is not quite as bad. I believe that the proposal this evening is even worse.
  478
  Surprisingly, the Association of London Government thinks that the Bill is worthy of support. That came as an enormous shock. The association wrote to me—I suppose it wrote to quite a few hon. Members—and said, in defence of the Bill, that the Corporation of London has
  "contributed financial and administrative support to many London-wide initiatives, including the London Study, the Agenda 21 process and the London Drugs Policy Forum."
  We could mount a similar defence of hereditary peers by saying that a few of them are quite nice old boys who donate a lot of money to homes for retired donkeys and other causes.
  Mr. McDonnell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way as I think it is important to clarify this point. I am happy to suspend the sitting so that we may ask the Chair of the Association of London Government, Lord Harris. The correspondence from the ALG on this issue makes no reference to any leaders or boroughs meetings that have endorsed the policy. Does my hon. Friend know whether the boroughs have met to discuss the matter? When the ALG discussed business districts, the London boroughs of Westminster, Wandsworth and every other Conservative authority threw out the idea. They prevented the Association of London Government from promoting business districts in the London Local Authorities Bill. I wonder about the authority of the letter from the ALG.
  Mr. Cryer: That is an interesting intervention. I was not aware that there had been no meeting to discuss the Bill.
  It has been argued in defence of the Bill that there is some sort of link between the prosperity and wealth of the City and the corporation and that, if we do not keep the corporation sweet, we might lose some of that money. I have always believed that we should intervene in the City and redistribute its wealth to the people who naturally support the Labour party. Leaving that issue aside, there is no substantive link between the corporation and the success of the City. There is no link between the corporation's happiness or the way in which the franchise works and the kind of wealth that is produced by the City. More importantly—this is a crucial point for many of my constituents—there is no link with jobs in the City. I do not believe that there will be a huge capital flight from the City because we have insisted on a bit of democracy for a change.
  I assume that this three-hour debate is in Government time. I am amazed that they found time for a debate on this Bill, which is an affront to democracy, when we have not had time to debate other Bills that many of us have been keen to get involved with. I believe that the City of London corporation should be abolished, which was Labour party policy for many years; its wealth should be put at the disposal of the wider Greater London population. Tower Hamlets and Islington are very poor boroughs which sit on the border of an immensely rich corporation with wealth approaching £1.5 billion, if memory serves. That money should be put at the disposal of the poorer people in London in those boroughs. It does not look like that will happen now, but I would like it to.
  Ms Abbott: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the City's enormous wealth, which is not related to its

  479
  system of local governance. That wealth could do much good in the adjoining borough of Hackney, which is my borough.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we could keep within the limits of the City of London. Hon. Members go wide of the Bill if they talk about other boroughs and their poverty.
  Mr. Cryer: I will bear that in mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction a question. Labour's document, "New Leadership for London", concerns the creation of a Greater London authority. Among other things, it said that the Government's objective is
  "restoring democratic city-wide Government to London".
  How does that sit with the creation of the authority envisaged by the Bill, which will vest more political power in the hands of the wealthy and those who own property and land in the City of London?
  We should remember, particularly as Labour Members, that, except in the City, the business vote was effectively abolished in the 1940s by the Clement Attlee Government. If Attlee came back today, he would be amazed that we were debating this Bill and even considering putting it through Parliament. My hon. Friends should bear that in mind.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am pleased to have the chance to make a brief intervention in this fascinating debate to make the point—
  Mr. McDonnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Waterson: When I have made some progress-like finishing my first sentence. The Opposition support the measure and wish it a fair wind because we acknowledge the role of the City of London in our economy and in our country generally. We support the corporation in its intention to extend the franchise in its governance.
  I should declare an interest. I have worked in the City since 1976 as a solicitor involved in maritime and commercial matters. I am a member of the Baltic Exchange. I have seen at first hand how crucial the City is to the economic success of our country and seen something of its history and traditions. It is the world's leading international financial centre. I am not one of those affected by the legislation. I do not have a vote under the existing system and would not have one if the Bill became law.
  Mr. McDonnell: What did the hon. Gentleman find fascinating about the debate? Was it the Liberal Democrat commitment to the business vote? Was it the fundamental analysis of how anti-democratic this institution is, or were there other elements that fascinated him? What I find fascinating is that he has registered an interest in the matter yet has the effrontery to speak in the debate. How dare hon. Members speak in the Chamber when they have an interest in defending an interest. I find that obscene.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was in the Chamber when the hon. Gentleman raised the question of Members'
  480
  interests. It is for the hon. Gentleman speaking to declare an interest. That has been done, and there is therefore no reason why the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) cannot take part in this debate. It is within the rules of the House.
  Mr. McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course it is within the rules of the House, but in local government, a declaration of interest usually means—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. The hon. Member accepts that such conduct is within the rules of the House. I am here to look after those rules.
  Mr. Waterson: The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) may have noticed that I declared an interest. If he is suggesting otherwise, perhaps he would like to repeat that outside the House. I understand that he has some experience of the civil courts.
  Mr. McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was very explicit in saying that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) had declared an interest. I did not accept that he should continue to speak. I accept the rules of the House, and ask him to withdraw his comment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As far as I am concerned, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) was in order. It is up to him whether he wants to withdraw any comment. It is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Waterson: If I can, I shall make my speech, which was intended to be short.
  How depressing it has been to listen to some Labour Members. Obviously, they were not around when their right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry recently lectured the Labour party on the importance of wealth creation rather than wealth redistribution. Were those bold words merely skin deep to some Labour Members?
  We have certainly had a stroll down memory lane. We have heard the authentic voice of old Labour: a deep-seated hostility to enterprise, business and, above all, the City. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) unwittingly revealed the prejudice that lies beneath all this when he said that some Conservative constituencies want a business vote in order to remain under Conservative control, whereas, of course, a Labour constituency would never want such a vote. Leaving aside the fantasy behind that suggestion, it indicates the notion among old Labour that it would never want to be associated with business and the City.
  Mr. McDonnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Waterson: No, I will not give way.
  The honourable exception in the debate has been the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson), who has some knowledge and experience of these matters, and spoke up for the success of the City of London in our economy.

  481
  We heard a little from my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) about the history of the matter, going back to the charter of Edward III in 1341. We also rightly heard about the massive contribution that the City makes to this country's economic well-being. In 1997, there were net overseas earnings of £25 billion. In addition, the City contributes £12 billion surplus to the country's balance of invisible trade.
  Mr. Love: Hopefully, I shall draw the hon. Gentleman back into the debate. I think that everyone in the Chamber would accept the capacity of the City to generate wealth. Indeed, as a Labour Member, I am acutely aware of my constituents' interests in their connections with, and as employees in, the City. The issue before us is the commitment to reform and democratise City institutions. The basis of our debate is whether the Bill satisfies that requirement.
  Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for indicating common ground between us on the success and importance of the City. I promise him that I am coming to the points that he has raised.
  The City of London corporation has undertaken widespread consultation on its proposals through City Review and in other ways. It has published a rather excellent leaflet, "Improving the City's Franchise", which makes several telling points in the context of the Bill. It talks of the need for the corporation to be
  "constantly … attuned to the needs of the business City",
  and the fact that
  "businesses pay considerable sums towards the cost of local government."
  The corporation states:
  "We believe that a corporate voting system is a natural development of the existing system".
  There is also discussion of the nature of a commuter vote. One reason why the City is totally different from anywhere else and cannot be regarded as a local authority in the traditional sense is that while it may have about 5,000 adult residents, some 250,000 people go there every day to earn their living. How are they to be given any say in the running of their place of work?
  I do not remember which hon. Member intervened on the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) to ask whether any other city in the world has such a system, but interestingly, the leaflet describes similar systems in Melbourne and Sydney, and there are examples in other parts of Australia and New Zealand.
  A recent MORI poll in the City showed that 83 per cent. of City businesses are strongly in favour of extending the vote to businesses and corporate bodies, and a further 9 per cent. are in favour.
  As I have said, the City is successful partly because it is special and different.
  Mr. Peter Bradley: I want to find out how close the hon. Gentleman's views are to the Liberal Democrat proposition. He said that there is a massive influx of commuters into the City of London, which heavily outweighs the residential population of 5,000, and therefore it is not unreasonable that commuters should be considered in the corporation's affairs. Would he extend
  482
  that proposition to the many other cities and boroughs, such as Westminster, the population of which is swelled by commuter traffic every day? Does he agree with the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)? That proposition would undermine the democratic principle not only in the unique setting of the City of London, but in every employment-generating borough in the country.
  Mr. Waterson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that on this issue, as on every other, any similarity between my views and those of the Liberal Democrats is entirely coincidental.
  Mr. Bradley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?
  Mr. Waterson: No, I shall not.
  Mr. Bradley: Will he answer my question?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Waterson: The special nature and distinctive quality of the City was recognised by Lord Callaghan as long ago as 1969, when the non-residential vote was abolished. The then Labour Government recognised that the City required a business vote because it is primarily a place for doing business. A figure almost as Olympian as Lord Callaghan, the Minister for London and Construction, who will respond to the debate, referred in December 1997 to
  "the Lord Mayor continuing to act as a marvellous ambassador internationally for the City and, indeed, for London's financial sector."
  He made further flattering remarks about the role of the City of London.
  The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) referred with horror to the Association of London Government's support for the measure. We have all received the same letter from the association, in which it says:
  "The Association recognises the unique nature of the Corporation of London and agrees that special electoral arrangements need to apply to the governance of the 'square mile'."
  We agree with that. The provision sensibly extends the franchise in the City of London and it has our support.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Bill Etherington: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak when I had to miss such a large part of the debate because I had other business with a Minister.
  I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate, but I am far from pleased that it is necessary. I start from the premise that as a democratically elected MP, it is my responsibility to try to ensure that the best democratic standards are upheld at all times. The Bill not only negates that principle, but would perniciously amend existing legislation.
  Since the great Reform Act of 1832, there has been constant progress through universal suffrage and general improvements in voting procedures which has led to our position today. We can all be proud of that, except for the situation in one small part of Britain.

  483
  I apologise to the many London Members present who may not be called to speak because I have had my few minutes. I apologise because I realise that they must feel as angry as I do about the fact that the Bill is before the House. What is worse, I am almost 300 miles away from the City. We are not speaking of the democratic deficit; we are speaking about a system that is fundamentally undemocratic and anti-democratic, and the Bill will make matters worse.
  I have heard many good things said tonight. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) struck a chord with me when he spoke about democracy. I am speaking about democracy and nothing else. I have no interest in speaking for or against the corporation or the City of London. They exist, they do a job, and I have no strong feelings one way or the other. However, I feel that they should have no part in the democratic process in the place in which they are situated.
  I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction on the Front Bench. I should like my Government to introduce a Bill to bring the corporation and City of London into the same democratic procedures as we have everywhere else in this land. I invite my hon. Friend to do so.
  It is not unusual for me to be mildly critical of my Government when I speak in the House. That is part of the democratic process. I would much rather the time of the House tonight had been spent dealing with a Bill such as the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill, or some other matter of real importance to the people of Britain.
  I feel both angry and sad—sad that we have to debate the issue, and angry because of what it stands for. I do not imagine that many of my constituents are aware of the circumstances of the corporation and City of London and the totally undemocratic process by which they are governed. I shall try to make sure that they get to know a little more, as it is as important to them and to people in every other constituency as it is to the people of London, although I accept that it is more annoying to London Members. From what I have heard tonight, it is clear that they are much more knowledgeable on the subject than I am, but their feelings about democracy are no stronger.
  Several hon. Members have said that there is nothing comparable in other democratic countries. I believe that that is correct. I have heard a special case being pleaded, and I am always wary when I hear about a special case, because it is usually a matter of vested interests and attempts to take people's minds off the main issue. The main issue in this case has nothing to do with the wealth-creating abilities or otherwise of the corporation or the City of London, and everything to do with democracy and what people in this country expect.
  From what I have heard said by Opposition Members, it seems that if people work somewhere, they should be entitled to a vote there, because they should have a say in the place where they work. When I worked at the colliery, I did not expect to have a vote where the colliery was. I had one where I resided. That should be the cornerstone of all democracy. A vote should be based on where one resides. Are we saying that people who have a caravan should have a vote in the place where their caravan is sited? That is the analogy with the City of London.
  484
  I hope that every Labour Member will vote against the Bill, because the democratic situation will be worsened if the Bill goes through. Others will use it as an example. People will say, "Why can we in the north-east not have two votes? Can I not have a vote where I have my little corner shop? Can I not have a vote where I work?" The cornerstone of democracy is one person, one vote, in one place. That is paramount.
  I am employed in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who introduced the Bill. I would not expect to have a vote in his constituency. I do not expect to have a vote in Sunderland, where I also have an office. I expect one vote, and one vote only. If I were offered more, I would turn down the offer, because that would be fundamentally wrong. That is what the Bill is about—giving a certain number of people extra voting power. Once we go down the line of giving one person one vote and others more than one vote, we shall start seriously to undermine this country's democratic processes.
  The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster must be proud that he has this palace within his constituency. However, it is ironic that the mother of Parliaments—we should all be proud of the fact that this place stands for everything that is best as far as democracy is concerned—is within shouting distance of a place where attempts are being made by Opposition Members to negate the democratic process. That is the issue at stake.
  I warn all hon. Members that if the Bill is passed, it will be the start of a slippery slope, because it will be noticed and others will want the same rights. It is not anti-business to say that it is wrong for business people to have more than one vote. I remember the problems caused in Northern Ireland by the property vote. Some hon. Members know more about that than I because they were here when it existed. I have talked to people who believe in property votes; they want an advantage.
  There is no reason to apologise for saying that it is totally wrong for people to expect to have a voting influence because of where they work. There may be exceptions, for example someone who owns a public house and also lives in it, so it is their business and home. Voting rights should be based on residence and nothing else—one person, one vote, where the person resides. Those who seek to move away from that do everyone a great disservice.
  I am surprised at the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster. He is almost a doyen to me in terms of democracy and courtesy. I cannot understand why such a thoroughly decent person would put his name to such a pernicious, insidious and invidious Bill. I say once again to my hon. Friend the Minister, let us see a little bit of democracy and some modernisation. Let us have the democratic powers of the corporation of London taken away from it, so that it gets on with what it does best—the business of creating and distributing money. It is not always distributed how I would like, but I recognise that that is what it does, and that is all it should do. Businesses have plenty of influence within local authorities and this House. That should not be added to by allowing them to have additional votes.
  I have brought with me just three pieces of correspondence. The first is from the parliamentary agents of the Bill, a good organisation that I had a lot to do with on the Channel Tunnel Bill. It does that organisation no good

  485
  to be introducing this Bill. The second correspondence is from the London Labour party, which all my hon. Friends should support. It deals with this problem day in, day out—it must be terrible to have to live with it.
  The third piece of correspondence is from Malcolm J. Maxton, of London EC2Y, whom I thank for drawing this matter to my attention. Although I remember reading about it years ago, so I was vaguely aware of it, I must admit ignorance. I did not know how dreadful the democratic position was in that part of London and I am pleased that I have learnt about it. I hope that the Bill will be defeated tonight.
  9.24 pm
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: First, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) for being a little late for the start of this debate. No discourtesy was intended. I shall speak very briefly because other hon. Members want an opportunity to speak.
  I support the Bill because it will give the business community in the City a voice in its local government and enable voters to represent more accurately the various interests in the City. May I make a couple of narrow points? First, I believe that the present distribution of the electorate around the wards in the City is grossly unsatisfactory.
  Perhaps I should declare an interest: my brother, Julian Malins, who is a barrister and Queen's Counsel, is the senior counsellor for the Temple and Fleet street, and for the whole of the Smithfield market area. His electorate numbers more than 8,000 and there is a contested election almost every year. Another ward has about 2,000 electors, but the remaining 23 wards have extremely small electorates, some of which are too embarrassing to mention because the number is so low. Three wards have fewer than 100 electors. Although each ward will have larger numbers after the proposed reforms, the smaller wards will still be far too small and there will still be one ward that is hugely bigger than all the rest.
  Although the City of London corporation has the power to alter the ward boundaries, that power cannot deal with the gross imbalance in the numbers. Whatever way the boundaries are altered, there is no way that 6,000 voters in the Temple and Fleet street can be spread around the other wards. The court of common council recognised that. It debated the Bill in autumn 1997 and—on an amendment tabled by my brother—voted to seek from the House the power for the council to reduce the number of wards from 25, which was too many, to a more sensible number—perhaps 12.
  Such a motion was passed by the elected councillors, by 44 votes to 34, but voted down by the aldermen, by 18 votes to two. The aldermen do not want the council to have exclusive power to amalgamate wards—although only the court of common council should have such a power and the aldermen should be excluded from it—because, then, the number of aldermen might, and probably would, be reduced. Although I support the Bill, I hope that the House will look carefully at the distribution of the electorate in the City and provide a power to ameliorate that by the amalgamation of wards.
  If necessary—although I trust that it will not come to this—the council's power could include the power to have two aldermen, or more, for the amalgamated wards. I hope
  486
  that such a compromise will not be needed, because, as a further beneficial result of simple ward amalgamations, the present balance in numbers between the aldermen and the councillors, which would move adversely to the councillors if the Bill were passed unchanged, will remain. I will support the Bill's Second Reading.
  9.27 pm
  The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): It may be helpful at this point to give the House the Government's view on the Bill. As hon. Members have already pointed out, the City corporation is a unique institution for a unique place—the premier financial centre of Europe. The City is almost entirely a business district, with a resident population of barely 5,000—about a thirtieth of the population of the smallest London borough—and, because of that, the City corporation has a different role from that of other local authorities.
  The City corporation has also shown, particularly in recent years, that it has a valuable contribution to make to the success of London as a world-class city. For example, it promotes inward investment, helps to finance schemes and studies for the benefit of London as a whole and manages open spaces such as Epping forest and Hampstead heath.
  The Lord Mayor, Lord Levene, who has had a distinguished career in business and public service, has made clear his and the City corporation's commitment to build on that positive contribution, particularly in the context of the new structure of London governance being put into place by the Greater London Authority Bill. His commitment has been matched by that of Judith Mayhew, the chair of the City's policy and resources committee, who is listening to the debate. She has been a powerful advocate for modernisation of the City corporation's structure and role.
  Mr. McDonnell: I echo what my hon. Friend has said about the work that Michael Cassidy and Judith Mayhew have done over the years to encourage the backwoodsmen on the common council to accept some reform, and I look forward to welcoming them in the Labour party. However, can he say, in all honesty and without shame, that the Bill, not other proposals that may be made subsequently, is a step forward for democracy—the democracy to which our party has committed itself since its foundation? Can he, hand on heart, say that the Bill is a step forward, when it increases the business vote and reduces the percentage of the residents' vote?
  Mr. Raynsford: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend about the current chair and her predecessor on the City's policy and resources committee. If he will bear with me, I shall make clear the Government's view of the context of the Bill, and the way in which it can, we think, make a useful contribution to a programme of reform in the City—a programme introduced in response to a challenge issued by the Government before our election in 1997. I shall elaborate on that shortly.
  The Government welcome the commitment to reform in the City. Although the current structures and electoral arrangements for the City corporation are in many respects wholly anachronistic, we have made clear our view that we do not think it right to abolish the

  487
  corporation. We reached that view in the full knowledge of the corporation's assurance that it would continue its work promoting inward investment and the interests of London as a whole. Our decision was also made on the basis of the corporation's assurance that it had accepted the requirement for it to respond to the need for it to reform its electoral arrangements. The Bill is one part—only one part—of the response that the corporation promised. It is part of the corporation's agenda, designed to modernise its structure and electoral arrangements.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) asked how the Government's commitment to the establishment of citywide democratic government in London married with the Bill. I have partly answered my hon. Friend's question already, but I owe it to him to clarify what I said earlier. Before the last general election, the Government, then in opposition, made clear their commitment to restore democratic citywide government to London, thus putting right a serious wrong that was done 13 years ago when a Conservative Government abolished the Greater London council. At the same time, we made it clear that we did not intend to abolish the City corporation, but expected it to produce proposals for reform.
  Mr. Benn: Just before the election, the Labour party was asked to adopt a new constitution stating that it committed itself to the many, not the few. The Bill allows the few to buy more votes from the many, and I cannot believe that the Government could ask the House to accept it in any circumstances.
  Mr. Raynsford: My right hon. Friend argued earlier that the problem was that the Bill increased the number of people with the business vote, which seems to me to represent the many rather than, as it were, the less many; but I shall pass over that. The key issue is whether the corporation should, because it has a special and unique role, have a constitutional arrangement for the election of members of the common council that is different from the arrangement applying to every other part of the United Kingdom. Had we intended to abolish the corporation, it would unquestionably have come to an end; but, before the general election, we made clear our commitment not to abolish the corporation, but to seek reform of it.
  Mr. McDonnell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: I have given way already, and I want to make more progress.
  Mr. McDonnell rose
  Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend has intervened many times throughout the debate, and I want to make a little more progress.
  The City presented its proposals for reform following extensive consultation and debate between September 1997 and February last year. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke)—who spoke with characteristic wit and erudition, and who has taken a close interest in the process—referred to that consultation, which covered key City interests, businesses, residents and various bodies, and involved the three main national political parties.
  488
  The resulting package of reforms was agreed by the City last September. It included not only the extension of the franchise in the Bill, but a number of other reforms to the City's procedures and decision-making structures.
  The City have introduced a period of office for aldermen, so that they will no longer hold their positions for life and will have to seek re-election at least once every six years. The infamous aldermanic veto whereby the Court of Aldermen could prevent a properly elected alderman from taking office has been abolished and replaced by a more open vetting procedure based solely on qualification for the magistracy.
  The City has also set in train some important structural changes, including reducing the size of the court of common council. Until recently, that comprised 155 members–130 common council men and 25 aldermen. It does seem curious that one of the smallest local authorities in the country in terms of area and population should have the largest number of members of any local authority—larger even than the largest local authority in Britain, Birmingham, which manages with 117 councillors.
  Even more stark is the contrast with the composition of the new Greater London authority, which, for a population of upwards of 7 million, will have to make do with a single mayor and just 25 assembly members. Therefore, I am pleased that the City corporation has recognised the need to reduce the size of the common council. It is already cutting it to 125 members and aldermen and has agreed to reduce the number further—to 100—following the passage of the Bill.
  The Bill, along with the other reforms to which I have alluded, are a step in the right direction. Further improvements will also be possible. Those could include the review of the ancient ward boundaries and the allocation of members between the wards to overcome a number of anomalies, as identified by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins).
  Mr. Etherington: I have a predicament, and I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me. May I go back and tell my constituents that it is now Labour party policy to allow employers and property owners to appoint electors for local elections in areas where they do not reside?
  Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend made a passionate speech in defence of democracy. I would not disagree with much of what he said. If asked by electors and residents in his area, I would urge him to say openly that what we have been discussing has been a reform of an ancient institution that, for hundreds of years, has enabled people to vote on the basis of a business franchise. In place of procedures that are riddled with anomalies—whereby several people can vote on several occasions, pluralism is rampant, and where the distinctions under which people are entitled to a business vote bear no relationship to the current pattern of business in that community—we want a Bill that proposes a reform of that business franchise.
  I accept that many of my hon. Friends have strong reservations about the concept of any business vote at all. I fully understand that, but I put it to hon. Friends,

  489
  who have spoken passionately, that we are dealing with the reform of an existing institution that has a history of several hundred years.
  Several hon. Members rose
  Mr. Raynsford: Had we intended to abolish the institution altogether, it would have been appropriate for us to say so before the general election. We did not do that. We gave an undertaking before the general election—[Interruption.] The Prime Minister gave an undertaking before the general election that Labour, if elected, would work with the City corporation to reform its institutions. That is exactly what the Government are doing.
  Several hon. Members rose
  Mr. Raynsford: We gave undertakings to the electorate.
  Several hon. Members rose
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It appears that the Minister is not going to give way.
  Mr. Raynsford: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  We gave undertakings before the general election. I hope that all my right hon. and hon. Friends will accept that it is right for a Government to honour their undertakings and to act in accordance with the undertakings that they gave before they were elected.
  Mr. Love: I accept my hon. Friend's statement on our commitment before the general election. Today, therefore, we have to decide whether the Bill matches that commitment on reform and democratisation. Is the Minister saying that it does?
  Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. If he will bear with me, I shall deal in a moment with precisely that point.
  I was describing what had been achieved, and saying that, in the Government's view, further reform would be beneficial in achieving a more equitable distribution of voters and elected representatives.
  Mr. Peter Bradley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: No; I have already given way, and should make a little more progress.
  I hope that the City corporation will take full advantage of the opportunity to improve further its democratic credentials by pursuing those and other reforms.
  The corporation's proposal to extend the franchise is certainly novel. It seeks to recognise the special circumstances and unique demographic structure in the City, and it seeks to recognise the benefits that can be realised by including a much wider range of interests in the local decision-making structure. It includes also significant reform of current arrangements under which certain businesses and professional interests are included within the franchise on a basis that reflects past rather than current patterns of commercial activity and property
  490
  ownership in the City. Those who have criticised the proposed reform must recognise that the status quo is simply not defensible. If the Bill does not progress further today, the status quo will prevail.
  The Government welcome the fact that the City is beginning to face up to the need to put governance of the City on a more modern footing, so that it represents more accurately the various interests in the square mile. The Committee will be by far the best place to consider the Bill fully—to consider the substance, to examine the detail and to hear expert evidence. I have no doubt that, if many of the views—which are strongly held ones and have been passionately expressed in this debate—on the respective merits of different forms of electoral arrangements are properly debated and considered in Committee, the Bill can be both changed and improved.
  Mr. Peter Bradley: Surely the Bill should not proceed to Committee, as it is wrong not only in practice but in principle. If the Government were applying the same principle to reform of the House of Lords—which we are not—surely we would be arguing that we should leave hereditary peers in the other place, and somehow reduce their proportionate power by selling places in the other place to business.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled that we cannot go beyond the scope of this Bill.
  Mr. Raynsford: I crave your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in drawing one parallel in responding to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley). The Government pledged in our manifesto that we would reform the other place, and we are doing that. We pledged also that we would seek reform in the City rather than abolition of the City. If the Bill receives a Second Reading today, reform will be possible. If it does not receive a Second Reading today, the current arrangement—which is fundamentally unsatisfactory—will remain in place. I do not think that anyone who believes that we should be seeking reform and modernisation could justify that.
  Mr. Alan Simpson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Raynsford: No; I am finishing.
  I hope, therefore, that the Bill will be given a Second Reading, and will be allowed to proceed in the conventional way to Committee for the detailed consideration that I believe it needs and deserves.
  9.44 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), for my late arrival. May I welcome to the Dispatch Box my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and say that we look forward to many equally impressive occasions with my hon. Friend?
  I am possibly unique in the Chamber. Not only do I share with the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) the pleasure of having West Wickham common in my constituency, but, for 17 years, I have lived in the City. I am one of those potentially rare people—a

  491
  resident of the City of London. I have lived in two wards—Cripplegate and Aldersgate. I can recommend highly living in the Barbican—the City is a pleasant place to be. My husband worked in the City, but is now retired—I am pleased to say, due to his success in business.
  When I was the chairman of the Conservatives in the City of London—on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster—we fought European parliamentary and general elections. However, we never fought elections for common council, because those elections—and there always was a contest—were for independent representatives. All residents knew that there was a distinct imbalance between the vast number who were able to vote in wards with residents and the appallingly few voters in most of the other wards. Therefore, I welcome the proposal to increase the number of voters in the other wards.
  It is very important that a degree of democracy is brought to what is a unique institution. I agree with the Minister that we must ensure that there is a much better balance between the views of the residents and the views of business. At present, the views of business come from a narrow constituency, and the increase proposed by the corporation will modernise the voting role in the City.
  Mr. Peter Bradley: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Lait: I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because I know that others wish to speak.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) pointed out that we are not depriving the residents of a vote. In fact, in percentage terms—and with the City's other proposals—we will ensure that there is an increase in their representation.
  Mr. McDonnell: Not in this Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) has made quite a contribution through interventions. He cannot speak from a sedentary position—it is unfair.
  Mrs. Lait: It was obvious to residents of the City that we needed to widen the franchise, and to ensure that there was a much more representative basis for the common councillors. The corporation was very responsive on the matters affecting the residents, such as planning, traffic and environmental matters, and I cannot speak too highly of it.
  I should like to reiterate to the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead that, although this matter is not in the Bill, it is governed by the Representation of the People Acts, as amended by the Maastricht treaty, so that the only people who can be chosen by businesses either to go on the electoral register or to stand for election are those who have been able to vote in local government elections in the UK. Foreign people with no interest in the City will not be able to stand.
  We have seen enormous confusion tonight among those who are opposed to the Bill: those who wish to go back to a residents-only basis—in which case, there would be an even smaller voting population than at present in terms
  492
  of businesses—those who favour the status quo and those who want to abolish the system altogether. On behalf of the City corporation—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. An hon. Member is addressing the House and there are too many private conversations going on. There are even private conversations going on at the moment below the Gangway. That is wrong and unfair.
  Mrs. Lait: There is enormous confusion in the aims and objectives of those who oppose the Bill, but those of us who support it are unanimous that the corporation needs to be reformed in the way proposed.
  9.50 pm
  Ms Karen Buck: I shall be very brief, because I know that the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) wants to reply to the debate. I am also conscious of the fact that most of my arguments have been made eloquently and powerfully by others.
  As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the City was given a clear message about the need for reform. It has responded with one or two concessions outwith the Bill on the election of aldermen and the end of the veto. However, the Bill merely modernises the business vote qualification. That is a tragic missed opportunity. Those who have spoken in favour of the Bill have missed the point. The issue is the distribution of the franchise and the representation that each vote buys.
  In his very eloquent introduction, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster admitted that the share of the franchise held by residents would fall from 25 to 10 per cent. He advised us that they would maintain their representation because of the ward system. That is not good enough, although I accept that the argument is technically correct. We had some discussion about that earlier.
  The argument is not good enough, partly because it is not enshrined in the Bill, so we have no guarantee. The Bill also does nothing to ensure progress towards greater democracy for residents. Progress could have been demonstrated by a significant shift towards improving the residential franchise, but that has not happened. Worse still, the business-nominated voters need have no connection with the City through either residence or work place. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said confidently that common sense would dictate that there would be such a connection, but it is no disrespect to common councillors to say that democracy should not rest on such vagueness.
  The City corporation is a local authority with responsibility for schools, personal social services, police and traffic control for a residential population as well as the vastly inflated daytime population—a characteristic that the City of London shares with Westminster and with Kensington and Chelsea.
  That the City is an unusual local authority by virtue of its scale is not in dispute. That it should have the right to a unique system of government is entirely disputable.
  9.53 pm
  Mr. Brooke: This has been a remarkable debate, although I shall not say that it has been wholly enjoyable. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and the Minister for putting the positions of the Opposition and the Government.
  The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) was concerned about Epping forest and the open spaces. It is only 10 years since the City of London took on further responsibility for Hampstead heath. It has won golden opinions for the manner in which it has carried out that responsibility.
  I should like to link the speech of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) with that of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington). The hon. Member for Tatton was expressing the spirit of J. S. Mill in his remarks about universal suffrage. J. S. Mill was the Member of Parliament for my constituency in the days when my ancestors were Liberal Members of Parliament.
  I should point out to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) the irony that the City police force is governed by a local police authority, but the police force in the greater city of London is not.
  The rules of common council would prevent the issue that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) raised with me in an intervention.
  I have great good will towards the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer), so there is no edge to my remarks to him. An encapsulation of his speech would have been the moment when Blucher was taken up on to the dome of St. Paul's and, looking down on the City of London, said, "Vot a splendid city to sack!"
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), formerly one of my constituents, and the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), my parliamentary neighbour, came in on an essentially local basis at the end of the debate, and I am grateful to both.
  The heart of the issue lies with the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, echoing the earlier speech by the hon. Member for Tatton. He paid me a compliment, and I pay him one in return. It was a remarkable and eloquent statement on the principle of universal suffrage—I see the right hon. Member for Chesterfield nodding—and I could not dissent from the philosophy expressed, but, as the Minister said, we are dealing with a unique institution.
  The City of London is a curious animal. In about 1800, there were 200,000 people living in the City; there were still 60,000 or 70,000 in 1870; and still 14,000 at the end of the war; but it has shrunk. It consists of some pockets of flats, and there are publicans, caretakers and people in nurses' homes, as well as those in the Temple, but it is essentially a deserted area at night. Between 250,000 and 300,000 people come to work there in the day. It is a part of our nation which has essentially—by history, as it has been occupied for commercial purposes for 2,000 years—become a business district, just as the citizens of Melbourne have made the heart of Melbourne a business district, with a similar franchise.
  The City is different, and the hon. Member for Sunderland, North need not worry that we are on a slippery slope and every body in the country will follow. Other bodies have not followed since Lord Herbert made the remark that the City was a unique body in the royal
  494
  commission of 1957–60. Nobody has suggested that the business vote should be brought back since it was abolished in 1969 in any other local authority because it has continued in the City of London.
  The Liberals under Gladstone proposed that there should be home rule for Ireland and the great Dicey argued that it was appropriate to have different methods of government in different parts of the country. The present Government have followed that thesis in their various devolution arrangements.
  On the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, the Home Secretary said:
  "electoral systems should be appropriate to the nature and functions of the body that is being elected."—[Official Report, 26 February 1998; Vol. 307, c. 546.]
  The proposals in the Bill are there because it is felt to be desirable that a business district with a remarkable past should have a remarkable future. I hope that the House will respond to the views of the three main parties expressed tonight in favour of the Bill.
  Mrs. Lait rose in her place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 91.

  Division No. 75]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Allen, Graham

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Baldry, Tony

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Battle, John

  Denham, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Beard, Nigel

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Dowd, Jim

  Bercow, John

  Duncan, Alan

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Betts, Clive

  Boswell, Tim

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Edwards, Huw

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Evans, Nigel

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fisher, Mark

  Burnett, John

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Butterfill, John

  Flynn, Paul

  Caborn, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Casale, Roger

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Chidgey, David

  Gale, Roger

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Graham, Thomas

  Green, Damian

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Greenway, John

  Clelland, David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Cranston, Ross

  Hammond, Philip

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov"try S)

  Hanson, David

  495

  Hawkins, Nick

  Öpik, Lembit

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Paice, James

  Hill, Keith

  Pearson, Ian

  Hinchliffe, David

  Pope, Greg

  Hoey, Kate

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Horam, John

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Prior, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Hutton, John

  Radice, Giles

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Rendel, David

  Jamieson, David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Rogers, Allan

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Rooker, Jeff

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Keetch, Paul

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Key, Robert

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Livsey, Richard

  Soley, Clive

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spellar, John

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Spring, Richard

  Lock, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Loughton, Tim

  Steen, Anthony

  Luff, Peter

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Syms, Robert

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  McCabe, Steve

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  McFall, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  McIsaac, Shona

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  McNulty, Tony

  Thompson, William

  MacShane, Denis

  Timms, Stephen

  Madel, Sir David

  Touhig, Don

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Tredinnick, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Trickett, Jon

  Maples, John

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Tyler, Paul

  Mates, Michael

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Viggers, Peter

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Wallace, James

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Walter, Robert

  Meale, Alan

  Waterson, Nigel

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Wilkinson, John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Moore, Michael

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Wilshire, David

  Moriey, Elliot

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Norman, Archie

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Oaten, Mark

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Olner, Bill

  Mrs. Jacqui Lait and

  O'Neill, Martin

  Mr. David Amess.

  496

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Illsley, Eric

  Allan, Richard

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Ashton, Joe

  Kemp, Fraser

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Kidney, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Laxton, Bob

  Barron, Kevin

  Lepper, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Levitt, Tom

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Linton, Martin

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Love, Andrew

  Bennett, Andrew F

  McAllion, John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  McDonnell, John

  Berry, Roger

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Best, Harold

  McWilliam, John

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Maxton, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Clapham, Michael

  Mullin, Chris

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Cohen, Harry

  Pike, Peter L

  Coleman, Iain

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Connarty, Michael

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Salter, Martin

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Crausby, David

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Cummings, John

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Singh, Marsha

  Davidson, Ian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Dawson, Hilton

  Stevenson, George

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Etherington, Bill

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Fyfe, Maria

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Galloway, George

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Gerrard, Neil

  Wareing, Robert N

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Watts, David

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Winnick, David

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Wood, Mike

  Heppell, John

  Wray, James

  Hinchliffe, David

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Hurst, Alan

  Mr. Stephen Pound and

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mr. John Cryer.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the Rating (Valuation) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  Question agreed to.

  Rating (Valuation) Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Clause 1

  RATEABLE VALUE
  10.12 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 9, leave out from `substituted' to end of line 20 and insert
  '"if the landlord undertook to execute prior to the start of the tenancy such repairs, if any, as the tenant might reasonably expect to be carried out to put the hereditament in a state to command that rent and the tenant undertook thereafter to bear the costs of repairs and insurance and to pay all usual rates and taxes".'.
  Throughout the Bill's passage, both on Second Reading and in Committee, there has been serious concern that it does not do what the Government seek to do. There is a widespread fear that the legislation is too complex and convoluted. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I must call the House to order. The hon. Gentleman is moving an amendment.
  Mr. Burns: By making the Bill too complex and convoluted, the Government may achieve the exact opposite of their aim. Far from stemming the threat of further litigation, the Bill may open the floodgates to more.
  To be fair to the Minister for Local Government and Housing, I should note that she genuinely sought to allay those fears in Committee, saying that she thought that our fears would not come to pass. However, one problem with the Bill is that it is so technical that no one on either side of the House knows exactly what might happen. It is the clear duty of both the Government and the Opposition parties to try to minimise the problems that might, or might not, emerge from the Bill.
  The amendment's purpose is to try to clarify the situation and to prevent litigation and confusion. I shall try to explain this highly complex subject briefly. Before the 1990 revaluation, everyone tended to agree that there was an obligation on a hypothetical landlord to take some responsibility for putting a property into repair. The relevant definition was contained in section 19(6)—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is still far too much noise in the Chamber, and that is unfair to the hon. Gentleman who is trying to speak to his amendment.
  Mr. Burns: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Burns: I am indebted to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The relevant definition is contained in section 19(6) of the General Rate Act 1967. Everybody understood that: there was an obligation upon landlords to put property into repair if it was not in repair. Whether or not it was reasonable for the hypothetical tenant to expect the repair
  498
  work to be done was a matter of fact and degree. In other words, the obligation to put property into repair was in statute. Whether or not it was reasonable for works to be deemed to have been done in any particular case was a matter of fact and degree to be determined by agreement or, in default of agreement, by the appropriate tribunal.
  The Inland Revenue developed what is now known as the "economic test", which it adopted as a golden rule. It took the line that, if the cost of doing the work required to put the property into a full state of repair did not exceed the annual rent of the property in a full state of repair, the hypothetical landlord was to be deemed to have carried out the work concerned. The proposals in this legislation seem incredibly complicated and they go a great deal further than any intention declared by the Government hitherto.
  The Local Government Finance Act 1988 shifted the assumed burden of repair in order to make the hypothetical tenancy closer to the standard full repairing and insuring lease found in the market. The burden of repair was shifted to the tenant, and it would seem that nobody thought to include in the provisions any obligation upon anyone to put the property into any particular state of repair. Hence the difficulties that have led to this Bill.
  If the agenda is simply to try to end the problems caused by the Anston case and impose an obligation to put into repair upon a hypothetical landlord, I believe the formula in this amendment is the best one. Such an approach would have the effect that the Government have declared they are seeking in this legislation. Most importantly, it would go no further.
  For those reasons, I hope that the Government will consider sympathetically if not the amendment—because it is wrongly or badly drafted or whatever—then at least the aims of our amendment.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): The Bill, as drafted, requires an assumption to be made for valuation purposes. The assumption is that, on the relevant date, the property is in a state of reasonable repair, subject to the test that repairs are assumed to have been carried out only when a reasonable landlord would consider it economic to do so.
  The amendment would substitute for this assumption a slightly different one: that, before the tenancy begins, the landlord would have carried out any repairs that a tenant might reasonably expect in order to put the property in a state to command an annual rent. The tenant would then—as the Bill already stipulates—be assumed to maintain the property during the tenancy.
  As the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) pointed out correctly, this is a very technical Bill and my Department has examined it carefully. This amendment appears to be an attempt to achieve the main purpose of the Bill by using slightly different words. Even if that is the case, it may not do so exactly. The amendment puts the emphasis on the repairs that a tenant might reasonably expect to be carried out. That is not the same as the test applied before 1990 under the gross value basis of valuation, which was directed at what repairs a reasonable landlord would consider it economic to carry out himself.
  In response to the queries of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, it is our intention, as he rightly noted, to return the law to what it was understood to be before 1990. The Bill therefore adopts the test that existed before 1990 and not that set out in his amendment.

  499
  Perhaps more importantly, the amendment does not expressly address uneconomic repairs, which, under the Bill would be reflected in valuations in their actual state. It could be argued that it must be assumed as inherent in the concept of reasonableness that no one could reasonably expect repairs to be carried out at all if it is not economic to do so. However, that point has been argued as far as the Court of Appeal. In that light, we should not return to the matter being left open to argument. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford pointed out that that is one of the reasons why we have had to come here tonight. To leave it open could create cases under which uneconomic repairs are assumed, for rating purposes, to be repaired. I cannot accept an amendment that runs a risk of getting us into a similar dilemma to that which caused the need for the Bill. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Paul Burstow: I shall be brief. Hon. Members who saw me shuffling papers will note that only three sheets remain from the seven or eight that I had a little while ago.
  This debate is appropriate for this time of night because it will assist hon. Members in getting off to sleep quickly. It is a dry, technical subject, but, for, some people, it is of great concern. The Bill introduces some uncertainty, which is why I support the amendment of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns).
  The problem that this provision attempts to address is not real, but perceived. It arises out of a misreading of the Anston case in the Lands Tribunal last year. For some reason, the Government are holding to advice that is unsound and that leads them to believe that the judgment is about disrepair in the most general of forms rather than exceptional disrepair, which is what full reading of the case shows it to be about. In Committee, I asked for evidence of the Government's concern that the judgment would unleash a flood of appeals. We found from written answers that there was none. The Minister told us:
  "the valuer cannot assume anything other than a reasonable state of repair. However, what is reasonable will depend on the real-world situation on the day by reference to which he makes his valuation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 January 1999; c. 25.]
  Would that the Bill said that, but, unfortunately, it does not do what the Minister for Local Government and Housing said in Committee. I had hoped that by the time that we got to Report she would have tabled an amendment that put into law what she said in Committee. Sadly, that has not happened, and this amendment has been tabled to try to do what the Government should have done.
  I urge the Minister to accept the concerns that are still being expressed by many outside this place who work in this profession and are concerned that the Bill removes an element of compromise and flexibility in the valuation system at the expense of businesses that could, as a result, be driven out of business by rates bill rises. I hope that he can give us further reassurance that the Bill will not have that effect, but from what we have heard and what the profession believes, the Bill is a mistake that the amendment would go some way to rectify.
  Mr. Meale: Many of the fears and worries of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) will be
  500
  addressed by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing, when she addresses amendment No. 1, shortly. She has consulted a sufficient number of bodies outside this place to give a satisfactory answer.
  As the hon. Member for West Chelmsford admitted, the amendment does not fundamentally change the effect of the Bill. It goes in a slightly different direction, changing the wording. I therefore hope that the assurances that I have given are sufficient for the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Burns: I am very grateful to the Minister. I listened very carefully to what he had to say. Although there is still confusion and some concern, it would not be appropriate at this stage to force a Division on this amendment. When the Bill leaves the House and goes to another place, there will be another opportunity to get to grips with the outstanding issues that are causing concern. For that reason, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Burstow: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 16, at end insert
  'provided that there shall be excepted from any deemed reinstatement occurring in the course of the exercise of this assumption any want of actual repair to a hereditament arising from any peril customarily insured against, Acts of God, civil commotion, war or terrorism, or arising from the rebuilding or substantial refurbishment thereof'.
  I speak with trepidation bearing in mind recent comments of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what the Minister will say.
  The amendment will be familiar to hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee, and to the Minister particularly. It addresses an issue that I raised on Second Reading. The Bill, as drafted, precludes valuation officers being able to reflect in their evaluations the effect of natural disasters that result in temporary disrepair. The amendment provides a mechanism by which the practice may continue in respect of damage caused by acts of God, civil commotion, war or terrorism.
  In Committee, the Minister graciously said that she would look at the matter further, and that she recognised the anxiety expressed in Committee and outside this place. She said that, if she thought it necessary, she would seek to table amendments. I therefore draw one of two conclusions. Either the Government find my amendment acceptable, or they are able to reassure those, along with myself, who have raised concerns. I look forward to the Minister's response—one way or the other.
  Mr. Burns: The House will be relieved to know that I do not intend to speak for very long.
  We had a full debate on this amendment in Committee, during which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), my hon. Friends and I expressed concern. Indeed, we remain concerned—hence the tabling of the amendment—about the issues that are thrown up by the Bill. Clearly, we are not in a position at this stage to know exactly how the Government will react to the amendment. As the hon. Gentleman said, I hope that, on reflection, and having had an opportunity to study the debate in

  501
  Committee and think again, the Government will be minded to accept it. Obviously, we are in the dark until the Minister speaks. The hon. Gentleman and I will listen very carefully to the Minister's comments before reaching a decision on how to progress further.
  10.30 pm
  The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): As we can see, the Bill has riveted the attention of the whole House and highlighted the serious consideration that Members have given to the important issue of how hereditaments are rated, the practices that are used and the assumptions that are made.
  We have had full discussions and consultation with organisations that have expressed concern, as I promised in Committee. Officials met the representatives of the professional bodies on 2 February and the professions restated their concern that the Bill should define reasonable repair and accidental damage that should be excluded from rating assessments. They put forward a number of specific cases in which they feared the Bill might produce unfair consequences and treatment for ratepayers different from those under current legislation.
  The professional bodies remain opposed to the Bill in principle because they do not think that it is necessary, but the Government are convinced that it is necessary, and the professions accept that our intention is not what they originally thought it was. They accept also that it would be counterproductive to try to include in the Bill all the different circumstances in which the assumption of a reasonable state of repair would or would not have effect. It would be almost impossible to produce a definitive list. We would have to regularly rewrite that list because it would not correspond with practical examples.
  To help allay the concerns of the professions, the Valuation Office agency has drafted a practice note on its approach to valuation following enactment of the Bill. That will deal with the treatment of the marginal cases that the professions are most concerned about and draw on existing case law in support of the approaches that they propose should be taken in respect of each one. The Valuation Office is consulting the professional bodies on the drafting of that practice note. I thought that it might be helpful to explain to hon. Members the negotiations that we have been conducting about the professions' concerns.
  Amendment No. 1 reflects hon. Members' concern that any lack of repair arising, for example, from accidental damage, should be reflected in the valuation until that damage is repaired. I understand those concerns. I have repeatedly said that the Government and the Valuation Office have only one intention: to ensure that the assumption as to repair is that which was made in preparing rating valuations before the Lands Tribunal decision in Anston, and nothing more and nothing less.
  The current position is that if a property is incapable of beneficial occupation or, in other words, it is unusable, it will be removed from the rating list and no rates will be payable. That is clear. If only part of the property is rendered incapable of beneficial occupation, it has generally been the practice of valuation officers to reduce the rateable value of the premises with effect for the period during which that part of the property cannot be used, to reflect that loss of beneficial use. That applies as much to disrepair occasioned by accidental damage as it does to all other types of disrepair.
  502
  I recognise the concerns of the professions and hon. Members that the Bill may affect that position, but I do not believe that it does so. I hope that hon. Members will accept that we have carefully considered the matter, and in discussions the Valuation Office has made it clear to the professions that it will continue to value properties affected in that manner in precisely the same way as before.
  I believe, therefore, that the amendment is unnecessary. The Valuation Office has prepared a draft practice note which draws on existing case law and aims to set out how rateable values should be assessed in particular circumstances. I know that professional bodies are co-operating fully in the production of that practice note, to try to ensure that matters of concern are addressed. I believe that that offers a constructive way forward in an area of understandable concern.
  That is the right way to proceed. The practice note will be clear to the Valuation Office and to the professions. Accordingly, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment. If not, I ask the House to join me in opposing it.
  Mr. Burstow: I listened carefully to the Minister's comments, especially the extended references to the practice note that is being drafted in consultation with the various organisations that have an interest in the matter, such as the Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation and the Rating Surveyors Association. I know that other organisations have also been engaged in dialogue with representatives from the Department, to try to allay their concerns about the way in which the Bill, as drafted, will affect their activities and, more to the point, the way in which it will affect many businesses or hereditaments, as they are called for the purpose.
  I am sure that those organisations welcome the Government's co-operative approach, but they question the need for the practice note and the Minister's comments. The need to elaborate in such detail begs the question whether the drafting of the Bill has caused the confusion that the practice note is intended to dispel. That is one of the reasons why I did not find the Minister's comments as persuasive as she might have hoped.
  The statement by the Minister about acts of God, civil commotion and so on, which are dealt with in my amendment, relates to a serious concern which many of the professional bodies believe should be dealt with in the Bill. Only one professional body has withdrawn its objection and says that the practice note is sufficient. I have seen letters of representation from the other organisations, which hold to the view that the Bill as drafted does not give them confidence that they can give comfort to those who will lose out through the change in the system.
  The Bill does not merely put the law back to where it was on the day that Judge Marder in his judgment at the Lands Tribunal allegedly changed it. The Bill moves the goalposts to disadvantage businesses seeking to secure a fair valuation of their property.
  One of the points that has been made and that is germane to the amendment was that the Aniston case would unleash—
  Ms Armstrong: Anston.
  Mr. Burstow: I am corrected by the Minister from a sedentary position—the Aniston case—
  Ms Armstrong: Anston.
  Mr. Burstow: The Minister has tried again, and I missed it again. [HON. MEMBERS: "Anston."] I am sure that Hansard will show that it is Anston. I may have misread it in the Official Report of the Committee proceedings, where such errors creep in a little too often. I am grateful to the Minister for that correction.
  The judgment was alleged to have unleashed a process of perpetual revaluation. It was said that there would be a need continually to revalue properties to ascertain whether they were in a decent state of repair. If there was a chip in the paintwork or some other defect, a fresh valuation would be needed. That argument was nonsense from the outset. The profession had never believed that that would be the outcome and I doubt whether the Valuation Office genuinely believes that to be the product of the Anston case. The arguments for seeking to impose an unreasonable valuation on business premises made by the Valuation Office during that case boiled down more to administrative convenience and its own efficiency than to fairness.
  This is about whether the Government should be allowed to stretch the term, "reasonable" to unreasonable lengths. That is effectively what they will do, to the disadvantage of many businesses. I hope that hon. Members will take the opportunity of supporting my important amendment, because I intend to divide the House on it. It will ensure that the current practice, on which the Minister has sought to give us assurances, is in the Bill. Practice notes can be rewritten; this Bill should state specifically that those matters will continue to operate as they do now.
  We shall not withdraw the amendment, and I urge hon. Members to join me in the Lobby to protect businesses from the unfair additional burden that the Bill will place on them.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 27, Noes 206.

  Division No. 76]

  [10.41 pm

  AYES

  Beggs, Roy

  Keetch, Paul

  Breed, Colin

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Moore, Michael

  Burnett, John

  Oaten, Mark

  Burns, Simon

  Öpik, Lembit

  Burstow, Paul

  Rendel, David

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Tyler, Paul

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Willis, Phil

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Mr. Richard Allan and

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Mr. David Heath.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Barron, Kevin

  Allen, Graham

  Battle, John

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Bayley, Hugh

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Beard, Nigel

  Barnes, Harry

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  504

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Berry, Roger

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Best, Harold

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Betts, Clive

  Hurst, Alan

  Blizzard, Bob

  Hutton, John

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Illsley, Eric

  Browne, Desmond

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Burden, Richard

  Jamieson, David

  Burgon, Colin

  Jenkins, Brian

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Caborn, Richard

  Cann, Jamie

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Casale, Roger

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Caton, Martin

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Cawsey, Ian

  Kemp, Fraser

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Clapham, Michael

  Kidney, David

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Laxton, Bob

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Lepper, David

  Clelland, David

  Levitt, Tom

  Coaker, Vernon

  Linton, Martin

  Cohen, Harry

  Love, Andrew

  Coleman, Iain

  McAllion, John

  Connarty, Michael

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  McCabe, Steve

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Cranston, Ross

  McDonnell, John

  Crausby, David

  McFall, John

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Cummings, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McNulty, Tony

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Mallaber, Judy

  Dalyell, Tam

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Davidson, Ian

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Martlew, Eric

  Dawson, Hilton

  Maxton, John

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Meale, Alan

  Doran, Frank

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Dowd, Jim

  Mitchell, Austin

  Drew, David

  Moffatt, Laura

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Edwards, Huw

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Etherington, Bill

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Fisher, Mark

  Morley, Elliot

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Flynn, Paul

  Mountford, Kali

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Mudie, George

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mullin, Chris

  Gapes, Mike

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Gerrard, Neil

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Olner, Bill

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  O'Neill, Martin

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Pearson, Ian

  Goggins, Paul

  Pickthall, Colin

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Pike, Peter L

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Plaskitt, James

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Pope, Greg

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Pound, Stephen

  Hanson, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Healey, John

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Heppell, John

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Hesford, Stephen

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Hinchliffe, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Hoey, Kate

  Radice, Giles

  Home Robertson, John

  Rammell, Bill

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Raynsford, Nick

  505

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rogers, Allan

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Timms, Stephen

  Rowlands, Ted

  Tipping, Paddy

  Ruddock, Joan

  Todd, Mark

  Salter, Martin

  Touhig, Don

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Watts, David

  White, Brian

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Spellar, John

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Winnick, David

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Woolas, Phil

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wray, James

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Mr. Keith Hill.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
  10.52 pm
  Ms Armstrong: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  It became clear in Committee that the professional bodies representing the valuation profession, and Opposition Members, feared that the Bill went rather further than the Government had suggested. We have said that our intention in introducing the Bill was to restore the position on rating valuations to the one which existed before the Lands Tribunal decision in Benjamin v. Anston Properties.
  As I said earlier, since the Bill went into Committee on 19 January my officials, together with officers from the Valuation Office, have met representatives of the professional bodies. We have sought to reassure them that the Bill only returns the assumption regarding the state of repair for valuation purposes to that which applied before 1990—which assumption the agency has applied to valuations since then.
  I hope that we have now at least convinced the profession of our intentions. I believe that we have, but, for the benefit of the House, let me say a little about the background to the Bill, and why the Government felt compelled to act.
  Until the introduction of national non-domestic rates in 1990, the rating hypothesis allowed for two different bases of valuation, depending on the type of property to be valued. The first was a valuation to gross value. It was established by case law that, in valuing to gross value, an assumption was made that the property was in a state of reasonable repair unless the cost of repairs would be uneconomic. The majority of commercial properties were assessed on that basis. The second basis of valuation was valuation to net annual value, which is equivalent to rateable value. While the situation with regard to the repair assumption was less clear in relation to valuations made direct to rateable value, leading authorities suggested that the same assumption regarding repair had to be made.
  506
  The rating hypothesis was changed in 1990 as a result of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which was introduced by the last Government. Schedule 6, paragraph 2 of that Act, which the Bill seeks to amend, placed the obligation to repair on the hypothetical tenant where, under gross value, it had previously rested with the hypothetical landlord.
  That change in basis reflected the general movement in the non-domestic property market towards leases where the tenant had a repairing obligation. It reflected the real-world position. It allowed valuers to use direct rental evidence obtained from leases without having to adjust that evidence to accord with the hypothesis, as happened before 1990. However, it was not the then Government's intention that the approach to valuation should change in respect of the repair assumption. Indeed, the Valuation Office continued to apply the assumption that, in most cases, properties are in a state of reasonable repair.
  Then we had the decision by the Lands Tribunal in the case of Benjamin v. Anston Properties on 11 March 1998. That directly contradicted this view. The Lands Tribunal found instead that rating valuations should reflect the actual repair condition of the property on the valuation date. We therefore believe that the decision calls into question all valuations carried out by the Valuation Office for both the 1990 and 1995 rating lists. As hon. Members will appreciate, that would give serious problems to the prospect of rating. As we are entering a new valuation period, it is important that there should be clarity as to precisely what the law intends.
  The Bill seeks to underpin the rating valuations that were made for both those lists by confirming the basis on which they were made. It also establishes firmly that property is in future to be valued on the assumption that it is in a state of reasonable repair.
  So much for our intention. It was clear in Committee that hon. Members had concerns—raised by the professional bodies—that, in drafting the Bill, we had gone further than was intended. That is not our objective. Despite having listened, gone back and looked at the matter again and again following representations from the professions and hon. Members, I do not believe that that is what the Bill does.
  As I said in Committee, I was entirely happy for consultation to take place with whoever wanted to have it, and that has happened. In essence, the professions were concerned that, in introducing the specific assumption of a state of reasonable repair to the rating hypothesis, we would affect some properties that currently benefit from a reduction in rateable value in particular circumstances.
  I shall deal with the concept of reasonable repair itself. The Bill requires that assumption to be made subject to the economic test that previously applied. In doing so, it codifies the practical effects of previous cases, notwithstanding the fact that those were decided in the context of gross value.
  Case law going back well before 1990, and the practice established as a result of that case law, means that what it is reasonable to expect in relation to the repair condition of any hereditament will depend on the age and type of the property, the locality in which it is situated and all the surrounding circumstances. That follows, necessarily, from the fundamental principle for valuation that such matters relating to the hereditament are to be taken as they stand.

  507
  In the light of that case law, I do not believe that it is necessary to import into the legislation a definition of reasonable repair. Indeed, I believe that, in seeking to do so, we would run the significant risk of introducing an unintended restriction and so lose the flexibility that valuers and the courts need in deciding what is reasonable in the particular circumstances of each case.
  A further concern was how, following enactment of the Bill as drafted, the Valuation Office would treat properties that would previously have had rateable values reduced, often for short periods only, to take account—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. There are far too many private conversations going on. Hon. Members must listen to the Minister. If they do not, they must hold their conversations somewhere else.
  Ms Armstrong: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—although I understand why hon. Members might like to have private conversations during this summary. However, it is my job, so I have to proceed with the Summary.
  A further concern was how the Valuation Office would treat properties that would previously have had rateable values reduced, often for short periods only, to take account of circumstances affecting the property; examples include a property that has been damaged by fire, or one that is undergoing substantial building work. I understand that concern, and have repeatedly said that the Government and the Valuation Office have only one intention—to ensure that the assumption on repair is that which was made in preparing rating valuations before the Lands Tribunal decision in Anston.
  The current position is that if a property is incapable of beneficial occupations—if, in other words, it is unusable—it will be removed from the rating list and no rates will be payable. That is clear—certainly it is clear to the public, even if it is not yet clear to Opposition Members. I appreciate the concerns expressed by the professions and by Committee members that the Bill may affect the current position, but I do not believe that it will. As I said, I have examined the matter many times. In discussions, the Valuation Office has made it clear that it will continue to value properties affected in precisely the same way as before.
  The Valuation Office shares the Government's concern that the Bill should take us back only to the position we believed we were in prior to the Anston decision. As I said, the agency is preparing a practice note on application of the Bill post-enactment, and it is sharing drafts of it with the professional bodies. I really do believe that that is an effective way to proceed. I have also given very clear reasons why it would be irresponsible to put in the Bill matters that should be in a practice note. Including them in the Bill would necessitate subsequent changes to primary legislation to deal with new or changed matters, which would not help in the evaluation process, in which evaluation officers operate by tight timetables.
  I hope that my comments in this debate, and the Valuation Office's practice note, will serve to clarify our intentions in introducing the Bill. Although it is a small and technical Bill, we have the responsibility of
  508
  passing it—so that businesses that are currently facing revaluation will know that those revaluations are clearly in conformity with the expectations of the law, and so that they will know the basis on which their premises are valued.
  Although we have a responsibility to ensure that there is such clarity, hon. Members have failed in this debate to convince me that such clarity exists. The longer the debate has continued, the more convinced I have become that the Bill is necessary. I commend it to the House.
  11.4 pm
  Mr. Burstow: I appreciate that it is the time of night when hon. Members would rather be at home reading the Bill than listening to speeches about it. However, I shall be very brief.
  I appreciate the lengths to which Ministers and their officials have gone, both before and after the Bill's Committee stage, in consulting and holding a dialogue with the professions. I should like to place on record the appreciation of those efforts that the professions have expressed to me. The dialogue has been important.
  There is a genuine and honest difference of opinion as to the interpretation of the case, and of the Bill in future. I am grateful for the way the Minister has dealt with the matter, both tonight and earlier. There is however a need for clarity, and I do not believe that the Bill provides it.
  I was concerned that the explanatory notes were longer than the Bill, and we must be cautious when that happens. It was for that reason that we hoped that some of the points in the explanatory notes would be in the Bill.
  Shortly after the Committee, I received a letter from the Rating Surveyors Association—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I knew that hon. Members would perk up at the reference to that body. It drew to my attention the words of Justice of Appeal Godfrey, which I thought I would share with the House:
  "The world of rating appears to one unfamiliar with the arcana to be cloud-cuckoo land, a world of virtual unreality from which real cuckoos are excluded altogether, although it seems that permission to land will be granted to a cuckoo flying in the form of the real world if it can be demonstrated that, in the presence of cloud-cuckoo land, it is essential and not merely an accident."
  You will wonder, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why I read that out. Even I am wondering why. However, the Bill feels like cloud cuckoo land, with its hypothetical tenants and landlords. I have had to explore those issues for the first time, as Ministers have had to. However, the fact that the Minister has had to read into the record such a detailed statement about the Bill—and has had to give an undertaking about producing detailed practice notes—indicates that it is not straightforward.
  The Bill would have benefited from amendments, but it has not been amended. However, the Government have done what they believe to be right and tried to correct the law. There is an honest disagreement about that, but the Government are proposing mechanisms that have given some comfort to the profession. For that reason, we do not intend to divide on Third Reading.
  11.7 pm
  Mr. Burns: Although this clearly is not a party political matter, there is concern that although the Government are seeking to block a loophole that emerged

  509
  from a court case, they will not achieve that with the Bill. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) that the Government have not accepted any amendments. I am concerned that the ministerial statement and the draft practice notes will not be in the legislation, which could cause problems in future. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said that he would not divide the House, but I am not convinced that the Bill will succeed. I am not prepared to support it on Third Reading.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 140.

  Division No. 77]

  [11.9 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Allen, Graham

  Goggins, Paul

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Barnes, Harry

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Barron, Kevin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Battle, John

  Hanson, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Healey, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Heppell, John

  Berry, Roger

  Hesford, Stephen

  Best, Harold

  Hinchliffe, David

  Betts, Clive

  Home Robertson, John

  Blizzard, Bob

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Browne, Desmond

  Hurst, Alan

  Burden, Richard

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Illsley, Eric

  Caplin, Ivor

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Casale, Roger

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Caton, Martin

  Jamieson, David

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Clapham, Michael

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Clelland, David

  Kemp, Fraser

  Coaker, Vernon

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Cohen, Harry

  Kidney, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Laxton, Bob

  Cranston, Ross

  Lepper, David

  Crausby, David

  Levitt, Tom

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Love, Andrew

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  McAllion, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  McCabe, Steve

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  McDonnell, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  McFall, John

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Davidson, Ian

  McIsaac, Shona

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  MacShane, Denis

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Dawson, Hilton

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Doran, Frank

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Dowd, Jim

  Martlew, Eric

  Drew, David

  Maxton, John

  Etherington, Bill

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Fisher, Mark

  Meale, Alan

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Flynn, Paul

  Mitchell, Austin

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Moffatt, Laura

  Gerrard, Neil

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  510

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mountford, Kali

  Spellar, John

  Mudie, George

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mullin, Chris

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Olner, Bill

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  O'Neill, Martin

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pendry, Tom

  Pickthall, Colin

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Pike, Peter L

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Plaskitt, James

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pope, Greg

  Touhig, Don

  Pound, Stephen

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Watts, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  White, Brian

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Rammell, Bill

  Winnick, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Woolas, Phil

  Rogers, Allan

  Wray, James

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Salter, Martin

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mr. Keith Hill.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Amess, David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Fraser, Christopher

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Gale, Roger

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Garnier, Edward

  Baldry, Tony

  Gibb, Nick

  Beggs, Roy

  Gill, Christopher

  Bercow, John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Blunt, Crispin

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gray, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Green, Damian

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Greenway, John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Grieve, Dominic

  Brady, Graham

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Brazier, Julian

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hammond, Philip

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Burns, Simon

  Hayes, John

  Butterfill, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Cash, William

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Chope, Christopher

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Clappison, James

  Horam, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Collins, Tim

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Colvin, Michael

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Johnson Smith,

  Cran, James

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Key, Robert

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Day, Stephen

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Lansley, Andrew

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Leigh, Edward

  Duncan, Alan

  Letwin, Oliver

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Evans, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Faber, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Flight, Howard

  Loughton, Tim

  511

  Luff, Peter

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Soames, Nicholas

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Spring, Richard

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Steen, Anthony

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Malins, Humfrey

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maples, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Townend, John

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Tredinnick, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Trend, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Norman, Archie

  Walter, Robert

  Ottaway, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Page, Richard

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Paice, James

  Whittingdale, John

  Paterson, Owen

  Willetts, David

  Pickles, Eric

  Wilshire, David

  Prior, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Randall, John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Woodward, Shaun

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Yeo, Tim

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Ruffley, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Sir David Madel and

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 40) (HC 205), which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  Question agreed to.

  War Pensions
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  11.21 pm
  Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise in the House the issue of the backdating of war pensions. In the debate, I shall refer to two of my constituents: to preserve their anonymity, I shall call them service man 1 and service man 2, although the Minister has, of course, been given details of their identity and their history. At the outset, I declare an interest in respect of the first of those two constituents: he hand-crafted a dolls' house for my seven-year-old daughter—a beautiful and touching gift, for which I am proud to express my thanks on her behalf.
  Service man 1 will be 80 years old in July, but the past 58 of those years have been years of great suffering. Following the evacuation at Dunkirk, mines were laid by our own troops around the south coast as a defence against possible invasion. They were anti-tank mines, not anti-personnel mines; they were designed to destroy enemy landing craft and, when they exploded, they made craters 8 ft deep. During storms, in heavy seas, those mines shifted and service man 1's unit was sent to recover and replace them. They had no mine detectors, only bayonets, as they went into the storm, on to the shifting shingle.
  Service man 1 was squatting on his heels, replacing the arming lever in one such mine, with two of his comrades beside him, when the mine exploded. The two men with him were killed. He survived, but was blown 40 yd into the sea. He suffered lacerations to his hands and face and within his mouth; his teeth were blown out at gum level; an injury to his right elbow prevented it from being fully extended; and flash blindness meant that he was without sight for five weeks. His nerves were shattered and he suffered deep concussion, memory loss, frequent nightmares and flashbacks. He was treated for seven months by the leading expert of the age, William Sargant, about whom I shall say more shortly.
  On 19 August 1941, service man 1 was discharged from hospital suffering from, among other things, war neurosis—post-concussion, which is better known today as post-traumatic stress disorder. It is a chronic condition, whose symptoms include severe depression, awful dreams, flashbacks, aggressiveness, massive mood changes, gross irritability, anxiety, nervousness, insomnia, excessive fatigue, headaches and stress-related heart disease. On 15 September 1941, he was discharged from the Army and he applied, of course, for a war disablement pension.
  On 18 September, service man 1 was sent Ministry form MPB 240, which stated that, despite the range of injuries suffered, only post-concussion syndrome and the injury to his elbow were to be recognised for war pension purposes. Worse still—bizarrely, even hideously, one might think—the Ministry denied that the conditions were directly attributable to war service and that exploding mine. It said that the war may have exacerbated prior conditions.

  513
  In consequence, service man 1 was awarded a partial war pension only, even in respect of the limited conditions that the Ministry recognised. However, worse was to follow. The partial award, made in 1941, was reduced steadily until it was removed altogether in 1953.
  Some people may think that service man 1 must have been making a remarkable recovery, but post-traumatic stress disorder is a chronic condition. The available medical records—which I have seen and forwarded to the Secretary of State—show conclusively that service man 1 received medical treatment for the various indicia of the condition in every decade from the date of injury to the present.
  After discharge, he was unable, because of illness, to recommence his pre-war trade. He was forced to take a menial job. In 1981, just weeks after seeing his doctor for depression yet again, he was forced to take early retirement on medical grounds from that menial job.
  Service man 1 tells me, and I believe him, that he made no miraculous recovery, that he suffered throughout and that he suffers now. He cannot even be treated for cataracts because of feared internal head injuries. Yet from 1941, this brave man received a reduced war pension and, from 1953, no war pension at all.
  Some people may say that he should have continued to appeal, year after year. He did appeal, from 1941 to 1955, and was rebuffed. Why? William Sargant, the doctor to whose care service man 1 was entrusted gives us the answer in his seminal work on traumatised world war two veterans entitled "The Unquiet Mind". The book demands greater scrutiny than I can give it today, but in it he states:
  "Just before the declaration of World War II, a group of official advisory experts … decided that war neuroses could best be abolished by simply pretending that they did not exist; or at least that they were not caused by a man's war experiences but by an inherited predisposition or early childhood trauma. So, although we could discharge mentally ill patients from the Army, if they were clearly of no further military use and might relapse when returned to duty, any applications for war pensions on their returning still partially disabled to civilian life were brusquely rejected."
  Service man 1 was not just a victim of war, of an exploding mine or of post-traumatic stress disorder: he was a victim of official blindness to his suffering.
  In world war two, we may not have executed personnel traumatised by the conflict, as happened a quarter of a century earlier, but neither did we give them war pensions. We cannot have expected such men, who were already damaged, to continue to apply for war pensions, year after year, in the face of official denial. Even the loving wife of service man 1, who has stood by him and suffered with him all these years, could not bring herself to apply on his behalf, at further risk to his fragile peace of mind.
  In 1996, with the encouragement and support of the Royal British Legion and the organisation Combat Stress, service man 1 reapplied for a war pension. It was then conceded that mistakes had been made, that he had suffered a wider range of injuries than had been recognised all those years before, that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and that that was caused by the exploding mine in 1941. That had been denied when he first applied.
  A war pension was at last awarded to him again, and even upgraded after the War Pensions Agency found papers that had previously been lost. However, even though it related to suffering that dated from 1941, that war pension was backdated only to 1996, the date of the latest application.
  514
  Service man 2 also lives in my constituency. He joined the Royal Army Medical Corps as a regular before the second world war. He was 17. He had excellent eyesight, he was an athlete and he weighed 12 st 7 1b. He boxed at the upper limit of the light heavyweight division for the RAMC team. He was stationed in north China between 1937 and 1939, and he contracted typhoid, amoebic dysentery and other diseases. During the battle of Singapore, his first aid post was bombed and shelled from air and sea. He was shot in the leg, and he suffered a fracture and shrapnel wounds. He was taken prisoner by the imperial Japanese forces. He spent three and a half years in captivity, and he worked on the Burma-Siam railway.
  Service man 2 contracted terrible tropical diseases. He was beaten, and he suffered loss of teeth, ruptured ear drums and a broken nose. He was starved; the former light heavyweight boxer's weight fell to under 7 st. He became so emaciated that he was blinded for three months by malnutrition. When he could see, he witnessed depravity—man's inhumanity to man, and sights no man should have to endure. They cannot bear repeating in the House.
  On his release, like service man 1, service man 2 suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. He returned to this country after the war, after 11 years of unbroken military service. That regular soldier, who had expected to serve for 18 years, was found unfit for further service. He was part of the human debris of war.
  Service man 2—a brave man—was subjected to ridicule. Broken, physically and mentally, he was abused and humiliated. In 1946, he changed his name by deed poll to try to bury the traumas of his past.
  The very least that service man 2 might have expected was proper treatment by those responsible for war disablement pensions. Yet, in 1946, he was awarded disablement pension in respect only of myopia with astigmatism, malaria and dysentery—just three of the conditions on the list of injuries and conditions from which he was suffering. In 1950, his war pension in respect of the three recognised conditions was reduced to 20 per cent. In 1955, it was reduced to the range of 6 to 14 per cent. In those days, assessments of under 20 per cent. took the form of a small weekly pension followed by a lump sum payment, and that was made in February 1957. For 30 years and more, that was his lot.
  Service man 2 had to wait until access to medical records legislation came into force in 1989 before he could scrutinise medical documents he had not previously seen. Afterwards, he presented himself for medical re-examination, and it was confirmed several months later that, in addition to the three conditions previously recognised, he had been suffering from seven further long-standing—I stress long-standing—conditions induced by war. They were bilateral hearing loss; Meniere's disease; shrapnel wounds to his legs; a fractured left ankle; an injury to his pelvis; malnutrition; and, again, post-traumatic stress disorder.
  In 1990, the seven additional disabilities were acknowledged, and service man 2 was awarded a war pension accordingly. As with service man 1, it was backdated only to the date of latest application—1990.
  My two brave constituents were wrongly denied war pensions for many years. Some disabilities were missed, others wrongly stated not to have been caused by war.

  515
  Post-traumatic stress disorder was ignored, airbrushed out of medical history as if it simply did not exist. We do not need to condemn out of hand those responsible for the errors; they were made in times very different from today. However, in a humane society, we must condemn any system that prevents those mistakes from being rectified now.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will known that, until 7 April 1997, the Secretary of State was vested with a broad discretion to issue backdated war pensions in appropriate and exceptional cases. That discretion afforded the Secretary of State the capacity to act and to do justice in appropriate and compelling cases. From that date on, however, the Conservative Government all but removed the discretion.
  On 3 February 1999, I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether he thought it sensible to restore to his Secretary of State the discretion that the Conservatives had removed. He said that the Government would
  "always consider ways of improving the situation … within the Government's overall cost budget."—[Official Report, 3 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 931.]
  On the issue of cost, I remind my hon. Friend of two things. First, on this point, all I am asking for is restoration of a discretion to backdate in appropriate and compelling cases. That is not a huge spending commitment. Secondly, as I understand it, the first year of the Labour Government yielded a saving of £53 million on war pensions alone. Even after conceding to the Royal British Legion's demand—which I support—that we reverse restrictions on deafness pensions for ex-service men and women, there must still be money available from that pot to make restoration of the discretion a real and a worthy measure.
  I ask my hon. Friend tonight—just as I asked our mutual right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a short time ago—whether he thinks it is sensible to restore to the Secretary of State the discretion to issue backdated war pensions in cases that truly merit it. If not, why not? What conceivable reason could any Secretary of State have for wishing to deprive himself of at least the capacity to exercise mercy, compassion and discretion when fairness compels it? I await my hon. Friend's answer with great interest. I have thought hard about that question, and I can think of no reason whatsoever.
  My hon. Friend does not have to go that far—although I implore him to do so—to help service men 1 and 2. After all, they applied for backdating before 7 April 1997. The Secretary of State retains his discretion to remedy the unfairness that they have suffered. It is about discretion—it is not about rigid rules to which there must be slavish adherence. As of 1 April 1998, the then Secretary of State did not even know when the discretion was last exercised or how many times it had been exercised since the general election. I consider that to be a lamentable state of affairs. I also think it begs the question whether past Secretaries of State have acted lawfully.
  How can discretion have been exercised fairly and consistently in the past if we do not even know how and when it was exercised? How can we be sure that we have been treating like cases in a like manner? Can my hon. Friend tell me tonight whether the discretion has ever been exercised by this Government? It certainly has not been exercised thus far in favour of either of my constituents.
  516
  There has been nothing by way of backdating for service man 1, who was blown up by our own land mine. He was forced to abandon his trade through shattered nerves and to take early retirement by reason of depression. He has received nothing, despite known errors in the way in which his case was handled and despite medical evidence of on-going suffering for nearly 60 years.
  There has been nothing for service man 2, who was starved on the Burma-Siam railway and whose post-traumatic stress disorder was ignored. He has received nothing, despite the six other missed long-standing medical conditions from which he has been suffering since the war.
  There has been nothing for either of them.
  Will my hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State, in whom the discretion is vested, to examine both cases again? Will he ask him to exercise that discretion—a discretion which is still available to him—so as to right the wrongs inflicted on my two constituents? They do not want huge sums of money, but they want the mistakes of the past acknowledged and corrected. They want fairness—a fairness that they have been denied by successive Governments for far too long. I want fairness too: I want it for my constituents. Until we have it, there will be a scar on the soul of this country.
  11.39 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) on securing this debate on such an important subject. The way in which he has made his case tonight will go further to enhance the reputation that he already enjoys as an excellent constituency Member of Parliament.
  I begin by paying tribute to those members of our armed forces who have been killed or injured in the service of their country.
  Members of Parliament of my generation must remember that the democratic liberties that we enjoy to seek election to Parliament and to speak freely when we get here were kept alive by the sacrifice of British service men and women during two world wars. All hon. Members owe a deep debt of gratitude to soldiers such as my hon. Friend's constituents. I share his belief that those who have served their country and suffered injury should be properly compensated. I do not want there to be any doubt of that in his mind.
  My Department is committed to ensuring that decisions about war pensions are made fairly and consistently on the basis of the facts in individual cases and the law pertaining to those facts. The war pensions scheme provides a basic pension or gratuity for disablement due to, or aggravated by, military service, whether in time of peace or war, and a range of allowances that may be paid in addition to the basic pension. The basic pension is currently £111.10 a week, and allowances for severely disabled ex-service men or women can increase that to slightly more than £400 a week. Entitlement to basic pensions and allowances is decided only after advice from doctors appointed by the Secretary of State.
  For many years, the law has provided that the date of commencement for a war pension is normally the date of the claim or review that led to an increase in the pension.

  517
  However, my hon. Friend raised a question about the discretion for backdating that was vested in the Secretary of State before 1997. The War Pensions Agency observes guidelines that are in the public domain in dealing with such cases. This is a discretionary provision, so each case must be considered on its merits and not according to precedent. Both cases raised by my hon. Friend have been considered in that manner.
  My hon. Friend asked whether I believe that the Government should restore a facility to backdate. That facility is there—in 1997, just before the general election, the facility to backdate was changed from one of discretion by the Secretary of State to one prescribed by regulations. However, it is the previous discretionary provision that concerns the two cases that my hon. Friend raised. I am of course aware of his long-standing interest in the cases, which is reflected in the parliamentary questions that he has asked and his detailed correspondence with my noble Friend Baroness Hollis, the Minister responsible for war pensions.
  Service man 1 enlisted in the 204th (Wessex) Field Company, Royal Engineers, Territorial Army in 1939. He transferred to full-time service on the outbreak of war in September that year and performed all his Army service in the United Kingdom until sustaining his injuries on 7 January 1941. He received immediate medical treatment and, later, hospital treatment in Deal, Chatham and Sutton. He was discharged from the Army on 15 September 1941 as permanently unfit for any form of military service because of his injuries. He was awarded a war disablement pension from the following day for post-concussive syndrome and a loose body in the right elbow joint, which were the only conditions for which he claimed.
  Service man 1 was readmitted to hospital in Sutton in February 1942 for further treatment due to the post-concussive syndrome and blast effects. His file then records several medical examinations over the period from August 1942 to May 1954. The examinations indicated that although still suffering from the effects of his injuries sustained in January 1941, his disablements, when compared with a fit person of similar age, were improving. A final gratuity was awarded in December 1950 for the period to November 1953.
  Those decisions about service man 1's war pension entitlement were not taken arbitrarily or in isolation, but based on the facts that were established at the time. Service man 1 sought help from at least two ex-service organisations and had his case considered by the local war pensions committee. There matters rested until 1996, when a further claim was made and a war disablement pension was awarded from the date of that claim. My hon. Friend says that the War Pensions Agency was blind to the needs of his constituent. I regret that I cannot accept that, because it considered properly and fully the claims each time that one was made.
  Mr. Stinchcombe: My hon. Friend will know that I referred to an extract of "The Unquiet Mind" by the expert of the age, William Sargant, which I have sent to his Department. He will therefore know not only that we air-brushed out post-traumatic stress disorder from second world war medical history books, but that after the second world war although those with bunions but fit and able enough to fight for their war pensions got one, those who
  518
  suffered brain damage did not, because they were unable to fight and their families were too ashamed to fight for them.
  Mr. Bayley: I have not read the whole of William Sargant's book, but I have read the extract which my hon. Friend has drawn to my attention. The books suggests—my hon. Friend seems to be suggesting, too—that, at the time of the second world war, the Government had a general policy of rejecting war pensions claims made in respect of psychological injuries. I have made inquiries as a result of my hon. Friend's representations and found that, in 1939, £22 million was paid in respect of war pensions for psychiatric illness, largely in respect of non-psychotic conditions, which these days might be described as post-traumatic stress disorder, and that psychiatric illness accounted for 15 per cent. of all conditions compensated by the scheme. So it is not true to say that the Government in the war period sought to air-brush psychiatric conditions out of the war pensions scheme.
  Service man 2 was awarded a war disablement pension from May 1946 until February 1957 in respect of disablements from which he was suffering at that time. The level of war pension, as in the case of service man 1, was decided not arbitrarily, but following medical examination. Service man 2 was examined on seven occasions between March 1946 and April 1954. He also exercised his appeal rights. The pensions appeal tribunal—a body totally independent from the then Ministry of Pensions—upheld the decision on the level of disablement, and found that two disablements for which he had claimed were not attributable to military service. By 1955, service man 2's level of disablement was such that he was not entitled to a weekly pension payment, and a final gratuity was paid.
  Service man 2 did not make a further claim for a war disablement pension until March 1990. That claim resulted in an award, and the assessment of service man 2's disablements has subsequently increased to 100 per cent. In both cases, the war pension has been awarded from the date of a new claim, which is what the law prescribes, since there was nothing that prevented either ex-service man from approaching the Department at any time during the intervening years and reopening their case.
  My hon. Friend also raised the question of war pensions for hearing loss. That concerns two distinct issues. First, the war pensions scheme was amended in 1993 to introduce a 20 per cent. Cut-off, which aligned the war pension rules for noise-induced hearing loss with those for industrial deafness under the industrial injuries scheme. Secondly, in 1996 the Department changed the rules to ensure that only hearing loss due to service attracts an award under the war pensions scheme. War disablement pensions can be paid only for disablement due to service. They cannot be paid for hearing loss that is due to aging or any other non-service cause. To pay a war pension for conditions unrelated to service would run counter to the basic principles of the scheme.
  My hon. Friend claimed that the War Pensions Agency has not fully recognised the psychological trauma of the two ex-service men whose cases he has raised. I do not believe that that is so.
  In the case of service man 1, his war pension assessment included disablement through service-related psychological injury from the outset, and in the case of

  519
  service man 2, from 1991 when he claimed for malnutrition and privation with associated nervous features.
  In deciding whether there are grounds for backdating a war pension, the medical question that has to be considered is whether there is any mental or physical disablement that would prevent the war pensioner from lodging a claim at an earlier date than he did.
  In conclusion, I have studied the files about the cases of service men 1 and 2 and listened carefully to all that my hon. Friend has said about those two brave ex-service
  520
  men. I congratulate him on the forceful way in which he has argued their cases. He will understand that I have to respond to his constituents on the same basis as for any other claim for backdating a war pension and that I am therefore unable to give any undertakings in either case. Nevertheless, if my hon. Friend submits new evidence that he believes would have permitted the Secretary of State to exercise favourably his discretionary powers before 1997 in respect of either case, I will arrange for that evidence to be considered.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Twelve o'clock.

TREASURY

  Office for National Statistics
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what decisions he has taken on the findings of the review into the efficiency of the Office for National Statistics. [73284]

  Ms Hewitt
  Having considered the findings of the efficiency review of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and met with the trade unions to discuss their reactions, I have decided to accept the recommendations made by the efficiency review Steering Group.

  The findings of the review indicate that there is scope within ONS to achieve efficiency savings rising to around £20 million per year. The achievement of such savings, which will be reinvested within ONS, will enable the Office to focus resources and management attention on improving the range and quality of the statistical information it produces. I have asked Dr. Tim Holt, the Director of ONS, to prepare and implement a programme of action designed to deliver these savings, in consultation with ONS staff and trade unions.

  I am today publishing a copy of the full report which was commissioned from the consultants KPMG by the review Steering Group. The recommendations made by the Steering Group draw on many of the KPMG proposals, but they do not include them all. In particular, the potential savings identified as a result of the outsourcing of data collection and processing are not part of the package of efficiency savings which the Steering Group recommended.

  I have also today accepted proposals from Dr. Holt to strengthen the senior management structure of ONS. This will involve the establishment of a restructured ONS Management Board comprising the Director of ONS and four other members: a Director of Economic Statistics, a Director of Social Statistics, a Director of Quality Assurance and Methodology, and Director of Finance and Corporate Services. This final post will be advertised externally, with business and commercial experience a key requirement.

  These changes to the management structure of ONS reflect the importance which the Government attach to implementing this programme of work. Ensuring the quality of ONS outputs is a key part of the Government's commitment to enhance the integrity of official statistics.

  Engineering
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the 286
  engineering profession since May 1998 on investment in the UK's engineering base. [70704]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Chancellor has had frequent discussions with representatives from business since May 1998, many of whom have been members of the engineering profession. The Chancellor has focused particularly on the UK's productivity record and how business and Government can work together to improve it. Investment by business, including the engineering sector, has featured as one of the key areas for improvement.

  Registration Records (Access)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the Registrar General's options paper on access to registration records to be published. [72597]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have now considered the Registrar General's options paper on access to civil registration records. It is proposed that a limited amount of prior consultation with stakeholders should be undertaken over the next few months. The outcome of this consultation will be taken into account when the proposals for reform arising from the Civil Registration review are published in the summer.

  Budget (Explanatory Leaflet)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy to issue an explanatory leaflet following his budget in March for delivery to each household in the United Kingdom. [72621]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on 4 February 1999,Official Report, column 724.

  Air Passenger Duty
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what powers the EU is seeking to require Her Majesty's Government to double the current air passenger duty for return domestic flights within the United Kingdom; what powers Her Majesty's Government have to resist the demand; and if he will make a statement. [68210]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: The UK Government have an obligation to ensure that taxes are compatible with EU treaty obligations but how compatibility is achieved is entirely a matter for the Government.

  Amusement Machine Licence Duty
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses were affected by the amusement machine licence duty announced in the 1998 Budget; and if he will estimate the average cost per business. [70672]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: No figures are available for the number of businesses involved in the amusement machine industry.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Sitting Hours
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list the average number of hours the House sat daily in(a) January 1979, (b) January 1989 and (c) January 1999. [72701]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The House sat for a daily average of: 9 hours and 11 minutes in January 1979; 9 hours and 9 minutes in January 1989; and 8 hours and 59 minutes in January 1999. Not including sitting Fridays, the House sat for a daily average of 9 hours and 51 minutes in January 1979; 9 hours and 59 minutes in January 1989; and 8 hours and 59 minutes in January 1999.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  European Investment Bank
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's policy towards the European Investment Bank Third World loan packages, with particular reference to environmental impact assessments. [72288]

  Clare Short
  The Government scrutinise proposals coming to the European Investment Bank Board of Directors to assess their developmental soundness. This includes consideration of environmental issues. The European Investment Bank itself reviews all projects for environmental impact as an integral part of its appraisal process.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the additional costs to local authorities of having Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty within their boundaries; and if he will make a statement. [72598]

  Mr. Meale
  No central assessment of additional costs has been made. However, a study undertaken last year for the Countryside Commission, the Government's statutory advisors on landscape protection, suggested that some £4.8m may be spent annually by local authorities in England on the core costs of the management and protection of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs). The same study suggested that a further £9.5m may be spent annually on local authority countryside management services within AONBs.

  The Countryside Commission has provided advice to the Government on various aspects of the care of protected landscapes. We are considering the recommendations very carefully, together with all the other information available, before taking any final decisions. There are some complex issues involved but we hope to be able to announce some conclusions soon.
  288
  We have already announced an additional £2.5m for the new Countryside Agency to spend in AONBs and similar landscape areas in 1999–2000.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the problems experienced in obtaining planning permission for the Jubilee Line extension; and what assessment he has made of practice in this respect in Hong Kong. [71116]

  Dr. Reid
  In only one case, namely the development of the Canada Water bus station, was London Underground obliged to take steps to appeal against the refusal by the local planning authority to approve certain reserved planning matters relating to the development.

  I am not in a position to comment on practice in this respect in Hong Kong.

  Driving Licences (Women)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of women in each age group hold driving licences; and what assessment he has made of the consequences of differences between the percentage in each age group for the rate of growth in road traffic. [71117]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The table shows the percentage of women in each age group who held driving licences in Great Britain, over the period 1995–97.

  Age

  Percentage

  17–20

  36

  21–29

  67

  30–39

  74

  40–49

  74

  50–59

  61

  60–69

  46

  70 or over

  22

  All ages

  57

  Source:

  National Travel Survey

  Analysis of licence-holding by age band, for males and females separately, led to the published forecast that total licence-holding would increase from 67 per cent. to 73 per cent. of the adult population over a ten year period (1996–2006). This increase is one of the factors underlying the predicted growth in car ownership within the 1997 National Road Traffic Forecasts.

  The forecasts are in the process of being revised in the light of the measures announced in the Integrated Transport White Paper. More detailed modelling of the impact of increasing licence-holding is one of the options under consideration.

  Transport Networks
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to evaluate networks of transport on a regional basis; and what proposals he has had from the Professor of European Economics in the University of Kent on this topic. [71111]
  289
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Under the new arrangements published on Monday 15 February, in draft Planning Policy Guidance Note 11 (PPG 11) on "Regional Planning", major transport network improvements are to be planned as part of the overall regional transport infrastructure, taking all modes into account. Regional planning bodies will be in the lead in this, working with the Government Offices and transport operators, providers and users.

  I am unaware of any representations on this topic from the Professor of European Economics in the University of Kent.

  Study

  Report

  The potential benefits of road transport telematics

  TRL Report 220 1996

  Institutional and financial aspects of traveller information systems

  WS Atkins 1997

  Review of technologies for moving people in cities

  UCL Centre for Transport Studies 1997

  Review of telematics relevant to public transport

  TRL Report 342 1998

  Transport Interchange—Best Practice

  Colin Buchanan and Partners 1998

  Work is going on in a number of different projects to help local authorities and others make use of these results. For example, the Department is supporting work to assist local authorities identify and plan for the deployment of new transport technologies. We are also part funding research to enable electronic journey planning systems to communicate with each other automatically so facilitating `seamless' journeys.

  The Department has not undertaken any recent work purely to evaluate studies on this subject by other organisations. Account was however taken of such studies as appropriate in the commissions referred to.

  Road Building Programme
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what account he takes of the predicted growth of road traffic in determining the road building programme. [71114]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Our recent Roads Review was conducted against the high levels of predicted traffic growth forecast. Forecasts of the effects of schemes were an important part of the Review, but we did not follow a "predict and provide" approach. We have moved away from exclusive reliance on road building by looking at other, more sustainable ways of tackling traffic problems, finding ways of making better use of the existing trunk road network along with a smaller, targeted programme of improvement schemes where these have been proved to be necessary.

  Families (Average Space Occupied)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what data his Department has collated on the average amount of space occupied per family in the United Kingdom in 1999; and if he will make a statement on past trends in this respect. [71115]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Floor space data for dwellings in England are collected through the English House Condition Survey, which is carried out every 5 years. The most recent survey was carried out in 1996. This shows
  290
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what studies he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated of how advanced technology and better information could help to make possible more seamless journeys using different modes of transport. [71113]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The following reports contain the results of studies commissioned by my Department which address aspects of the contribution of advanced technology and/or better information to improving travel by different transport modes.

  that households had 84 sqm on average in England. This is little different from 1991 when the average was about 81 sqm.

  Countryside Agency
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when the new Countryside Agency is scheduled to begin work; [72674]

  (2) if he will list the Chairman, Deputy Chairman and board members of the new Countryside Agency. [72676]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Countryside Agency will come into existence on 1 April 1999. Work to establish the Agency successfully has been going on for some time, led by a Merger Steering Group comprising the Chairmen, board members and Chief Executives of the two existing Commissions.

  We will make an announcement about the Chairman, Deputy Chairman and board members of the Agency shortly.

  British Airways
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last met representatives of British Airways; what was discussed; what help his Department is receiving from British Airways, and if British Airways is financially sponsoring initiatives run by his Department or its agencies. [72809]

  Dr. Reid
  I and my officials are in regular contact with representatives of all those with an interest in aviation. It is not normal practice of Governments to give details of specific meetings with private individuals or companies.

  Other than advice relating to official correspondence in relation to passenger services, this Department receives no help from British Airways. Neither am I aware of any initiative of this Department which receives financial support from British Airways.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he
  291
  has made of the number of (a) deaths and (b) serious accidents on the roads which are due to snow or icy road conditions. [72706]

  Dr. Reid
  Information on the cause of road accidents is not available. However, the numbers of reported accidents occurring on icy or snowy road surfaces are contained in the following table:

  Number of casualties

  Year of accident

  Severity

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Casualties on snowy or icy road surface

  Fatal

  77

  87

  43

  Serious

  1,206

  1,363

  612

  Slight

  7,323

  9,654

  4,414

  Total

  8,606

  11,104

  5,069

  Fatal and serious casualties by month: Great Britain 1993–97

  Casualties

  Severity

  January

  February

  March

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  1993

  Fatal

  312

  252

  286

  289

  341

  270

  326

  290

  331

  351

  384

  382

  Serious

  3,515

  3,087

  3,417

  3,546

  3,978

  3,837

  3,955

  3,745

  3,868

  3,962

  3,890

  4,209

  1994

  Fatal

  341

  267

  270

  245

  255

  293

  304

  295

  331

  321

  365

  363

  Serious

  3,863

  3,273

  3,616

  3,552

  3,619

  3,820

  4,121

  3,914

  3,885

  4,319

  4,171

  4,378

  1995

  Fatal

  290

  267

  271

  250

  259

  306

  325

  354

  288

  321

  345

  345

  Serious

  3,484

  3,164

  3,673

  3,541

  3,624

  3,822

  3,950

  4,106

  4,121

  4,068

  4,141

  3,829

  1996

  Fatal

  282

  249

  259

  287

  256

  281

  294

  342

  325

  327

  316

  380

  Serious

  3,418

  3,270

  3,279

  3,413

  3,604

  3,635

  3,710

  4,054

  3,881

  4,248

  4,175

  3,786

  1997

  Fatal

  251

  290

  264

  313

  292

  289

  304

  320

  291

  321

  354

  310

  Serious

  3,137

  3,196

  3,556

  3,367

  3,595

  3,633

  3,867

  3,785

  3,362

  3,924

  3,848

  3,697

  Pollution (London)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what information he has collated on pollution in London caused by(a) buses and (b) cars. [72673]

  Dr. Reid
  The London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, prepared by the London Research Centre, indicates that in 1995, emissions from buses and cars in London were as described in the following table. All figures are given in terms of tonnes of pollutant per annum.

  Buses

  Cars

  Nitrogen oxides

  5,464

  64,091

  Fine particulate matter (PM10)

  558

  1,497

  Carbon monoxide

  2,703

  473,895

  Non-methane volatile organic compounds

  419

  64,381

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 9 February 1999,Official Report, column 156,
  292

  Number of casualties

  Year of accident

  Severity

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Accidents on snowy or icy road surface

  Fatal

  69

  81

  41

  Serious

  993

  1,136

  526

  Slight

  5,188

  6,949

  3,115

  Total

  6,250

  8,166

  3,682

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the number of(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries on roads for each month of the last five years. [72709]

  Dr. Reid
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  on the standard spending assessment, what plans he has to review the weather stations whose records are used in the calculation of local authorities' standard spending assessment. [71589]

  Ms Armstrong
  We have no plans for such a review.

  Concrete Flues
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the safety of concrete flues in dwellings. [73567]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been made aware of concerns about the safety of certain flue liners, which are intended for use in chimneys serving appliances burning solid fuel. They are made of concrete, although those solely comprising kiln-burnt aggregate, pumice and cement (other than products used to facilitate manufacture) are not known to give rise to any problems.

  Despite these concerns, the two principal housing warranty providers have reported no change in the frequency of claims relating to defective chimneys and my Department is unaware of any marked change in the frequency of soot fires requiring chimney reconstruction.
  293
  However, a number of chemical analyses and performance tests of thermal insulation, thermal shock resistance and gas tightness of concrete flue components have been carried out independently by flue component manufacturers and by building control enforcement bodies over the last few months attempting to prove or disprove the adequacy of certain manufacturers' components. These tests have so far proved inconclusive. Nevertheless they have shown that building control enforcement bodies and warranty providers may have grounds for concern, and that further investigation would be prudent.

  My Department has already asked the expert technical committee within the British Standards Institution (BSI) to consider how the issues being raised impact on existing British Standards and prospective harmonised European Standards (ENs). These ENs will eventually become the performance criteria for compliance with the Construction Products Regulations which ensure that products are sufficiently safe to be placed on the market. The BSI Committee have also been asked for their opinion on the standards of performance presently referred to in the relevant Approved Document to the Building Regulations and whether these can be improved. I have asked the Committee to consider these matters swiftly and impartially and I look forward to their response with interest.

  My Department has also listened to the collective views of manufacturers, importers, building control bodies and housing warranty providers. There appears to be insufficient evidence at present to warrant advising householders to take any additional care in the ways that they use their fireplaces and that for the time being there is only the possibility that some chimneys lined with concrete may need attention to ensure satisfactory service life. However these uncertainties cannot be allowed to continue.

  I have therefore decided that the issues being raised should be explored by way of an expert risk assessment, and my Department is now proceeding to engage a suitable contractor. The aims of this study will be to establish how many dwellings already built or under construction have chimneys with potentially risky concrete components, to establish the nature of the risks to householders, to collect together and appraise the results of the tests on flue components carried out by the various parties, to seek national expert technical opinion on the ways that the risks to householders can be resolved into quantifiable flue component performance standards, to evaluate to what extent, if any, the possible problems raised are real, and to provide advice on possible remedial measures.

  At the same time I have asked my Department in conjunction with the Building Regulations Advisory Committee to consider with builders, building control professionals, warranty providers, the Building Research Establishment and others what amendments it might be necessary to make to Part J of the Building Regulations and the supporting Approved Document to address these issues more directly for the future.

  I shall make a further announcement as soon as I can.

  Oil Extraction (Heritage Sites)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions 294
  have taken place between his Department and the DTI regarding oil extraction in the UK's world heritage sites; and if he will make a statement. [70753]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I have been asked to reply.

  None. The Scottish Office is, however, considering its response to UNESCO's request for information about the impact of oil exploration near St. Kilda and has discussed this matter with the DTI.

DEFENCE

  Gulf Veterans
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on the Gulf Veterans Medical Assessment Programme; and if he will make a statement. [67462]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Gulf veterans' Medical Assessment Programme (MAP) was established in 1993 to provide as full a diagnosis as possible to UK veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict who are concerned about their health. So far, just under 3,000 Gulf veterans have been referred to the MAP, which continues to offer patients an appointment within six weeks of their referral. Fewer than 40 patients are currently waiting to be seen by the MAP for the first time.

  A paper describing the clinical findings from the first 1,000 patients examined at the MAP was published in the British Medical Journal on 30 January. A copy of the paper is available in the Library of the House.

  A full audit of the MAP, covering patient care and the service provided by the Programme, is currently under way. The results of this will be published in due course.

  Correspondence
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to reply to the letter dated 29 September 1997, from the hon. Member for West Derbyshire, written on behalf of his constituent, Mrs. Watt. [67969]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I wrote to the hon. Member earlier this week.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Spanish citizens ordinarily domiciled in Spain and previously employed in HM Dockyard Gibraltar are in receipt of British pensions; and at what cost in the last year for which figures are available. [71694]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There are currently no Spanish citizens, ordinarily domiciled in Spain and previously employed in HM Dockyard Gibraltar, in receipt of pensions paid by the Ministry of Defence.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency published its report for 1998–99; and what was the cost of production of the report. [71906]
  295
  Mr. Spellar
  The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency has not yet published its Annual Report and Accounts for 1998–99. DERA's Annual Report and Accounts for 1997–98, which the Agency also uses as a marketing brochure, was published on 30 June 1998 at a cost of £135,000 excluding VAT.

  Training Exercises
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel were deployed on the jungle training exercises in Belize carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [71897]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The number of personnel who were deployed on jungle training exercises in Belize carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998 was 1,003.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the value of the air defence exercise in central Europe carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [71895]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Several air defence exercises are conducted in central Europe each year. The major annual air defence exercise held in the region is the NATO exercise Central Enterprise. In 1997 Exercise Central Enterprise took place from 9–20 June. RAF participants comprised Tornado GR1, Harrier GR7 and VC10 aircraft, and flew a total of 18 sorties per day. The exercise offered a number of valuable training opportunities, particularly in the area of operations involving other NATO Nations.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the six armoured battlegroup exercises in Canada carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [71893]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Due to the deployment to Bosnia of a unit scheduled to take part in the armoured battlegroup exercises in Canada, only five armoured battlegroup exercises were carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. The cost of these five exercises was £73.46 million.

  Unfair Dismissal
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what costs have been incurred in each of the last five years on(a) damages paid out and (b) solicitors' costs relating to members of his Department's civilian staff who have been dismissed following disciplinary proceedings, despite a recommendation following appeal that they should be reinstated and who have then won industrial tribunal cases for unfair dismissal. [72319]

  Mr. Spellar
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Aircraft Flying Hours
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 February 1999,Official Report, column 21, for what reasons the average number of flying hours for Canberra aircraft was lower in 1998 than in 1997. [71978]
  296
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Canberra fleet is relatively small and flew fewer hours in 1998 than in 1997 because the fleet was undergoing modification.

  HMS Vernon
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 November 1998,Official Report, column 358, on the sale of HMS 'Vernon' in Portsmouth, on the basis of what advice he decided to withhold the information on the sale; and on how many occasions since 1 November 1997 his Department has withheld information under that exemption. [72203]

  Mr. Spellar
  It is currently the MOD policy to withhold such commercial information relating to property sales. Since 1 November 1997, such information has been withheld on two occasions under Exemption 14 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Departmental Land Disposals
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sites have been disposed of by his Department in each of the last three years; and in relation to which of the sites he has withheld information concerning the value of the receipts in an answer to a parliamentary question. [71977]

  Mr. Spellar
  Details of the sites disposed of in 1996–97 are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The number for the Financial Year 1997–98 was approximately 200 and to date in the current Financial Year, 120 properties have been sold. The hon. Member would wish to note that individual married quarters are not counted separately but rather, a Married Quarters estate is counted as one property.

  There have been five occasions since 1997 when information has been withheld concerning the value of receipts.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment (Reports)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 January 1999,Official Report, column 18, if he will place in the Library a list of the 130 reports in the two series of papers produced by the Mathematical Physics Division of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, indicating the title of each paper and the date on which each paper was produced. [71960]

  Mr. Spellar
  Yes. I have asked for a list to be compiled. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will explain the abbreviations and acronyms(a) QA 175, (b) PZT software, (c) MOD QAR, (d) 1700 Series, (e) DSD, (f) DTech, (g) QA 303s, (h) COSHH, (i) SED, (j) DPR, (k) DSAC, (l) NAMAS, (m) NAFEMS, (n) NSC and (o) MMS, referred to in unclassified AWE Company Security, Quality, Environment, Safety and Health Systems Analysis reports, indicating in each case the function of the item to which they relate. [72599]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is as follows.
  297

  Abbreviation

  Explanation

  Function of item

  a

  QA 175

  MOD Quality Deficiency Report

  Form 175 is used by the MOD QAR to record quality deficiency

  b

  PZT software

  PZT is Lead Zirconium Titanite

  The software is used in the manufacture of PZT

  c

  MOD QAR

  Ministry of Defence Quality Assurance Representative

  The MOD quality assurance representative at AWE

  d

  1700 series

  A section of the AWE Quality Manual

  Covers handling, storage, packaging, preservation, labelling and delivery

  e

  DSD

  Director Sites Development

  Post/Directorate title

  f

  Dtech

  Director Technology

  Post/Directorate title

  g

  QA 303

  A form used by AWE Quality Assurance

  Form 303 is used in the audit and review process to record non-conformances and other observations

  h

  COSHH

  SI 1994/1248—Control of Substances Hazardous to Health

  SI 1994/1248—this is a Statutory Instrument under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

  i

  SED

  Systems Engineering Director

  Post/Directorate title

  j

  DPR

  Director Physics Research

  Post/Directorate title

  k

  DSAC

  Directorate Safety Assurance Committee

  An AWE committee

  l

  NAMAS

  National Accreditation of Measurement and Sampling—now superseded by the UK Assessment Service

  Responsible for setting standards for the calibration of equipment within the UK

  m

  NAFEMS

  National Agency for Finite Element Methods and Standards

  The agency promotes the use of finite elements as an engineering analysis technique, providing benchmarks and techniques for use in such work

  n

  NSC

  Nuclear Safety Committee

  An AWE committee

  o

  MMS

  Manager Media Services

  Post/Directorate title

  Defence Agencies
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which targets the Defence Estate Organisation did not meet in 1997–98; and what monitoring he has undertaken for those targets in 1998–99. [72794]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following Key Targets set for 1997–98 were either part achieved, or were not achieved in full:

  a. Key Target 1.

  b. Key Target 2.

  c. Key Target 5.

  d. Key Target 7.

  e. Key Target 8.

  Subsequently, a set of interim targets for 198–99 was published. These targets began the process of setting output driven targets which are measurable, within the Chief Executive's control, and incentivise performance to meet the needs of the department. This set of interim targets has allowed the Chief Executive to establish a baseline against which to measure progress in 1999–2000.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which targets the Defence Postal and Courier Service Agency did not meet in 1997–98; and what monitoring he has undertaken for those targets in 1998–99. [72792]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Brigadier B. J. Cash to Mr. Michael Hancock, dated 24 February 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about which targets the Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency did not meet in 1997–98; and what monitoring has been undertaken for those targets in 1998–99, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility at Chief Executive of the Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency.
  298
  The Defence Postal and Courier Services Agency did not meet the following Key Targets in 1997–98:

  a. To complete the implementation of the Triennial Review by 31 March 1998.

  b. To rationalise the technical funding and responsibility across MOD Top Level Budgets following the Triennial Review.

  Progress against these targets is reviewed monthly by myself as Chief Executive at Board level.
  The two Key Targets failed were set on the assumption that the Prior Options Review of DPCSA would be completed during the course of the year 1997/98. As a result of the General Election and the subsequent Strategic Defence Review, the Prior Options process was delayed and continued agency status was not confirmed until 19 January 1999.
  Following agreement of the new framework document and proposed re-launch of the Agency on 1 July 1999 and after reorganisation under the Chief of Defence Logistics; technical funding and responsibility across MOD Top Level Budgets for Postal and Courier Services will be rationalised.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the Army Personnel Centre; and what was the figure at its inception. [71899]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The number of personnel, civilian and military, employed by the Army Personnel Centre (APC) at 31 December 1998, the most recent date for which full staffing figures are available, was 1,277. The number of personnel involved in Army personnel functions at the time of the launch of the APC as a Defence Agency on 2 December 1996 was some 1,655 civilian and military personnel.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Army Base Repair Organisation published its report for 1998–99; and what was the cost of production of the report. [71902]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Army Base Repair Organisation report for 1998–99 will be published following the end of the financial year, probably in July 1999. The report for 1997–98 was published in September
  299
  1998. It was produced under contract by The Stationery Office; the cost of the contract is commercially confidential information, but was less than £2.50 per copy.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the Army Base Repair Organisation; and what the figure was at its inception. [72807]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Army Base Repair Organisation. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. F. Drew to Mr. Michael Hancock, dated 24 February 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about how many people are currently employed by the Army Base Repair Organisation (ABRO); and what the figure was at its inception, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of ABRO.
  As at 1 January 1999, 2,625 people were employed by the Army Base Repair Organisation. 3,800 were employed by the Agency at its launch on 1 April 1993.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  REME Depot (Stirling)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the sale of and development plans for the REME depot at Stirling. [72753]

  Mr. Spellar
  Agreement for the phased purchase of part of the former REME Depot at Forthside in Stirling was signed by MOD and Stirling Council on 23 September 1998. The land is to be used as part of Stirling Council's Town Centre Redevelopment. The MOD retained site at Forthside is currently used by the Army Base Repair Organisation, the Army Base Services Distribution Agency and other small MOD units.

  Environmental Management Awards
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the awards and commendations which his Department has received over the past five years for good environmental management of its estates and wildlife, indicating the sites so commended. [72736]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following is the information.Shell Best of Better Britain (1994)—Salisbury Plain Training Area-East-Barn Owl Project.
  Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales, Brecknock Branch—Rural Wales Award (1994) in recognition of the groups' contribution to conservation on the ranges at Mynydd Epynt, Sennybridge Training Area.
  Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames—Environmental Pride
  Awards (1994) Category Environmental Management by Industrial Concern. First place awarded to MOD at Chessington.
  British Gas Grassroots Action Award (1994)—Foxglove Covert, Catterick Garrison.
  Hampshire County Council—Countryside Award (1995) Commended for restoration and management of Eelmoor Marsh by grazing with Prezewalski's horses, (in conjunction with Marwell Zoo).
  Taunton Deane Borough Council—Conservation Commendation (1995) for conversion of stables at Norton Manor (Royal Marines).
  300
  The Forestry Authority—1996. Centre of Excellence—to Longmoor Army Training Area. Awarded in four Categories, for improving the quality of the landscape, creating benefits for wildlife, providing access for people, and growing timber in environmentally sound ways.
  Shell Best of Better Britain Commendation (1996)—Foxglove Covert, Catterick Garrison.
  Britain in Bloom (1998)—Aldershot Garrison won Southern England in Bloom.
  BTO Commendation (1998) for Constant Effort Site Ringing Station—Foxglove Covert, Catterick Garrison.
  Forestry Authority Commendation (1996) (Parkwood (Catterick)) for sound management of a renewable resource.
  English Nature—Site of Special Scientific Interest Manager's Award (1998) to Liz Peace, Chairman of the Farnborough Conservation Group.
  Sanctuary Award—Judged annually with English Nature, for best conservation project on MOD land.
  1998 winner—Bovington Training Area for Longterm heathland and wetland management.
  1997 winner—Sennybridge—Disgwlfa Visitor Centre.
  1996 winner—Porton Down—management of Chalk Grassland habitat for the benefit of the Stone Curlew population.
  1995 winner—DERA Farnborough for use of Prezewalski's Horse to graze the lowland heath.
  1994 winner—Royal Naval Air Station, Yeovilton—conservation management of Langport Rifle Range, Breech Wood and Merryfield Airfield.
  Ford—Environmental Management—Energy Plan (1994) Commendation—Boscombe Down.
  Northumberland County Council—Trees and Hedgerow Cup Competition (1996). Commendation in the broadleaved woodland category for Grasslees Oakwood and Yardhop Wood—Otterburn AFTC.

  Submarines and Diving (Women)
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the outcome of his review of the possible employment of women in submarines and in mine clearance diving. [73578]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We are committed to equality of opportunity in the Armed Forces. In the course of the Strategic Defence Review we examined the opportunities for maximising opportunity for women in each of the Services provided that this would not damage combat effectiveness. The results of this work were set out in the report on the Strategic Defence Review (Cmd 2999), in which we also announced our intention to review the exclusion of women from service in submarines and Royal Navy mine clearance.

  We have now completed our review of these matters and concluded that we should maintain our policy of excluding women from service in submarines and mine clearance diving for medical reasons.

  In reaching this conclusion I considered all the evidence very carefully and looked hard for options which might enable us to open service in submarines to women despite the medical risks involved. I was not able, however, to put to one side the MOD's statutory duty of care under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974.

  All RN submarines currently in service may remain submerged for up to 90 days for operational reasons. In the course of such deployments, contaminants build up in the internal atmosphere. Although there is careful

  301
  control of the materials allowed aboard and atmospheric filtration, the build up of contaminants such as carbon dioxide in this closed environment cannot be prevented. Such an atmosphere is not harmful to adults, but medical studies by the Institute of Naval Medicine show that for some contaminants the levels exceed those considered safe to the foetus of a pregnant woman, and therefore also place the woman's health at risk. In other cases there is insufficient data available to recommend with confidence maximum exposure limits which would prevent harm to the foetus and the woman.

  A woman, in at least the first days after conception, may not be aware that she is pregnant. If she were serving in a submarine there is, therefore, the small possibility that she might unknowingly expose here unborn child to levels on contamination above those considered safe. Even if some women were prepared to accept the risks and volunteer to serve in submarines the MOD could not compromise its duty of care by allowing them to do so.

  In the specialised area of mine clearance diving, (where there are far fewer posts involved), there are also substantial medical risks to an unborn child and, therefore, the mother, caused in this case by the very high pressures to which these divers are subjected. As far as women who are not pregnant are concerned, the medical risks are less well understood, but there may be a risk to a woman during menstruation. I have accepted the medical advice that women should, therefore, be excluded from working as Mine Clearance Divers at least until more definitive medical advice is available.

  The Government and the Armed Forces are determined that the widest possible employment opportunities should be available to women in the Armed Forces. The position on service in submarines and mine diving clearance will, therefore, be kept under review.

  Alternative Assumptions Budget Programmes
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the programmes earmarked under the Ministry of Defence alternative assumptions budget; and what is the estimated cost of each programme; [72196]

  (2) if he will list the programmes earmarked in the Ministry of Defence alternative assumptions budget in the years (a) 1997–1998 and (b) 1998–1999 indicating how many of these programmes have been actioned. [72195]

  Year

  RN

  Army

  RAF

  1994

  Expogast Luxembourg

  Hotelympia

  Gold Medal—Hot Buffet

  2 Gold Medals

  Silver Medal

  8 Silver Medals

  Gold Medal in Wedding Cake

  9 Bronze Medals

  Hotelympia

  National Chef of the Year

  La Parade de Chefs—Gold Medal and overall winners

  18 Senior and Junior open awards

  1995

  Hotelympia

  Heart of England—Birmingham

  11 Gold Medals

  5 Gold Medals

  8 Silver Medals

  5 Silver Medals

  24 Bronze Medals

  5 Bronze Medals

  3 Best in Class Trophies

  302
  Mr. George Robertson
  The Ministry of Defence does not have an alternative assumptions budget. Alternative assumptions are part of the department's Long Term Costing (LTC) process and provide the mechanism by which possible changes to the core Defence programme can be costed and assessed.

  The LTC represents projections which inform internal advice to Ministers on the affordability of the defence programme. It has been the policy of successive Administrations that such advice should not be disclosed, consistent with Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Bombs
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when the(a) 1,000 pound and (b) 540-pound free-fall bombs will receive an upgrade package; how much his Department expects to spend in 1999–2000 on the upgrading of the stock of free-fall conventional bombs; and if he will make a statement on the Staff Target Air/Sea 1248 programme; [72198]

  (2) what is his assessment of the accuracy of the Air Force and Navy's 540-pound and 1,000-pound bombs (a) currently and (b) after the proposed upgrade package. [72197]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The UK's current 5401b and 10001b bombs are ballistic weapons deliverable either guided or unguided. The accuracy with which they can be delivered depends on many variables including the aiming system used by the delivery aircraft, the speed, dive angle, height and range from the target at release from the aircraft and type of attack profile. The weather conditions may also be a significant factor.

  The possibility of an upgrade programme is currently being examined. No decisions have, however, yet been taken.

  Cooking and Catering Awards
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the major cooking and catering awards won by the(a) Army, (b) Navy and (c) Air Force over the past five years. [72740]

  Mr. Spellar
  Awards have been won by individual Service participants and teams as shown in the following table.
  303

  Year

  RN

  Army

  RAF

  1996

  Culinary Olympics—Berlin

  Culinary Olympics—Berlin

  Hotelympia

  2 Gold Medals

  Winning Team

  2 Gold Medals

  1 Silver Medal

  Gold Medal in Military Class

  2 Silver Medals

  1 Bronze Medal

  1997

  Hospitality—Birmingham

  Heart of England—Birmingham

  8 Gold Medals

  3 Gold Medals

  2 Silver Medals

  4 Silver Medals

  2 Bronze Medals

  10 Bronze Medals

  1998

  Bournemouth Food Festival

  Hotelympia

  1 Silver Medal

  6 Gold Medals

  Scothot Glasgow

  3 Silver Medals

  1 Bronze Medal

  4 Bronze Medals

  In 1998 a Combined Services Culinary Arts Team was formed to rationalise available resources in the interests of efficiency and economy. The Team competed at Expogast in Luxembourg and won 9 Gold Medals and 3 Silver Medals.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what(a) reviews, (b) task

  Reviews, task forces and advisory groups

  Review/task force

  Report(s) published

  External costs

  Review of Civil Justice and Legal Aid

  Reported published October 1997

  —

  Review of Welfare Services to the Courts1

  —

  —

  Review of Procedures consequent on the Decision to Transfer or Commit Fraud Trials

  —

  —

  Study and Evaluation of the Current Tax Appeals System

  —

  —

  Review of the Lord Chancellor's Department Funding for Marriage Support and Research Services

  —

  External Reviewer (retired Permanent Secretary) paid £450 per day

  Review of Enforcement of Civil Court Judgments

  —

  £2,000 (members travel expenses)

  Representative Actions Working Group

  —

  £100 (members travel expenses)

  National Interdisciplinary Forum (NIDF)— Information Meetings Pilots

  —

  —

  Research Advisory Group—Information Meetings Pilots

  —

  —

  Ministerial Task Group on the Home Buying Process2

  Report to Ministers—October 1998 Public consultation due to close end of March 1999

  —

  Community Legal Service Quality Task Force

  —

  —

  1 Joint review with Home Office and DOH

  2 Joint LCD, DETR and DTI Group

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the numbers of mortgage repossession cases(a) commenced and (b) executed since 1997 and of the likely trend in such numbers in 1999–2000. [72317]

  Mr. Hoon
  The number of cases issued and executed since 1997 is as follows.
  304
  forces and (c) advisory groups have been established by his Department since 1 May 1997; what costs they have incurred to date; and what reports they have published. [71515]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]The information requested is in the table. Departmental costs (including the cost of around £75,000 for the review of civil justice and legal aid included in Lord McIntosh of Haringey's answer of 7 July 1997,Official Report, House of Lords, columns 51–55), are being met from existing Departmental budgets. External costs, where applicable, are shown in the table.

  Mortgage possession actions entered

  Possession warrants executed

  January 1997-December 1997

  67,073

  46,865

  January 1998-December 1998

  178,865

  59,701

  1 Figures for local authority mortgages have been estimated since the third quarter of 1998 at 3 per cent. of the total figure; historically since 1996 local authority mortgages have represented between 1 per cent. and 5 per cent. of the total.

  305
  The trend is upwards; but it is difficult to forecast with any accuracy for forward periods because of the factors which may affect the housing market.

  Mediation Services (Cumbria)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received on funding for mediation services in Cumbria. [72667]

  Mr. Hoon
  None. I have received two letters, one from the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border and one from my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) about funding Mediation UK, a national umbrella organisation for community mediation.

  Land Registry
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the operation of the Land Registry. [72720]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Land Registry maintains and develops authoritative and effective land information systems for England and Wales. It was established as a separate government department in 1862, became an Executive Agency in 1990 and a Government Trading Fund in 1993. It is required by statute to cover all expenditure from its fee income and makes no call on moneys voted by Parliament. The Land Registry has joined with private sector and other government organisations to develop a National Land Information Service. This has led to an innovative conveyancing pilot, based in Bristol, which is effectively a one-stop conveyancing shop, reducing overall transaction times when buying a house. In November 1998 the pilot won a British Computer Society award which recognises excellence in computing.

  The Land Registry has also recently won an award from the Society for Computers and the Law for its on-line Direct Access Service. In January, the Land Registry became one of only 18 organisations in the United Kingdom to be awarded a third Charter Mark.

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what systems he has in place to ensure that policies being developed by his Department are subject to a crime impact(a) assessment and (b) audit and are not likely to lead to enhanced criminal opportunities. [72691]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply the Under-Secretary for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Minister for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) has given to this question today,Official Report, column 311–12.

  Justice and Internal Affairs Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the issues for discussion before the Justice and Internal Affairs Council on 12 March, indicating the position he proposes to take on each issue. [72737]

  Kate Hoey
  I have been asked to reply.
  306
  Agendas for Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Councils, which are determined by the Presidency of the day, are nearly always finalised only very shortly before Council meetings themselves. The agenda for the JHA Council on 12 March is still in draft form, and is very likely to undergo substantial further revision. Current indications are that major items are likely to be Europol, questions relating to the transition from the Maastricht to the Amsterdam Treaty with regard to Conventions, and preparation of a meeting with central and eastern European countries and Cyprus, which will take place in the afternoon.

  An annotated agenda will be sent to the Select Committee on European Scrutiny in the normal way, as soon as possible.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  EEA Residents' Permits
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is(a) the average and (b) the longest time taken to determine applications for European Economic Area residents' permits in each year from 1995 to date. [70761]

  Kate Hoey
  I regret I am unable to provide the statistical information requested as it is not readily available in the form requested. Collation of the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for European Economic Area residents' permits were(a) granted and (b) refused for each month in the years from 1995 to 1998; and how many such applications are currently outstanding. [70719]

  Kate Hoey
  Monthly figures for grants and refusals of residence permits from January 1996 to August 1998 are listed in the table. A total figure for 1995 has been included as the monthly figures for that year are not readily available. The number of applications outstanding (as at October 1998) was 5,500.

  Grants/refusals of EEA residence permits 1995–98

  Granted

  Refused

  1995

  3,614

  68

  1996

  January

  204

  9

  February

  311

  5

  March

  238

  1

  April

  240

  1

  May

  238

  1

  June

  257

  1

  July

  237

  1

  August

  205

  1

  September

  254

  2

  October

  244

  3

  November

  243

  2

  December

  158

  1

  1997

  January

  177

  1

  February

  122

  5

  March

  192

  1

  April

  231

  2

  May

  167

  2

  June

  272

  1

  July

  250

  0

  August

  141

  1

  September

  95

  3

  October

  55

  2

  November

  78

  1

  December

  26

  5

  307

  Grants/refusals of EEA residence permits 1995–98

  Granted

  Refused

  1998

  January

  37

  6

  February

  81

  1

  March

  99

  0

  April

  211

  6

  May

  200

  2

  June

  108

  1

  July

  109

  2

  August

  86

  4

  Population of sentenced females in prisons in England and Wales by principal drugs offence on 31 January 1999, by sentence length1

  Offence

  less than 3 months

  3 months to less than 6 months

  6 months to less than 12 months

  12 months and over

  Total

  All drugs offences

  5

  5

  33

  782

  825

  of which:

  Unlawful supply

  —

  —

  14

  153

  167

  Possession with intent

  3

  3

  13

  138

  156

  Possession

  2

  2

  7

  38

  49

  Unlawful import/export

  —

  —

  —

  448

  448

  Other drugs offences

  —

  —

  —

  5

  5

  1 Provisional figures

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many female foreign nationals are serving sentences for drug related offences. [72360]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The latest available provisional information is for 31 January 1999. On that date, there were 274 female foreign nationals serving sentences for drug-related offences in prisons in England and Wales.

  Prisoner Releases (Home Detention Curfew)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners released subject to home detention curfew have been returned to custody; and how many so returned to custody had been subject to supervision. [72361]

  Mr. George Howarth
  As of 22 February, 1,289 offenders have been placed on Home Detention Curfew. 23 curfewees have had their licenses revoked by the Secretary of State, and 21 have been returned to custody. 15 of those returned to custody were subject to supervision whilst in the community.

  Justice and Internal Affairs Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the issues for discussion

  Population of sentenced females in prisons in England and Wales on 31 January 1999 by offence and sentence length1

  Offence

  Less than 3 months

  3 months

  Over 3 months to less than 6 months

  6 months to less than 12 months

  12 months and over

  Total

  Theft and handling

  31

  25

  48

  100

  134

  338

  Fraud and forgery

  6

  3

  10

  46

  75

  140

  Other offences

  36

  25

  37

  156

  1,659

  1,913

  Total

  73

  53

  95

  302

  1,868

  2,391

  1 Provisional figures

  Female Prisoners (Drug Offences)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many female prisoners convicted of offences involving possession, supply or trafficking of controlled drugs were serving sentences of(a) less than three months imprisonment, (b) three to six months imprisonment, (c) six to 12 months imprisonment and (d) more than 12 months imprisonment. [72359]

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

  before the Justice and Internal Affairs Council on 12 March, indicating the position he proposes to take on each issue. [72727]

  Kate Hoey
  Agendas for Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Councils, which are determined by the Presidency of the day, are nearly always finalised only very shortly before Council meetings themselves. The agenda for the JHA Council on 12 March is still in draft form, and is very likely to undergo substantial further revision. Current indications are that major items are likely to be Europol, questions relating to the transition from the Maastricht to the Amsterdam Treaty with regard to Conventions, and preparation of a meeting with central and eastern European countries and Cyprus, which will take place in the afternoon.

  An annotated agenda will be sent to the Select Committee on European Scrutiny in the normal way, as soon as possible.

  Female Prisoners (Offence Categories)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many female prisoners are serving sentences for(a) theft and handling, (b) fraud and forgery and (c) other offences; and if he will give a breakdown of these categories into sentences of (i) three months, (ii) three months to six months, (iii) six months to 12 months and (iv) more than 12 months. [72368]

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

  Immigration and Asylum Bill
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if hon. Members and their staff who give immigration advice or perform immigration services are exempt persons under the meaning of Clause 63(4)(a) or (b) of the Immigration and Asylum Bill
  1999. [72148]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Hon. Members and their staff may provide immigration advice in the course of their Parliamentary work without needing to meet any of the requirements of Clause 63 of the Immigration and Asylum Bill because under Clause 61(2)(b), such advice is not provided in the course of a business.

  Metropolitan Police Funding
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much of the 1999–2000 income of the Metropolitan Police will come from the areas that will be transferred out of the Metropolitan Police District on 1 April 2000; and what percentage of(a) the total income and (b) the total amount paid by council tax payers this represents. [71931]

  Kate Hoey
  The Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District tells me that precept income in 1999–2000 from the areas that, subject to enactment of the Greater London Authority Bill, will cease to be part of the Metropolitan Police District on 1 April 2000 will be £16.7 million. This represents 0.9 per cent. of the total income of the Metropolitan Police for the year 1999–2000 from police and revenue support grant, redistributed non-domestic rates and precepts on local authorities. It is 7.4 per cent. of total police precept income.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much of the 1999–2000 income of the Metropolitan Police will come from the Borough of Spelthorne; and what percentage of (i) the total Metropolitan Police income and (ii) the total amount paid by local authorities this represents. [71940]

  Kate Hoey
  The Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District tells me that precept income for 1999–2000 of £2,971,605.12 will come from the Borough of Spelthorne. This is 0.14 per cent. of the total income of the Metropolitan Police for the year 1999–2000 from police and revenue support grant, redistributed non-domestic rates and the precept on local authorities and is 1.31 per cent. of total police precept income.

  Deportation
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy regarding the deportation of families where there are children who have spent a long time in the United Kingdom. [73568]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  For a number of years, it has been the practice of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate not to pursue enforcement action against people who have children under 18 living with them who have spent 10 years or more in this country, save in very exceptional circumstances.

  We have concluded that 10 years is too long a period. Children who have been in this country for several years will be reasonably settled here and may, therefore, find it
  310
  difficult to adjust to life abroad. In future, the enforced removal or deportation will not normally be appropriate where there are minor dependent children in the family who have been living in the United Kingdom continuously for 7 or more years. In most cases, the ties established by children over this period will outweigh other considerations and it is right and fair that the family should be allowed to stay here. However, each case will continue to be considered on its individual merits.

  Essex Police
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what extra resources will be allocated to Essex Police in order that they can fulfil their duties, after reorganisation, in the areas of Essex presently covered by the Metropolitan Police. [72803]

  Mr. Boateng
  Police funding allocations are determined by a needs-based formula. The formula to be applied in 2000–2001 will take into account the changes to the boundaries of the Essex Police. The allocation of resources thereafter within the force area is a matter for the Chief Constable.

  The Government have recognised that the Essex Police Authority will incur transitional costs in the year preceding the boundary changes. In order to achieve a smooth implementation of the changes we have, in addition to Essex Police Authority's normal funding for 1999–2000, allocated an extra £2 million to the Police Authority for special transitional costs associated with boundary changes.

  Lawrence Inquiry
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the way Mr. Justice Macpherson conducted the Lawrence Inquiry. [72675]

  Mr. Straw
  During the proceedings of the Inquiry I received representations from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and from the parents of the five suspects in the case expressing concerns about some aspects of the Inquiry.

  The conduct of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry was a matter for the Chairman, Sir William Macpherson and I believe that he conducted the Inquiry with complete fairness.

  I have placed on the record my deep gratitude to Sir William Macpherson and his Inquiry team in my statement to the House today.

  Police Efficiency
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to measure the efficiency of police forces in order to determine if they have reached his target of a two per cent. efficiency gain. [R] [72719]

  Mr. Boateng
  Monitoring and review of police efficiency plans from April 1999 will be undertaken jointly by the Home Office, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) and the Audit Commission. Forces will be expected to demonstrate that they have achieved the two per cent. efficiency gains demanded, and that the resources released have been reinvested to improve
  311
  delivery of national and local frontline policing priorities. At the end of 1999–2000, efficiency plans will be audited and certified against actual outturn. Ministers will receive regular reports on forces' progress towards achieving the two per cent. target.

  Kurds
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the Kurdish population in north London; how many came to Britain as asylum seekers; how many are still waiting to have their asylum status determined; and how many are estimated to be involved in serious crime. [72717]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that information on the number and immigration status of persons of Kurdish origin currently resident in north London is not available.

  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that information about victims and offenders in the Metropolitan Police District is not aggregated under the definition of "the Kurdish Community".

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the level of crime in London emanating from the Kurdish community. [72712]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that information about victims and offenders in the Metropolitan Police District is not aggregated under the definition of "the Kurdish Community".

  Anti-drugs Co-ordinator
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) initiatives taken and (b) advice received from the Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator over the last 12 months. [72699]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator and his Deputy report to the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Drug Misuse, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office. The role of the Co-ordinator is to provide day-to-day leadership and focus on implementing and developing the Government's drugs strategy, published in April 1998, for which £217 million of new money has been provided for the next three years. The Co-ordinator will produce his first annual report and a national plan in the spring.

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what systems he has in place to ensure that policies being developed by his Department are subject to a crime impact(a) assessment and (b) audit and are not likely to lead to enhanced criminal opportunities. [72669]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Development of Government policy takes place with close co-operation between the Departments concerned. This can be through formal arrangements, such as those established between the Home Office, Lord Chancellor's Department and the Law Officers' Department, or via Ministerial or Official Groups or Working Parties. Less formally, they can be 312
  through close consultation with experts in the relevant areas and with those affected by the proposed measures, normally against a background of regular in-house or specially commissioned research. The Home Office works closely with the Cabinet Office or other Government Departments on the crime implications of policy developments.

  Our determination is that the implications for crime and disorder of any new measures are properly taken into account. This commitment is reflected in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Section 17(1) requires local and police authorities to exercise their functions with due regard to the likely effect on preventing crime and disorder.

  Greater emphasis is now being given to building up our knowledge of policies that work in tackling crime. The Crime Reduction Programme, supported by £250 million from the Comprehensive Spending Review, is based on systematic evidence of what is effective in reducing crime and tackling its causes, not just dealing with its effects. All the parts of the Crime Reduction Programme will be independently evaluated to assess their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in reducing crime and improving the operation of the criminal justice system. Those parts which are successful will form the basis of future mainstream programmes and those which are not will be dropped.

  Police (Sparsity)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when research by his Department on the sparsity factor for policing was initiated. [72732]

  Mr. Boateng
  External research to examine whether there are any additional costs associated with the policing of sparsely populated rural areas was commissioned in March 1998. The results will be available shortly.

  Prison Service (Dogs)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 4 February 1999,Official Report, column 764, how many active drug dogs are on active service at (i) Princeton Prison, Dartmoor, and (ii) Channings Wood Prison, Denbury; and if he will introduce a passive drug dog in Pritchton Prison, Dartmoor. [71880]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There are four active drug dogs at Dartmoor prison, and two active drug dogs at Channings Wood prison. Funds have been approved to provide Dartmoor prison with one passive drug dog and one handler.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Gas Levy
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses were affected by the change in the gas levy announced in the 1997 budget; and what is the average reduction in the levy per business. [70671]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]The Chancellor announced in his July 1997 Budget that
  313
  the Government proposed to cut the gas levy to zero, with full effect from April 1998. As he announced in the March 1998 Budget, the Government decided to implement this by abolishing the levy with effect from 1 April 1998, with a backdated reduction from four pence per therm to three pence per therm applying to 1997–98. Levy was paid by nine producers or purchasers of gas during 1997–98 and each of them has benefited from repayment of one quarter of the levy paid by them in respect of that year.

  Export Licences
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of applications for export licences were processed by the Export Control Organisation in accordance with their targets as to time in the four-week periods in(a) July 1998, (b) September 1998 and (c) January 1999. [71842]

  Dr. Howells
  The Export Control Organisation (ECO) of DTI measures its performance against two aims:to provide a substantive response to an application within 20 working days of receipt for applications that need to be circulated to other Government Departments according to their policy requirements as determined by them ('circulated' cases):
  to provide such a response within 10 working days of receipt for applications that are dealt with by DTI itself ('non-circulated' cases).

  In each case, full documentation in support of the application must be provided by the applicant at the outset for these targets to apply.

  ECO management data on the processing of licence applications are complied on the basis of four-week periods. The period closest to July 1998 is 27 June 1998 to 24 July 1998; for the period closest to September 1998 it is 22 August 1998 to 18 September and for the period closest to January 1999 it is 9 January 1999 to 5 February 1999.

  To the nearest point, the percentage of licence applications completed within the published targets were as follows:

  Circulated (20 day target)

  Non-circulated (10 day target)

  27 June 1998 to 24 July 1998

  43

  83

  22 August 1998 to 18 September 1998

  38

  82

  9 January 1999 to 5 February 1999

  62

  82

  This information was taken from the Export Control Organisation's management data, which are compiled in order to monitor performance at processing applications for Standard Individual Export Licences. The performance measures do not apply to applications for Open Individual Export Licences (due to the very wide variations between goods and country coverage of such licences), or for licences covering Iran or Iraq, or exports subject to control solely because of United Nations Sanctions.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many export licence applications were refused by the Export Control Organisation during each of the four-week periods used by his Department since March 1998. [71841]
  314
  Dr. Howells
  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the number of applications for individual export licences refused in full for each period are as follows:

  Period

  Standard Individual Export Licence applications

  Open Individual Export Licence applications

  7 March 1998 to 3 April 1998

  4

  1

  4 April 1998 to 1 May 1998

  8

  0

  2 May 1998 to 29 May 1998

  8

  0

  30 May 1998 to 26 June 1998

  9

  0

  27 June 1998 to 27 July 1998

  4

  0

  25 July 1998 to 21 August 1998

  10

  0

  22 August 1998 to 18 September 1998

  10

  0

  19 September 1998 to 16 October 1998

  10

  0

  17 October 1998 to 13 November 1998

  9

  0

  14 November 1998 to 11 December 1998

  11

  0

  12 December 1998 to 8 January 1999

  6

  0

  9 January 1999 to 5 February

  32

  0

  This information should be considered in the light of the answer given by my hon. Friend, the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry(a) how many defence export licence applications have been withdrawn since 1 May 1997 and (b) if he will estimate the total value of the goods to which they related. [71839]

  Dr. Howells
  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the following results were obtained. Between 2 May 1997 and 8 February 1999,779 applications for Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) covering the export of goods subject to export control by being listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, the so-called Military List, were withdrawn by the applicants. The total value of the goods as stated on these applications was £399 million. In the same period, 11 applications for Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) covering such exports were withdrawn. There is generally no cumulative limit to the quantity or value of exports permitted under OIELs, so no corresponding figure for the aggregate value can be determined.

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

  Some applications may have been withdrawn before a determination had been made as to whether or not the goods were listed in the Military List. Such applications are not included in this answer.

  This information should be considered in light of the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997 Official Report, columns 870–71.

  An application may be withdrawn for a number of reasons. For instance, an application for a SIEL may be withdrawn on issue of an OIEL or an Open General Export

  315
  Licence that covers the proposed export; or the potential export may simply fail to materialise. There is no requirement that the applicant should give the Department of Trade and Industry a reason for withdrawal.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many export licence applications were processed by the Export Control Organisation in each of the four-week periods used by his Department since March 1998, broken down by(a) those circulated to other Government departments and (b) those not circulated. [71840]

  Dr. Howells
  The information, beginning with the four week period nearest to the date specified, is as follows:

  Period

  Application circulated to other departments according to their policy requirements and completed during the period

  Applications not circulated to other departments and completed during the period

  7 March 1998 to 3 April 1998

  1,039

  111

  4 April 1998 to 1 May 1998

  704

  145

  2 May 1998 to 29 May 1998

  710

  94

  30 May 1998 to 26 June 1998

  670

  77

  27 June 1998 to 24 July 1998

  564

  119

  25 July 1998 to 21 August 1998

  858

  123

  22 August 1998 to 18 September 1998

  718

  93

  19 September 1998 to 16 October 1998

  675

  99

  17 October 1998 to 13 November 1998

  836

  86

  14 November 1998 to 11 December 1998

  756

  131

  12 December 1998 to 8 January 1999

  678

  97

  9 January 1999 to 5 February 1999

  854

  126

  The information has been taken from the Export Control Organisation's management data which are compiled in order to monitor performance of processing applications for Standard Individual Export Licences. The above data do not include applications for Open Individual Export Licences, for applications to export goods to Iran or Iraq or exports which are subject to control solely because of United Nations Sanctions.

  Hallmarks
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if articles of precious metal which have been hallmarked in Spain may be offered for sale in the United Kingdom without being further hallmarked in the United Kingdom; and if he will place in the Library illustrations of the Spanish hallmarks. [72588]

  Dr. Howells
  The Hallmarking Act 1973 was amended with effect from 1 January this year in accordance with Article 30 of the EC Treaty and European case law concerning the free circulation of goods, in order to allow articles of precious metal which have been struck with hallmarks by an independent body in an EEA State to be offered for sale in the United Kingdom without further hallmarking where the marks in question provide information which is equivalent to UK hallmarks and is capable of being understood by UK consumers.

  It is ultimately a matter for the UK courts whether articles hallmarked by an assay office in Spain would meet these conditions, but the British Hallmarking Council—the body established by the 1973 Act—is of the
  316
  opinion that they will. I am placing in the Library of the House a copy of the information about the hallmarks of other EEA States which has been published by the BHC. This includes illustrations of individual marks. The information is not yet comprehensive and DTI is currently attempting to obtain fuller information.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations he has had with his French energy counterpart on the Millennium-readiness of French nuclear power stations and on contingency plans and other related safety issues; and if he will make a statement. [72155]

  Mr. Battle
  Nuclear safety regulators regularly discuss Year 2000 issues both at international meetings and at bi-lateral meetings. A recent example was the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency's workshop on "The impact of year 2000 on the Nuclear Industry", in Ottawa on 8–10 February 1999. All nuclear safety regulators present there, including the French Nuclear Safety Authority—Direction de la surete des installations nucleaires (DSIN)—gave reports on the readiness of their nuclear sector on millennium issues.

  The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate in the British Health and Safety Executive is satisfied that the French Authorities are taking seriously Year 2000 issues and are dealing with them in an appropriate and effective manner.

  Electricity Connections
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the average connection charge levied on domestic consumers by electricity suppliers. [72541]

  Mr. Battle
  Most of the public electricity suppliers charge in the region of £200 to £400 for a standard domestic connection. In all cases, charges will be made according to the degree of difficulty involved in the connection and this can make the cost considerably more. Some allowance may be made for future revenue received by the company as a result of a connection.

  In all cases where customers feel that the costs involved are not reasonable those costs can be referred to the Director General of Electricity Supply for determination.

  Travel Companies
  Mr. Darvill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the Office of Fair Trading to implement the recommendations of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission made in December 1997 on the display of travel company ownership links on the fascias of trading premises and sales brochures. [72016]

  Dr. Howells
  My hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in her capacity as the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, asked the Director General of Fair Trading to seek undertakings from the major travel groups regarding undertakings on transparency of ownership links. He is still in discussions with them. He will provide me with advice on the matter in due course and I will make an announcement.

  Genetically Modified Food
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the investments made by industry over the last five years in research by publicly and jointly funded laboratories into genetically modified foods and crops. [72038]

  Mr. Battle
  To answer the question it will be necessary to compile the information from the laboratories' records for the last five years, which will take some time. When the information is collected I shall write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of the answer in the Library of the House.

  Agricultural Biotechnology
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money his Department has spent supporting the research and development of agricultural biotechnology since 1 May 1997. [72070]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 23 February 1999]: The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, principally funded from the Science Budget for which the Office of Science and Technology is responsible, spent £13.8 million on agricultural biotechnology in the financial year 1997–98 and expects to spend some £14.5 million in the current financial year, 1998–99. The Department itself does not sponsor food or agriculture companies, and none of its funding is directed specifically at agricultural biotechnology.

  DVD Video Disks
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what action he is taking to prevent regional coding of DVD video disks; [72749]

  (2) what steps he will take to ensure that consumers are made aware of regional coding of DVD video disks; [72743]

  (3) what discussions he has had with PC manufacturers to ensure that purchasers of DVD video disks can change their regional codes indefinitely; [72745]

  (4) what discussions he has had with manufacturers of consumer DVD video players to ensure that their machines will play disks from each of the six regions of the world; [72748]

  (5) if he will make a statement on DVD video disk technology and how consumers can be protected from DVD video disk manufacturers and film makers (a) operating a pricing cartel and (b) designing machines and disks which are not compatible outside their region; [72746]

  (6) what discussions he has had with Ministers in other countries on combating anti-competitive behaviour with regard to DVD video disks. [72799]

  Dr. Howells
  I understand that the region lock protection system to which the right hon. Member refers reflects the different release schedules for feature films in different areas, and that there are no proposals similarly to restrict blank DVDs or audio disks. Consumers can check that any disk they purchase will play on an 318
  appropriate player by matching up the regional code printed on the disk packaging with that shown on the front of their player.

  Under UK competition law, in the first instance it is the responsibility of the Director General of Fair Trading (DGFT) to investigate allegations of anti-competitive behaviour. The market for DVDs is still young and the DGFT will be monitoring its development. To date he has seen no evidence of price cartels or any other anti-competitive behaviour. If the right hon. Member has any such evidence he should pass that direct to the DGFT. Neither I nor the Secretary of State have had discussions with PC manufacturers, or with Ministers in other countries, about the specifications for DVDs.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Argentinian Students
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what scholarships are made available by his Department to students from the Argentine to study at British universities; and if he will make a statement. [72545]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The British Chevening Scholarship Scheme (funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) and the Department for International Development (DfID) will provide some 20 new awards for Argentine Scholars to study in the UK in 1998–99 at a cost of about £270,000. The scholarships support postgraduate study in a range of fields from public administration to international law and environmental health. Argentine students are also eligible to apply for places on the FCO's central joint funded schemes co-sponsored with Dundee University and Rio Tinto plc, the Wessex Institute of Technology, the College of Petroleum Studies, and Oxford University and Citibank.

  During President Menem's visit to the UK in October 1998 a new scholarships scheme co-sponsored by the FCO, the Argentine Foreign Ministry and Warwick University was established.

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the name and position of the official to whom the Chilean Embassy spoke on 15 October with regard to Senator Pinochet's travel arrangements. [72278]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Chilean Embassy spoke to the Head of Latin America and Caribbean Department, Mr. Henry Hogger.

  Orlando Da Costa
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the investigation into the shooting of Orlando Da Costa during the Troika Ambassador trip to East Timor. [72663]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We naturally very much regret the death of Orlando Marcelino Da Costa who was shot in Baucau in June 1998. We asked the Indonesian authorities to carry out a full investigation into the incident. We still await the report.

  South Africa
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he is giving the South African Government to combat Islamic terrorism. [72698]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office assists a number of countries each year to combat terrorism more effectively. A team of Whitehall officials will visit South Africa next month as a part of this programme for exploratory talks on counter-terrorism issues. This will be the first such contact with the South African Government since President Mandela's election.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of civil rights abuses perpetrated by the Nigerian forces in Sierra Leone. [72711]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are aware of reports of abuses by ECOMOG forces in Sierra Leone. We are concerned at such reports, and have made our views clear on this to the Government of Sierra Leone and to ECOMOG.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Sierra Leone Government about the death sentence passed on Foday Sankoh. [72730]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Government of Sierra Leone can be in no doubt about our opposition to the death penalty in Sierra Leone and elsewhere. I raised the case of Foday Sankoh when I met Dr. Jonah, the Sierra Leone Minister of Finance, Development and Economic Planning, on 4 November, and again on 18 January. We do not believe that further executions will promote national reconciliation in Sierra Leone.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussion he has had with President Kabbah of Sierra Leone on the execution of 24 army officers. [72725]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I spoke personally to President Kabbah on 16 October about the military courts martial, to ask him to show clemency. I also wrote to President Kabbah on the same day to reiterate our concern. The Government of Sierra Leone can be in no doubt about our concern over the imposition of the death penalty.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the trial procedures to which the 24 executed officers were subjected in Sierra Leone. [72726]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  United Nations and other international observers monitoring the trials process in Sierra Leone have indicated that fair trials have been held under difficult circumstances. There are concerns, however, about the lack of a proper appeals process for the military courts martial. We have taken this up with the Government of Sierra Leone; and will continue to remind them of the need to provide fair trials for all those accused.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received on destruction of property in Freetown following the ECOMOG invasion. [72735]
  320
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  ECOMOG have not invaded Sierra Leone; their forces were invited by the Government of Sierra Leone to assist in the restoration of peace and security. There has been significant damage to property during the current conflict. The most serious damage was caused in January, when rebel forces entered Freetown, and indulged in wanton destruction of property. The eastern areas of the city have suffered particularly: up to eighty per cent. of property has been reported as destroyed or damaged.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the support given by Britain to the(a) Nigerian military and (b) ECOMOG forces in Sierra Leone. [72714]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have not given any bilateral support to the Nigerian military, as they are subject to the EU Common position on Nigeria which bans military co-operation. ECOMOG in Sierra Leone comprises Nigerian, Ghanaian, Guinean and Malian contingents. We have provided it with practical support to enable it to protect the legitimate Government and people of Sierra Leone from rebel violence. We have provided £3 million worth of practical logistic support; this includes £1 million worth of vehicles and communications equipment, as well as emergency medical supplies for the people of Sierra Leone. On 19 January, the Foreign Secretary announced a further £1 million of logistic support for ECOMOG and humanitarian assistance. We have also funded the recent airlift of the Ghanaian contingent to ECOMOG.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the support given by Her Majesty's Government to President Kabbah since September 1998. [72731]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We continue to provide strong political and practical support to the democratically elected Government of Sierra Leone. Since the restoration of President Kabbah's legitimate Government in March 1998, we have committed over £20 million for rehabilitation and reconstruction following the military junta, of which £11 million has been spent. We have provided further humanitarian assistance to the people of Sierra Leone this year in response to the deterioration in the security situation.

  Usama bin Laden
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the whereabouts of Usama bin Laden. [72696]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  There have been a variety of reports about the whereabouts of Usama bin Laden, who moved to Afghanistan in 1996; we have no confirmation of his current whereabouts.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the placement by President Mugabe of Zimbabwe of top army officers in key civilian Government positions. [72729]
  321
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I receive regular reports about developments in Zimbabwe, including on senior government appointments. In November 1998 Brigadier Muzonini (Rtd) and Brigadier Bonyongwe were appointed Director and Deputy Director respectively of the Central Intelligence Organisation.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will assess the report by the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace on the murder and torture of civilians by the Zimbabwean Army and security agents. [72723]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are aware of the disturbing report by the Legal Resources Foundation and the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace into the atrocities in Matabeleland during the 1980s. When I met President Mugabe in December 1998 I urged him to address the outstanding human rights issues, in the interest of national reconciliation.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the personal involvement of President Mugabe in civil rights abuses in Zimbabwe. [72722]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  President Mugabe has used emergency powers to curb industrial action, which we understand the Zimbabwean parliament has rejected. We have no reports that he was personally involved in the detention and apparent torture of journalists, but neither has he condemned these abuses. He has made a series of statements which undermine the independence of the Courts, Media, and civil rights groups.

  Christians
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries about which his Department has received reports of Christians suffering civil rights abuses because of their religion. [72704]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We routinely receive information from our posts overseas and from a very wide range of academic, NGO, media and other sources, on the human rights situations worldwide, including religious freedom and the position of Christians. Over the past year we have received reports about countries including: Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Egypt, Indonesia and China.

  We always view such matters seriously and frequently take them up with the governments concerned.

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what systems he has in place to ensure that policies being developed by his Department are subject to a crime impact(a) assessment and (b) audit and are not likely to lead to enhanced criminal opportunities. [72687]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given today Official Report, columns 311–12, by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend for North Warickshire (Mr. O'Brien).

  Kenya
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Kenyan Government following the beating of Professor Wangare Maathai by security guards at Karura Forest. [72734]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  As part of the Democratic Development Group of diplomatic missions in Nairobi, we supported a collective statement expressing our deep concern over the violence at the Karura Forest. The statement underlined that the right to demonstrate peacefully arises directly from basic human rights, including freedom of expression and assembly. However, it also condemned the destruction of private property and the accompanying violence by demonstrators, as with the excessive reaction of the police. It also called for greater transparency and respect for the law in the allocation of public lands in Kenya, including the Karura Forest, something which our High Commissioner regularly raises with President Moi and senior Government Ministers.

  India
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Indian Government about the(a) torture and (b) murder of Christians in India. [72707]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 28 January 1999,Official Report, columns 395–96.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the River Dart to discuss oyster farming. [71242]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no immediate to do so.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners he expects to have incomes at least as great as the minimum income guarantee in their year of retirement once his pensions reforms are fully implemented. [71181]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available.

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what systems he has in place to ensure that policies being developed by his Department are subject to a crime impact(a) assessment and (b) audit and are not likely to lead to enhanced criminal opportunities. [72683]
  323
  Mr. Bayley
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) gave today,Official Report, columns 311–12.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Film and Television Freelance Training Courses
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many students are currently undertaking FT2 courses. [72217]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: I understand from FT2 that there are currently 32 students undertaking FT2 courses: 20 on the new entrants programme, 6 on the research scheme and 6 on the set craft apprenticeships scheme.

  Internet (Public Libraries)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to monitor the terms under which free connections to the Internet for public libraries are being made; and if he will make a statement. [72084]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  It is for Library Authorities to negotiate the terms governing connection to the Internet.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the average(a) capital and (b) running cost per link to the Internet for public libraries; and if he will estimate the range of such costs. [72082]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  This is a matter for individual Library Authorities to determine following commercial negotiation.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many and what percentage of public libraries have been connected to the Internet free of installation charge to date. [72086]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  A survey conducted in 1997 suggested that 5 per cent. of service points had public Internet access. Information on the costs of installation is not held centrally.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the companies which have made connections to the Internet for public libraries free of installation charges; how many connections have been made in each case; and if he will publish the terms under which these connections have been made. [72085]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  This information is not held centrally.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what encouragement his Department is providing to secure the making of large budget films in Britain. [72323]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: My Department is keen to create the conditions to secure the production of films of all types in Britain. In seeking to attract large budget films from overseas, my
  324
  Department provides funding to the British Film Commission to promote the benefits of filming in the UK internationally. In addition, my Department jointly funds the newly created British Film Office in Los Angeles, which promotes the UK within Hollywood.

  Recent large budget films made wholly or partly in this country include 'The Mummy' and 'Saving Private Ryan'. The new James Bond film 'The World is not Enough' is currently shooting here.

WALES

  Education, Flintshire
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the effect of the 1999–2000 revenue support grant on the provision of educational services in Flintshire. [72028]

  Mr. Hain
  My right hon. Friend in his statement to the House on 11 February 1999,Official Report, columns 483–89, announced that the local government revenue settlement for 1999–2000 provided for an increase in net Total Standard Spending of £144 million, of which £70.2 million is identified for education. Flintshire County Borough Council's share of the £70.2 million is £3.494 million and I expect the authority to increase its education budget by at least this amount with the bulk being included in delegate schools budgets. Overall Central Government support for Flintshire has increased by £6.174 million or 5.67% over 1998–99.

  Pierhead Building, Cardiff Bay
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the future use of the Pierhead Building in Cardiff Bay. [72279]

  Mr. Michael
  The Pierhead Building is a unique and attractive building right at the heart of Cardiff Bay which stands next to the site for the new Assembly building. It provides a powerful visual link for the Assembly with the industrial and maritime heritage of Wales. Originally it has been thought that it could be used as the office accommodation for the First Secretary and Cabinet. After careful consideration I concluded that their offices should be in the same building as the offices of Assembly Members which will be located in Crickhowell House along with the temporary Chamber and committee rooms. This will encourage the Cabinet members and Assembly Members—and their staff—in working together as part of a single team.

  Appropriate arrangements have now been achieved in Crickhowell House, allowing the space in Pierhead Building to be used to address other issues. It is planned to bring forward detailed plans in the near future enabling Pierhead Building to be used for educational and public information purposes and as a function hall. It will also provide office accommodation for a small number of staff.

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what systems he has in place to ensure that policies being
  325
  developed by his Department are subject to a crime impact (a) assessment and (b) audit and are not likely to lead to enhanced criminal opportunities. [72684]

  Mr. Michael
  The Welsh Office will play a full part in arrangements across Government to drive forward initiatives on crime reduction led by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. My Department with its multifunctional remit routinely take account of cross-cutting issues as part of policy development and I have made it clear that our contribution to the reduction of crime and disorder has high priority.

  The Welsh Office is also taking a close interest in the audit reports and emerging strategies of the local crime and disorder reduction partnerships in Wales and considering the implications of these for wider policy development.

  The recent Audit Commission report "Safety in Numbers—Promoting Community Safety" cited the Green Paper "Better Health—Better Wales" as an example of good practice in drawing out the connections between the effects of crime and people's health and well-being. This report made a number of recommendations to central Government, which I will be considering. These include monitoring and assessing good practice and ensuring a corporate approach across central Government. I have stressed the Government's expectations that all public organisations will contribute to crime reduction, and I have stressed the responsibilities of local government in Wales with the full support of the Welsh Local Government Association.

  I have stressed the role of the NHS in Wales and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently joined me to visit the accident and emergency unit in Cardiff where hospital staff, police and victim support have joined in a project to reduce violence. All public bodies in Wales are being encouraged to take a similarly creative approach.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Renewables Obligation
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has made a decision on the Third Order under the Scottish Renewables Obligation; and if he will make a statement. [73452]

  Mr. Dewar
  I have made arrangements for an order to be laid before Parliament tomorrow requiring the 2 Public Electricity Suppliers (ScottishPower and Scottish Hydro-Electric) in Scotland to make arrangements to secure 150MW DNC of new renewable electricity generating capacity from a range of renewable sources. There has been an excellent response by bidders to the tender invitation for SRO3. This represents a considerable success for our policy of creating an initial market within each of the most promising renewable technologies by encouraging strong competition between various projects. This has allowed me to set a larger order than previously envisaged when SR03 was announced in December 1997.

  I am particularly pleased to report that bid prices for SRO3 have been once again reduced, with bids for large wind projects especially low. The cheapest bid was a remarkable 1.89 pence per unit generated making large wind projects by far the cheapest renewable technology
  326
  available under the order. I have, therefore, decided that large wind projects should make up a sizeable part of the order. A specific band for small wind projects is being introduced for the first time under SRO3. The aim is to encourage small, locally based companies and communities to get involved in electricity generation.

  The prices tendered for biomass projects were relatively high compared with wind and waste to energy projects. I have, however, taken account of the wider benefits to agriculture and forestry and to the environment of such projects, and the need to enable the technology to establish itself in Scotland. For this reason, I have decided to allocate almost 9 per cent. of the order to this technology.

  A band for wave power was proposed in SRO3 for the first time. Wave technology is very much at a formative stage and I am keen to help the technology gain a foothold in Scotland. I am pleased to report that bid prices were lower than expected and I have, therefore, decided to allocate a small part of the order to wave projects.

  I have also decided to include a sizeable number of waste to energy projects and a small number of hydro electric projects in the order.

  There are significant benefits stemming from the encouragement of renewable energy. These include a contribution to the Government's greenhouse gas emissions reduction target agreed following the December 1998 Kyoto conference. By making an order for a total of 150MW we are taking a considerable step towards meeting Government's new and strong drive for renewable generating capacity, while also promoting the renewable industry in Scotland.

  We are aware of concerns about the possible effects on the environment and landscape of the development of renewable energy projects and expect developers to give particular care and attention to these sensitive issues. Successful developers will need to obtain planning permission for their projects if they have not already done so; award of a contract as a result of the Order does not confer any special advantage in the planning process and approval must be sought in the usual way.

  I have made the order after considering carefully the advice of the Director General of Electricity Supply and after consulting the 2 Scottish Public Electricity Suppliers.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who will be disqualified from being a member of the Scottish Parliament. [73539]

  Mr. McLeish
  Section 15 of the Scotland Act 1998 specifies that holding certain offices disqualifies people from being members of the Scottish Parliament. These include judges, civil servants, members of the armed forces, members of police forces and members of foreign legislatures and others who would not be able to sit and vote in the House of Commons. It also gives Her Majesty power by Order in Council to designate further office holders who will be disqualified from being MSPs. On 16 February, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland, laid a draft Order before both Houses of Parliament which lists those office holders who should be
  327
  disqualified from being MSPs. The Order will be subject to affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses before being put to Her Majesty in Council.

  In making these proposals, we have adopted broadly the same approach to disqualification as is applied in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, so following well established and well understood precedents. People holding disqualifying offices will be required to resign those offices on formal consent to nomination.

  Not all those office holders disqualified from being an MP will also be disqualified from being an MSP as we have adapted the disqualification to the circumstances of the Scottish Parliament. This Order will be for the first elections; it will be for the Parliament to consider the scope of the disqualification for subsequent elections.

  Scottish Consultative Council
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the outcome of the first stage of the policy and financial reviews of the Scottish Consultative Council on the curriculum and the Scottish Council for Educational Technology. [73540]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The 'prior options' studies of the Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum (SCCC) and the Scottish Council for Educational Technology (SCET) began in December 1997. These studies raised issues of sufficient importance that a consultation document seeking comments on options for the future of both bodies was issued in October 1998. Responses were received from over 80 organisations and individuals.

  The outcome of the consultation was unanimously in favour of integrating the development of curriculum and ICT materials and there was a majority view that advice on the curriculum and ICT should be located in one body.

  I have concluded that there is a continuing need for independent advice and the development of materials relating to both the curriculum and ICT. I have agreed, in principle, that the best way of achieving that is the merger of SCCC and SCET.

  I am therefore setting up a Merger Action Group to develop a detailed plan for the merger to be presented to the Scottish Executive by 15 September this year. The membership of the Action Group will be drawn from both bodies and will include others from the education sector. It will be chaired by a senior member of HM Inspectorate of Schools. From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Organic Aid Scheme
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what payments he has proposed under the Organic Aid Scheme for(a) Arable Area Payments Scheme eligible land, (b) ineligible land and (c) unimproved grassland or rough grazing. [72618]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The payment rates currently in operation for the Organic Aid Scheme in Scotland are as follows. Consideration is being given to the options for enhancing the OAS in Scotland. From 1 July 1999 this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  328

  £ per hectare

  Arable land or improved grassland

  Rough grazing or unimproved grassland

  First year

  70

  10

  Second year

  70

  10

  Third year

  50

  7

  Fourth year

  35

  5

  Fifth year

  25

  5

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Terrorist Violence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what evidence she has received of the involvement of paramilitary organisations in terrorist violence in recent weeks. [71205]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have been a number of acts of violence recently, including paramilitary assaults and attacks. I am in regular contact with security advisers to discuss these issues. I urge all those with evidence to come forward and help the RUC bring the perpetrators to justice.

  Punishment Beatings
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussion she has had with human rights organisation on investigations of punishment beatings in Northern Ireland. [71206]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Secretary of State has noted the interest taken in the subject of paramilitary assaults by human rights organisations. In particular, I have met in the past members of Families against Intimidation and Terror to discuss this subject and a further meeting is planned.

  Eleven City Tour
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the eleven city tour's impact on the competitiveness of the Northern Ireland economy. [71207]

  Mr. Ingram
  Intense cultivation of contacts made on the Tour is well under way. Visits from prospective investors are flowing and a number of serious investment interests are under discussion. Securing projects can take several months or even years, however. It will therefore be some time before the Tour's full economic impact can be assessed.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of when the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives will begin. [71208]

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of when the decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives will begin. [71213]
  329
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the progress of decommissioning. [71215]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have welcomed the start the LVF made to decommissioning which took place on 18 December, and I urge them to continue. Discussions continue between representatives of other groups and the Decommissioning Commission. It is now time for them to start to decommission: they know very well that the Good Friday agreement must be implemented in full and that decommissioning is an indispensable part of that agreement.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of when(a) PIRA and (b) the UDA will begin their decommissioning process. [71217]

  Drumcree
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made towards the resolution of the problems over the Orange Order parade at Drumcree. [71209]

  Mr. Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken or are proposed by the Government to resolve the impasse at Drumcree. [71212]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Prime Minister met the Orange Order in November and, more recently, a delegation from the Garvaghy Road Residents' Coalition. The Government are continuing their efforts to foster communication between both parties because they believe that agreement is still possible if goodwill exists.

  British-Irish Council
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what meetings she has had to discuss preparations for the British-Irish Council. [71210]

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what meetings she has had to discuss preparations for the British-Irish Council. [71214]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  In December, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the Secretaries for Scotland and Wales, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), to discuss preparations for the British-Irish Council. She also had separate discussions with my right hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar) and Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on recent visits to Scotland and Wales respectively. Last week, I visited the Isle of Man to bring the Isle of Man Government up to date on progress on the British-Irish Council, and I will be making a similar visit to Jersey and Guernsey in the near future. I will also be holding a meeting with a number of other Ministers on 25 February to take our preparations further.

  In addition, I have regular meetings with the Northern Ireland parties on progress on the implementation of the Belfast agreement at which preparations for the BIC are discussed.

  Victims of Violence
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what initiatives have been taken to help victims of violence and their families. [71211]

  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what initiatives have been taken to help victims of violence and their families. [71219]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have announced a number of significant funding initiatives to support victims and a newsletter outlining progress has been placed in the House of Commons Library. Work is progressing on all these initiatives, and I am pleased to say that a new Trauma Centre is now operational. I hope to announce further measures in the near future.

  New Deal
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many companies are signed up to the Government's New Deal initiative in Northern Ireland. [71216]

  Mr. McFall
  Since the launch of the New Deal on 6 April 1998, 1,851 Northern Ireland companies have each confirmed their support for New Deal by signing an Employer Agreement. This figure has steadily increased over the 10 months of New Deal's lifetime and already exceeds the target of 1,500 Agreements for the first full year.

  Energy Market
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what actions she has taken to improve the working of the energy market in Northern Ireland. [71218]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn),Official Report, column 373.

  Employment Relations Bill
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to seek to extend the provisions of the Employment Relations Bill to Northern Ireland, with particular reference to carers. [71220]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Employment Relations Bill introduces a right to time off for domestic incidents, and carers would benefit, for example, by availing themselves of time off to take an elderly parent to hospital following a fall. Replication in Northern Ireland of the provisions in the Bill will be a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly.

  Peace Process
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the proposals for further progress in the peace process. [71221]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris),Official Report, column 377.

  Trade Unions
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she last met the Northern Ireland trade unions; and if she will make a statement on the matters discussed. [71222]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Secretary of State met the Northern Ireland Committee of the fish Congress of Trade Unions on 2 December 1997. A range of topics was discussed including the peace process; fair employment including the report by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and the Policy Appraisal and Fair Treatment initiative; economic opportunities, trade union representation on public bodies; and policing.

  Health Service Pay
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what settlement has been agreed for chief executives' pay in the Northern Ireland health service this year. [71223]

  Mr. McFall
  In common with national policy, my predecessor the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) wrote to the Chairmen of Health and Personal Social Services (HPSS) bodies in April 1998 asking that all practical steps be taken to ensure that the cost of individual pay rises for Senior Executives and other Senior Managers were restricted to 2.7% within the current financial year. Employers have been asked to include a compliance statement in their annual reports for 1998–99. I have recently announced a similar limit of 2.6% for next year for Chief Executives and other executives operating at board level.

  Violent Crime
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on her policy to reduce the incidence of crimes of violence against the person perpetrated by members of paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland. [71224]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is on record as condemning all acts of violence, including those against the person perpetrated by members of paramilitary organisations. She has met with representatives of political parties and impressed on them the importance of bringing their influence to bear on paramilitary groups to stop such practices.

  Good Friday Agreement
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations she has had with the Northern Ireland parties on legislation to implement the Good Friday agreement. [71225]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier today,Official Report, column 329, to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber).

  Prisoner Releases
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the release of terrorist prisoners. [71226]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the extensive debate on the Floor of the House regarding this issue on 9 December 1998,Official Report, columns 329–59. I also refer my hon. Friend to the further related debate on 27 January 1999, Official Report, columns 344–97, and in particular to columns 358–59.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners have been released under the accelerated release scheme set up by the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 to date. [71227]

  Mr. Ingram
  To date there have been 242 prisoners released under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. This is drawn from information received by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as at 15 February 1999 from the Sentence Review Commissioners to whom prisoners apply for early release.

  BCCI
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the support she has given to councils that have lost money with BCCI. [71201]

  Mr. Ingram
  Lisburn Borough Council was the only district council in Northern Ireland which lost its investment with the collapse of BCCI. No direct support was given by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland as councils have the authority to make their own investment decisions. However, the Local Government Auditor did assist in a review of the council's investment procedures and provided advice on the way forward.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Synthetic Pyrethroid Products
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies his Department has commissioned on the safety of synthetic pyrethroid products. [71541]

  Mr. Rooker
  Applications for Marketing Authorisations for all veterinary medicinal products including synthetic pyrethroids must satisfy statutory criteria for safety, quality and efficacy. Applicants are required to submit details of scientific studies to the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, where they are carefully assessed by specialists in qualified various scientific disciplines including biology, pharmacy, veterinary practice, toxicology and ecotoxicology.

  Synthetic pyrethroids used as pesticides are similarly subject to strict statutory control. Ministers approve the marketing or use of a pesticide only after rigorous evaluation of scientific data. No approval is given to pesticides that pose any unacceptable risk to human beings, non-target species or the wider environment. All approved pesticides are subject to review and, if appropriate, approvals can be restricted or revoked entirely. Given the above statutory regulatory system no studies on the safety of synthetic pyrethroids have been commissioned by the Department.

  KPMG
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the services that KPMG have performed for his Department(a) since 1 May 1997 and (b) in the corresponding period prior to 1 May 1997, indicating the remuneration made in each case. [72002]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: From records held centrally, the services of KPMG have been sought on just one occasion since 1 April 1996 for a personnel study undertaken in March 1997 at a total VAT inclusive cost of £11,750. Information on the use of KPMG prior to 1 April 1996 can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Food and Drink Federation
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Food and Drink Federation; and what issues were discussed. [72733]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Minister met the Director General of the Food and Drink Federation (FDF) for an introductory meeting on 3 August when discussions covered Genetically Modified Organisms and the Food Standards Agency. Since then he has had frequent contact with FDF on a wide range of issues. He is to be principal guest speaker at the FDF President's Dinner on 4 March.

  Inhumane Slaughtering
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) of 11 February 1999,Official Report, column 414, on inhumane slaughter, what plans he has to outlaw inhumane slaughtering in the United Kingdom. [72697]
  334
  Mr. Morley
  The inhumane slaughter of farmed animals has long been contrary to the law in the United Kingdom. The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995, and parallel regulations in Northern Ireland, implement EU requirements by making it an offence to cause any animal avoidable excitement, pain or suffering.

  The Government have this week laid a statutory instrument amending these regulations: this is not, however, because it is necessary to strengthen the law on inhumane slaughter, but is in order to confine the conduct of slaughter which is carried out without stunning for religious reasons to licensed slaughterhouses.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the total number of staff(a) in his Department and (b) in each of the agencies for which he is responsible and their location in (i) London, (ii) Wales, (iii) Scotland and (iv) each of the English regions. [70484]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: Information on numbers of staff in my Department and their regional distribution is contained in the Cabinet Office publication "Civil Service Statistics 1998", which is placed in the Library of the House. Civil Service Statistics also contain staffing figures for each of my Department's agencies but does not have information on the regional distribution of their staff so I have asked Agency Chief Executives to reply separately on this.

  Letter from Johnston McNeill to Mr. David Chaytor, dated 23 February 1999:
  As Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) your question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food requesting a list of the total staff and their locations in (i) London, (ii) Wales, (iii) Scotland and (iv) each of the English Regions has been passed to me to reply as regards this Executive Agency.
  The MHS is not able to provide information on staffing numbers which correlate to the Regions you have requested. MHS Regions were set up on a geographical basis depending on the location of licensed fresh meat premises at which the Agency is required to provide an inspection service. The Regions are North, Central, South and East, South and West, Wales and Scotland. Total MHS staff based in these Regions are as follows:

  Region

  Total staff

  North

  472

  Central

  316

  South and East

  268

  South and West

  243

  Wales

  250

  Scotland

  193

  MHS Headquarters staff are included in the Northern Region data. For operational reasons, the MHS includes some part of Cumbria in its Scotland Region and parts of Herefordshire and Shropshire in its Wales Region.

  Letter from G. K. Bruce to Mr. David Chaytor, dated 11 February 1999:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD), to your question concerning the location of staff in this Agency.

  335
  There are currently 199 staff in the Agency all of whom are based in the Yorkshire and Humberside region.

  Letter from P. I. Stanley to Mr. David Chaytor, dated 23 February 1999:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Central Science Laboratory (CSL), to your question concerning the number of staff employed and their location.
  CSL employs a total of 565 staff. Details of the locations at which the staff are based are given below.

  Region

  Number of staff

  Wales

  1

  South East

  5

  South West

  8

  West Midlands

  2 North West

  North East

  1

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  425

  East Midlands

  1

  Eastern

  121

  These figures exclude casual staff and seasonal employees.

  Letter from P. W. Greig-Smith to Mr. David Chaytor, dated 23 February 1999:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question concerning the total number of staff in his Department, and their location. I am replying on behalf of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (CEFAS).
  The following table gives the regional distribution of CEFAS staff as at 10 February 1999:

  Permanent staff

  Non-industrial

  Industrial

  South East

  61

  5

  South West

  62

  1

  North West

  3

  0

  Eastern

  272

  31

  Wales

  15

  5

  Totals

  413

  42

  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Mr. David Chaytor, dated 23 February 1999:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question on the total number of staff employed by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency. Figures are as follows:

  Number of staff

  England

  Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk

  28

  Cambridge, Cambridgeshire

  2

  Langford, North Somerset

  22

  Luddington, Warwickshire

  35

  Newcastle, Tyne & Wear

  23

  Penrith, Cumbria

  22

  Preston, Lancashire

  25

  Shrewsbury, Shropshire

  31

  Starcross, Devon

  27

  Sutton Bonington, Leicestershire

  36

  Thirsk, North Yorkshire

  28

  Truro, Cornwall

  9

  Winchester, Hampshire

  28

  Weybridge, Surrey

  736

  Total number of staff in England

  1,052

  Scotland

  Lasswade, Midlothian

  27

  Total number of staff in Scotland

  27

  336

  Number of staff

  Wales

  Aberystwyth, Dyfed

  10

  Carmarthen, Carmarthenshire

  19

  Total number of staff in Wales

  29

  Total number of staff employed by VLA

  1,108

  Letter from Sarah Nason to Mr. David Chaytor, dated 11 February 1999:
  The Minister has asked me to reply, in respect of the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency (FRCA), to your question seeking the distribution of staff in London, Wales, Scotland and each of the English regions. The information, for permanent staff on a full time equivalent basis, is as follows:

  Number of permanent staff

  London

  22

  South East

  62

  Total London and SE

  84

  South West

  94.5

  West Midlands

  62.5

  North West

  13.5

  North East

  11

  Merseyside

  0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  60

  East Midlands

  8

  Eastern

  64.5

  Wales

  45.5

  Scotland

  0

  Northern Ireland

  0

  Unreported/elsewhere

  0

  Total

  443.5

  Letter from J. M. Rutter to Mr. David Chaytor, dated
  12 February 1999:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about the regional distribution of staff employed in the Veterinary Medicines Directorate as these figures are not held centrally.
  The Cabinet Office publication "Civil Service Statistics 1998" shows that the VMD employs 110 staff. 109 staff are located at Addlestone (South-East Region) and 1 member of staff is located at Carlisle (North-West Region).

CABINET OFFICE

  KPMG
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the services that KPMG have performed for his Department(a) since 1 May 1997 and (b) in the corresponding period prior to 1 May 1997, indicating the remuneration made in each case. [72003]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer on 22 February 1999]: The information requested for the period before 1 May 1997 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Since 1 May 1997, KPMG have provided the following services to the Cabinet Office, its Agencies and COI:

  1. Seminar on cross-departmental working

  2. Pilot study on the use of the Government Procurement Card in the central Cabinet Office

  3. Development of IS strategy for the Government of Barbados

  337

  4. Secondment to the Better Regulation Unit

  5. Internal audit needs assessment for TBA

  6. Assistance with TBA's Year 2000 contingency strategy

  7. Internal audit service to CCTA.

  There is no charge to the Cabinet Office for the services at items 1 and 2 above.

  The then Overseas Development Administration reimbursed the Cabinet Office the full cost of item 3.

  The total cost since 1 May 1997 of items 3 to 7 is £151,663, including VAT.

  Better Regulation Policy
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps the Government have taken to give priority to their better regulation policy. [71941]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 21 October 1998,Official Report, column 1152.

  In addition, the Better Regulation Task Force is currently reviewing the role of regulation in relation to productivity, the operation of fit person regimes, the applicability of self-regulation, and law on anti-discrimination and enforcement practice. The productivity review was first announced in the pre-Budget Statement of 3 November 1998, Official Report, columns 681–702. The Task Force will shortly offer initial findings on the impact of regulations on business start-up, success and growth and will publish full reports on all reviews by the summer.

  We continue to work actively with our European partners to ensure further progress towards effective regulation across Europe.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what discussions he has had with businesses with regard to improving the clarity of regulations. [71881]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  We are working with others to help business to understand and comply with regulations and to ensure constructive and consistent enforcement. We aim to make the regulatory system more transparent, accessible and helpful. The Access Business group of departmental Ministers, local government and business is looking at a number of issues, including Direct Access Government, which provides business and the self-employed with 24-hour access to regulatory guidance and forms via the Internet.

  The Enforcement Concordat sets out for businesses, and society in general, what they can expect of enforcers. Enforcers will give to business clear explanations of what they need to do and by when, opportunities to resolve differences before enforcement action is taken (unless immediate action is required), and an explanation of their rights of appeal. There are now 88 local authorities in England and Wales and 19 in Scotland who have signed up to the Concordat.

  My Department has actively promoted the setting up of local business partnerships between business and enforcement communities. These are designed to maximise regulatory understanding and compliance at least burden.
  338
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps he has taken to ensure that regulations are enforced consistently across the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [71882]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Failure by a Member State to enforce adequate Community legislation is itself a breach of Community law. As such, it is primarily a matter for the European Commission. Where the UK becomes aware of such a breach, we can draw it to the attention of the Commission. Direct action by the UK can be taken by the UK pursuant to Article 170 TEC. Wider political, policy or legal concerns would influence whether such action would be appropriate in any particular case.

  In the area of the Single Market, we have a unit in the Department of Trade and Industry (Action Single Market) which co-ordinates complaints from UK companies and seeks bilaterally with the Member State in question and with the Commission to remove obstacles to provision of goods or services in that Member State.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps the Government have taken to improve regulatory impact assessment procedures. [71883]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  As part of their Better Regulation Initiative, the Government want to encourage good practice at all stages of regulatory work.

  Last August, the Better Regulation Unit published new guidance to help Departments in applying the Task Force's principles of good regulation and in assessing the impact of regulatory proposals.

  The publication of the Guide also heralds the introduction of a more comprehensive system of regulatory reporting. Every Department will be required to publish an account (in their Departmental Reports in March this year) of their regulatory activity with examples of how they have improved the quality and effectiveness of regulation through the application of the Task Force's principles.

  Almost all Departments have now received training on the new Guidance, with some Departments setting up their own training programmes.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what rules and regulations the Government have(a) abolished and (b) simplified since 1 May 1997 in order to reduce costs imposed on businesses. [72075]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Cabinet Office has been informed of 74 amending or repealing regulations made between 1 May 1997 and 31 December 1998 which resulted in compliance cost savings to business and others. A list of these has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  EU Laws (Goldplating)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps he has taken to prevent the goldplating of EU laws by member states. [71942]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Over-implementation of EC legislation—goldplating—may amount to a breach of Community law. If it does, it is primarily a matter for the European Commission. Where the UK becomes aware of such a
  339
  breach, we can draw it to the attention of the Commission. Direct action by the UK can be taken by the UK pursuant to Article 170 TEC. Wider political, policy or legal concerns would influence whether such action would be appropriate in any particular case.

  The Government are committed to ensuring that departments do not add any unnecessary measures—goldplating—when implementing EC legislation into UK domestic law.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact that asylum seekers, both legal and illegal, have made on levels of employment and unemployment. [72302]

  Mr. Blunkett
  No such assessment has been made.

  Post-16 Student Support
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to extend the post-16 student support provision pilots onto a national basis; and if he will make a statement. [72051]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Education Maintenance Allowance pilots will run in 15 pilot Local Education Authorities across England from September 1999. We intend at this stage to run the pilots for three years, covering two cohorts. We will be evaluating the pilots closely from the start, and if the evaluation shows them to be successful in significantly raising post-16 participation, retention and achievement, we plan to introduce the Allowance nationally.

  Sixth Forms
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on comparisons between class sizes for A level subjects in sixth form colleges and school sixth forms. [R] [72312]

  Mr. Mudie
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, has neither commissioned nor evaluated research on this issue.

  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress he has made on the equalisation of funding in relation to 16 to 19 year old students in(a) school sixth forms and (b) sixth form colleges. [R] [72311]

  Mr. Mudie
  Future levels of funding available to school sixth forms and Further Education (FE) sector colleges, including sixth form colleges, for their 16–19 students will reflect the outcome of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review and local authorities' decisions on the level of spending they devote to schools from their overall spending settlement. The differential between school and FE sector unit funding is eased by the relaxation of the required efficiency gain in the FE sector in 1999–2000 as announced in December following the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  New Deal
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of those leaving the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds for a destination other than unsubsidised employment up to the most recent date for which information is available are now claiming welfare benefits; and at what cost. [71641]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The information on numbers leaving New Deal to claim benefits is contained in the Department for Education and Employment Statistical First Release. This release, prepared by the Government Statistical Service, was placed in the Library on 28 January. The latest set of figures will be placed in the Library on 25 February. It is not possible to give the cost of the benefits as it is not known how long those concerned will remain on them.

  School Transport (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his policy towards the provision of school transport to Roman Catholic schools for children in rural areas. [72700]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Local Education Authorities must by law have regard to the wishes of Roman Catholic parents for their children to attend Roman Catholic schools, including in rural areas. Where a school is beyond the statutory walking distance, but is not the nearest suitable school, authorities have discretion whether to provide free transport. In exercising that discretion they must consider each request seriously. The Department is monitoring carefully the provision of denominational transport in local education authorities in England.

  School Funding (Cumbria)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the effects of the 1999–2000 revenue support grant on the provision of education services in Cumbria. [72703]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have increased Cumbria's education SSA for 1999–2000 by well over £9 million which should help raise standards. My right hon. Friend has received a large number of representations from Cumbria schools welcoming the education SSA increase, but criticising Cumbria County Council's budget plans. We expect all Local Education Authorities, including Cumbria, to use all of the education SSA increase to support education services, especially schools.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for what reasons Cumbria was not included with other local authorities when allocating nursery funding for three years olds in 1999–2000. [72724]

  Ms Hodge
  In 1999–2000 the additional funding for early education for three-year-olds has been distributed between the fifty authorities with the highest levels of social need assessed by the Government's Index of Local Deprivation augmented by measures of low birth weight and births to teenage mothers. Funding will be distributed across all authorities from April 2000.

  Labour and Social Affairs Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the issues
  341
  for discussion before the Labour and Social Affairs Council on 9 March, indicating the position he proposes to take on each issue. [72739]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I am unable to attend this meeting of the Council because it clashes with the Budget Statement. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities will attend in my place.

  The first part of the meeting will be discussions with representatives of applicant countries, outside the formal enlargement screening process. The UK Government strongly support the enlargement of the European Union.

  The Presidency will give an oral report on the Informal Meeting of Social Affairs Ministers which my right hon. Friends the Minister of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities attended in Bonn on 4–6 February.

  The Presidency will also report on their ideas for a European Employment Pact. The Conclusions of the Vienna Council call for the agreement of an Employment Pact in time for the Cologne European Council in June. We believe the Pact should be based in the existing process of European Employment Guidelines and National Employment Action Plans.

  There will also be a presentation of the 1999 Employment and Labour Market Committee work programme.

  The Council will discuss the proposed reform of the Standing Committee on Employment which aims to enable this tripartite body to make a more efficient and appropriate contribution to the employment strategy.

  There will be discussion of a Resolution on a Code of Conduct which invites Member States to improve administrative co-operation between their authorities in three areas: transnational hiring-out of workers, combating benefit fraud and illegal employment.

  The Presidency will report to the Council on the progress negotiations for measures on the organisation of working time for those sectors currently excluded from the Working Time Directive. No discussion is expected.

  The Presidency will also give information on how it plans to proceed in the second half of its Presidency on the proposed European Company Statute. No substantive discussion is expected.

  Internet Connections
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment at what cost to(a) the Government, (b) schools and (c) local authorities connections to the Internet for schools have been made. [72076]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information relating specifically to the cost of schools' connection to the Internet is not held centrally.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average(a) capital and
  342
  (b) running cost per link to the Internet for (i) primary schools and (ii) secondary schools; and if he will estimate the range of such costs. [72081]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Oftel and the telecoms industry have now reached agreement on how the commitment to wire up schools to the superhighway free of charge will be implemented. Schools will have a choice of free connections and of technologies, either ISDN2 or equivalent from BT or the cable companies. They are, of course, under no obligation to restrict their usage to these times, packages or telecoms providers included in this deal, and if this is the case, their costs will vary accordingly.

  The detailed terms of the offer are contained in the Oftel statement "Access to the Superhighways for Schools" (October 1997). Main features are:

  Company/technology

  £

  BT (10 hours per school day 8am-6pm)

  ISDN2

  790 p.a.

  PSTN

  445 p.a. plus £100 connection charge

  Cable companies

  ISDN

  600 p.a.

  PSTN

  100 p.a. for schools up to 250 pupils

  250 p.a. for schools from 251–500 pupils

  500 p.a. for schools with 501+ pupils

  Other companies may choose to offer similar tariff structures—as a commercial decision for the individual companies involved.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the companies which have made connections to the Internet for schools free of installation charges; how many connections have been made in each case; and if he will publish the terms under which these connections have been made. [72079]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under the agreement between Oftel and the telecoms industry schools will have a choice of free connections and of technologies, either ISDN2 or equivalent from BT or the cable companies.

  The detailed terms of the offer are contained in the Oftel statement "Access to the Superhighways for Schools" (October 1997). Main features are:

  Company/technology

  £

  BT (10 hours per school day 8am-6pm)

  ISDN

  790 p.a.

  PSTN

  445 p.a. plus £100 connection charge

  Cable companies

  ISDN

  600 p.a.

  PSTN

  100 p.a. for schools up to 250 pupils

  250 p.a. for schools from 251–500 pupils

  500 p.a. for schools with 501+ pupils

  Other companies may choose to offer similar tariff structures—as a commercial decision for the individual companies involved.

  The Department does not hold figures for schools' connection to the Internet by individual companies.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received
  343
  from (a) BT, (b) other providers, (c) schools and (d) local authorities on Internet connections. [72080]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department received representations from all the above groups and others on a range of issues including Internet connections as part of the consultation exercise on plans for the National Grid for Learning undertaken in 1997. A report on the outcomes of that consultation can be found on the National Grid for Learning website at: http://www.vtc.ngfl.gov.uldvtalibrary/pub.html.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to monitor the terms under which free connections to the Internet for schools are being made; and if he will make a statement. [72077]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Current arrangements for schools' connection to and use of the Internet at reduced cost were brokered by Oftel and allow for schools to benefit from access to the Internet for a fixed annual fee through a BT ISDN2 connection between 9am and 6pm or for unlimited access through an equivalent cable connection.

  The DfEE, in conjunction with other Government Departments, Oftel and the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, continue to monitor schools' use of the Internet, through statistical surveys and in other ways, and to explore with Oftel and the telecommunications industry the scope for extending such agreements.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many times he has met representatives of BT to discuss Internet connections to schools. [72087]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met the BT Chairman for discussion on a range of issues. In addition, officials remain in touch with BT through correspondence and meetings, and through public consultation. Other Ministers have also had contact with representatives of the company. These meetings have typically covered a range of issues rather than specifically relating to Internet connections to schools.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and what percentage of(a) primary and (b) secondary schools have been connected to the Internet free of installation charge to date. [72078]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department published last year the results of a survey of ICT in provision in schools which indicated that 17 per cent. of primary schools and 83 per cent. of secondary schools were connected to the Internet by March 1998. This is in comparison to the previous year's survey (published in 1997) which indicated that 5 per cent. of primary schools and 47 per cent. of secondary schools were connected to the Internet at the time. Subsequent annual surveys will indicate the change in growth of schools with such connections. The Government are committed to ensuring that all schools are connected to the Internet by 2002.

  Precise figures are not held on how many of these schools benefited from the free connection deals such as those offered by BT and cable companies.

  Education SSAs
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the funding made available in the 1999–2000 SSA for (i) a primary school with 250 pupils and (ii) a secondary school with 900 pupils in(a) Hertfordshire and (b) Staffordshire; and what factors underlie the differences in allocations between the two counties[72200]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table sets out the information requested. The differences in allocations are very largely due to the way the area cost adjustment is calculated, although the ethnicity factor also has a small effect in allocating more education SSA per pupil to Hertfordshire.

  £

  Local Education Authority

  SSA funding SSA funding for 250 pupil for 900 pupil primary school

  SSA funding for 900 pupil secondary school

  Hertfordshire

  593,000

  2,721,000

  Staffordshire

  538,000

  2,483,000

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what guidance he has issued to(a) job centres and (b) other parts of the Employment Service on their role in monitoring the introduction of the national minimum wage; [71496]

  (2) whether job centres will be permitted (a) to process and (b) to display job vacancies notified to them at pay rates below the national minimum wage. [71497]

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

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Richard Burden, dated 24 February 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your two questions concerning the Employment Service's preparations for the introduction and monitoring of the National Minimum Wage and whether the Service will advertise jobs at a wage below the legal minimum. These are issues which fall within the responsibilities delegate to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  We have already issued guidance to Jobcentres and other relevant parts of the Agency that from 1 April they must only process and display vacancies which comply with the requirements of the National Minimum Wage Act and its associated regulations. All Jobcentre Managers will be required to check that this guidance is being followed. Vacancy takers in Jobcentres will advise employers using the Employment Service who may seek to offer rates below the National Minimum Wage of the requirements of the legislation.
  The Employment Service is working closely with the Department of Trade and Industry, who have responsibility for the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, and through them with the Inland Revenue who are charged with its enforcement. Any complaints received at Jobcentres about employers who may not be meeting the requirements of the Act will be passed to the Inland Revenue to investigate.
  I hope this is helpful.

  School Teachers
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average annual cost of employing a school teacher in England. [72201]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The estimated average cost of employing a full-time teacher (including heads and deputies) in the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special sector in England at April 1999:

  £

  Average salary

  25,400

  Employer costs1

  3,800

  Total cost

  29,200

  1 Includes 7.6 per cent. National Insurance contributions and 7.2 per cent. pension costs

HEALTH

  Nurses
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses left permanent nursing jobs to work for agencies in(a) 1997 and (b) 1998. [67381]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on the number of nurses who left permanent nursing jobs to work for agencies is not available centrally.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacant nursing posts there are currently. [67374]

  Mr. Denham
  Based on various figures from various sources, there are probably in the region of 9,000 vacancies lasting three months or longer.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the impact of the shortage of nurses. [67372]

  Mr. Denham
  We recognise that staff shortages, particularly in nursing, are a major concern for National Health Service employers seeking to deliver high quality patient care. Many of the problems stem from the decision, made under the previous Administration, to cut the number of training places. This year, 16,873 student nurses are expected to start training—the highest figure for six years. If nurse training since 1992 had matched the current level, there could now be an extra 11,000 nurses available in the NHS today.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was spent on agency nurses in each year between 1979 and 1999. [67377]

  Mr. Denham
  The table contains data outlining the expenditure on nurses not employed directly by the National Health Service for the years 1987–88 to 1997–88. Information on the cost of nurses not employed directly by the NHS prior to 1987–88 is not available.

  Year

  Expenditure 1997–98 prices (£)

  1997–98

  216,338,567

  1996–97

  196,475,548

  1995–96

  176,296,636

  346

  Year

  Expenditure 1997–98 prices (£)

  1994–95

  144,526,300

  1993–94

  116,764,528

  1992–93

  115,750,219

  1991–92

  121,044,540

  1990–91

  149,647,856

  1189–90

  180,869,011

  1988–89

  164,858,723

  1987–88

  142,003,654

  Note:

  The 1997–98 figure is provisional.

  Source:

  1. Annual financial returns of NHS trusts, 1991–92 to 1997–98.

  2. Annual financial returns of health authorities, 1996–97 and 1997–98.

  3. Annual financial returns of district and regional health authorities and the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals, 1991–92 to 1995–96.

  4. Annual accounts of district and regional health authorities and the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals, 1987–88 to 1990–91.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was spent by the NHS in 1997 and 1998 to recruit nurses, broken down by health authority. [67376]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is being taken to tackle the shortage of nurses; and how much this action has cost, broken down by project, over the last year. [67382]

  Mr. Denham
  We have agreed the best, real terms pay rise for nurses for 10 years, backed with a £100 million allocation from the Modernisation Fund. On 1 February, a high profile, multi-media nurse recruitment campaign was launched. This builds on the £50 million package which was announced last September to expand part-time training places, target enrolled nurses to retrain and return to the National Health Service (2,700 over the next three years) and widen access to training and support existing NHS staff to become qualified nurses (200 staff this year and 1,000 in the following three years). In addition, an extra £4 million was allocated in 1998–99 specifically to support "return to practice" initiatives on getting former nurses back to the NHS.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of UK trained nurses who are of working age and who are currently not working as nurses. [67383]

  Mr. Denham
  Analysis of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting Register suggests that up to 140,000 qualified nurses, under 55 years old, are not working as nurses.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce more family friendly employment practices for nurses. [67379]

  Mr. Denham
  The Human Resources Framework (Health Service Circular 1998/162) is a major step forward in our drive to meet the aspirations of both staff and employers in the provision of flexible employment policies and working practices to reconcile work and
  347
  family life. Work being undertaken by the Government's Women's Unit, and the development of a series of resource packs, aims to share innovation, good practice and support their local implementation.

  Genetically Modified Food
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list each of the research projects(a) conducted and (b) sponsored by his Department into the health implications of genetically modified food. [72526]

  Ms Jowell
  None by this Department. However, colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food sponsor research on food safety generally, including genetically modified foods.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish his response to the findings of the report, "A Survey of Multiple Sclerosis Provision in England 1998–99", published by the Association for Quality Care in Health. [66061]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 18 January 1999]: Under the present system it is for health authorities and general practitioners to plan the services for people in their care, taking into account the needs of the local population and the priorities set for the use of available resources. The move to new commissioning arrangements will bring about improvements in services for people with conditions like multiple sclerosis. Longer term agreements, reflecting dialogue between clinicians and focusing on health improvement will increase the emphasis on programmes of care that cross the traditional boundaries to meet patient's needs best.

  Nurse Recruitment Hotline
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of(a) the number of inquiries to the Nursing Recruitment Hotline since its inception and (b) the number of nursing vacancies in the NHS for each month since May 1997. [69785]

  Mr. Denham
  As at 23 February 1999, the number of inquiries to the National Health Service telephone response line for the national nursing recruitment campaign was 36,515. Based on various figures from various sources, there are probably in the region of 9,000 vacancies lasting three months or longer.

  Nurses (Herefordshire)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the current number of fully-trained nurses in hospitals in Herefordshire. [70741]

  Mr. Denham
  There are currently (as of 10 February 1999) 360 trained nurses in post in Herefordshire Acute Hospitals, and 18 vacancies. In Herefordshire Community Hospitals there are currently 48 funded posts and 3 vacancies.

  Source:
  Herefordshire Hospitals National Health Service Trust.

  Primary Care Groups (Derbyshire)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many chief executives of primary health care groups have been appointed in South Derbyshire and North Derbyshire; [71434]

  (2) what is the annual cost to South Derbyshire and North Derbyshire Health Authorities of employing the chief executives for the primary health care groups in their area. [71436]

  Mr. Denham
  Within North and Southern Derbyshire health authorities there are a total of ten primary care groups. Each of these will have a chief executive whose salary will be approved by the Health Authority's Remuneration Committee.

  To date, seven chief executives have been appointed. National guidance gave a framework for salaries ranging between £34,000–50,000.

  All these costs will be met within the funds released by the closure of the general practitioner fundholding scheme.

  Winter Pressures
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much extra money was provided to the NHS in the Mersey region in connection with the 1998 winter pressures; and how and where it was spent. [71306]

  Mr. Denham
  £12.2 million was made available from winter pressure funds and management cost savings to the National Health Service in the Merseyside and Cheshire area (within the former Mersey Regional Health Authority boundary) to help cope with winter pressures. The tables show the purposes for which and the health authorities to whom it was allocated.

  Purpose of allocation

  £000

  Avoiding inappropriate admissions

  780

  Improved hospital care of emergencies

  3,820

  Intensive care

  700

  Facilitating hospital discharge

  2,860

  Community care

  2,250

  Maintaining elective activity

  1,280

  Other

  530

  Health authority allocation

  £000

  Liverpool

  2,740

  North Cheshire

  1,400

  Sefton

  1,260

  South Cheshire

  2,220

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  1,530

  Wirral

  3,070

  Patients (Nationality)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what records the NHS maintains of the nationality of patients. [71095]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Health Service does not routinely maintain records of the nationality of patients.

  AIDS
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the amounts of funding provided, by each authority area, for AIDS support for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000; [72308]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the allocation of the AIDS support grant for 1999–2000. [72309]

  Ms Jowell
  The level of AIDS Support Grant to local authorities for 1999–2000 will be £15.5 million (an increase of almost 12 per cent. on 1998–99) and the planning figures for 2000–01 and 2001–02 are £16 million and £16.5 million respectively. We expect to announce the 1999–2000 AIDS Support Grant allocations to local authorities shortly.

  Information on the amounts of funding provided, by each authority area, for AIDS Support Grant for 1997–98 and 1998–99 has been placed in the Library.

  Schizophrenia
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what data he has collated as to how many people discharged from hospital following a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses and subsequently taken by the police under the Mental Health Act 1983 to hospital have been refused admission in the last year for which figures are available. [72580]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not available centrally. However, the Department has commissioned the Royal College of Psychiatrists' Research Unit to co-ordinate a programme of research into the use of the Mental Health Act 1983. The research will consider in detail variations in use, assessment and the decision-making process, and analysis of existing data sets. Interim reports will be made available to the expert group undertaking the first phase of the review into mental health legislation. The final reports are due to be made available to the Department on 31 December 1999.

  Carers
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to establish a national register of carers for the elderly; [72150]

  (2) what guidance his Department has issued on recommended procedures for ensuring a high standard of care when employing a carer for an elderly relative; [72151]

  (3) what vetting procedures and guidelines his Department recommends are required with regard to the employment of carers for the elderly. [72152]

  Mr. Hutton
  In 1993 the Social Services Inspectorate published "Developing Quality Standards for Home Support Services" which was sent to all social services authorities and made available to the independent sector.

  The Social Services White Paper, "Modernising Social Services", included a commitment to introducing a regulatory framework for domiciliary care for the first time. This framework will include legally enforceable standards for registered domiciliary care providers arid included in this will be procedures for the vetting and recruitment of care staff.
  350
  The White Paper also included proposals to establish the General Social Care Council. The purpose of the Council is to increase the protection of all service users, their carers and the general public. It will have a registration function based on the successful completion of approved training. The first task of the new Council will be to draw up enforceable codes of conduct and practice for all social care staff.

  The General Social Care Council will draw up a code of practice for employers that will set out the need for employers to have sound recruitment practices to prevent unsuitable people from entering the workforce. This code will be enforced through the registration and inspection of services.

  Caesarean Sections
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many caesarean sections took place in each of the last five years in England; and what they were in each year as a percentage of all deliveries. [72540]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information about the percentage of deliveries by caesarean section in England over the last 5 years is contained in the table.

  Year

  Estimated number of caesarean sections

  Percentage of deliveries by caesarean section

  1992–93

  86,200

  13.8

  1993–94

  93,000

  15.0

  1994–95

  93,500

  15.5

  1995–96

  94,800

  116

  1996–97

  101,000

  117

  1 Provisional figures pending further work to validate data.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (Maternity)

  Department of Health: Statistics Division SD2B

  Diesel Engine Emissions
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on health of a reduction in the use of diesel engines in urban areas. [71110]

  Ms Jowell
  Diesel engines are a major source of particles, particularly in urban areas and especially when air quality is poor. Particles have serious effects on health. The Report on the "Quantification of Health Effects of Air Pollution in the United Kingdom" published in 1998 by the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) estimated that up to 8,100 people who are already very ill have their deaths brought forward each year in urban Great Britain as a result of exposure to particles and that they are also responsible for up to 10,500 admissions to hospital for respiratory conditions. A proportion of these will be the result of exposure to particles from motor vehicles and from diesel. The measures set out in the review of the United Kingdom National Air Quality Strategy published last month, including the agreement in Europe for tighter limits on vehicle emissions and improved fuel quality under the Auto Oil programme, will lead to reductions in levels of particles in the UK.
  351
  The relative merits of petrol-driven cars and light vehicles over diesel equivalents in urban areas was discussed at a meeting of COMEAP on 19 February and a full statement on this subject will be issued by the Committee shortly. In arriving at a conclusion, the Committee was unable to take account of the indirect effects of vehicle-generated air pollutants on health, such as climate change; it is also based on current knowledge and recognises that future technological improvements may mean the position will need to be reassessed at some future date. Nevertheless, it concluded that because of the damage to health from particles, at the present time petrol vehicles would be preferred to diesel where the majority of a vehicles' journeys take place in urban areas.

  Internet Connections
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will estimate the costs to(a) the Government, (b) hospitals and GPs' surgeries and (c) local authorities, of connections to the Internet for hospitals and GPs' surgeries to date; [71987]

  (2) which companies have carried out connections to the Internet for (a) hospitals and (b) GPs' surgeries free of installation charges; how many connections have been made in each case; and if he will publish the terms under which such connections have been made; [71991]

  (3) how many and what percentage of (a) hospitals and (b) GPs' surgeries have been connected to the Internet free of installation charge to date; [71989]

  (4) what steps he is taking to monitor the terms under which free connections to the Internet for hospitals and GPs' surgeries are being made; and if he will make a statement; [71992]

  (5) what is the average (a) capital and (b) annual running cost per link to the Internet for (i) hospitals and (ii) GPs' surgeries; and if he will estimate the range within which such costs fall. [71986]

  Ms Jowell
  Direct connection to the Internet by hospitals and general practitioners' surgeries is a matter for individual agreement between the National Health Service user and the Internet service provider. No information is collected or held centrally on the number of capital and running costs of such links.

  A secure route to the Internet is available for hospitals and GPs' surgeries through the NHS's own intranet, NHSnet, and the additional cost of this service is between £340 and £400 a year for each NHS organisation. The costs of these connections are met by the individual NHS user organisations.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many times he has met representatives of BT to discuss Internet connections to hospitals and GPs' surgeries; [71988]

  (2) what representations he has received from (a) BT, (b) other service providers, (c) hospitals and GPs' surgeries and (d) local authorities on Internet connections. [71990]

  Ms Jowell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not met representatives of British Telecom to discuss Internet connections to hospitals and general practitioners'352
  surgeries, nor has he received representations from BT, other service providers, hospitals and GPs' surgeries or local authorities on Internet connections.

  Mental Health Services
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will(a) list the (i) number of working groups currently considering a national framework for mental health services and (ii) the names of those serving on each group and (b) state how many members of the (1) Black and (2) other ethnic minority communities are on each group. [72283]

  Mr. Hutton
  There were eight sub-groups contributing to the development of the National Service Framework for Mental Health. A list of the individuals is in the table. Individual members were not asked about their ethnic or cultural background, but they reflect a wide range of interests, experience and expertise, including those from a black and minority ethnic group perspective.Sub-group 1

  Professor Graham Thornicroft

  Ms June McKerrow

  Dr. David Melzer

  Dr. Jenny Bywaters

  Ms Sue Gallagher

  Mr. Gary Hogman

  Mr. Hari Sewell

  Mr. Eddie Kane

  Professor Glynn Harrison

  Sub-group 2

  Dr. Huw Lloyd

  Dr. Lynne Friedli

  Professor David Kingdon

  Mr. Tony Russell

  Mr. Robert McLean

  Mr. Phil Draper

  Dr. Alan Cohen

  Dr. Geraldine Strathdee

  Dr. Andree Tylee

  Sub-group 3

  Ms Marion Beeforth

  Ms Bernadette Collins

  Ms Pat Guinan

  Dr. Robert Dolan

  Ms Geraldine White

  Ms Pearl Baker

  Dr. Eleanor Cole

  Professor Glenys Parry

  Professor Jan Scott

  Dr. Janet Parrott

  Sub-group 4

  Mr. Cliff Prior

  Dr. Sarah Davenport

  Ms Madeleine Drake

  Mr. Bill Kilgallon

  Ms Cathy Ormston

  Ms Ruth Dixon

  Dr. Frank Holloway

  Dr. Elizabeth Kuipers

  Mr. Derry Murphy

  353
  Sub-group 5

  Dr. Paul Lelliott

  Ms Judi Clements

  Ms Margaret Pedler

  Mr. Tom Sandford

  Ms Ethna Kilduff

  Roberta Graley

  Ms Karen Campbell

  Professor Peter Huxley

  Dr. Sonia Johnson

  Professor Peter Tyrerl

  Mrs. Susan Knight

  Sub-group 6

  Mr. Don Brand

  Ms Cath Cunningham

  Ms Jeni Bremner

  Ms Jane MacKay

  Professor Martin Knapp

  Professor Geoff Shepherd

  Professor Louis Appleby

  Professor Tom Burns

  Sub-group 7

  Mr. Chris Heginbotham

  Ms Julia Essex

  Mr. Martin Barkley

  Mr. David Joaniddes

  Dr. Edward Peck

  Mr. Charles Waddicor

  Ms Veronica Dewan

  Ms Fiona Wise

  Dr. Simon Baugh

  Dr. Julie Hollyman

  Sub-group 8

  Dr. Matt Muijen

  Ms Jenny Bernard

  Ms Judy Croton

  Mr. David Burchell

  Ms Kay Beaumont

  Professor Kevin Gourney

  Dr. Robert Kendell

  Ms Mary Nettle

  Ms Marjorie Wallace

  Ms Premila Trivedi.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many members of the group currently considering a review of the Mental Health Act are members of(a) Black and (b) other ethnic minority communities. [72284]

  Mr. Hutton
  The twelve members of the expert group undertaking the first phase of the review of the Mental Health Act 1983 were appointed on the basis of their expertise in key areas rather than because they represent particular organisations. However, one expert group member is African.

  Showa Denko
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the NHS purchases drugs from Showa Denko. [72695]

  Ms Jowell
  We are not aware of the National Health Service purchasing any drugs from Showa Denko.

  Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment his Department has made of the alleged linkage of L-tryptophan to Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome; [72702]

  (2) how many Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome sufferers there are in the UK; and if he will estimate the number who contracted it from L-tryptophan; [72686]

  (3) what information he has collated on genetically modified L-tryptophan. [72685]

  Ms Jowell
  There is no system of mandatory notification in the United Kingdom of cases of Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome (EMS) and no central register. Cases of EMS are thought to occur only in association with exposure to L-tryptophan. There were 11 possible cases reported to the Committee on Safety of Medicines by 1991, and there have been 7 possible cases subsequent to the reintroduction of Optimax in 1994, although a causal relationship for these cases has not been established. Several of the cases do not meet the internationally agreed definition of Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome. It is not known how many of these patients continue to have symptoms: several of the patients recovered completely after stopping their medicine.

  EMS was first recognised as a condition in late-1989. There was extensive investigation into the association between EMS and L-tryptophan by the Medicines Control Agency at that time and the issue was considered in detail by the Committee on Safety of Medicines. It is considered likely that the reported cases of EMS were caused by an impurity or contaminant in L-tryptophan made by a single manufacturer in Japan.

  The assessment then and subsequently included review of the worldwide published literature, examination of data submitted by the manufacturers of L-tryptophan and involved liaison with other regulatory authorities in Europe and the USA. In addition, there has been continuing evaluation of individual cases of adverse reactions reported in the United Kingdom under the Yellow Card scheme and via a monitoring scheme operated by the Marketing Authorisation Holder.

  L-tryptophan is a simple chemical which cannot be modified genetically. As for all medicines made using biotechnology methods, all the steps taken in the manufacturing process are carefully controlled and have to comply with the specifications stipulated in the marketing authorisation (licence) for the product. All the relevant information is made available by the manufacturers and assessed by the Medicines Control Agency at the time of submission of an application for marketing authorisation and may be subject to ongoing site inspections.

  Chronic Illnesses
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the 20 most prevalent chronic illnesses in terms of numbers of known sufferers. [72718]

  Mr. Hutton
  Hospital episode statistics record diagnostic information for those people admitted to hospital. Information is recorded using the international classification of diseases (ICD10). There is no category in this classification for "chronic illnesses".

  Hip Replacements
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average age of people receiving hip replacement operations. [72716]

  Mr. Hutton
  In 1997–98 the average age was 68.

  Mesothelioma
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the claims that SV40 virus is linked to Mesothelioma; and what estimates his Department has made of the future number of Mesothelioma sufferers. [72710]

  Ms Jowell
  This matter has been carefully considered by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), the Government's independent expert advisory committee. Concern about the possible impact of Simian Virus 40 on the human population was raised in the early 1960s. SV40 was found in some inactivated polio vaccines produced in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Since the discovery of SV40 in 1960 it has been stipulated that all viruses in addition to poliovirus in inactivated polio vaccine (IPV), should be inactivated. When live oral polio vaccine (OPV) became available in 1962, it also had to be free of all known viruses (other than the three polio viruses the vaccine protects against). All the relevant samples of OPV in the UK repository, going back to 1966, have been checked by the National Institute for Biological 356
  Standards and Control and no infectious SV40 virus was detected. Currently used vaccines are rigorously checked to ensure their safety and efficacy and are free of SV40.

  Although SV40 has been isolated from some human tumours, there is no evidence that SV40 virus is causing the tumours. Research studies in people who received SV40 contaminated IPV have found no increase in cancers when compared with people who did not receive contaminated IPV. The JCVI agreed with the conclusions of these studies.

  Professor Julian Peto and colleagues have recently completed epidemiological research which was published in the British Journal of Cancer this year. They estimated that the number of men dying from mesothelioma in Western Europe will almost double over the next 20 years from 5,000 in 1998 to about 9,000 in 2018. For Britain, the predicted annual deaths from mesothelioma in years 2015–19 is 1,750, almost twice the current rate. This is around 6 per cent. of the current 30,000 lung cancer deaths annually. Mesothelioma rates are a quantitative indicator of the population's past exposure—mainly occupational—to asbestos.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital beds there are per 1,000 of the population in(a) Cumbria and (b) England. [72689]

  Mr. Denham
  The most recent available data are for the financial year 1997–98. In that year the average daily number of available beds per 1,000 of the population in (a) Cumbria was 4.32 and (b) England was 3.93.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.
The Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery—Took the Oath

Peerages: Teachers
2.37 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why no recommendations have been made for the award of peerages to teachers serving in, or recently retired from, maintained schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, in appointing life Peers since 1958 successive Prime Ministers have been concerned to see that all the main areas of our society are properly represented in the House. I accept that the maintained schools sector is not represented in great strength, though the House does include Members who have direct experience of schools as former teachers and others who take an interest in primary and secondary legislation. The suggestion of representation from the maintained schools sector is one that the new Appointments Commission may wish to consider.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her faintly encouraging reply on that point. She may be aware that I pressed this particular point during the passage of a number of recent education Bills. While your Lordships' House has never been short of lawyers, doctors, clerics, soldiers and higher academics, does the noble Baroness agree that the same cannot be said for teachers; that is, with the exception always of two or three from the independent sector, which educates less than 10 per cent. of the population? With, at the latest count, 23,043 maintained schools to choose from, does the noble Baroness also agree that it should be possible, as well as desirable, to tap into some current expertise which would help this House with its never ceasing deliberations on education, education and education?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I entirely accept that there is a great deal of expertise out there from which this House could benefit if it were able to tap into it. But we have to take into account that it would be difficult for serving teachers to make a major contribution to the House because of the nature of their work and the hours that they have to put in in their schools. However, there are perhaps slightly more former teachers in the House than the noble Earl may
1100
realise. I tried to tot up the number simply on the basis of my knowledge of people's backgrounds and I got to 12 quite quickly. Indeed, I have in mind a number of my noble friends. For example, my noble friends Lord Glenamara and Lord Hardy of Wath were head teachers, and my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington was a teacher. But I have to accept that they did not come here because they were teachers; they were politicians and then came to your Lordships' House.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness touched on the difficulty of appointing a serving teacher. However, it is not just a matter of time; indeed, it would be almost impossible for a serving teacher to be a fully active Member of this House. Indeed, unless the person was financially independent, it would be impossible for him or her to become a fully-fledged Member of this place. As I said, it is not just time. Let us say, for example, that a teacher from Durham became an active working Peer in this Chamber. It would be extremely difficult in terms of time, logistics and money, which means that such a proposal would only favour teachers from London. I think that would be really rather offensive. Does the Minister accept that?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I accept what the noble Baroness said about the difficulties of serving teachers becoming active life Peers. Indeed, she is entirely right in that respect. However, it is conceivable that the House could benefit from the contribution of recently retired teachers or head teachers. There is no reason why they should not come from outside London.
Lord Tope: My Lords, although there is much past teaching experience in this House, we are rather deficient in terms of recent and current experience. Indeed, the education world, especially in schools, has changed greatly in recent years. Therefore, while the recent high-profile award of honours to serving teachers is most welcome, does the Minister recognise that it would actually be a double benefit if we were to make some awards, which, as well as giving an honour, would actually contribute to the combined experience and expertise of this House on appropriate occasions?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for mentioning the substantial increase in the number of serving teachers who have been given honours. Indeed, since this Government took over in May 1997, the number of serving teachers who have been given MBEs, OBEs, CBEs, KBEs and DBEs has doubled. I believe it is the first time for a very long time that any serving teacher has in fact been given a knighthood or a DBE. That is something that we should welcome. I also accept the noble Lord's other point.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, given that we are today awaiting the release of the inquiry report on the death of Stephen Lawrence, can the Minister comment on the fact that children from ethnic minorities are six times more likely to be excluded from maintained schools than those from the majority community? Indeed, the number is rising. Further, can

1101
the noble Baroness tell the House what training in race awareness is given to senior teachers—that is to say, the kind of people who might become Members of this House?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I think the right reverend Prelate's question is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. However, I can confirm that this matter is of enormous importance and the Government attach great importance to the training of all teachers and head teachers in racial awareness. We expect teachers in our schools at whatever level to be totally and utterly committed to racial harmony in their schools, to dealing with racial bullying and to ensuring that racial discrimination does not take place.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House when the scheme for "Oscars" for teachers will get off the ground?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, that scheme is getting off the ground this year.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I am pleased to hear from my noble friend of the honours which have been given to teachers from the maintained sector. However, it might also benefit the House to hear from those of us who are consumers of the maintained sector as parents, and who went through the comprehensive system ourselves. Will my noble friend comment on that?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the contributions that parents make to debates on education in your Lordships' House are enormously important, as indeed are the comments of grandparents, speaking as one myself.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, did the noble Baroness notice that in his supplementary question the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, made no mention of considering the contribution that engineers make to our national life? Can the noble Baroness say how many members of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers have been appointed life Peers since 1958? I declare an interest.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am extremely sorry that I cannot tell the noble Lord exactly how many members of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers have been made life Peers. However, I am sure that debates in your Lordships' House would benefit hugely if members of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers were appointed life Peers.
Baroness David: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will allow my question as she may consider it is a little wide of the mark. However, is it not equally important to consider principals of further education colleges—who, after all, teach children of the same age as those in ordinary schools—who could make a great
1102
contribution to the House? Perhaps their working hours would make it rather easier for them to attend the House than is the case with active head teachers?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as the Minister responsible for further education I would hugely welcome the contribution of principals, or indeed other people who teach in our FE sector. It is a large sector. There are now 4 million students in further education and it is a sector which is sometimes forgotten. However, I believe that the workload of people who are taking forward the Government's lifelong learning policies, developing better opportunities for 16 to 19 year-olds, and raising the standards of further education colleges would again make it difficult for a serving principal, deputy principal or member of staff of an FE college to be fully active Members of your Lordships' House.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, we have only three Questions today. I would be interested to hear the Minister's reply to my question. The noble Earl's Question asks,
"why no recommendations have been made".
Does the noble Baroness know how many recommendations have been made? Does anyone else know that, other than the present Prime Minister, previous Prime Ministers and their advisers?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I cannot answer that question. I would be rather surprised if records have been kept over the years of all recommendations that might have been made for life peerages. I think it is exceedingly unlikely but I shall certainly check up on that and let the noble Baroness know.

Family Carers: Government Strategy
2.47 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will introduce tax, benefit and housing policies which more closely reflect the social and economic contribution made to society by those who care for elderly or disabled members of their own family.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the Government published a national strategy for carers on 8th February. It includes a range of proposals to improve support for carers including a new charter of what people can expect from long-term care services; reducing council tax for more disabled people; new legislation to allow authorities to address carers' needs directly; support for young carers, including help at school; and a new special grant to help carers take a break.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I greatly welcome the Answer which the noble Baroness has given. Does

1103
she agree that the Government are to be greatly congratulated on instituting a major change in emphasis away from the emphasis on institutionalised care and towards partnership with those 5.7 million unsung heroes around the country who are looking after disabled and elderly members of their own families, often at great personal sacrifice? Are the Government satisfied, however, that the £890 million over three years which has been set aside for this scheme—which, spread over 5.7 million carers, amounts to £52 per carer per year—will be adequate to fulfil the excellent and ambitious programme set out in this report?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's comments on what I believe is an important, major change in emphasis which has been warmly welcomed by carers' associations. Like him, I pay tribute to the millions of our fellow citizens who do so much to support those people who receive care from them.
On the question of resources, substantial resources are being made available which will help us to provide new money for practical policies to support carers and to make sure they can have a break from caring. It is important to recognise the role of new legislation to allow authorities to address carers' needs directly, not simply the needs of the person who is receiving care. The Prime Minister made it absolutely clear when he launched the strategy that it is just a start. We believe it is a substantial and important start on which we will all have to build.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, with regard to the position of a carer looking after a sick husband, who now finds that if he dies after 6th April next year the pensions he expected will be halved, can the noble Baroness say whether the Government have any plans to compensate or help such people if they have taken mistaken financial decisions as a result of not being informed of the true position by the Department of Social Security?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, this is a serious issue. It is one on which I do not have full information. If the noble Lord will allow me, I will write to him on this specific point.
Lord Sheppard of Liverpool: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are precedents from long ago of paying for carers? Carers existed long before there were hospitals or social workers. In the 17th century, substantial grants were made frequently from the poor law to those who cared for their own parents, and to those who cared for their own children in a good number of instances. Does my noble friend agree that where mothers wish to look after their own children, that is preferable to paying childminders or nannies? Do the Government have practical plans to encourage those mothers?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the contribution of those who care for others—whether they are children they are bringing up, disabled children, the elderly, people who are sick, or the long-term sick—is
1104
tremendously important. As regards parents, the whole basis of the Government's policy is to make sure that there are real choices for people who have caring responsibilities. We need to support those people who choose to combine their caring and parental responsibilities with working through the sort of employment policies that allow them to do so in a way that does not act to the detriment of their families.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that, by forcing people—particularly those on invalid care allowance—to attend a compulsory interview to discuss full-time work, the Government are giving out the wrong signal that carers who in effect give their lives towards looking after somebody else are not doing a full-time job?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I do not think it is the wrong signal. Interviewing those who are not working enables them to understand what support would be available if they chose to work and what the options are. That is tremendously important. We are not talking about compulsion, about people having to go out to work, but about making sure that people are aware of the choices available. For some people the choice of being able to obtain financial security and the self-respect that, on occasions, can come from going out to work is a very important choice.
Lord Laming: My Lords, as this welcome policy initiative for the support of carers unfolds, can the Minister give an assurance that special attention will be paid to the needs of those families who care for severely disabled children, often for very many years, and to the needs of young carers who support their parents, often before they go to school and on their return? Will their needs receive particular attention?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the needs of young carers were particularly highlighted in the strategy. They have perhaps not been acknowledged sufficiently in the past. That is why we are very anxious that a member of staff should have a responsibility for addressing the needs of children who combine being children with being carers. The noble Lord also mentioned children who are long-term sick, and particularly those who have life-threatening diseases. I hope that the new children's nursing teams that are being established in memory of Diana, Princess of Wales, and which are currently being piloted, will provide tremendous support for those families.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the Minister estimate the annual savings to the nation made by those who care for members of their family?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as I understand it, there has never been a government estimate of the exact economic contribution made by carers. The figure of £34 billion has been estimated by some groups outside government. Obviously it is a very difficult figure to quantify—no one can be certain about it—but none of us should underestimate the enormous role that carers

1105
play. Nor should we underestimate the responsibilities—financial and otherwise—which would fall on the community if they were not caring for their relatives.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness about carers knowing their options. Does she accept that care in the home will almost always be cheaper and more cost effective than care in an institution? Will the Government therefore look very carefully at pension credits in respect of full-time carers?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the pension needs of full-time carers has to be addressed; that is why we are looking in terms of the second pension. We need to make sure that people who have not made contributions because they have taken time off work to care for someone will be allowed credits for that. As to the cost of caring in an institution or in someone's own home, one cannot always say that it goes one way or the other; it depends very much on the quality of care provided in the institution and the quality of care provided at home. I accept that many people would prefer to have care in their own home. Allowing someone to stay at home while their carer has a break, rather than having to go into an institution for respite care, is exactly the sort of flexibility that we are trying to bring in and allow under the terms of the strategy.

Food Aid: EU Surpluses
2.56 p.m.
Lord Geraint Lord Geraint asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they propose to take to ensure that the estimated 800 million people currently undernourished in the world will be given food aid from the surpluses in Europe.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, undernourished people need the chance to develop sustainable livelihoods and not to rely on hand-outs. Government policy is directed to this end. In short-term crises, food aid can play a role, but only provided it meets local needs and dietary preferences. Food from the same country or region is therefore normally preferred over European agricultural surpluses.
Lord Geraint: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. Does she agree that it is very difficult for Members of your Lordships' House, when they quite often visit the third world, to justify our agricultural policy in Britain and in the western world, where we pay producers for not producing food which is badly needed in other parts of the world? Will the noble Baroness consider putting new proposals to our European partners to see what can be done to help to overcome this humanitarian problem that exists in the third world?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can understand the noble Lord's concern. As a member of the European
1106
Community, one of our key tasks is to work towards the reform of the common agricultural policy. It is also important to remind your Lordships that the Government's position is very clear on development issues. Food aid can play a role only in the short term. It is an inefficient form of resource transfer compared with technical and financial assistance. In the longer term, poverty is best addressed by improving the livelihood opportunities that are open to poor people. That is the core of our strategy and that is why our international development budget is focused on poverty eradication. We are committed to the world food summit goal of reducing the number of undernourished people in the world by half by 2015.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, is the very worthy statement that the noble Baroness has made about know-how and encouraging people to grow their own food—at least that is what I inferred from what she said—agreed by the other members of the European Community? What sort of influence do we have among the other member states to encourage them to adopt such a policy and be wholeheartedly behind it?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have been taking a leading role in this area since the publication of our White Paper on international development. After all, 30 per cent. of our international development budget goes towards EC aid. Our objective is to try to maximise the contribution of the EC's development programmes to the international poverty target to which we are committed, which is the halving of extreme world poverty by 2015. We are currently in negotiations with our European Union partners because those budgets are now being set. We want that target to be part of the EC's development aid strategy. We have also published our institutional strategy paper which sets out the terms on which we expect to work with our European partners and with the European Commission over the next number of years. I shall be glad to send the noble Baroness a copy of that paper.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, bearing in mind what my noble friend has said about the long-term aim of eradicating poverty, can she say what proportion of the international development budget is spent on food aid and how that has changed in recent months in the light of the Government's policy?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, in the period 1985 to 1995—no more recent figures are available—food aid as a percentage of overseas development assistance has dropped from 11 per cent. to 4 per cent. For the United Kingdom, it has fallen from 9 per cent. to 2 per cent. Globally, the figures have dropped partly as a result of a decline in overproduction but, in terms of the UK, part of the decline has been the result of our clear strategy to use food aid only in emergencies and to look at other areas like sustainable development, debt relief, building partnerships with local communities in the countries which we are targeting and our commitment to poverty eradication.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, although I do not disagree with the long-term objectives of the policy of this

1107
country and of the European Community, is not the reality of the situation that we have burgeoning surpluses in the West while there are areas of the world where people are starving because they cannot even till their own ground? Of course it is better in the long-term for food to be grown locally, but in the meantime is there not a way of utilising the surpluses of the West to benefit those areas of the world that need it? This is not a question of emergencies. An emergency might be a matter of a few months. These areas need sustained support for years before they can reach the stage when they can produce their own food, especially as in many of these areas agriculture is a very difficult proposition. Is not the real problem in the end the question of distribution?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I hope to reassure the noble Lord that some of our aid budget is targeted towards food aid. But we are concerned that that is not the only mechanism that we use. In non-emergency situations we would not want to go down the route of using only food aid as a mechanism for development. In 1998–99 the UK has already provided £38 million for emergency food assistance to, among others, those affected by the war in the Sudan and to the victims of the devastating floods in Bangladesh and China. Multilateral organisations are also involved. As I have already said, we are keen to look at long-term sustainahility.
It may assist your Lordships if I give an example of the kinds of projects we would fund on the back of emergency aid. In Kenya we are supporting an Oxfam managed programme which is looking at strengthening the livelihood systems and community coping mechanisms in an attempt to ensure that poor people in future will be less vulnerable to the impact of drought. So we are looking at immediate needs and long-term needs as well.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the European Union aid programmes, such as the TACIS and PHARE schemes, represent some of the most maladministered programmes of the European Commission and that these are notorious for fraud and corruption? What specific action are the Government taking to ensure that this is urgently remedied by the European Commission?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, towards the end of last year I answered a Question on fraud in European Union aid programmes and I set out very clearly the action we were taking in terms of working with the Commission and supporting some of the proposals which were being made by the European Parliament. In addition, as I have already said, we have developed an institutional strategy paper which sets out the terms on which we intend to work with the European Commission. We have analysed extensively in that paper the strengths and weaknesses that currently exist within the European Commission's aid programmes. Again, I would be happy to send the noble Lord a copy of that paper.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield: My Lords, I welcome what the Minister said about the question of food aid and also the Government's continuing
1108
commitment to reduce world poverty, but will she specifically underline a point to which she made reference; namely, the Government's continuing commitment to reduce world debt, which, though not wholly related to this specific issue, is certainly partly related to it?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I have had to address the issue of world debt before and I know it is one that concerns many of your Lordships. It is an extremely complex situation. We are committed to working with the international financial institutions to find the best possible way to ensure that we can help to relieve the burden of debt but in a context where, bearing in mind corruption and other problems, these countries actually benefit from debt reduction. It is a complex situation.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, after the first debate today, my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the publication of the report of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. That will be followed by my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, who will, with the leave of the House, repeat two Statements; one on Kosovo and one on the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone.

Obscenity Bill [H.L.]
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to obscenity. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Genetically Modified Crops Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to regulate the use of certain genetically modified organisms for agricultural purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Mayhew of Twysden and the Lord Trefgarne set down for today shall each be limited to three hours.—(Lord Carter.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Methuen be added to the panel of Lords appointed to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session, and that the Lord Henley be appointed to the panel in the place of the Lord Strathclyde.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 13,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 14 to 47,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 48 to 62,

Schedules 3 to 5,

Clause 63.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Belfast Agreement
3.10 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden Lord Mayhew of Twysden rose to call attention to the value of the Belfast Agreement 1998 (the Good Friday agreement), and to the dangers inherent in failing to secure from all its participants the prompt and complete implementation of all its provisions; and to move for Papers.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, we all await with fascination and anxiety the unfolding of events in Northern Ireland. There is an argument that when matters are so uncertain, when the stakes are so high and many of the factors so sensitive, Parliament should bide its time and hold its tongue. I acknowledge that argument, but I do not share it. I am delighted to see that at least 16 Members of this House wish to speak in this debate. I am especially delighted that they include my noble friend Lady Park, who is newly restored to us following a serious operation.
We should, of course, be understanding of the restraints that circumstances impose upon Northern Ireland Ministers. We should acknowledge the complexity of the interacting forces and issues with which they have to deal. But I do not think that we are obliged, in order to be responsible, to hold back at this time from comment and serious questioning. After all, for all the progress—and it is great and highly creditable—the scene is deeply fraught with danger and anxiety. Indeed, it may well be a good thing for others
1110
outside this Chamber and outside these islands to have an opportunity to gauge the strength of feeling and opinion that exists. It may even be an advantage for Ministers to have an opportunity to explain, to use a Northern Ireland form, where we are at.
The Belfast agreement was concluded 10 months ago and it dominates the scene today. I have more than once heard the noble Earl, Lord Longford, describe the agreement as the best thing that has happened to the island of Ireland for a very long time indeed. I cannot rival his experience, but with plenty of Irish blood myself as well as English blood, I respectfully agree. It was a great achievement on the part of all the participants. I pay particular tribute to the determined impetus given by the Prime Minister, and by Dr. Mowlam. I also pay tribute to the political courage that has been shown, notably by Mr. Trimble and Mr. Seamus Mallon. Neither has been content to stand in the trenches that are so familiar to their parties.
There are many facets to the value of the agreement, but at the head and forefront I place the fact that, today, all parties agree, and all participants agree, that the future of Northern Ireland will be determined only by the wishes of most of the people who live there—wishes that they are to be able to express freely and with no one leaning on them. That is a great advance from the days when the Irish Government insisted on the claim to the whole island. While that claim pertained, very many unionists only looked across the Border with distrust and indignation. That was in part an explanation, and a wholly understandable one, for a continuing siege mentality, a mentality that was greatly stimulated by the way in which the Anglo-Irish Agreement was negotiated in total secrecy.
There is another plus, and it is again democratic in character. Republicans have traditionally and contemptuously dismissed Northern Ireland as an illegitimate, invalid, failed statelet. But by negotiating the agreement and by participating in the resulting elections, they now accept the validity of a legislative assembly for Northern Ireland. That is so notwithstanding the fact that the Assembly has, and looks like continuing to have, a majority of parties supporting the Union, and that that Assembly will be the basis for an executive committee that will govern Northern Ireland democratically. To have the validity of all that accepted by nationalists, not to mention republicans, is an advance indeed. The agreement will also allow common cause to be made more effectively between North and South on economic, social and other matters that extend across the border; and that is valuable too.
Achieving these changes has made very heavy demands upon the credulity and nerve of all in these islands who cherish the rule of law or who have bitter memories of lawlessness, or who are sceptical of tigers purporting to change their spots. They have had to take on trust Sinn Fein's assertion, as well as the assertions of those loyalist parties affiliated to equally evil paramilitary organisations, that they are now in truth committed to non-violence, and to wholly peaceful and democratic means of pursuing their political objectives.

1111
Those words come from the agreement itself and they describe the fundamental principle underpinning it. That commitment is demanded of all participants.
It was very difficult for people to generate that trust, and it has been harder still to sustain it, in the light of several deeply worrying factors. The first was the failure, by the time of the agreement, to make even a start with the decommissioning of illegally held arms. The independent commission under General de Chastelain was already empowered; but with one welcome but small exception, the LVF, that failure has been maintained.
The next factor was the repeated infliction by paramilitaries on both sides, politically represented in the talks, and in the Assembly, of so-called punishment beatings, better described as hideous mutilations. A revolting example is reported as occurring in Beesbrook, South Armagh, only last night when death threats were carved on the arms and legs of a woman by eight men who had burst into her home. I wonder whether the Minister is yet able to tell the House what group is thought to have been responsible.
The motives for these attacks have generally been no less political than the motives of those who were responsible for the bomb at Canary Wharf or, on the other side, for the massacre that took place in the bar at Grey Steel. Euphemised as "civil administration", their purpose has been to elevate their perpetrators in their own communities above the scrupulously disciplined RUC. There have also been the banishment, or exile, orders issues by both loyalists and republicans. They represent a very serious intrusion and assault as well. It was reported in The Times a couple of days ago that 64 people, including 15 families, were exiled by loyalist and republican paramilitaries in January alone. As many as 18 more have had to leave this month. They are usually given 24 or 72 hours to get out. I wonder whether the Minister can confirm those figures.
It is small wonder then, in the light of those factors, that the agreement's provisions for the early release of prisoners convicted of terrorist crimes were the most difficult of all for people to accept and support; as I did myself, and continue to support. The agreement provides that all those convicted of scheduled offences committed before the date of the agreement and serving sentences of five years or more shall be eligible for early release, provided that the organisation to which they are affiliated has established and is maintaining a complete and unequivocal cease-fire. As your Lordships know, many of those prisoners who in the view of the Government are now eligible under this enacted scheme have been sentenced either to life imprisonment or to very long determinate periods in prison for offences of the utmost gravity. Yet the declared intention and expectation is that all shall be released by next summer.
That was far different in character from a change made by the previous government in the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Bill 1995. That measure merely restored to Northern Ireland the same level of remission, namely 50 per cent., that is the norm in England and Wales. It had no application at all to
1112
murderers or other lifers, many of whom—were it not for the present agreement—would not have been released until about 2010.
However, if the 1995 scheme is seen, as I have heard argued today, nevertheless to have been a concession, it was certainly a concession that bought nothing, because within a few weeks the IRA let off the bomb at Canary Wharf and brought their cease-fire to an end. If there is a lesson there, then so be it.
What is beyond doubt is that the Belfast agreement makes a vastly wider concession, in totally different circumstances. That is doubtless why the Prime Minister, when campaigning in the referendum for a "yes" vote, along with all other party leaders, sought to coat the pill so thickly with reassurances and safeguards.
I acknowledge the reality that without such provision for early release of prisoners it is unlikely that there would have been any agreement at all. But such is the gravity, to say nothing of the potential danger of overriding the sentences of the courts to this extent, that a most rigorous scrutiny surely has to be maintained on what is delivered in return.
The Prime Minister said, during the referendum campaign, that as time went on the test for a complete and unequivocal ceasefire would get more rigorous. It would be helpful if the Minister could say whether that has happened, and if so, how. He said, however, that from the outset in making an overall judgment on all the relevant information the Government would look to see whether an organisation was committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means to further its objectives.
He also said that account would be taken of whether an organisation had ceased to be involved in any acts of violence, or preparation for violence, and whether it was co-operating with the commission. Violence would have to be seen to have been given up for good. Those safeguards were vital. "We will make them stick", the Prime Minister said. They would he enshrined in legislation.
For my part I do not doubt for one Minute that the Prime Minister meant all that completely sincerely, for it was the very least that could justify the drastic measure that had been agreed. We are told that the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 now achieves those limitations. We are told that, on that basis, the Government's judgment remains that on all sides a complete and unequivocal ceasefire is indeed being maintained. I hope that the Minister will be able to help as to how that conclusion is reached in the context of what I have described. It is a conclusion that causes me and many others much anxiety.
For my part, I tried to express it in this House in the context of prisoners as long ago as 30th July last year. When I did so, it was not an attack on Ministers but an expression of opinion, just as in our time those noble Lords' belief that the renewal of the anti-terrorist legislation, or some of it, was wrong and unnecessary was no more than an expression of opinion.
The Government do not cease to assert that the agreement must be delivered in its entirety. My Lords, just so. But we understand that no fewer than 54 mutilation

1113
attacks have been made this year alone as against 236 last year. The Minister might be able to confirm those figures; and from the chief constable we learn that the political parties represented in the assembly are responsible for them.
I have already referred to the exclusion orders. Does it make a difference that the attacks are on victims within what are called "their own people"? It is hard to see how in those circumstances the maintenance of a complete and unequivocal ceasefire can be discerned. For my part, I should welcome the Minister's assistance on that matter too.
Then there is the very important matter of the decommissioning of arms. With the welcome exception of the LVF, there has been none whatsoever. Yet, if you hold stocks of semtex, for example, how can you claim that you are not involved in acts of preparation for violence, for that can have no possible defensive purpose. I realise that the agreement sets no date by which the decommissioning must begin; nevertheless, is it not inherent in the spirit of the agreement that decommissioning should have proceeded in parallel with the enormous changes that have been initiated in pursuance of the agreement? I think of the inquiry into the future policing of Northern Ireland, the equality commission, the British-Irish Council, and so forth.
What worries people is that it seems so hard to establish with clarity what significance the Government attach to the mutilation assaults and the banishments carried out at the direction of the organisations whose prisoners continue steadily to be released. I suggest that the Government have had from the outset a lever to hand that could well bring about the discontinuance of the outrages that typically have left men and women with shattered legs or emasculated or dead.
That lever is constituted by the power and the entitlement that the Government have under the agreement to discontinue the early release of prisoners until such time as an indication is given that these attacks are finished for good. I submit that to use that lever would have been to apply the agreement, not to walk away from it. I greatly fear that if the Government persist in denying the validity of the lever, then public confidence will slip away just as the lever itself will slip away, with the continued early release of the prisoners.
In conclusion, it is only fair to note from the Belfast Telegraph in recent days that there are welcome signs that the UDA has declared an end to beatings, in north and east Belfast at least, and that the IRA—although they have made no declaration—appear this month to be desisting. If that is true, it is very welcome as far as it goes.
But those who direct the paramilitaries have shown in the past that they can turn them on and off at will. It would help if the Minister would give an indication as to how the Government assess this latest, and, I repeat, welcome development. After all, we are approaching the deadline for the establishment of the executive council.
If such violence were resumed, would it still have no consequences for the early release of such prisoners? I referred at the beginning not only to the great value
1114
of the agreement but also to the anxieties that trouble so many people. I hope that the Minister, whom we all admire, will be able in his reply to allay those anxieties, at least in part. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, before we begin the list of speakers, I draw noble Lords' attention to the fact that when the clock says "07", the speaker is into his eighth minute. There are now only five minutes to spare in the whole debate.
3.26 p.m.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, the opportunity given to the House by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, to discuss the Belfast agreement is most welcome and timely. In asking noble Lords to give attention to the value of the agreement, the Motion allows us all to reflect on the truly magnificent job that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has done since her appointment following the general election in 1997.
Together with her colleagues, Dr. Mowlam has shown courage and not a little patience, as she has sought to bring about the hope that is the real value of the Good Friday agreement.
The value of the agreement is clearly recognised by the people of Northern Ireland and, I suggest, the whole island of Ireland. It is recognised by many more who live many miles away from those troubled shores. Those who have witnessed the violence that has caused great suffering to so many understand and recognise the value of the Good Friday agreement. It is so valuable that it has to be nurtured, encouraged and supported by all who want to see the hope it represents turned into reality.
Such a transition will not happen overnight; it will have to be worked for. That is what the Secretary of State and her colleagues are doing, day and night: toiling to make the agreement work.
The Motion in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, also calls attention to,
"the dangers inherent in failing to secure from all its participants the prompt and complete implementation of all its provisions".
In making such a call we must also recognise the dangers inherent in seeking to make progress at a faster speed with the attendant risk of not getting the process of implementation right. We would do well to reflect on the substantial progress made since the agreement, to my mind a truly historic agreement, that was arrived at last April.
I have no doubt that the Minister, my noble friend Lord Dubs, will later in this debate outline in some detail the real progress that has been made since the signing of the agreement.
Following the strictures from my noble friend Lady Farrington, I shall try not to go into great detail. I shall draw attention to a number of important issues, two of which were touched on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew: first, the establishment of the new Northern Ireland Assembly. A few years ago such a thought would have been unspoken; we would not even have considered the possibility of getting a new Northern Ireland Assembly. We have had the election

1115
of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Agreement has been reached on the future structure of the Northern Ireland departments and arrangements, together with the functions of the first North-South implementation bodies.
Reviews of policing and criminal justice are under way. Those of us who have made visits to Northern Ireland and have friends in various sections of its community welcome with open arms a review of policing and criminal justice and the progress that has been made in setting up the human rights and equality commissions. That is real progress which a few years ago would have been unthinkable. All of this progress, and more, is made possible by the Belfast agreement of last April. If implementation takes more time than any of us would like we would do well to remember the almost three decades that preceded the agreement. No one can pretend that implementation will or can be an easy process. Hearts and minds must come to terms with the new situation that the agreement heralds. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, I recognise how difficult that is for people who have suffered family tragedies and witnessed the mutilations to which reference has been made. While that is very difficult, families who have suffered so much have hope. Understandably, that is not easy for them but that hope is there.
Throughout the past 30 years there has been a bi-partisan approach in this Parliament to the difficulties and suffering of the people of Northern Ireland. It would be a tragic mistake if that joint approach was put at risk at this vital moment of history. I earnestly hope that the prize of long-term stability and peace will be sufficient for all of us to give wholehearted support to those who at this very moment seek to overcome the very real problems that remain to be resolved.
The value of the Belfast agreement is recognised by the people of Northern Ireland who have so much to gain from the hope that it holds out for them. The price of failure is too dreadful to contemplate. It is the duty and responsibility of all of us to see that it does not fail. If that means that we must follow the example of the patience shown by the Secretary of State and many others who are working to make progress, surely that is a small price for any of us to pay.
3.32 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I too thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, for initiating this debate. As a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland he can take credit for helping to pave the way for the Good Friday agreement. As some of us will remember, in 1996 in particular he showed immense courage in pursuing what at the time was a highly controversial policy. It can be truly said that he is one of the several architects of the Good Friday agreement who deserves the commendations of this House. Northern Ireland has never been short of men and women of outstanding courage. Clearly, the names of Mr. Hume, Mr. Mallon and Mr. Trimble spring to mind, but there are many other unknown and unrecorded heroes and heroines who have done their best to try to bring about reconciliation in that country. My noble
1116
friend Lord Redesdale and I are aware that we cannot be good substitutes for our noble friend and former spokesman on Northern Ireland, Lord Holme, but we shall do our best.
I remember long ago, as Minister of State responsible for Northern Ireland, visiting the Province and becoming dimly aware of how deeply divided were the two communities in tradition, culture and history. When one looks at the Good Friday agreement one should never forget what a huge gulf of history has been bridged by it. Therefore, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, that this is a pearl without price.
Having said that, I should like to say a few words about one aspect that is not normally touched upon in Northern Ireland debates. I address my remarks particularly to those in the nationalist community who still have the vision of a united Ireland. One of the most striking features of the Republic of Ireland is the way in which it has managed to put the past behind it and to build a future that is much more promising than the past. The remarkable economic achievement of the republic clearly displays the way in which that country looks to the future and has in the past 25 years moved from a gross national product per capita that is 60 per cent. of that of the United Kingdom to one that is equivalent to 90 per cent. I believe that that was one of the bonuses of the Republic of Ireland moving on from its very troubled history and addressing and making the most of the prospects that lay before it.
I turn to the Good Friday agreement and the issue of decommissioning, which was dealt with by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. The most difficult dilemma faced by the Government is that described by Gerry Adams (rather unexpectedly) as the division between those who are pro-agreement and those who are anti-agreement. The very issues that have placed the Good Friday agreement under strain are ones which are pursued by those who look for nothing so much as the failure of the agreement. Those responsible for the terrible mutilations—and the whole House will share the outrage expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, at the most recent of those mutilations in Beesbrooke—will also be conscious that there are many evil men and women whose greatest desire is to destroy the Good Friday agreement because it does not serve their purpose. The difficult road down which the Government have to travel is, at one and the same time, to encourage those who have signed the agreement to carry it out not only to the letter but also in the spirit while yielding nothing to those on both sides of the communities in Northern Ireland who wish to destroy it.
Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, noble Lords may take some comfort from the decline in the number of, yes, mutilations rather than punishment beatings that has occurred recently. They will also ask themselves whether this is a continuing and steady decline or merely a short incidental alteration in what has been a very frightening escalation in recent months. I urge noble Lords to consider very carefully those who are responsible for these terrible acts and do not wish to see the rule of law re-established in the Province. I also echo the comment of the noble and learned Lord in

1117
regard to exile. When one considers other parts of the world, exile is called by another name; it is known as ethnic cleansing, which all of us bitterly condemn.
Northern Ireland has an amazing tradition in both communities and has the potential to become an example not only to itself but, in a world troubled by profound religious and ethnic conflicts, to other parts of the world that have also embarked upon peace processes. That is why the Good Friday agreement is so crucially important not only for Northern Ireland but far beyond. I commend the Secretary of State and the Minister for the ways in which they have continually pressed forward with the Good Friday agreement.
I very much hope that some of the recent intimations suggest that more and more people begin to understand how vital it is to ensure that this agreement survives and is then built upon. I hope that in the good spirit in this House for the establishment of a stable and lasting peace in Northern Ireland we shall be able today to give strength and hope to those who have so courageously fought for that agreement and are now trying to build upon it.
3.38 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew very warmly for his generous words. I am glad to be back.
The Belfast agreement has set in train many seminal social and political changes. What the two governments and the Assembly can do they are doing. The major change without which nothing will really work is the removal of paramilitary weapons from Northern Irish politics. That, alas, is the one thing which is not set in stone in the agreement as a pre-condition. It was an assumption which was expected to have the same force but which does not. The parties are merely committed to using their influence but, as Martin McGuiness pointed out only a month ago,
"Sinn Fein made it abundantly clear to both Prime Ministers during the Stormont talks that [it] could not deliver IRA disarmament".
He said on the same day that there was "no prospect whatsoever" of the IRA surrendering arms to secure Sinn Fein/IRA's entry to government and, therefore, absolutely no point in the two governments pressuring them because "it would not work". Gerry Adams reinforced that when he said that the IRA was never a party to the agreement—I thought that was why Sinn Fein was in the talks—that Sinn Fein had no power over the IRA and that for it decommissioning meant only the abolition of the RUC and the withdrawal of all British forces. In those circumstances it is difficult to see what President Clinton can do to change the situation, as it is reported he hopes to do next month on St. Patrick's Day.
It is not of course impossible that the IRA might, as a gesture, then order one of its surrogates such as the Continuity IRA to give up some token weapons. I hope that we shall remember then the dangers of believing such a token gesture. I hope, too, that the opportunity will not he lost at any White House meeting to ask what,
1118
if anything, the American Government are doing about the continued fund-raising for the Continuity IRA. When I asked the Minister about NORAID funding in November, he had no information. Perhaps it might be sought on this occasion.
However, Martin McGuinness said something ominous which should give us cause to consider whether another most important part of the Belfast agreement—security, policing and justice—is being neglected. He said that the key was the removal of the causes of conflict and gave warning of "big trouble" if the Patten Commission fails to recommend the disbandment of the RUC. He said:
"Any fair-minded reading of the Accord shows Patten has to produce a policing service acceptable to both communities, and that effectively means producing a new police service".
The agreement indeed talks about,
"enabling local people and their political representatives to influence policing policies".
It also laid down that such a force much be "free from partisan political control". But so far as the nationalists are concerned, that is evidently aimed at the RUC as at present constituted. The agreement wants a police force,
"accountable to the community it serves and representative of the society it polices".
I find it disturbing that when Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness refused recently to attend a meeting with the Secretary of State to discuss beatings by paramilitaries, Sinn Fein/IRA argued that paramilitary attacks were the result of a "policing vacuum" which will exist until the RUC is disbanded and replaced by a new and "acceptable" police service.
Now that Sinn Fein/IRA has secured the release of a significant number of prisoners, and apparently the Government as a matter of principle will not use the release of prisoners as a lever, I fear that its next and most dangerous objective will be the abolition of the RUC and the creation of a series of regional/sectarian people's police forces manned by former paramilitaries. Gerry Adams has already said that,
"changes in the RUC are not enough. The RUC is not acceptable. Reform is not an option. An entirely new and real policing service is required".
And of course Sinn Fein/IRA has ensured that the Patten Commission has met plenty of focus groups who say that not one existing RUC officer would be accepted into the new force. I hope and believe from the many tributes paid to the RUC by Ministers that, should the commission recommend the Sinn Fein/IRA formula, it would be rejected—although there are many possible changes which the RUC itself would probably welcome. One such increase is in the number of Catholics; but it was never the RUC's fault that there were so few. That sprang from the fact that it took a brave man to join and expose himself and his family to a lifelong threat of murder. However, I fear that in the talks in the White House Sinn Fein/IRA might develop the theory of the vacuum in policing to bargain for some major changes in the RUC which could destroy its capacity to provide reliable intelligence and could put whole communities at the mercy of the paramilitaries of either side. I believe the destruction of the RUC to be the prime target of

1119
Sinn Fein/IRA at present—apart of course from any warning shots that it may be intending to fire over our bows on the mainland.
Concessions on that front today might easily seem a small price for the Government to pay for a promise to take the guns out of politics at some time. But it would be letting the Trojan horse within the gates and would be a monstrous betrayal of ordinary people, the victims of paramilitaries. I realise that Ministers undoubtedly understand this. My concern is that the Americans may not.
It is a critical moment. Men and women, victims of both the IRA and the loyalists, are coming together across the sectarian divide in such organisations as FAIT. It is heartening to see that Members of another place have recently recognised the monstrous arrogance that allows the paramilitaries to send whole families into exile. So far as I know, the IRA has still done nothing about telling the families of those it murdered where the bodies lie; and it has certainly not apologised for murdering and beating the wrong people, as it has done. If given real encouragement, I believe that the ordinary man in the street is ready to give evidence to the police. But it must be admitted that it takes great courage and it is difficult for them to overcome the code of "no informing". It was shocking to see that witnesses to the murder, which we must now call manslaughter, of Garda Jerry McCabe refused to testify for fear of what would happen to them. That was in the republic where the Garda are their own, but the IRA still rules.
Let us make sure that we do not allow Sinn Fein/IRA to destroy civil liberties and public peace, not only through sending families into exile and carrying out murderous attacks on individuals, but by damaging, if not destroying, the framework of law and order within which men and women are entitled to live. I believe that the courage being shown by ordinary men and women and their readiness to cross sectarian lines demonstrates that they believe that they are living, or could live, in a different, less violent world. So much in the agreement is good, but people need positive, public support for every act of courage and readiness to use the law as it should be used, to bring evil men to justice. We should also be seen to be upholding the forces of law. I hope that Amnesty International will publicise to the world the hateful deeds of a small minority and destroy their image of brave freedom fighters once and for all.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, for providing us with the opportunity to take stock of progress in the implementation of the Good Friday agreement.
The noble and learned Lord correctly compared the rate of progress on sections of the agreement. The most glaring difference is that which separates the two aspects which, more than any others, have disillusioned a vast number of people—possibly the majority of the 71 per cent. who voted for the Good Friday agreement. First, I refer to the amnesty for convicted murderers. I use the term in its correct sense because that it how it is
1120
perceived by people throughout this nation; it is the way in which it is perceived throughout Northern Ireland. It is an amnesty for convicted criminals, convicted murderers. Secondly, there is the utter failure in the first year of the agreement to secure disarmament of terrorist parties. I use the words "terrorist parties". Hitherto there were terrorist bands, terrorist movements, but they are now terrorist parties because they are taking their place in the Northern Ireland Assembly and, if they get their way by certain means which I may mention later, they will be in the Executive Council of Northern Ireland without surrendering one round of ammunition.
I have to say with regret that the greater part of the blame for failure attaches to Her Majesty's Government. It was in the power of the Government to establish a firm linkage between the release of murderers and a requirement to dismantle the apparatus of guerrilla warfare in the control of terrorist parties now masquerading as democratic bodies.
I have to say, frankly, that there is no confidence in the capacity or will of Her Majesty's Government to resist a ploy in the form of a token surrender of perhaps a dozen rusty rifles for the purpose of securing immediate access to membership of the Executive. We may hear more on that when it comes to the St. Patrick's Day celebrations in Washington and New York. Indeed, many who voted yes in the referendum suspect that the sordid deal has already been done and is simply being kept under wraps until next month.
The event will trigger a government initiative codenamed Normalisation; and that is another important matter. Indeed, some of it has already been implemented. I give a few examples: the discouragement, ever so subtle, of effective policing; pressure to dismantle fortified posts in police stations; phasing out security precautions throughout the commercial and industrial sectors; and what appears to be toleration of a campaign of exile. And those are just the beginning.
The bogus justification for the mistaken idea of normalisation is that peace has broken out. We are all thankful that the warfare in its earlier form is for the moment no more, but how can that be the main justification for the mistaken, phoney campaign of normalisation? How can that be when the main terrorist parties flatly refuse to dismantle their capacity to wage guerrilla warfare and when they consider that it might be useful to supply the terrorist muscle to augment their political demands at any given time?
Or how can peace be taken for granted when reconstructed terrorist machines, misnamed "splinter groups", now have the capacity and the equipment to launch a murderous campaign in both islands? And how can peace be assured when we have the most deadly threats in the shape of unidentified terror forces, whose existence I reported to your Lordships on 3rd September 1998? Did the Provisional IRA transfer at that time vast stocks of arms and explosives to those unidentified forces on the understanding that eventually they might be returned to their donors; namely, the Libyan Government? What we have seen of normalisation this

1121
far amounts simply to a lowering of our guard when it is clear that, unfortunately, terrorism can and probably will erupt at any time.
On 8th February 1999 in the debate on the Departments (Northern Ireland) Order (col. 87 of the Official Report) I questioned the wisdom of the increasing number of departments, from six to 11. I venture to applaud the Treasury—I gave it the benefit of the doubt—for its generosity in financing that. The estimated cost of running the Assembly was then some £14 million a year. Therefore, I trust that the Treasury will not be greatly alarmed by the report of a committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly which recommends that the figure be increased—and I gather that that has been authorised—from £14 million to £36 million a year, with, no doubt, costs escalating year by year. In others words, the Northern Ireland Assembly is overtaking your Lordships' House, which last year cost only £39 million to run.
Am I right in believing that the Assembly costs—two-and-a-half-times what was estimated only four months ago—will be met from the Northern Ireland (Appropriation) Order and therefore deducted from monies allocated to education, health, social services, agriculture and transport? Does this unexpected demand disturb the Minister and his ministerial colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office who will be blamed for the shortcomings? Would it not be prudent to transfer Assembly costs from the appropriation order to the Northern Ireland Vote, perhaps as an alternative to granting the Assembly tax-raising powers?
3.53 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, unlike the previous speaker, to whom we listened with accustomed attention, I have no particular connection with Northern Ireland. However, I wish to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that, although to us it is the most immediate and terrifying problem faced by the Government, it is only an incident in Europe's long history of ethnic and religious conflicts taking violent forms from time to time. I believe that lessons can be learnt from observing those conflicts.
One of the lessons I would learn is that the protagonists, if they feel strongly, are unlikely to get rid of the means of enforcing their will. Therefore, I have always doubted, and still doubt, whether there was a serious intention on the part of the IRA or its political wing to make it impossible for it, by the surrender of weapons, to recommence the struggle. As my noble friend Lady Park pointed out, it is therefore enormously important that the powers of the state, the powers of the police, should under no circumstances be diminished until there is evidence that the intention to renew an arms struggle has disappeared.
We are told—and it was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Park and others—that the negotiations balancing membership of the executive in Northern Ireland with the decommissioning of arms are to be tackled at a quasi summit in Washington. Indeed, the relations between Britain and the United States,
1122
normally close and intimate, as one would hope, have for a long time been bedeviled by the issue of Northern Ireland. I must admit a certain discomfiture, a certain anxiety, when I am told that President Clinton will be the dues ex machina for this process. A little while ago it was reported in the press, and so far as I know it has not been denied, that the American Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, addressing the Kosovo Liberation Army—which, mutatis mutandis, is not that unlike the IRA, although its case may be stronger—said that what it needed was a peaceful leader on the model of Gerry Adams. If the American Secretary of State believes that Gerry Adams is a man of peace, we shall not achieve much understanding at a meeting in Washington in which she, presumably, will play a prominent part.
Therefore, I very much hope that a great deal of attention is being paid by Her Majesty's Government and their representatives in the United States to trying to convey to American opinion—and there is evidence that it has moved over the years—the fact that this is an anxious and delicate moment; that by the demolition of the RUC we are perhaps being asked to give over a population, both Protestant and Catholic, to domination by movements which rely on armed force. As has also been said, we have not yet had a satisfactory explanation as to why it is possible in the United States to raise any funds for any element in Ireland. What would be thought if we in this country were raising funds to assist the curious movements which have now developed in the American West? The United States is our friend and perhaps the key to the solution of the problem, but unless it gets it right it can only make it worse.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I join noble Lords in thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, for initiating this timely and challenging debate. As a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, he and his good lady are much respected in the Province. Their strong commitment and sensitive and practical approach to long and deep-seated political and social problems greatly helped the Province survive ugly terrorist sectarian violence during his years there.
I welcome the fact that there are some 21 speakers. That will surely be of some help in raising the general awareness of the problems in Northern Ireland.
In November 1996, when the noble and learned Lord was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, he introduced the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill. The passing of that legislation in 1997 is an example of the high degree of parliamentary bipartisanship which has largely prevailed throughout Westminster over some 50 years of terrorism, violence, sectarianism and bigotry in Northern Ireland. That bipartisan approach has had a helpful and forceful influence on events.
There is no doubt about the ongoing difficulties and critical political issues that arise out of the 1998 Good Friday agreement. No words of mine today can do justice to the tremendous mental, physical and totally democratic commitment of Dr. Mowlam and her

1123
ministerial team or to the United Kingdom Government's support for the Good Friday agreement and the devolved Assembly. In a statement last Monday Dr. Mowlam said:
"It is too early to say whether Northern Ireland is a [working] example of conflict management and resolution. We still face many difficult problems that will take months even years to overcome. But I do think that the right way forward for Northern Ireland, as elsewhere, is an approach based on inclusivity, commitment to peace and democracy, public support and solid foundations of equality, justice and human rights".
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, called attention to the value of the Belfast agreement. I would have wished to quote paragraphs 2 to 4 of the Declaration of Support made by 108 elected Assembly representatives but, because of time constraints, I note only the following:
"I hold that [that] declaration pledges all Assembly Members to uphold the principles and precepts of parliamentary democracy and complete opposition to any 'use' or 'threat' of force by others for any political purposes".
All 108 have made their personal declaration of support to what is contained in the agreement.
A question arises about "credible decommissioning." On page 20 of the agreement there are six paragraphs under the heading "Decommissioning". Paragraph 4 states:
"The Independent Commission will monitor, review and verify progress on decommissioning of illegal arms, and will report to both Governments at regular intervals".
Perhaps it is now time to ask the commission whether it will consider producing such a report to be made generally available to the community. That would be most helpful at this time. It is a commitment that I feel should be undertaken by the commission.
The question is not just one of decommissioning but of the future for all the people of Northern Ireland. It concerns not only politicians, the political parties and their rank and file members. It is the future of our children, our families, our friends, our neighbours and our Province that is important. All peaceable people are at the heart of the present political issues.
The very nature of the Belfast agreement is its complexity. We are, as a community, required to build a climate of trust. Is it not the duty of every politician to declare wholehearted commitment to parliamentary democracy and to pledge to uphold the principles of justice in all aspects of community life? There should be full implementation of social equity and a commitment to a quality of mercy in the exercise of redress and in the face of human failure. The greatest contribution politicians and all in authority in our Province can make to lasting peace in the community is to work humbly and earnestly to build a better life for all in the Province.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew for initiating this debate. I know he does not need me to make points for him, but I was particularly disappointed to read the rather arrogant letter from the Minister in today's Daily Telegraph in
1124
which he claimed that this Government had done more than any other to reduce terrorism in the Province. I think that that is a bit of an overstatement.
The political process is in a dangerous stalemate caused by what is euphemistically referred to as the "decommissioning process" or, rather, the lack of it. Last year over 70 per cent. of the population in Northern Ireland voted "Yes" in the referendum because it offered hope of a better way: devolved government, power-sharing and a return to the democratic process, with the bomb and the bullet out of play. They did not, however, vote for peace at any price.
Those republicans who support Sinn Fein and the IRA and who voted "No" believe that a 32-county Ireland governed by their own particular brand of republicanism could be delivered by the bomb and the bullet. Their overall objective has not changed, but their strategy has moved from bomb and bullet to ballot box supported by bomb and bullet. The challenge today is the same as it has always been: to persuade Sinn Fein/IRA that this strategy can never work. They must wait for however long it takes for the demographic evolutionary process to deliver their objective.
Adams and McGuinness say that they cannot deliver decommissioning. I do not think that they can, even if they want to, which I do not believe they do at this time. The Secretary of State has at times recently—unwisely, in my opinion—allowed herself to appear to be far too close to the "Gerry and Martin" show and too soft on Sinn Fein/IRA. We know that she has always had their guns in her back, metaphorically speaking, but that is precisely why she cannot, and should not, expect David Trimble to share executive power with Sinn Fein/IRA without disarmament—I use that word advisedly—being well and truly under way; otherwise the majority of the population—namely, the unionist voters—will soon believe that David Trimble is suffering from the same treatment and he will lose their support and confidence, which he needs for his power base. Fortunately, at this time the Secretary of State has the full support—or so we are led to believe—of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister of Ireland and the President of the United States in resisting this expectation. And she must resist it.
However, delaying devolution will create more problems. Some might have been avoided; others not. A look at the calendar of projected events shows a date for devolution of 10th March 1999. I understand that that is likely to be put back. There is no date for the removal of Clauses 2 and 3 from the Irish Constitution. Perhaps I may quote from the Irish News of 27th April:
"changes in articles 2 and 3 would only come about when all other aspects of the deal had been put in place".
Where are we in respect of that? The Belfast Telegraph of 2nd May 1998 states:
"the new version of Article 29, which ensures that changes to Articles 2 and 3 will not come into effect until the Agreement as a whole is ready to come into effect following the passage of constitutional legislation at Westminster".
What else do we have to do to satisfy the Irish Government?

1125
The marching season opens at Easter—it may be a bit early, but that is when it starts—and Drumcree has not gone away. Not only has it not gone away, but there is strong support for the Orange Order's right to march across all Loyalist terrain.
The Patten report on the RUC is due in June or thereabouts. Again, many of the unionist population and the forces themselves are intensely suspicious of its outcome. It is a pity it was not delayed a little. The date set in the agreement by which decommissioning is to be completed is two years from the date of signing on Good Friday 1998—I presume April 2000—but, as we know, there is no start date. Prisoner releases started immediately after the signing of the agreement. We all understand why they had to start, but their triumphalism has certainly sickened us.
I am a little concerned about the process and transparency of the prisoner releases. For example, I am told that the commission has little authority. The decisions as to who is released and when are almost always made by the Northern Ireland Office. What tests are carried out to see whether those being released have any dangerous personality disorders? Are they prone to pyschopathic behaviour? Have they criminal tendencies? Are they involved with drugs and so forth? Will they be good members of the community when they come out? And perhaps most importantly of all, what proof is available to show that they comply with the agreement and no longer have any affiliation to any paramilitaries?
The aim of my speech this afternoon is to try to point to what might lie ahead this summer if the miracle of decommissioning—I pray that it does—does not happen. David Trimble and the unionist majority are under seige while the Parades Commission tries in vain to manage the marching season. The RUC will be under seige, on one side from Patten and its side effects; on another from policing marches and trying to control the ever-increasing organised and local crime; and on the third, and perhaps the most sinister side, from the strategy of Sinn Fein-IRA and its campaign to discredit and embarrass the RUC whenever it can, particularly in areas it wishes to control.
I believe that the Government are doing their best to deliver, but they must prepare for the worst and the difficult summer ahead. That means winning back the confidence of the unionist population.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I must stop the noble Lord. There will be no time for other noble Lords to speak.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, the Government must ensure that nothing is said or done to undermine the morale and capacity of the RUC. They must persuade the Republic Government that it is time they altered their constitution in relation to Articles 2 and 3, and continue to make it absolutely clear to Sinn Fein-IRA that there is only one way—decommissioning and ultimate disarmament. Those measures will go some way to redressing the balance.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, in his opening remarks quite properly described the advantages that will come from this agreement if it follows through. He mentioned the agreement of the South to relinquish its claim on the North. That is most important and is already apparent in that Dublin and London are working much more closely together. That is good news and it is much more likely that, by working together, they will be able to pursue this problem to a sensible conclusion.
Only last week the Taoiseach made very clear that decommissioning must commence before Sinn Fein can be accepted as Ministers. That was an interesting point. He only said, of course, what everybody else knows to be true, but for him to say it was a landmark.
In Northern Ireland we desperately need the Assembly, though perhaps not with the £36 million cost attached to it. We desperately need democratic government. How far do we have to go to find an area the size of Northern Ireland where nobody has been able to vote for their government for almost 30 years? The decline in standards of administration and decision-making are only too clear. If Sinn Fein will not decommission then arrangements must be made to proceed with the Assembly and devolved government with it.
The agreement is designed to move towards peace in stages, in a maximum period of two years with early release of convicted terrorists on licence to recognise that. There will also be staged relaxation of security. It is grossly offensive for the Ulster people that early release of terrorists has been entirely one-sided. There is ample evidence that the main paramilitary groups are still active. The chief constable confirmed that, but it has been ignored and prisoners continue to be released at a fast pace. It is known that some terrorists have gone back to what they know best, but they have not been re-imprisoned. That confirms to the IRA that it can achieve its objectives without giving anything in return; that it pays to retain the threat of arms. Removal of important security check points in advance of any decommissioning sends the message that the Government are no longer interested in defending the citizens of Northern Ireland from terrorist attack, though the threat and capability remain unchanged.
Most people in Northern Ireland, of every religious persuasion, have deeply embedded standards of behaviour; honesty and straight dealing come naturally to us. The failure of the Government to do what they promise, the fudging of issues and what are perceived as lies are having a corrosive effect on beliefs and standards. That is a subject often discussed in Northern Ireland and does not augur well for the future. I am sorry to report that the belief is now widespread that the Government are not concerned about how many people are maimed or murdered in Northern Ireland; that the IRA will be given everything they want provided the threat of bombs in Great Britain is removed.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. Is the noble Lord

1127
suggesting that the slaughter of individuals and those murdered is confined to the Catholics? The Protestants have done their share in recent times, have they not?
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, of course. The present beatings and attacks on people have been criticised equally by both sides. I am merely talking about the decommissioning of arms.
The belief is widespread in Northern Ireland that the IRA and other terrorists will be given everything they want provided the threat of bombs in Great Britain is removed. That is an alarming state of affairs. The majority of those in Northern Ireland expect to be treated as citizens of the United Kingdom. The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, spoke at length about the police. It is a major concern in Northern Ireland that the report on the police may cause a substantial and totally unacceptable change in the police and it is very important that that does not happen.
I want to pay tribute to the many voluntary organisations which are working hard with the victims of terrorism and others in an attempt to support them. There are many, such as FAIT and others, which have done exceedingly important work and a great deal to destabilise the terrorists on either side and to show them that they do not have support. They are also probably responsible for the present ceasing of attacks which have occurred both by the IRA and the UDA.
With many others, I do not think that the IRA will decommission, but if it did and the agreement is implemented in full is it appreciated that we would not have peace as that word is understood? We would have a dozen splinter groups from the IRA, and probably as many Protestant groups. Those groups will comprise, particularly the IRA, the present hard-line men who will have sufficient arms to do whatever they want. They will continue to attempt to control "their areas"; they will continue to control drug distribution, and so on. The situation will not change. Can the Minister advise the House on whether the Government have thought about that, and what they should do?
4.20 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I add my grateful thanks to those paid to my noble friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden for instigating this debate. I take the opportunity to recognise the powerful part he played during his time in the Province. Perhaps I may add that I pay tribute to my right honourable friend John Major for the tenacity he showed in his approach to the troubles in Northern Ireland. Of course, I salute all those who were involved in the difficult negotiations which culminated in the signing of the Belfast agreement 1998. an agreement I am sure all noble Lords wholeheartedly support.
It is both timely and important that we are debating the situation in Northern Ireland at this most sensitive stage. As we approach 10th March, the date designated as devolution day, and as we also near the anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, it seems appropriate to take stock, to see what has happened since then and how the lives of many of the people of Northern Ireland have been affected.
1128
Expectations were raised for a calmer and safer society, with violence and misery being a thing of the past. I am sure that the men and women who voted in such numbers to support the agreement did so because they yearned to have the opportunity to raise their children in the same atmosphere that we experience here in mainland Britain. One can imagine the dreams they had of putting the brutal past behind them and the excitement of facing a new dawn and a fresh beginning in the Province. Of course, I am sure that no one was gullible enough to believe that everything would proceed without a hitch but, overall, that life would be better and safer for all families. I only wish that that had transpired.
Many families have had to face the horror of what has become known as "punishment beatings". But, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew said, they are nothing of the sort. They are acts of barbarism where people are viciously attacked, sometimes for hours, and left mutilated with injuries so hideous and shocking that permanent physical disability or even death has resulted in some extreme cases.
Perhaps I may illustrate the horror of the situation by referring to the terrible plight of Mrs. Maureen Kearney, whose son was murdered last July. He was in his flat on that fateful evening nursing his two week-old daughter when IRA men burst into his eighth floor flat and dragged him out into the stairwell while the baby's mother was held down. He was shot through both knees, severing an artery. They then jammed the lift, cut the telephone wire and made their escape. By the time his girlfriend was able to call for help, he had bled to death. His mother was, of course, distraught on hearing of this tragedy. She carries the burden with her and finds the daily round difficult to cope with. Recently, she came face to face with one of those she considered responsible. I do not have to tell your Lordships of her reaction. The baby will be raised without the benefit of having a father around to bestow the usual loving care.
I also wish to mention the case of Andrew Pedon who had both his legs amputated as a result of being "kneecapped". The effect on his wife and three young children has been devastating. His wife has to attend to all his needs, carrying him upstairs and sharing his agony. He was a father who enjoyed such lively pursuits as camping and fishing with his children, but obviously activities of this kind are not possible now. His injuries need daily professional attention. He attends a psychiatrist four times a week and, as a consequence of his injuries, his wife has given up her job to nurse him 24 hours a day. He relives the terrible events every night and rarely sleeps for longer than an hour at a time. As your Lordships can imagine, his children are devastated by what has happened to them all. One can understand why Mrs. Pedon said,
"It is a living nightmare—it has wrecked our family".
That is five people in that one family whose lives have been wrecked. As my right honourable friend Andrew MacKay said,
"on many estates paramilitaries are ruling by terror".

1129
Those are just two examples. This must be a violation of the agreement and I can only wonder whether these people have renounced violence for good. I must admit that I cannot see it and I would have thought that no one else can either.
I understand from FAIT (Families Against Intimidation and Ten-or) that up to the end of January there have been 15 shootings, 35 beatings, 69 cases of intimidation and 65 cases of people who have had to leave their homes. I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' House welcome the fact that there have been no incidents since 2nd February. It seems that the organisations can end such activity when it suits them. I believe it has been as a result of pressure on the paramilitary organisations, not least by my right honourable friend William Hague by his persistent questioning of the Prime Minister. However, it is impossible to calculate the effect that that form of terrorism must have on family life. This behaviour seems to go on and on, with the paramilitaries refusing to give up any of their guns or bombs. It appears to me that these organisations are certainly violating the Good Friday agreement, as I understand it.
Perhaps one of the most difficult pieces of legislation with which we had to contend during the previous Session was the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act which gave the Secretary of State the power to accelerate the release of prisoners. The Act also gives the Secretary of State the additional power to halt the early release of prisoners who belong to organisations whose cease-fires are not complete and unequivocal. If the beatings and other unacceptable behaviour should start again, I believe she should take those powers and use them to protect those at risk and stop the slaughter which affects innocent women and children. Once the prisoners have been released a most important bargaining factor will have disappeared.
I see that my allocated time is over. It is with sorrow that I speak today, but I do so because I find the events taking place both profoundly disturbing and upsetting. I am sure all noble Lords would wish to send David Trimble and his colleagues the warmest wishes of support as he tackles the enormous challenges ahead.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, this must be a unique occasion when a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland initiates a debate in your Lordships' House. Normally when they leave Northern Ireland, they come back over here, take a cold shower and hope that they can forget all the events that happened during their term in Northern Ireland. However, I think that it is worth while that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, has given us the opportunity to discuss and evaluate what has happened since the agreement.
The Northern Ireland agreement was complex. It took into account many issues which divided the people in Northern Ireland long before even partition, but particularly since partition, and the creation of the Northern Ireland state.
1130
The agreement is multi-faceted. Today. we are trying to evaluate its effect. Of all the facets of that agreement, four burning issues continue to tear at the heartstrings of the people of Northern Ireland. The first of those is the release of prisoners. Prisoners are now being released who have committed the most terrible crimes in the history of Northern Ireland.
To realise the truth of that one had only to watch a television programme last Sunday evening on BBC2 in which loyalist murderers actually boasted about the number of times that they had stabbed their victims. I think of one victim, my closest colleague, Senator Paddy Wilson, who was murdered by a man called John White, who faced the cameras and said, -Yes, I stabbed him. I nearly decapitated him—and later I shook hands with the Prime Minister". Can your Lordships imagine what the relatives of that victim must have thought? And that is only one case; there are many others. Indeed, some of those now serving in the Northern Ireland Assembly have been convicted of the most atrocious murders.
This is a very emotional issue. Just think of the 301 policemen who were viciously and brutally murdered by the IRA in particular. Just think of how their relatives in Northern Ireland are feeling. Let us never forget that between 500 and 600 young British soldiers have also been viciously and brutally murdered. Their relatives live in England. How must they feel when they know that such prisoners are being released? Let us consider the brutal and vicious murders of the two British corporals. Their murderers are now to be released. What must the victims' relatives be feeling? That is the first issue: the release of prisoners.
The next issue is decommissioning. I was not involved in the talks, but, if I had been involved, there would have been decommissioning or there would have been no agreement. I could never have signed an agreement in Northern Ireland which said to one party. "You can have the prisoner releases", and to another, "You cannot have anything with regard to decommissioning". The Prime Minister of Britain went to Stormont. He stayed there for two or three days. I was not party to the agreement or the discussions, but that was the time for Mr. David Trimble, the leader of the Unionists, to say, "You cannot have the release of these prisoners unless you ally that with decommissioning". That would have been a very reasonable request in the circumstances. However, I understand that a gun was put to Mr. Trimble's head—perhaps that is an unfortunate phrase—and he was told, "Look, the IRA will not agree to this unless you release their prisoners". That is right; there would never have been an agreement without those releases. Then, when Mr. Trimble asked, "Can we not have decommissioning?", he was told, "No, you can't have decommissioning".
The pressure put on David Trimble then has led us to the position today when we are trying desperately to bring about decommissioning. However, that should have been achieved during the discussions. I ask your Lordships' House: what pressures were put on David Trimble in the discussions leading up to the

1131
agreement? What were the pressures that were put on him by the Prime Minister of this country and by the Taoiseach of the Republic to force him into an agreement that he knew that he could not carry? That is the second issue.
The next issue relates to the mutilations now taking place. I am glad to see that we have erased from our vocabulary the phrase "punishment beatings". The mutilations now taking place are done for decided reasons. I have with me a copy of a letter from Reverend Father Faul, one paragraph of which states:
"IRA beatings and expulsions have political purposes: (1) to exclude the police and to replace them or any new force other than themselves; (2) to intimidate the community; (3) to prevent normality in [the] community".
I well remember the former Home Secretary, Reginald Maudling, coming to Northern Ireland at the outbreak of the troubles. When he was leaving that evening, it is alleged that he looked out of the aeroplane and said, "What a bloody awful country". He was widely reported as having said that, but he also said something more significant during that visit. He said, "Perhaps we will have to live with an acceptable level of violence". Those words seared themselves into the minds of the people of Northern Ireland. People were prepared to accept "an acceptable level of violence". We now hear two other words which bring those earlier words back to me. I refer to the words "imperfect peace". Those words are substitutes for the words "an acceptable level of violence". Does that mean that we are prepared to accept the greater violence that there is now?
I remember the Labour Party strenuously opposing the Conservative Government's implementation of the exclusion orders, as they were called then. The IRA is opposing exclusion orders.
I realise that my time has now elapsed, but perhaps I may conclude by saying that there are now some very dangerous elements in Northern Ireland and unless both governments—not only this Government, but the government of the Republic also—take a firm stand against them and insist on decommissioning before Sinn Fein/IRA can take up its seats in the Assembly, we could be heading for trouble.
4.35 p.m.
The Earl of Erne: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew for introducing this very important debate this afternoon, especially at this crucial and difficult moment in the life of the agreement.
At home in Fermanagh—and, indeed, elsewhere—I cannot help noticing that a huge number of people are totally confused by the Government who appear to be making concession after concession to Sinn Fein/IRA without obtaining a single gesture in return concerning the implementation of the terms of the Good Friday agreement. Surely the time has come to say, "Enough is enough".
I should like to ask the Minister just two questions. First, would it not be wise to delay the release of prisoners until the very necessary co-operation has been demonstrated? Secondly, does the Minister not agree that
1132
his right honourable friend the Prime Minister should now come out and boldly say that he agrees with David Trimble, the First Minister, and his policies, as did the Taoiseach, Mr. Ahern, and give him the support that he so rightly deserves? If that were to take place, it would bring great comfort to a vast number of people in Northern Ireland who feel completely isolated.
We await the Patten report on the RUC with eager anticipation. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to say that in my opinion—and in the opinion of many others—the RUC is the finest police force in the world. Its courage and discipline over the years have been second to none. What other police force has been asked over and over again to undertake peace-keeping tasks where its members end up being attacked from both sides at once? They carry out those tasks with an "All-in-a-day's-work" attitude. What other police force has lost so many lives in the course of duty over the years?
If there are changes to be made to the RUC and to the political structure in Northern Ireland, I only hope that Her Majesty's Government will choose the right time to make those changes—and that they will be for the better.
4.38 p.m.
The Marquess of Donegall: My Lords, I should like to speak in support of what was said by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and to emphasise at the same time the relevance to the Good Friday agreement of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Its work was difficult and dangerous enough, in all conscience, but the continued release of criminals, some of whom were convicted of terrible crimes, must increase both the difficulties and the danger. It has been reported that some of the released prisoners have already taken part in so-called "punishment beatings", so we should spare a thought for the police.
If, as we must hope, the agreement brings peace and stability to Northern Ireland, the Royal Ulster Constabulary will have its part to play and, if it does not, the RUC will have a very much larger and more dangerous part to play. So, in the context of the agreement, it is worth examining this police force and its record of public service.
It is unique among police forces in the world. In addition to normal police duties it has had to contend with an illegal but fully-armed army—sometimes active, sometimes dormant, but never wholly absent. That is why, unlike its neighbours the Garda Siochana, who police the Republic, it is an armed force. It has a roll of honour since 1922. Precise figures are hard to come by, but in the past 30 odd years 302 officers and reserve officers have been killed on duty. In addition, many have been seriously injured. Therefore, we could spare a thought for what all this means to their wives and families.
My noble and learned friend's Motion speaks of,
"the dangers inherent in failing to secure … the prompt and complete implementation",
of the provisions of the agreement. Not everything that is said encourages one to believe that it will be all that

1133
prompt. It is probable that not many of your Lordships ever watch broadcasts of the Irish news on television. I do. Two or three months ago I switched on the television while it was portraying the Sinn Fein conference in Dublin. Mr. McGuinness was addressing the conference and concluded his speech by saying that the RUC will have to go. One was left with the impression: to be replaced by gangsters like McGuinness. Judging by the enthusiastic reception from the audience, that was what was anticipated.
Last Friday I cut the following article out of The Times. I quote:
"Detonators found in an IRA arms cache seized in West Belfast on Tuesday were manufactured last year, when the IRA were supposed to be on ceasefire, the Royal Ulster Constabulary said yesterday.
"The announcement raised serious questions about the IRA's intentions and caused Unionist and Conservative politicians to redouble their demands for IRA disarmament …
"Sinn Fein officials responded angrily, calling the RUC the most discredited police force in Europe and accusing it of 'pursuing a political agenda with the intention of wrecking the peace process'".
Again, one was left with the impression that the detonators are part of the peace process.
One of the major problems in enforcing the law in Northern Ireland is the intimidation of witnesses—a disease which, incidentally, has now spread south of the border in the celebrated case of the murder of detective sergeant McCabe. If the Good Friday agreement could lessen that pernicious practice, though I doubt it, then it all would have been worth while.
We must all hope for the best, but a shadow hangs over the RUC in the shape of the Patten Commission. I do not think that that was part of the Good Friday agreement but somehow it got added on afterwards, probably under pressure from Dublin. If in July the commission brings forward a report—I am not saying that it will—which is damaging to the morale and hence the efficiency of the RUC, and the arms have not been decommissioned, that will be a nightmare situation for all the inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
Given the potentially dangerous situation if any of the various paramilitary forces should, so to speak, break loose, I suggest that this is not the time to run risks with the police. For the Good Friday agreement to be a success, the RUC should be left alone to do its job.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Eames: My Lords, I welcome this debate very much indeed. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, for introducing it and should like to pay my own personal tribute to both him and Lady Mayhew for the role that they have played in the life of Northern Ireland in the past. As we have this debate we face a critical period in Northern Ireland in the long walk to stability and peace, with justice for unionist and nationalist, Protestant and Roman Catholic. I would assure the Minister that it is a time for steady nerves; that is, steady nerves by government and by all those who seek to influence public opinion. However, it is also a time for a full and honest understanding of what makes people react as they do to this situation. Each of
1134
use comes to this debate from differing starting points. We are united in our desire to see a peaceful and prosperous Northern Ireland, but the differences remain. How do we achieve it?
I have 36 years of ministry within Northern Ireland, through years of experiences that I will never forget. I have seen suffering and death, bewilderment and frustration, as well as courage of a very high order. I have had to bury plastic bags because there was no recognisable body left. I have had to go into homes where the reaction to situations was unbelievable. Indeed, only recently—and there have been frequent references this afternoon to these atrocious attacks—I tried to comfort a mother whose son was viciously beaten almost to the point of death. It was a mercy that he was not killed.
Therefore, as I make a contribution to the debate, I feel that I must appeal for reality in this discussion of what in fact is happening at this moment on the ground in Northern Ireland. When the euphoria of Good Friday engulfed us all, I have to say that in my heart and mind I knew that the biggest battle remained. For it is in the hearts and minds of the people of Northern Ireland that this agreement, made on Good Friday, will either fail or succeed. However, we must recognise that we cannot legislate for reconciliation. Although we can put in place the structures that are necessary for reconciliation to be achieved, I can assure the Minister that we cannot legislate for it.
It is vital to this debate that your Lordships recognise the true situation on the ground. I believe that a new confidence is desperately needed in the political process. Decommissioning is not the only obstacle to be scaled. The real issue is not the agreement. The real issue is not even its terms. Indeed, I believe that the real issue is trust. That trust is lacking on the ground. In fact, in some places it is totally absent. Sectarian attitudes dominate and they run very, very deep. If trust is to emerge, the unionist/loyalist Protestant community needs, despite its current unease, to recognise how far republicanism has come. It needs to recognise the sensitivities of nationalism, constitutional nationalism, placed as it is at present in critical juxtaposition. Each side must be prepared to give a little. But I would be failing the majority of those to whom I minister if I did not warn your Lordships this afternoon of the depth of unease, frustration and discontent within the Protestant/unionist community.
Political point scoring has its own agenda: but that agenda does not necessarily include long-term accommodation. Northern Ireland cannot fade back into the depths from where we have come. Generations yet unborn will read the report of this debate and will ask,"Did you not see the signs; did you not read the signs that were there and act before it was too late?". The reality is that the price of the speed of political progress—the "peace process", as we are told we must call it—is too high for many to pay. But we have to act and ask: is the price for long-term accommodation, the inevitable short-term price that we have to pay, a price that we are prepared to pay?

1135
The unease and disquiet on decommissioning within the Protestant community is genuine after all the years of the troubles. That unease must be addressed by the Government. The unease within the nationalist Roman Catholic community must be addressed by giving proof that they will never, never again be considered second-class citizens. They must find that they can trust their unionist and Protestant neighbours not because they are told they can trust them, but because they know in their hearts that they can trust them. Unless we are prepared to face that reality post-Good Friday agreement, the outlook is bleak.
Issues such as Drumcree have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. Those issues must be solved, and solved quickly, for they are a festering sore. Drumcree itself is a cameo of the problems that the Belfast agreement came into being to solve. For too long such issues have held ordinary, decent people to ransom. There has to be life after Drumcree.
I recall the words spoken to me only a few days ago by the mother of two sons who were the victims of a sectarian murder some years ago—words that I leave with your Lordships. She said, "I have every reason to distrust, but I have a higher duty. I must find a new trust if there is to be any future for all of us". If the trust to which I refer is created—and I believe it can be—if government can not only act evenly with both communities, but be seen to act evenly with them, the Belfast agreement will not simply survive, but I believe in my heart that it will succeed.
4.51 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend, Lord Mayhew, for introducing the debate. I support everything he said, with perhaps one exception regarding a tiger changing its spots. That is perhaps the only point on which I differ from him.
I wish to make three points. The first concerns decommissioning. The UK Army and security have seriously demilitarised. Only the LVF of the paramilitaries has made even a token gesture in that direction, hut not the UVF, the UFF or Sinn Fein. There is a two year term for decommissioning; we are approaching the half-way stage with little done.
There is a problem, which I hope the Minister can help me solve, for both Sinn Fein and Mr. Trimble. Both have to look over their shoulders to their supporters for fear that the latter will desert them. If Sinn Fein agrees to even a token decommissioning, will it be anxious that its supporters will desert it? If Mr. Trimble accepts Sinn Fein into the executive without any decommissioning on its part, will his supporters desert him? Can the Minister tell me if the Government are working on a formula to overcome the problem? I deliver a serious warning to him. If there is no decommissioning by the time of the European elections, will Mr. Paisley's party sweep the unionist vote on the point that the Belfast agreement is dead? There are some important issues for the future locked up in this matter.
It is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Eames. He talked about trust and relationships. I totally endorse what he said; namely, that there is a battle for the hearts
1136
and minds of people in Northern Ireland. Consent was achieved by the signatories to the Belfast agreement but there has been no disavowal of fighting by the paramilitaries; maintaining their armour is surely evidence of their intention not to do so at the present time. Are those who have been engaged in violence, whether against their opponents, or against their own people—as we have discussed often—trying for political dialogue today?
I was pleased to read—I believe it was last week—about five unionists and five republicans meeting for political talks. Are those talks continuing? I hope the Minister can tell me that. Any meetings across this divide will help to increase trust and build relationships. I believe that that is crucial. It is perhaps a pity that Mr. Adams is in Australia at this juncture. I am not quite sure how long he will be there, but he is obviously pivotal to any such discussions. People need to treat others as equals and need to spend time building relationships with other people across the divide.
The overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland want peace. Are they saying this loudly enough to the paramilitaries? Are the media reporting it? It seems to me that a strong media campaign against the mutilations resulted in a serious reduction in those mutilations. I believe that that was part of a public campaign. That is good. I hope there can be a build-up in Northern Ireland of people saying that peace must flow from the present political process.
I have talked about political issues and about relationships, but I believe that there are also spiritual issues involved. They constitute a strong element. I suggest to all the Churches of Northern Ireland that they plan a day of prayer on St. Patrick's Day, 17th March. I believe personally that the Almighty is one person who can be a real influence for change in Northern Ireland. Whether or not "D-day" slips from 10th March to 10th April—which would be one year on from the Belfast agreement—I believe that the Churches of Northern Ireland should plan for a day of concentrated prayer. That should be open to all people of good will and to all people who want to see total peace develop in Northern Ireland.
There will be a meeting in the Speaker's apartment in the Palace of Westminster and I believe that we shall have the privilege of being addressed by Lady Eames on that occasion. If we can do that here, I hope that people in the Churches in Northern Ireland will do so also. I believe with all my heart that all people of good will need to pray for the success of the Belfast agreement and for a solution to these problems.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I have been advised that I may say a few words with regard to the speech that I made late last night during the debate on Lords' reform. With your Lordships' permission, I shall do so. It is clear that I misjudged the mood of the House in that I crossed that invisible line when I made mention of a Member of another place. My breach of the Companion was entirely due to inexperience and not to intent. I cherish and respect the institutions and

1137
conventions of your Lordships' House and for that reason I apologised privately last night to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. He was gracious enough to accept that apology. I now wish to take this opportunity to apologise unreservedly to the whole House.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, for initiating this debate on the Belfast agreement this afternoon. I am not surprised that he has done so. He was, as a Secretary of State—and continues to be—a good friend to Northern Ireland. He laid the foundations upon which the present Government were able to build the peace process.
I have consistently supported the Belfast agreement since it was accepted on Good Friday last year. I supported it on the ground during the referendum in the Province and I supported it in your Lordships' House during the many debates on the subsequent Bills that cascaded through as a result of that agreement.
The Prime Minister recently said that the peace that it brought, whilst imperfect, was far better than no peace at all. Certainly in the 90 per cent. of the Province which incredibly managed some semblance of normality during nearly 30 years of terrorism, life, with the exception of the atrocity at Omagh, is more normal than ever.
However, the peace dividend has not struck deep into the republican and loyalist heartlands in Belfast, Strabane, Newry and elsewhere. The savage punishment beatings, mutilations and enforced exiles have continued for those unfortunate enough to cross or fall out with the local godfathers; all this culminating in a particularly brutal murder in Newry a few weeks ago.
Now we have a more or less cessation in these inhumane activities due to the unlikely, perhaps, intervention of Amnesty International. I do not believe that the republican cessation is a mere coincidence. I am in no doubt that it was instigated by Sinn Fein, worried about the effects that the damning report from Amnesty would have on their supporters, particularly in the United States.
However, the position is far from secure, largely as a result of the IRA at present refusing to decommission a single weapon. Sinn Fein says that it is powerless to persuade them so to do, but I find this hard to believe as it seems to have such influence over the mutilations.
Mr. Trimble and his security spokesman, Ken Maginnis, are, I believe, offering Sinn Fein and the IRA every opportunity. They say that they will sit down with Sinn Fein in an Executive within minutes of decommissioning commencing. Indeed, yesterday, Ken Maginnis went further, suggesting that a cast-iron, underwritten guarantee of a programme, leading to total disarmament by June 2000, would unblock the deadlocked peace process.
While I agree that the Belfast agreement does not specify a start date, I wholeheartedly support the Taoiseach in his recent unequivocal statement that decommissioning had to start some time, and that it was realistic to suppose that an Executive could be formed until such a start had been made.
1138
One of the aspects of the agreement that was anathema to me and to many others was the early release of terrorist prisoners. We accepted that they had to be released under the terms of the deal struck by the agreement. While the agreement set a deadline of two years after the commencement of the release scheme for all prisoners to be released, it did not set a start time. However, the British Government and the Secretary of State, quite rightly, realised that a start had to be made.
We are now in a position where a very considerable number of qualifying prisoners have been released. Recently, there have been calls for the releases to be suspended in view of the mutilations, the lack of progress on decommissioning and so on. I find the equation of prisoner release linkage to decommissioning unattractive, and I do not for one minute expect the Secretary of State or the noble Lord the Minister to tell us that such an option is currently under consideration. However—and in extreme circumstances—I hope that the Secretary of State may be aware that she will have support if she does decide to suspend releases.
A further element of great concern is the question of the Patten Commission on police reform. I do not for one moment believe that Mr. Patten's report will be widely critical of the RUC, a force for which I have total respect and admiration. But while the chief constable, quite rightly, remains upbeat and confident, the rank and file of the RUC feel depressed and concerned about possible recommendations: not, I stress, through any feelings of guilt or inadequacy on their part, but because of inexorable demands from certain quarters for a somehow more democratic, community-based police service. Of course, there are some who would love to see the destruction of the RUC, the only body capable of preventing them from indulging in a life of organised crime and gangsterism.
Even now there are some who would claim that the RUC is the armed wing of the Unionist party. It is tragic, but well worthwhile to remember, that the first RUC officer to be killed, Constable Victor Arbuckle, in 1969, and the last, Constable Francis O'Reilly, in 1998, were both murdered by loyalist terrorists. For 30 years the RUC has been the thin line that has stood between democracy and anarchy. Shortly, another marching season will he upon us, when the RUC's resources and expertise will again be taxed to the limit.
In conclusion, my support for the Belfast agreement and for the Government remains firm. The euphoria of last spring has long gone and numerous questions—punishment beatings or mutilations, decommissioning, prisoner releases, reform of the RUC and the marching season—have yet to be resolved. However, we must press on if we are yet to see a bright and stable future for Northern Ireland.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, for initiating the debate. My good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, drew attention to the exceptional, if not unique, work involved in initiating the debate. I have noticed the noble Lords, Lord Prior and Lord Merlyn-Rees, sitting

1139
in the Chamber. The people of Northern Ireland are indebted to the good sense shown by politicians in sending to Northern Ireland people who not only do a very good job but who try to keep in their minds and in their hearts the objective of improving the situation.
I have been enormously humbled listening to the debate over the past two hours. I appreciate that, as I do not live in Northern Ireland, I cannot remotely sense or feel the impact of living there on either side of the divide.
There is a general welcome for the agreement. Any criticisms have been not so much of the agreement but of its implementation. As the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, it is very complex. It is very complex, and we have a problem.
Noble Lords know of my strong connection with the co-operative movement. The first time I went to Northern Ireland was to visit the Belfast society. I landed on a Friday, a day when a co-op shop was held up and the takings stolen. But my deepest impression was when, on Saturday, 13 or 15 people were blown to smithereens at a place called McGurk's Bar. I may be different to others, but when I hear of an atrocity I do not remember whether it was republicans blowing up loyalists or loyalists blowing up republicans; all I remember is that it was an atrocity.
I can think of events in the past year. There were the three little children who were burned to death. They were neither loyalists nor nationalists; they were tiny little children. They were blown up simply because of bigotry and venom.
When I was again in Northern Ireland about 10 years later—which was about 10 years ago—I represented my party and spoke on Northern Ireland matters. I went to the Maze and Magilligan prisons. I went from Magilligan Prison to Derry and sat on the steps of the city hall—the same steps where Tom King, when carrying out his responsibilities, was struck to the ground by elected councillors who were there, ostensibly, to meet him and greet him.
It is very difficult for someone like myself—a British politician who lives here—to understand or appreciate what causes people in Northern Ireland to do that sort of thing to each other. We hear about absolutely awful atrocities. I cannot conceive of a situation which would lead a group or sect of people to do that sort of thing to other people living over here.
Northern Ireland is unique and exceptional. I would say to the politicians of Northern Ireland who sit as Members of your Lordships' House but who are active in politics over there that the people of this country cannot understand why—hundreds of years after a wrong that has not been righted—there is still a determination to persist in keeping the clan, the tribe and the hurt alive.
More than once today, noble Lords have said that the people of Northern Ireland want peace. I know they do—but, having listened and having had a taste of Northern Ireland, I also realise the enormous dilemma that ordinary people are in through living in enclaves where thugs, terrorists and murderers have a grip on the community. I understand that. I see the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in the Chamber. We know that the noble Lord
1140
literally had to fight for his life because he was a politician. That does not happen here. Looking at the agreement I realise what an enormous amount of help in achieving it came from the former Prime Minister, John Major, from the present Prime Minister and from politicians in the United States. They recognised that this was just a beginning to what may blossom into something we have been denied for 30 or 40 years. No one who is involved is under any illusion that, having achieved the agreement, we have peace. That has been proved.
Today is a special day for Northern Ireland. Not only are we having this debate but there was Northern Ireland Question Time in the House of Commons. The Secretary of State, Mo Mowlam—we all love her—addressed a meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party this morning. She gave us the latest news. She has the job of trying to make progress. She is an optimist, which in my view is better than being a pessimist, even though the record shows she is more entitled to be a pessimist than an optimist. Questions were raised about the release of terrorists. She said—it is not a secret but a fact of life—that more than 200 have been released and not one of them has broken the conditions of release. They have all, under pressure, I am sure, from their parties or groups, abided by the conditions of release. I noticed that John McFall, my parliamentary colleague, was listening to the debate earlier. I know what a terrible job he and my noble friend Lord Dubs have. They know what we want and the people they are dealing with are able to deliver, but for many reasons, which I cannot fathom, those people are not prepared to deliver.
I want to say to those in Northern Ireland that most if not all of the people on the mainland yearn for the time when they get rid of the people who are terrorising them and causing the potential in this country for a revisit of that terrorism. We have a vested interest in solving the problem in Northern Ireland because if we do not it will come here. I wish the agreement well. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dubs for all that he is doing. I am certainly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, for giving the House an opportunity to put on record our appreciation of the many people who are working hard for the peace and solitude we enjoy in Britain.
5.12 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, for initiating this debate. I am delighted to be positive about the progress of the Good Friday agreement. To be otherwise would be out of order, considering the consensus of agreement not only in the parties but among the people of Northern Ireland. Even Paisley and the DUP, who have opposed everything, are careful to ensure that they are not left outside the day-to-day activities in Stormont. When the executive is formed noble Lords will find that the DUP will reap its share of the benefits accruing as a result of the sheer dedication, hard work and sacrifice of others. What is new?

1141
I want sincerely to pay tribute, as other noble Lords have done, to all those who have brought us this far. However, in the race against time and against the wrath of the Government Front Bench, I would merely endorse what has been said by others. But we have one last step, and that is for decommissioning to start. It is clear that the vast majority of people, not only in the Province but also in Great Britain and around the world, back the stance of the First Minister designate on this issue. It is also a fact that a "downpayment", as Ken Maginnis said in The Times yesterday, of weapons would be sufficient for an executive to be formed. If there is no decommissioning, we are stuck because public opinion, especially in the unionist camp, will, and I believe quite rightly so, not permit the executive to be formed.
Being speaker number 18 in the debate, I hope your Lordships will forgive me for tackling the issue of decommissioning from a slightly different point of view. I want to look at another reason why decommissioning is not taking place. An assumption I would dare to make is that if republican terrorists decommission, the loyalists will also do so. Sinn Fein/IRA ask us to agree with them that a handing in of any weapons is surrender. We are told that this is so firmly embedded in history and the republican psyche that there is no way round it. That is unreasonable and flawed.
I will look at it through their eyes for a moment. This was a just war and their efforts—"our efforts" in that case—have achieved the Sinn Fein/IRA aim shown by Sinn Fein when they accepted the Good Friday agreement, even if Gerry Adams says that it is only a step on the way to a united Ireland. There is hardly a case in the world of achieving a goal by armed force where there has not been demobilisation to some extent afterwards. After previous conflicts, did we or any other country portray demobilisation as surrender? Service personnel have gladly over centuries handed in weapons and uniforms and have thankfully returned to civilian life.
Surrender is an unsustainable interpretation of decommissioning. Demobilisation takes place as a result of instructions from a leadership. We know that the leadership of Sinn Fein/IRA are capable leaders when it comes to stopping or turning on violence. That brings us to paragraph 3 of decommissioning on page 20 of the agreement. All participants in this agreement, including Sinn Fein, agreed and signed up to,
"use any influence they have",
and so on.
It is my contention that Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and other senior Sinn Fein/IRA leaders are fostering the misinterpretation of decommissioning as surrender. They do this because to surrender is a degrading defeat when weapons are taken by the victors. In the human character, since Adam and Eve, this is the last and most humiliating option. The Sinn Fein/IRA leadership are not, and I say it unreservedly, carrying out their obligations to use "any influence", to which they signed up in the Good Friday agreement. They often ask for a quid pro quo from the security forces. They have no right to do so because they have not held
1142
weapons for the same purpose. Their only reason for being armed is to threaten and take life. The security forces' only reason for bearing arms is to save life.
Having said that, there has been significant demilitarisation, as we have heard. The paraphernalia of the fight against terrorism has been greatly decommissioned and yet no one is talking about surrender or victory. So why do Sinn Fein talk about surrender? This term binds in the most lowly terrorist activist with the fear of surrender and it suits the Sinn Fein/IRA leadership not to support decommissioning at this moment. They are wrong and it will be a tragedy for all of us if it is to continue.
For one moment I should like to look at one other aspect of the agreement, the future of policing in the Province. Initially there was great anxiety both inside and outside the RUC. However, due to the leadership of the Chief Constable and the senior ranks and the lengthy public discussion following the setting up of the Patten Commission, we are looking forward to a constructive report on reforms to the RUC.
Every police force needs to move forward. It is not just the RUC, as we have seen recently in London. It is no shame to say that the force should be reformed or at least modernised. To put it simply, the RUC has developed into the most competent and high tech anti-terrorist police force in the world over the past 30 years. Times are changing and more traditional policing is required. For example, RUC officers used to go on patrol only with military escorts. They could not even deliver a summons in some areas without a helicopter escort. Now, 20 per cent. of their recruits come from the nationalist minority. It is amazing that they have managed that in such a short period of time.
I conclude on an optimistic note. I believe that there is a small pinprick of light at the end of the tunnel where the executive is waiting. I am encouraged that there are no leaks from General de Chastelain's decommissioning discussions. I am a firm believer that where there are no leaks there is hope, if there is a will on the part of Sinn Fein/IRA.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may, with the leave of the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, explain to the House that his name was omitted in error from the list of speakers. As a result of careful management, he is able to take the usual time to speak.
5.20 p.m.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, I do not intend to detain your Lordships long. It is well known that I am very much in favour of permanent peace in Northern Ireland. That is what we all want. But at the same time we want to be sure that that is what we shall get, not just some mirage which may disappear before too long.
I am not at all happy about the early release of convicted terrorists, who are not repentant but quite proud of the crimes that they have committed. At the same time, the failure to hand over arms and ammunition produces what could be a very dangerous

1143
situation if those kinds of men have access in future to the arms and ammunition that they have used in the past. Therefore, we must be very careful.
The chief constable recently referred to the punishment beatings and other atrocities that have recently taken place. He is reported as saying that they were centrally organised by mainstream paramilitary groups whose political representatives were members of the Stormont Assembly. It is easy to say that a particular organisation is not presently waging terrorism when it is merely that some of its former members have taken on a new name—they have moved round the corner and they are doing it. And, of course, it has nothing whatever to do with the original organisation that they left! Anyone who believes that is rather naive, but that is what is being put forward for us to accept. I believe that we should look at these matters with care.
We have only to look at other parts of the world where there have been similar problems. In Lebanon, for instance, there was sectarian civil war. Over 200,000 people died. An accord was entered into, all weapons were handed over, and since then there has been very little trouble there. There was civil war for 16 years in Mozambique, with over 1 million casualties. Weapons were handed in, and there has been a great improvement there. There were 12 years of civil war in El Salvador, with 75,000 people killed. Weapons were destroyed and, again, there was very little further trouble there. The exception is South Africa, where weapons were not handed in, and where, since 1989, murder has increased by 61 per cent. and armed robbery by 119 per cent. So the examples in other countries do not support the contention that we should not bother about arms, that they do not really matter and they will not be used. I never understand why people want to keep arms that they are not going to use. It is a question of trying to understand their mentality.
I therefore urge the Government and all those responsible to take the utmost care before placating terrorists any further. I urge them to ensure that it is a good peace, that can be stood over and that will last.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, for initiating this debate. I echo the sentiments of my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby in paying tribute to the work that he has carried out in Northern Ireland. However, it was with a degree of disappointment that I listened to his speech. He seemed to highlight the negative aspects of the present situation in Northern Ireland. There are inherent problems with the peace process; that cannot be denied. However, anyone looking at the progress of the past three years and looking into the future would be incredulous at what has been achieved.
I have recently become Front Bench spokesman on this issue. As always, I find myself on an extremely steep learning curve. One of the things I have found most difficult to understand about the peace process is how it has managed to survive as long as it has. The more one looks at the parties involved, the more one realises how many fracture points there are in the process.
1144
It is not just a question of the strongly opposed views of the main protagonists but of the positions that are held within the organisations themselves. The difficulty that Mr. Trimble has had recently in leading his party along in the process is an indication. But the difficulty is not only on the unionist side. The very difficult position within the IRA, as between those who would like to move forward and those who would return to violence, also has to be understood. It is only through an understanding of all these positions that the success of the peace process can be understood. Although the peace process seems to be constantly under threat, it has been making steady, if tortuous, progress towards its goal.
However, at present there is an impasse based on the issue of decommissioning. The briefings that I have had recently show that there is logic from both sides on the positions that the two sides are taking. Within the unionist community it is obvious that decommissioning has to take place before Sinn Fein is allowed to take its position within the executive. However, a logical position is also held by those within Sinn Fein who base their views upon the Good Friday agreement itself, which states that there is no specific start time for decommissioning to take place.
The position is becoming tenuous. It is imperative that a start is made. It is unacceptable to believe that in a year's time all arms will suddenly materialise in one place to be decommissioned. However, decommissioning can take many forms. Many questions have been asked about what it would actually entail. I believe, however, that it is an issue for General de Chastelain. He has undertaken some very good work, some of which has been very low profile. It should be left in his hands to verify what may be considered as a start to decommissioning.
In this light, I welcome the brave statement made by the Taoiseach, calling on the IRA to undertake a start to decommissioning. The Taoiseach reflects the opinion of almost everyone in the Republic of Ireland as well as the majority view in the North.
Pressure is growing for decommissioning to take place before 10th March. It would be extremely upsetting if no decommissioning came about and pressure from a number of quarters has been expressed. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, mentioned the situation in America and he was sceptical about the position the Americans may take. However, I believe they can have a degree of influence over the start of decommissioning. We should not forget that it was Senator Mitchell who, through his work, brought about so much in the peace process. It would be unfair not to mention the words he wrote in the Irish Times on 19th February. He said that decommissioning was:
"a very difficult, emotional and very important issue, but the political leaders must not let this chance of peace slip away after so much has happened and been done by the people, the governments and leaders. I believe there will be a way".
Many noble Lords have spoken this afternoon of the large number of mutilation attacks that have taken place. It is obviously a situation that all sides of the House find abhorrent. However, the attacks are undertaken by the men of violence. I believe that the future of Northern

1145
Ireland does not lie with them; it lies with the degree of trust being built up among the people of Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Eames, made a remarkable speech on the difficulties of building trust and the necessity for it. He made one of the finest speeches heard in your Lordships' House for some time. He spoke mostly from personal experience.
The cost of peace is high at the moment, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, made clear from his experiences. However, the cost of failure of the peace process could be higher. The cycle of violence must be broken and I believe that, considering the pressures on the peace process, it would be irresponsible of us at this point not to commit ourselves to it. We on these Benches are keen that the bipartisan agreement should continue at this time without let up. I ask the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, to give a commitment at this point to the bipartisan approach to Northern Ireland, especially now.
I have seen a lot of violence in South Africa, but have recently seen how that violence can be broken. I believe that the future of Northern Ireland is a great deal more optimistic than may be suggested by some of the actions taking place. I hope that the peace process survives.
5.33 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew for initiating this timely debate. Few in your Lordships' House have had more direct recent experience of these matters, save perhaps the Minister himself. I agree with everything he said and hope that the Minister will answer the questions posed by my noble and learned friend, as I shall not repeat them.
My noble and learned friend explained that the Secretary of State has not made full use of the lever of specifying an organisation in order to stop its prisoners from being released. It is extremely unfortunate that the Secretary of State has sent out the wrong signal by stating that she can do nothing about the problems, that she does not have the power.
Some, including the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, have worried about where we are on these Benches with regard to a bipartisan policy. The answer is that there is no change. We do not regard the bipartisan policy as giving the Government a blank cheque. On the other hand, we will do nothing that provides succour to anyone involved in terrorism. We do not seek to rewrite the Belfast agreement. That would be fatal to it. On the contrary, we seek full implementation by all the parties. It is also not our intention to break the bipartisan approach to constitutional issues in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, raised the matter of the cost of the Assembly. It was unfortunate that the costs were underestimated. This House would have provided a good financial model. On the other hand, the existence of the Assembly has gone so far already that I am sure it will be extremely helpful to the peace process. As for the budgetary implications, I am more concerned about the macro-economic effect of reductions in expenditure on security, particularly the RUC. This is a reserved matter, so any savings will go back to the Treasury, not to the Assembly.
1146
Decommissioning is a show-stopper for the process, as was so well explained by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and many others. It has been suggested that my right honourable friend Mr. Mackay and others should apply pressure on Mr. Trimble. The fact is, as we know, Mr. Trimble has no room for manoeuvre whatever. However, while I cannot claim to be confident, I am hopeful, even optimistic that a start to decommissioning is the key to the process moving forward, and I hope that we will get past this hump.
The LVF has shown that the modalities for decommissioning actually work. It might not be significant decommissioning, but it works. This must increase the confidence of the paramilitaries to start the process. Yes, it may have to be step by step. No one would want to stand naked before their former adversaries, but the process must start.
I would also like to take the opportunity to restate what I said last week. It is the Mitchell principle that no one should regard decommissioning as a defeat, a victory or a surrender. I just see it as part of the process of moving from violence and confrontation to peace and democracy.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, drew attention to Sinn Fein's aspirations for the RUC to be disarmed as a quid pro quo. However, if we look at the continental police, we find that they are at least as heavily armed as the RUC.
Although progress on decommissioning is painfully slow at the moment, once it actually starts rapid progress could be made. This is important in order to avoid weapons falling into the hands of purely criminal organisations or so-called "splinter" groups, as we have already seen.
My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew mentioned the dangers of Semtex and the need for it to be decommissioned. It has a long shelf life and can do far more political damage than firearms. In addition it is also a necessary precursor for using home-made explosives.
We on these Benches and elsewhere have raised the issue of what some euphemistically used to call punishment beatings; "terrorist mutilation assaults" is now the term in use. My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew and the moving speech from my noble friend and colleague Lady Seccombe described the problem in detail. Any suggestion that these assaults are to do with civil administration is totally without foundation, as the assaults grossly violate all the principles of human rights: no properly constituted court, no representation, no appeal and it all ends with a cruel, unusual and illegal punishment.
Thanks partly to the efforts of my right honourable friend Mr. Mackay and the letter from my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew to the Daily Telegraph, and others, the incidence of assaults has been drastically reduced.
The noble Lord, Lord Eames, touched on the issue of parades. It is clear that the only course of action is for the organisers to have confidence, as I do, in the Parades Commission and to demonstrate a willingness to engage

1147
in discussions to meet residents' concerns, if necessary, through mediation. Finally, all parties need to abide by the determinations of the commission.
Many noble Lords have touched upon the restructuring of the RUC. I share their concerns. The RUC accepts that there will have to be some changes, but I am confident that the Patten commission will not be a pushover for those who have a rather different concept of community policing from your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, referred to the fearful cost to the security forces during the troubles. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the sacrifices made by all members of the security forces. Many members of the RUC are worried that there are several ways to define the Prime Minister's offer of generous compensation. Certainly, the definition of the Treasury will be different from that of your Lordships.
My noble and learned friend's Motion refers to the value of the Belfast agreement. I believe that the value lies in the opportunity for peace and prosperity in the Province. These opportunities can be fully exploited only in an environment of genuine and enduring peace with no threat of violence. I was particularly pleased to hear the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. Noble Lords will be aware that many areas of the Province are not fully developed. To take tourism as an example, only 1.8 per cent. of GDP is derived from that activity in Northern Ireland compared with 5 per cent. in Scotland and 6.3 per cent. in the Republic. However, the City of Belfast has made significant progress. The RUC recently explained to me the challenge of policing the estimated 8,000 to 10,000 revellers who apparently go to the centre of Belfast every Friday to enjoy the night life.
It is also interesting to note that during the total of seven days that I recently spent in the Province this year I did not see any Army patrols or vehicles. Londonderry has great opportunities to develop its tourist trade. It is ideally situated as a major population centre in the north west and serves County Donegal just across the Border in the Republic. There is much opportunity to improve the city as a cultural centre and to make it more inviting as a social centre. That will make the area much more attractive to inward investors. Major retailers are already there and I am sure that more will follow their lead.
We know that unemployment is higher in the Province than on the mainland, but even in the black spots the rate is not much higher than the French national average. The Northern Ireland average is much better than that of France. The average age is lower and the educational standards rather higher than on the mainland. For instance, 90 per cent. of A level students achieve two or more passes compared with only 81 per cent. on the mainland. At the other end of the scale, only 4 per cent. leave with no GCSEs compared with 8 per cent. in England and 10 per cent. in Wales. That fact will not be lost upon potential inward investors who will be waiting to see how the peace process moves forward. I do not underestimate the problems: for example, Catholics suffer much higher rates of unemployment; but economic development by inward investment and SMEs will do much to help.
1148
I believe that with full implementation of the agreement and the absence of violence, mayhem and intimidation, or fear of these, the Province presents great opportunities for business and thus for the people of the Province. But it is not just the Province that will benefit. The Republic has also suffered from the negative external impressions that flow from the troubles. That is why I believe in the value of the agreement, especially the need to implement all of its provisions.
5.43 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity given us today by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, to discuss the Belfast agreement and its implementation. I am also grateful for the contributions of noble Lords to this interesting debate. I understand the many concerns that have been raised and I shall attempt to address those in some detail in a few moments. I particularly welcome the optimism about the future of Northern Ireland demonstrated by many, although not all, of your Lordships. In particular I commend my noble friends Lord Blease, Lord Graham and Lord Clarke, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, should also be categorised as an optimist in speaking about the future of Northern Ireland.
It may be useful if I reflect briefly on the historic significance of the agreement. It is all too easy to become focused on the immediate difficulties so that one forgets the huge strides forward that the agreement represents. If I had asked your Lordships about a year ago whether the progress that has been made would be made I suspect that quite a number would have regarded it as impossible. The Belfast agreement represents a unique opportunity for a stable political settlement in Northern Ireland. For the first time the different communities have reached agreement on the way in which Northern Ireland should be governed. That is surely remarkable progress.
It is also right to call attention to the value of that agreement as the Motion of the noble and learned Lord does today. Of course the story did not end last April when the agreement was reached. In many ways that was only the beginning of a long and difficult process of implementation. At the same time, we must not forget that since last April progress has been made across a whole range of issues contained in the agreement. Perhaps I may take a moment or two to remind your Lordships of the many events that have taken place: the new Northern Ireland Assembly has been established and the right honourable Members for Upper Bann and Newry and South Armagh have been elected as shadow First and Deputy First Ministers; agreement has been reached on the future structure of the Northern Ireland departments and the functions of the North-South implementation bodies, and only last week that was endorsed by a substantial majority of the assembly; and the reviews of policing and criminal justice have been established and their work is well under way. I shall say a little more about the policing review shortly. Further, the human rights and equality commissions are being set

1149
up; there has been a steady normalisation of security measures in Northern Ireland consistent with the level of terrorist threat; there has been the release of paramilitary prisoners, which has been a contentious point in the debate this afternoon; and, finally, there have been a number of important initiatives relating to the victims of terrorism and violence in line with the recommendations of the Bloomfield Report. I believe that, taken together, they represent a tremendous amount of progress.
I do not need to remind noble Lords that the implementation of the agreement has not been easy. That has been the thrust of many of the speeches that we have heard this afternoon. None of us would have expected easy progress from the date of the establishment of the Good Friday agreement. There are people on both sides of the community who remain hostile to the political process. A tiny minority of people have used violence to try to destroy the agreement and continue to threaten to do so. Last summer the atrocity in Omagh and the murder of the three Quinn boys in Ballymoney were tragic reminders of the evils of sectarianism and paramilitary violence and of the past that the people of Northern Ireland so desperately want to put behind them. Efforts continue to try to bring the perpetrators of these vile acts to justice. Your Lordships will have noted the arrests in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of individuals alleged to have been involved in the atrocity in Omagh.
These tragedies have reinforced us in our efforts to press on with the process of implementing the agreement to try to ensure that never again will the people of Northern Ireland have to suffer in this way. Regrettably, there has been a continuing incidence of paramilitary attacks, beatings and mutilations. I share the disgust of all noble Lords at these barbaric attacks. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has met representatives of Sinn Fein and the Loyalist parties to stress that these attacks are totally unacceptable and that they must end. I am pleased that the level of attacks has now reduced significantly. The Government will continue to press for a total end to paramilitary violence. Even one paramilitary attack, mutilation or beating of this kind is one too many.
This is not just about violence but the threat of it and the forced exile of people from their homes and from Northern Ireland. Many noble Lords have referred to forced exile. This is a violation of human rights which is totally incompatible with the agreement. The Government call on all those who are in a position of influence to press for these forced exiles to end.
There have been other difficulties on the political front. Most significantly, there is the continuing stalemate over the formation of the executive committee and the refusal of the major paramilitary organisations to begin the decommissioning of their illegal weapons. Today many noble Lords have emphasised again and again the absolute necessity for all sides to live up to their obligations under the agreement. I wholly support those calls. It is essential to the implementation of the agreement and to the building of trust between the communities that all sides live up to all their commitments. The noble Lord, Lord Eames, spoke
1150
movingly about the need for trust to be established; and that trust was the key to significant progress in Northern Ireland. That is why the Government have continued to live up to their obligations even when that has been very difficult, most notably in the continuing release of paramilitary prisoners.
This fulfilment of obligations simply must be reciprocated by all sides. That means that we must move quickly to the establishment of the institutions of government in Northern Ireland, because when they are established there will be more trust and confidence in the whole process. It means a start to decommissioning.
Much has been said in this House and elsewhere about decommissioning. I want to say today that the issue of decommissioning is not about creating new pre-conditions. It is not about seeking to exclude people from Government. Quite the opposite. It is about creating the conditions necessary for inclusive and democratic government. Nor is it about surrender, as the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said. That was demonstrated by the beginning of LVF decommissioning in December. That showed that decommissioning is politically possible. No one was humiliated. It was not an act of surrender. It was an act of good faith, living up to the obligations of the agreement.
Much has been made of the fact that the agreement does not specify a start date for decommissioning, only an end date. But nor does the agreement set a start date for the early release of prisoners and yet the two Governments have clearly demonstrated their good faith by taking forward this aspect of the agreement.
Decommissioning cannot be argued away. It is integral to the very spirit of the agreement as a demonstration of the transition from the violence and threat of violence of the past to the democratic politics of the future. It is a demonstration of the commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means.
When we started the debate, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was answering questions in another place. I believe that it would be appropriate for me to quote what he said in answer to a Question from David Trimble about decommissioning. It is too soon to be able to quote from Hansard; but I think that it would be wrong if I did not repeat this to the House. The Prime Minister said:
"The advice is very clear. They should decommission their weapons. I agree with what the Taoiseach said. The whole of the agreement must be implemented and we must know that violence has been given up for good; and it is unreasonable to expect people to sit down together unless they know that that is the case".
It is now time for parties associated with paramilitary organisations to demonstrate their good faith by making real progress on decommissioning, just as it is time for inclusive, democratic government to begin. I agree with noble Lords that all obligations under the agreement must be met in full.
I welcome the continued commitment to bipartisan support of the main thrust of the Government's policies from the Opposition party and the Liberal Democrats. Of course that does not mean that we expect a blank cheque. But we welcome the continuation of that

1151
bipartisan support. It is important that people in Northern Ireland know that that is the case so that they do not seek to divide us here on the main thrust of what we seek in Northern Ireland.
Many questions were asked. Consistent with time, I shall do my best to do justice to them. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked a number of questions. I totally condemn the vile attack in Beesbrook last night. Every effort will be made to bring those responsible to justice. If convicted they will not be eligible for early release under the agreement. It has not yet been possible to determine which organisation, if any, was responsible for the attack. The RUC investigation is continuing.
I cannot confirm the statistics of the noble and learned Lord about the number of people forced into exile. However, as I said earlier, I totally agree that such activity is a disgraceful violation of human rights and must end.
The noble and learned Lord asked about the judgement of the ceasefire becoming more rigorous over time. The Secretary of State will make her judgment in the round taking into account all relevant facts. The noble and learned Lord will agree that it is not an easy judgment to make. Over time, as the implementation of the agreement continues, the consideration of the relevant factors will become more stringent. But it is a serious judgment and noble Lords must be aware of the serious consequence of declaring that the ceasefires are at an end. It is clear that to say the ceasefires are at an end would prejudice all the progress that has been made and might take us way back to where we were before the peace process began under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew.
The noble and learned Lord also referred to the possession of Semtex. I agree with him that the holding of explosives of any form is incompatible with a commitment to exclusively peaceful means. The RUC will continue to do all it can to secure the removal of all illegal weapons and explosives and to bring to justice those in possession of them. At the same time I believe that the full implementation of the agreement is the best way to secure the decommissioning of these weapons.
Reference was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and other noble Lords to the number of paramilitary beatings and attacks. There have been some indications of a decline in number. Nevertheless I share the disgust of all noble Lords at these barbaric attacks. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has met with representatives of the Sinn Fein and loyalist parties to stress that they must come to an end. By their nature, the statistics are unreliable. However, I can confirm the indications that there has been recently a significant reduction, in particular of those attributed to the republicans; but one attack is one too many.
The noble and learned Lord also asked why we did not use the lever of stopping releases. If that were to happen, the consequences would be immense for the whole process in Northern Ireland. I do not say that it would never be right to come to that judgment; it is just that I do not believe that such a judgment would be right
1152
at this point in time. To demand a decision to be reached that the ceasefires are at an end, when we judge that they are not, would bring down the whole Good Friday agreement. That would be a consequence. The view that stopping prisoner releases would increase the chances of the Good Friday agreement being implemented is not one that I share. I do not believe that it would have that effect. The situation is never perfect, but in 18 months we have come further than people believed we could; and that has been with all the difficulties—tactical, strategic and of principle—inherent in the situation.
The judgment about the ceasefire must take into account all the evidence, including the security advice we receive. On the basis of that evidence, we do not believe that it is justified to conclude that the ceasefires have broken down. In saying that, I repeat that I do not minimize our anxiety about continuing paramilitary attacks.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, asked about support in the United States for the Continuity IRA as evidenced by the collection of funds. The support of the US Government and of President Clinton in particular has been an invaluable factor in the peace process. President Clinton has made clear that there should be no support from America for those who would seek to wreck the agreement through continuing violence. There is close co-operation between the agencies of the British and United States Governments to prevent the illegal funding of dissident terrorist groups, including of course the Continuity IRA.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, and many other noble Lords asked about policing. Under the Good Friday agreement, the Government have appointed an independent commission on policing with Chris Patten in the chair. Its broad terms of reference are set out in the agreement. It is to report next summer, and is consulting widely throughout Northern Ireland. We want the best possible policing service for the people of Northern Ireland based on principles of fairness, impartiality and effectiveness, which works in partnership with and is supported by the community.
I do not know what Chris Patten's commission will decide. However, the Prime Minister has made it clear that the RUC will not be disbanded, so that is not on the Government's agenda. I join the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in paying tribute to the RUC and the work it has done over many years in extremely difficult circumstances. Its members are very brave men and, tragically, many of them lost their lives in defending their communities in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, in what I thought was a pessimistic speech, asked about the release of prisoners. He used the word "amnesty". There is no amnesty for prisoners. Under the legislation agreed by this House, prisoners are given early release on licence, in line with the agreement.
The noble Lord and others suggested that it was wrong to reduce security when a threat remains. Individual normalisation measures are operational decisions for the Chief Constable to take in the light of his assessment of the threat. As a result of his advice, certain security measures have been scaled down. The

1153
advice of the Chief Constable and the GOC determines the Government's response and the closing of any establishments.
Several references were made to the running costs of the Assembly. With devolution, it is fitting that Northern Ireland's locally elected politicians and leaders should take decisions on how to allocate resources within the transferred field. One cannot say, "We are giving you devolution", and then tell them how to exercise their responsibilities. That would be inconsistent. Therefore, the cost of the Assembly is a matter for the Assembly itself. I do not wish to comment in detail on the figures which were quoted, but they refer to the next financial year when, all being well, the Assembly will be responsible for its finances and will have to live with the consequences of any expenditure under one heading at the expense of others.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred to the Washington Summit. The United States Government have provided vital support to the political process in Northern Ireland. That includes work by the Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, as well as the President himself. A number of political leaders from Northern Ireland, as well as the Secretary of State, will be in the United States in the middle of March. We expect that those who are in contact with them will encourage them to show the courage and determination needed to make further progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, spoke about changes to Articles 2 and 3. The constitutional amendments were approved by a referendum on 22nd May 1998 in accordance with Article 4 of the British-Irish agreement. The Irish Government are bound to ensure that these amendments take effect immediately on entry into force of the agreement. This will occur immediately on the transfer of powers and the formal establishment of other institutional aspects of the Belfast agreement.
The noble Marquess, Lord Donegall, said that punishment attacks had been committed by released prisoners. There have been allegations of that, but we have no firm evidence and the Government cannot and will not act on the basis of media speculation.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I recently read in a responsible newspaper that one released prisoner had been returned to custody. I do not know to which grouping he belonged, his religion or where he came from, but I am reasonably confident that that is a fact.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, there has been one recall. All prisoners are released under licence—
The Marquess of Donegall: My Lords, I said that there had been attacks because it was reported in the Irish Independent, which I read.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, perhaps I can help. I understand that the man was recalled for a normal criminal/civil offence.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I believe that that is the case. All prisoners are released under licence and therefore
1154
are subject to recall. The point at issue was whether released prisoners have taken part in paramilitary assaults and beatings. We have no evidence of that. If there were evidence of the involvement of released prisoners, as in any other criminal matter the licence would be suspended and they would be back inside gaol. I confirm that one prisoner who was released has been arrested, not in relation to a terrorist offence and therefore not in breach of his licence. Nevertheless, he has been arrested for the further offence which he committed.
I must bring my remarks to a close. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, encourages me to continue and there are only two or three specific points that I wish to make. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said that the Secretary of State was soft on terrorism and the like. I reject that entirely; it is not the case. The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, said that the Government were not interested in protecting people from attacks. That is entirely wrong. The Government take the security of every individual person in Northern Ireland as being a matter of importance. My noble friend Lord Fitt referred to the release of prisoners and the effect on local people of seeing those who had killed their relatives. I understand that. It is extremely painful—we said so at the time of the legislation—for the relatives to see such people coming out of prison. However, I do not accept my noble friend's suggestion that there is any acceptable level of violence. We do not go along with that; there is no acceptable level of violence. I reject the suggestion entirely.
We have had a useful and interesting debate. There is an enormous prize ahead for all of us in the United Kingdom, in particular for the people of Northern Ireland, provided that we have decommissioning and the peace process moves forward. I believe that it will. I believe that we stand on the brink of a significant step forward and one which we cannot afford to miss. We have come too far to contemplate going back. The people of Northern Ireland have voted overwhelmingly for the agreement. They want it to happen; they want it implemented in full. That includes decommissioning, an integral component of the agreement, and it includes the establishment of inclusive democratic government in Northern Ireland.
There is still a sense of optimism in Northern Ireland. I know of the difficulties and I know that people are worried. I join noble Lords today in urging the parties to show the courage and determination which they have exhibited throughout the process and to make the decision necessary to take the next step on the road to a better future for Northern Ireland.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, time is minuscule and I must redeem myself for having spoken for an extra minute by saving time now. The debate will repay careful reading. Therefore, I wish to confine my remarks to only three issues, all of which concern my gratitude. First, I am most grateful to the Minister for the careful way in which he addressed himself to the

1155
questions which were asked. His answers will bring some reassurance to those in Northern Ireland who have deep anxieties which were focused upon in the debate.
Secondly, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in such a knowledgeable, serious, well informed and well attended debate. Again, that will help to bring confidence to Northern Ireland. Finally, I am grateful to noble Lords who made kind remarks about myself and my wife. I comment only that in the case of my wife they are thoroughly well deserved. On that proudly uxorious and deeply grateful note, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report: Publication
6.8 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to repeat a Statement made earlier in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, with permission I should like to make a Statement about the report of the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence.
"Copies of the inquiry's report and appendices are available from the Vote Office. Honourable members will themselves want time to read and consider the report, and I can therefore tell the House that my right honourable friend the Leader of the House has agreed that there should be a full day's debate on the report as soon as possible.
"Stephen Lawrence was a bright 18 year-old student with a promising future. He wanted to be an architect and was studying hard for his A-levels. At about 10.30 p.m. on Thursday 22nd April 1993 Stephen was waiting for a bus With his friend Duwayne Brooks in Well Hall Road, Eltham in south London. He was set upon in an unprovoked knife attack and was killed. There was only one reason for his murder. Stephen was black.
"Any parents faced with the death of their son in such circumstances would have been devastated. But for Stephen's parents, Doreen and Neville Lawrence, their sense of despair has been compounded by the failure of our criminal justice system to deliver them justice, to secure the conviction of those responsible. I think I can speak for the whole House when I say that Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence's campaign for the truth has been pursued by them with enormous dignity, courage and determination. I pay my personal tribute to them today.
"I first met the family in early 1997 and saw both parents again shortly after becoming Home Secretary in May that year. They persuaded me of the case for a thorough, independent scrutiny of the investigation into their son's murder and the lessons which could be learnt from it. In July 1997 I therefore announced to the House that I had appointed the former judge of the High Court, Sir William Macpherson of Cluny, to
1156
conduct a full judicial inquiry. This was the first such inquiry under the Police Act since Lord Scarman's into the 1981 Brixton riots. The terms of reference of this new inquiry were as follows:
'To inquire into the matters arising from the death of Stephen Lawrence on 22nd April 1993 to date, in order particularly to identify the lessons to be learned for the investigation and prosecution of racially motivated crimes'.
"The inquiry examined the handling of the case in comprehensive detail. It held 69 days of public hearings, heard 88 witnesses and received some 100,000 pages of evidence. I wish to put on the record my deep gratitude to Sir William Macpherson and his three advisers. They were Mr. Tom Cook, former Deputy Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police, the Right Reverend Dr. John Sentamu, the Bishop of Stepney, and Dr. Richard Stone, Chairman of the Jewish Council for Racial Equality. I should also like to thank the inquiry team for their commitment and sensitivity in handling this very important inquiry.
"The report is divided into two parts. The first covers the police investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the second part the wider lessons to be learnt. The main findings of the first part of the inquiry are these:
'The conclusions to be drawn from all the evidence in connection with the investigation of Stephen Lawrence's racist murder are clear. There is no doubt but that there were fundamental errors. The investigation was marred by a combination of professional incompetence, institutional racism and a failure of leadership by senior officers. A flawed [Metropolitan Police] review failed to expose these inadequacies. The second investigation could not salvage the faults of the first investigation'. (46.1)
"That first investigation of the murder, the inquiry finds, was 'palpably flawed' (2.10) and deserves severe criticism. The inquiry concludes:
'There can be no excuses for such a series of errors, failures, and lack of direction and control'. (46.20–46.23)
"A review of the case was conducted in autumn 1993 by Detective Chief Superintendent John Barker. The inquiry has found that this review was factually incorrect and inadequate. The inquiry was concerned that no senior officer at any level tested or analysed the review and that Mr. Barker had produced a 'flawed and indefensible' report. (46.21 and 46.22)
"In 1994 a second investigation of the case was established and this attempted to salvage the situation. The inquiry makes clear that this second investigation, led by Detective Superintendent William Mellish, was conducted with great imagination, skill and sensitivity by the officers involved. (46.23 and 46.24)
"The inquiry also identified work by police officers and others at other stages which was exemplary. They have been praised for their unstinting commitment to bring the racist killers to justice. But their efforts, in the view of the inquiry, were not sufficient to overcome the catalogue of errors and basic incompetence in the handling of this investigation.
"The report also concludes that:
'no collusion or corruption is proved to have infected the investigation of Stephen Lawrence's murder'. (8.18)

1157
"The Government accept the findings and conclusions of the first part of this inquiry, which relates to the investigation into Stephen's murder. The House will share my sense of shame that the criminal justice system, and the Metropolitan Police in particular, failed the Lawrence family so badly. The Commissioner, Sir Paul Condon, has asked me to tell the House that he shares that sense of shame too. He has also asked that I should tell the House that, as head of the Metropolitan Police Service, he fully accepts the findings of the inquiry, including those that are made relating to him.
"Sir Paul Condon took over as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in February 1993. Since he came into office he has given strong personal leadership to improving the quality of service which the Metropolitan Police provides to all sections of the community. A great deal has been achieved. For example, reported crime in London is at its lowest for nine years and Sir Paul is tackling the problems of police corruption with vigour. I have asked Sir Paul to continue to lead the Metropolitan Police to deliver the programme of work which is now required. He has agreed. He will use the remaining 10 months of his office to take that work forward, including the agenda set by this report. I shall be supporting him and his successor in the work which lies ahead.
"The central and most important issue for the inquiry was racism and whether and how this affected the handling of the case. The inquiry has addressed this matter with care and sensitivity. On the critical issue of institutional racism the inquiry's definition is as follows:
'The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. It can he seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people'. (6.34)
"The inquiry found that on this definition:
'institutional racism … exists both in the Metropolitan Police Service and in other Police Services and other institutions countrywide'. (6.39)
"The report says that institutional racism was apparent in a number of areas of the police handling of the case. The inquiry emphasises, however, that its findings do not suggest or imply that all police officers are racist or that the Metropolitan Police Service is racist in its policies. The inquiry emphasises that by the establishment, under Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Grieve, of the Metropolitan Police Service Racial and Violent Crime Task Force. The signs are that the problem is being recognised and tackled.(6.47)
"The report then says:
'the catharsis of this Inquiry will lead to constructive action and not to further divisive views and outcomes'. (6.47)
This is a new definition of institutional racism which I accept—and so does the commissioner. The inquiry's assessment is clear and sensible. In my view, any long established, white-dominated
1158
organisation is liable to have procedures, practices and a culture which tend to exclude or to disadvantage non-white people. The police service in this respect is little different from other parts of the criminal justice system, or from government departments, including the Home Office, and many other institutions.
"The Report makes 70 wide-ranging recommendations. I welcome them all. I am sure that honourable Members will not expect me to go through each of these recommendations in turn today. I shall instead lay a detailed response and action plan before the House, prior to the promised full day's debate on the report. I want however to use this opportunity to spell out how we are implementing the main recommendations of the report as part of our major and continuing programme of change for the police service and criminal justice system.
"First, the police service: I have ordered an immediate inspection of the Metropolitan Police Service by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and this includes a thorough scrutiny of unsolved murders and review of each case. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary already incorporates much of the approach of OFSTED in its inspections of police services and will be moving further in the direction of applying standards similar to those used by OFSTED, as the report recommends.
"A new police discipline regime will be brought in from 1st April this year. We will ensure that this is subject to effective monitoring and consider any further changes in the light of that experience. I will make an improvement in the trust and confidence in policing among ethnic minority communities a key ministerial priority for the police. I will use my statutory powers to ensure that every police force sets clear objectives the better to deal with racist crime and establishes effective ways of demonstrating fairness in all aspects of policing.
"I will set targets for the recruitment, retention and promotion of ethnic minority police and civilian staff. I announced last October our plans to ensure that every force reflects the ethnic diversity of the communities which they serve. I will chair a national conference of all chief constables and police authorities on this issue in April.
"Stop-and-search powers under current legislation will remain unchanged, as recommended by the inquiry report. But I will ensure that these powers are used more effectively and fairly. Londoners for the first time will be given a proper say in the running of their police service. From July next year a policy authority for London will sit alongside the new mayor and assembly. Legislation for this is already before the House.
"Clear standards of performance will be put in place to ensure more effective police investigations into racist crime. We have already changed the law to establish new offences of racially motivated crimes. The report makes wider recommendations for the criminal justice system. New guidelines will enable parties to an inquest from next month to

1159
receive advance disclosure of evidence and documents. I have asked the Law Commission to consider the inquiry's proposal that the Court of Appeal he given power to permit prosecution after acquittal where fresh and viable evidence is presented.
"As the inquiry proposes, we are already ensuring that victims, victims' families and vulnerable witnesses are treated more sensitively and fairly. The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill currently before Parliament will extend greater support to vulnerable witnesses. Yesterday I announced a 50 per cent. increase in funding to Victim Support. I should also tell the House that I will be publishing next week the report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary which examines police community relations across the country. The inspectorate's report supports and reinforces the messages which emerge from this inquiry.
"Madam Speaker, this report challenges us all and not just the police service, and I want to use the opportunity which the report brings to tackle discrimination wherever it is found. So today I can announce that we shall be extending the Race Relations Act not just to cover the police, as this report recommends, but to cover all of the public services. That means in the Civil Service, the Immigration Service and the National Health Service, the law will back those who have been the subject of discrimination. The new law will allow the Commission for Racial Equality to investigate what is happening within individual police forces and other public services. Companies and other organisations in the private sector have long been subject to this legislation. But government have so far failed to keep their own house in order.
"Madam Speaker, the Macpherson Inquiry demonstrated the failings of one very important public institution—the police service. The police have a special responsibility in our society because, day by day, they are the immediate guardians of fairness and justice. But we would be deluding ourselves if we believed that the issues thrown up by this inquiry affect only the police. The implications of this report go much wider. The very process of the inquiry has opened all our eyes to what it is like to be black or Asian in Britain today. And the inquiry process revealed some fundamental truths about the nature of our society and about our relationships one with another. Some of these truths are uncomfortable, but we must confront them.
"I want this report to serve as a watershed in our attitudes to racism. I want it to act as a catalyst for permanent and irrevocable change not just across our public services but across the whole of our society. This report does not place a responsibility on someone else; it places a responsibility on each one of us. We have to make racial equality a reality.
"The vision is clear: to create a society where every individual, regardless of colour, creed or race, has the same opportunities and respect as his or her neighbour. On race equality, let us make Britain a
1160
beacon to the world. Many countries already envy our record on race relations. The race relations legislation of the 1960s and 1970s has made a significant difference to the treatment of black and Asian people in our country. But it has plainly not been enough. Over the coming weeks the Prime Minister and I will spell out what the Government will be doing to drive home this programme of change. This report must mark the beginning of this process, not the end.
"In her evidence to the inquiry Mrs. Lawrence said,
'I would like Stephen to be remembered as a young man who had a future. He was well loved and had he been given the chance to survive, maybe he would have been the one to bridge the gap between black and white'.
This report was born of the courage and determination of the Lawrences; of their desire to get to the truth of what happened, and of their desire to ensure that their son was never forgotten. This report is a testament to them. And upon this report we must build a lasting testament to Stephen".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement of the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary. Today is a very serious day for our country. It is of the utmost importance for the future of our society as a whole that we respond to the multiple challenges raised by this report with both vision and energy.
We have all had a brief time to look at the whole report, but it is long and extremely detailed and needs careful and reflective study by us all. The Home Secretary, as we heard, had the approval of the Leader of another place to announce a day's debate. Can the Minister similarly confirm that this House will have a full debate on the report as soon as convenient?
The report is primarily about a terrible, callous and brutal murder—a racist murder—which should have been investigated with the utmost vigour and expertise, but was not. The first part of the report tells a shameful story of that investigation. The Statement sets out in summary what it found. Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence, their family, friends and supporters deserve our full sympathy, but they also have our highest respect for what they have been able to achieve out of this situation.
The blame for the murder itself does not lie with the police. But the failure to investigate the case with the vigour and rigour that it deserved does lie with the policemen concerned. The Home Secretary was quite right to point out in his Statement that some police are praised in the report, and also to confirm Sir Paul Condon in office. But the report also contains a long and important section about the definition of "racism" and particularly "institutional racism".
It is difficult to form a succinct definition, but we all know what is meant by such phrases, particularly "institutional racism". The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, defined it in summary as an institution

1161
in which racism is a deliberate act of policy. However, the Metropolitan Police Force is not guilty of that. But, that is a specific finding of the report.
Sir William's report has a definition which is more complex and includes, in particular, unintentional racism. We all hate and deplore racism, however defined, and whenever it occurs, both intentional and unintentional. It must be rooted out in the police force and elsewhere. Therefore, we support the principles behind the recommendations which the Government have accepted for extending the Race Relations Act. If nothing were to be done, the reaction to this report might increase alienation within the ethnic minority communities and defensiveness within our institutions, including the police force. It is therefore important to look forward with determination to do better. The police, government and we in Parliament can and must start that process. However, it is important that everyone within the ethnic minority communities who feels upset by what has happened should also work with the police to try to improve the situation. There is no future in feeling alienated, natural though that may be.
Most policemen and policewomen are not racist; they are trying even more as a result of these events and this report to put things right. The actions put in train in the Metropolitan Police Force are evidence of that fact. Since September last year, the number of racially-motivated crimes solved has increased by 73 per cent. However, they need the help of everyone if they are to succeed.
Perhaps I may make a few detailed points. These are, of course, preliminary' questions. All 70 specific recommendations need to be studied in detail. The report recommends that double jeopardy should be examined by the Law Commission. We all know of some cases that we would love to see tried again. That is not the preserve of ethnic minorities or of any group. However, it is an extremely difficult matter which has all sorts of consequences. Therefore, I think it is right that the Law Commission should examine it. I hope that that means that the Law Commission in Scotland as well as the Law Commission in England and Wales will consider the matter, possibly jointly. I understand that race relations is a reserved matter as far as Scotland is concerned, although law and order is a devolved matter. However, clearly the Scottish Law Commission should be involved in such considerations.
The report recommends that the new police authority for London should appoint the chief officers of the Metropolitan Police. That is not quite the Government's present proposal in the Bill in another place. However, it is the proposal in an amendment to that Bill tabled by my party in another place. That is in line with the recommendation in the report and I hope that it will find acceptance in due course.
Can the Government give careful thought to the problem I mentioned briefly the other day? I refer to the difficulty of achieving a greater number, and hence a higher proportion, of ethnic minority officers when forces have had to freeze recruitment and cannot afford,
1162
in some cases, to replace officers who retire. The numbers in the police have reduced by about 780 since March 1997.
On a slightly lighter note, I am sure that your Lordships were all delighted to know that the Minister cannot have been the source of the disgraceful leak of the report which took place at the weekend, according to what we read in the newspapers. However, the Home Office was responsible for that leak. It failed to take the sort of precautions that, for example, the Treasury takes in looking after Budget secrets. However, unless the Minister can give us any more information about the progress of the inquiry into that matter, I believe that the freedom of the press and the Government's persistent leaking are matters for another day.
Our police do an extremely tough and difficult job on behalf of us all. In the main, they do it better and more sensitively than practically any other police force in the world. However, change is required to retain and, in many cases, rebuild policing by consent. I hope that the report will prove a springboard for better relations, and not only for the police force. It is important that the police and all of us rise to this challenge.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we welcome the report of Sir William Macpherson's inquiry into the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence. We also welcome the Statement from the Home Secretary. Those who, in the past few days, have concentrated their criticism on the issue of the injunction or the sacking of the Metropolitan Commissioner on the basis of the leaked report have done a great disservice to the central theme of the report. It diverts attention from the real issues facing policing in this country. It also gives comfort to those officers who are corrupt, racist or sexist and who would love to see the back of Sir Paul. We must not give comfort to them. But we are entitled to ask, are we not, now that the recommendations are known: what will Sir Paul do about it?
The report does not demand the commissioner's resignation. It is about pernicious racism that seems to have affected police and policing decisions in London. But, taken in its widest sense, it is about racism that is endemic in our society. Stephen Lawrence died because we all failed in arresting racism that has affected our lives, our attitudes and our society. To discuss injunctions and resignations, as we have seen, is simply to direct attention away from this important publication. We have a record second to none on race relations in the western world. Our race legislation is also second to none in Western Europe. My noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead must be given great credit for introducing that in Parliament. It should be a surprise to no one that persons, be they police, prosecutors, lawyers, magistrates or prison officers, represent the same strengths and weaknesses as the society and community from which they come.
This is the most important report since the publication of the Scarman Report on the Brixton disorders in November 1981. The fundamental difference is that the

1163
noble and learned Lord did not accept institutional racism then. Sir William, on the other hand, explains what this is all about.
It is now almost 40 years since the Notting Hill disturbances in 1958. Casting my mind back, black people were systematically exposed to violence perpetrated by local youths and supplemented by extreme Right-wing movements in the country. At that time, Kelso Cochrane, a young black man was murdered for no other reason than that he was black. That was 40 years ago. In those days Kelso's death became a uniting force when black and white residents stood together at the funeral procession giving a clear message that they would not tolerate racist attacks. I know because I was there.
Almost 40 years on, I wish I could say the same thing following the death of Stephen Lawrence. The black community has lost confidence and it does not believe that the establishment is able to protect it. That is sad. The sooner we rebuild confidence, the better it will be for our multi-racial society.
In the sorry state of what happened to Stephen Lawrence, few people emerge with credit, and it is right that we should single them out. It took courage for Jack Straw to set up the public inquiry, and we are grateful to him for that. Despite their horrendous suffering, Doreen and Neville Lawrence continue to demonstrate the dignity with which they have pursued their case. They, as individuals, have never lost faith in our system of justice although justice deserted them when they needed it most. In the end, we praise them and they can hold their heads high with dignity and respect from us all. Of course, we failed them, because those who perpetrated this heinous crime are still free.
We can all argue about what institutional racism is all about. However, that too is to distract and divert attention away from the key fact that not only in policing, but also in other key aspects of our institutions, it is now recognised that differential treatment exists. We now have a clear definition and we should accept it as a first step in building a decent, fair and just society. I am glad that Sir Paul Condon now accepts that as a basis for progress.
Some years ago we set up a Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. It then reported on some important research about the position of black people in the criminal justice system. Many of those issues are still surfacing now in Sir William's report. Black youths are especially likely to be stopped by the police and arrested. Although only a small proportion of those arrests result from stops, if only one in 10 results in a criminal justice process, it is no surprise that nine out of 10 have an adversarial relationship with the police in this country. Once arrested, black youngsters are less likely to be cautioned than are whites. The overall pattern of charges brought against blacks differs from that for whites. Black defendants are more likely to be remanded into custody. They are more likely to plead not guilty to the charges brought against them. Black defendants are more likely to be tried in a Crown Court and more likely to be acquitted, but when black
1164
defendants are found guilty of a crime, they are likely to receive longer and more custodial sentences and a different range of non-custodial options.
The result of all that is that 18 per cent. of the male prison population and 26 per cent. of the female prison population in this country is black as against their proportion of just under 6 per cent. in the community. The Home Office will have to ask why within the criminal justice system we have produced that discrepancy. Black people see this in the context of the definition provided by Sir William Macpherson's analysis:
"The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amounts to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantages minority ethnic people".
I think that Sir William Macpherson is spot on. He has all the evidence to back this up.
But call it "institutional racism" or call it what you like, in the case of Stephen Lawrence this process seems to be evident and he paid with his life. Those who would have been brought to justice remain unconvicted. That is the stark reality of racism if it remains unchecked.
The black community remains unconvinced—and this is confirmed by the report—that those conducting the investigation possessed the appropriate skills and understanding to determine whether institutional racism had any effect on the decisions made by them.
We have a police force which is the envy of the world, but that does not mean that it could not be better. There is a general acceptance that police officers have such far-reaching powers over the lives of ordinary people that there must be effective safeguards against misuse. The fall of public confidence in the police service in recent years has mainly been due to well-publicised cases. What it demonstrates is that we have civilian oversight on the matter of police discipline; we have consultative processes on the matter of community involvement, but we have no accountability in the matter of the operations that the police carry out. Is it not time that there should also be civilian oversight of such matters?
We leave it to the Government to decide as and when a full debate on this report is possible. We shall certainly examine whatever suggestions are made in any such debate.
Perhaps I may now refer to a few issues reflected in the report. The first relates to responsibility. Acting on this report (the most important development for race and criminal justice systems since Scarman) is the responsibility of the whole criminal justice system and not only of the police. The Crown Prosecution Service, the courts, the legal professions and the Prison and Probation Services must work with local authorities and communities and must guarantee justice and equality for all.
The Criminal Justice Consultative Council must give a clear lead to the 23 area criminal justice liaison committees to make this their top priority for the coming months. They must play a pivotal co-ordinating role across national and local government agencies.

1165
The Government must give top-level commitment to implementing the recommendations. That must be sustained over many years and not forgotten after a year when the media interest dies down.
The second issue relates to repairing the damage. This is an opportunity to repair the damage done to community relations and to redress unfairness and discrimination in the criminal justice system. It is an opportunity which must not be wasted. Confidence in justice must be restored.
Responses to racially motivated crime must be seen in the context of overall police operations. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act, stop and search and other police powers which have a disproportionate impact on black communities must not only be monitored but investigated urgently.
There is also the question of accountability. Accountability and consultation with local communities must be restructured, strengthened and properly resourced. A two-way dialogue between young people and police officers is crucial. A realistic debate is needed on the problem of local crime and police responses to it.
There is also the matter of training, which features heavily in Sir William Macpherson's report. Joint training across the criminal justice agencies should be introduced on how to promote a co-ordinated and consistent approach to fairness and equality in the delivery of justice. Training must have a direct impact on daily operations and working practices. It must tackle the stereotyping and assumptions that lead black people to be perceived as suspects, rather than victims, witnesses, professional colleagues or partners in tackling crime.
The report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary has pointed to disturbing evidence of racist banter and discriminatory behaviour directed by the police at their minority colleagues. The question of education is also heavily reflected in Sir William's report.
However, I think that the most important aspect of the report is the review of the race relations legislation. We welcome that initiative on the part of the Government. The Race Relations Act was designed to eliminate discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity. What can no longer be tolerated are the exemptions granted to the police and criminal justice agencies under the provisions of that Act.
Perhaps I may conclude by repeating what President Johnson said when addressing the American nation after the Warren Commission report:
"The only genuine long-range solution for what has happened lies in an attack—mounted at every level—upon the conditions that breed despair and violence. All of us know what those conditions are: ignorance, discrimination, slums, poverty, disease, and not enough jobs. We should attack these conditions—not because we are frightened by conflict, but because we are fired by conscience. We should attack them because there is simply no other way to achieve a decent and orderly society".
1166
Those words are as true today as they were during President Johnson's administration. I am glad that the Minister quoted Doreen Lawrence in a tribute to Stephen, saying—perhaps I may repeat it—
"He treated people like people—he would have bridged the divide between the police and black people".
That is the greatest tribute to Stephen Lawrence.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, both noble Lords have responded with the decency and scruple that we always expect of them. Both invited me to respond to their request for a full day's debate which Jack Straw has already announced for the Commons. Obviously that is a matter for the usual channels, but I cannot leave this without pointing out the importance which I personally attach to it.
Both noble Lords rightly said that this is a cause of shame and both spoke of the deep respect which we have for Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence. I can confirm that from recent personal experience, having shared a platform with them.
It is right that Sir Paul Condon has been asked to continue. He has a vast amount of work to do. I believe that he is an honest and honourable man. He is also dealing with other deficiencies in the Metropolitan Police service. I believe that it would have been a disservice to that police service and the community generally if he were not allowed to finish the work in which he has been engaged. He has 10 months to go and I think that the Home Secretary was morally right—courageously so—to take that step.
The definition of "institutional racism" is very important. I do not think that it is overstated as set out at paragraph 34 of Chapter Six of the report. I say that because it goes to outcomes. The most dangerous people are those—and they are among us daily—who say, "I don't have a racist bone in my body". They are dangerous because they believe it and they do not look at outcomes. If a young man of 16 asked me: "I am black, why have I been arrested on stop and search five times when your white daughter has never been arrested?", I think we would find the answer in the definition of institutional racism which appears in paragraph 6.34.
The only small caveat I would put in my general response to the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, relates to the fact that he said that the ethnic minorities are upset. That is not right: they are filled with anger, distress, bitterness and fury that we cannot even begin to guess at; and they are right. The noble Lord asked me about the Law Commission. Of course, we would expect the Scottish Law Commission to be involved.
I turn now to the question of the chief officer of police in the new police authority. The presently proposed scheme envisages that the post of commissioner will be a Royal appointment, but there will be an appointment procedure. The police authority would have to advertise the post and shortlist and interview candidates, as happens with chief officers elsewhere. The Home Secretary would then submit the name of the recommended candidate to Her Majesty.

1167
There is no difficulty in setting targets, not quotas, for the recruitment, retention and promotion of those from ethnic minorities. That applies whether they are uniformed police officers or civilian employees, both of whom are important and both of whom are commended and referred to in detail in the report. If any police authority or chief constable says, "Financial pressures prevent us carrying out this elementary duty", I reject it. It should be rejected as firmly as possible.
I can confirm that I was not the source of the leak. Indeed, I am happy to reaffirm what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said. The latter spoke about the question of the injunction and I shall spend a few moments only on the issue. There was no question here of trying to protect government secrets. Jack Straw made it plain from day one, and before, that he would publish the report in full. He wanted the Lawrence family to have the elementary decency afforded to them of a view of it in full. Was he right?
Noble Lords: Yes.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the purpose of the injunction, whether it was right or wrong, was based on decent scruple; namely, that the family should suffer no further if it could be avoided. As it happened, Jack Straw had made arrangements for them to see the report because the newspaper, taking its view about the public interest—which it is entitled to have in a free society—published it earlier than today. The Lawrences were brought in at relatively short notice to the Home Office to have that decent courtesy afforded to them. I shall say no more about the injunction.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and I are absolutely at one here. He is quite right: this is not simply an inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence because he was black. He is also right to say that the repercussions of this inquiry will define this report as the most important since Scarman. Indeed, without disrespect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, I believe that it will have infinitely greater consequences in the way that we conduct ourselves in our society, and not just in the police force. A police service only reflects the good points and the more ignoble points about the society it lives in and serves.
The noble Lord is right to say that the murderers of that young man are still free. That is a constant source of reproach and shame to all of us. The noble Lord is also right to say that racism is endemic in our community. The sooner we recognise it the better. If we do not have within ourselves the resource to recognise that elementary proposition, then we shall be meeting again in 20 years' time with a similar report, wringing our hands and wondering why we failed so abysmally.
The noble Lord is right to point out that this is not limited to the police service and right to point to the way that there are distortions in the criminal justice system, which statistics demonstrate, about charging, acquittals, sentences and the consequences of bail applications. That is another most important aspect of the report.
1168
In the context of the Prison Service to which the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, referred, I am sure that he will know that Richard Tilt, the out-going director general, has already set up a task force to examine racism in the service. That also applies in the Probation Service. Indeed, it applies in the wider context as regards whether or not young black children and those from other ethnic minorities are fairly served by the education service at any level. It is perhaps a good idea occasionally to look also at the legal profession, which is far from perfect if you want to consider attitudes, prejudices and outcomes.
The noble Lord's final point of detail related to the question of how we deal with consultation of local communities. As the noble Lord implied, the latter differ infinitely. I believe that we have made a good beginning in the Crime and Disorder Act. It is a limited beginning but I recognise it as such. The legislation requires local partnerships and local audits in this very difficult area so that we shall no longer be able to say "We do well", when evidence, circumstance and statistics demonstrate that we do not.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I welcome the report. I do not often speak on police or race matters in your Lordships' House. However, I find it somewhat strange that no one has been punished in this case—that is to say, neither the murderers, nor indeed the police officers for incompetence. I do not want to put my noble friend the Minister on the spot, but does he not have some sympathy with the notion that if the football manager of England can be sacked for making a remark which some people may find offensive, surely it is surprising that no one has been sacked for this horrendous mess?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall stick to the focused point put by the noble Lord, Lord Desai; namely, that no one has been punished. That is absolutely right and, indeed, absolutely disgraceful. No one has been punished for killing a young man and the police officers have been allowed to retire. That is a consequence of the present police discipline regulations. The latter was the subject of Chris Mullin's excellent committee report which, as I remember it, was unanimous. Immediately on receipt of that report, Jack Straw said that we must attend to a change in the police discipline regulations so that mere early retirement will not be a total shield to disciplinary proceedings possibly involving financial sanction, which may include limitation of pension rights. I do not think that anyone can say that Jack Straw did not respond immediately to that defect in the police discipline regulations. Moreover, it is not limited to the police. There are other services with similar aspects, which I am personally considering at present.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, will the Minister accept that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that the Home Secretary should be congratulated on having set up the inquiry? Will the Minister also accept that this is a very detailed report and I have, therefore, not tried to get the gist of it in the few minutes that have

1169
been available to me? Nevertheless, I am sure that the Home Secretary is right not to have allowed Sir Paul Condon to be drummed out of office when in fact he has made a great contribution to policing in the metropolis.
Does the Minister agree that there is some danger in accusing a whole force of institutionalised racism simply because, to most people, it is a phrase of uncertain meaning, as acknowledged by Sir William himself at one stage when he said that for 10 people there were four different definitions? In spite of the statement in the report that the finding does not imply that all police officers are racists, is there not a risk that the use of the phrase will taint all police officers in the force when the vast majority are not racist and at the same time may let individual racist officers off the hook when we really have to see that they are brought to book? It is important to recognise that the investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence was appallingly badly handled; that the Lawrence family has suffered appallingly; and that the police must never allow anything like this to happen again and must give the highest priority to cracking down on racist officers and racially motivated crime.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, for his agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. It is, of course, a detailed report. One needs days, not hours, to study it with care. However, I have to disagree with his proposition. The definition in paragraph 6.34 is worth repeating and remembering:
"The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination"—
outcomes, in other words—
"through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people".
If we do not take that on board, understand it, and be shamed by it, we shall get nowhere.
Chapter 6 is an interesting chapter. Obviously the brief headline accounts of this report are limited. It is a thoughtful discussion of different definitions of racism. Sir William's report quotes—rightly, I think—at paragraph 6.43 what Lord Justice Leggatt said in the well-known case of Querishi v. London Borough of Newham:
"Incompetence does not, without more, become discrimination merely because the person affected by it is from an ethnic minority".
The inquiry takes that fully on board and directs its mind accordingly. Paragraph 6.44 states:
"We heed this warning, but upon all the facts we assert that the conclusion that racism played its part in this case is fully justified. Mere incompetence cannot of itself account for the whole catalogue of failures, mistakes, misjudgements, and lack of direction and control which bedevilled the Stephen Lawrence investigation".
1170
I ask the following question, if we think that Sir William was wrong: if Stephen had been a young, white teenager from a middle class, white family, would it have been quite the same?
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating this important Statement which today marks a milestone in beginning to put in place an accountable and just police force. I salute the comprehensive comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the searching questions, which I wholly endorse. I take this opportunity to express gratitude for the bravery of my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary in honouring the persistence of Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence in bringing to public attention the shameful conduct of those officers who today shame the whole of the Met. Sir Paul Condon is not an issue. I appreciate the difficult decision that the Home Secretary had to take and support him in that. I look forward to Sir Paul Condon placing much emphasis on the recommendations that are before us.
It would be unjust not to acknowledge also the vanguard action of Paul Dacre of the Daily Mail without whose action middle England might never have acquired the knowledge we have today. I also pay tribute to the numerous other families who still await justice on account of the death or severe disablement of their sons. I refer to the Ricky Reel, the Muktar Ahmed and Quddus Ali families, to name but a few. I am confident that the recommendations of the report and the commitment of the Government to scrutinise its implementation will result in some fundamental changes not just within the Met but also perhaps within wider society so that Stephen Lawrence can finally rest in peace.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, for those remarks. I believe that Jack Straw took the right decision in setting up a public inquiry, publicly funded and with an undertaking to publish its findings. He was right to support Sir Paul Condon when it would have been easy not to do so. I agree with the noble Baroness that the Daily Mail under the editorship of Paul Dacre has performed a valuable public service in expressing the real, bitter anger I mentioned earlier, and disseminating that widely to a critical audience in our society. I believe that he and his newspaper have done noble work which a free press ought to be able to do, even if a free press sometimes comes to conclusions with which we do not always agree.
In respect of the latter two points the noble Baroness raised, there is, of course—as mentioned in the Statement made by Jack Straw, which I repeated—the retrospective review of unsolved murders in this particular context. The noble Baroness and your Lordships will know of the reinvestigation of the death of Mr. Michael Manson, which is being conducted with real vigour—I can say that from personal knowledge—

1171
by Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Grieve. I shall say no more about that because it is a continuing investigation.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I believe that Sir Paul Condon is an issue. I was bishop in north London when Paul Condon became the ADC of north west London. He was responsible for the policing of the Notting Hill carnival. The transformation he brought to that event through community consent was remarkable. The community became calm and the carnival became a happy event which the police and other people thoroughly enjoyed. No one could have brought more commitment to the task of eradicating racism from the Metropolitan police force. When I came back to London last year I was sad to discover that as regards a murder which occurred "on the patch" in my diocese, Sir Paul had not been able to eradicate racism within the Metropolitan police force. It illustrates just what a difficult task this is. Frankly, if he could not complete that task, with his conviction and commitment, it will not be easily done. Why is that the case? I believe the problem arises from the enormous scale of the force.
I was a bishop in Leicester. The Leicester police have an enviable record of eradicating racism from within their ranks but it is a relatively small force and therefore the culture of the senior management can be imposed throughout the force. Every serving police officer has to spend several weekends living with a family from the ethnic minority community. However, the task is far more difficult as regards the Metropolitan force. Does the Minister agree that either Sir Paul or his successor who tackles this task, will need the support and encouragement of us all?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his support of Sir Paul Condon. I absolutely agree with the proposition that he put to me finally, as I hope I have tried to make clear on every occasion when we have addressed these matters. It is not a question of police officers and the police service, nor of parts of the criminal justice system, nor of parts of the education system or the National Health Service. It is a question of attacking fundamental attitudes which we are reluctant to admit our society indulges in.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that Sir William Macpherson and his advisers are to be congratulated on the report, of which I have read a good deal between the time that Jack Straw sat down and the present time? It is an incisive, clear, unambiguous report. When you think that the inquiry considered 100,000 pages of documents and sat for 70 days in all, the report, of just over 300 pages, is a masterpiece of direct presentation and conclusion. I agree with the noble Lord that the influence of the report will be very much greater than that of the Scarman Report.
The noble Lord and I, between us, have probably been involved in many, many murder cases. He knows, as I do, that what is really at the root of this case—the horrific murder of a youngster by a gang—is that, from the outset, the reflex action of the officers was different
1172
from what we would have expected in those circumstances. The experience of Sir William—as a barrister and, later, as a High Court judge—and those advising him reflects this.
I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that there is institutionalised prejudice in our country and that we have to take steps to overcome it. He and I know, I am sure, that there are institutionalised prejudices in the robing room and even on the Bench. We have been aware of that. They have changed, perhaps, over the years and are changing. They continually change.
Having said that, there is one matter that I would ask the noble Lord to consider very carefully. It is the suggestion that the Court of Appeal be given power to permit prosecution after acquittal where fresh and viable evidence is presented. That would be a very, very dangerous step. Hard cases make bad law. This is a hard case. The evidence should have been there if the investigation had been properly undertaken. To change the law on this matter because of this case would he a very dangerous step indeed. Does the Minister not consider that a better solution might be to change the procedure of inquiry in serious criminal cases of this kind?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson is right. There is institutionalised prejudice, and—reverting to what I said earlier—not least in the apparently respectable areas of our society like the legal profession, as the noble Lord has just described. I will do no more than say that there is a wide spectrum in the legal profession—from the Law Society to the Bar Council, to practitioners, to the Bench, as the noble Lord mentioned, and to the Inns of Court—if we want to think about outcomes.
The noble Lord is right to say that one does not want to change the law in a hurried, ill-considered way. Again, that is why I think it is absolutely right that we should ask the Law Commission to look at this very difficult area of the law. At the moment there is of course an exception if the facts demonstrate that the acquittal was by virtue of interference with, or intimidation of, witnesses or jurors. Sections 54 to 57 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 do, I agree exceptionally, allow the acquittal to be overturned. The noble Lord is quite right. One has to be very careful indeed that one does not produce further wrongs in addressing this undoubted shame. It is right to ask the Law Commission to put its mind to this issue. If one looks at the productions the Law Commission has been able to bring about in discussing criminal law, one notices that they are of very high quality indeed.
Lord Laming: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on repeating the Statement and on the way he has responded to noble Lords. It has been most encouraging, informative and sensitive. I invite the Minister to reinforce the messages in the report about racism, both intended and unintended, and to say that these messages are for every organisation, not just those the subject of the inquiry. Those message are for us all.
Does the Minister agree that it is only by everyone being willing to explore our prejudices and stereotypes that progress will be made? Does the Minister further

1173
agree that the real challenge of the report is not only for those organisations but for every one of us and every part of society?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. But we have to focus on particular organisations. As Jack Straw said, it is very important that he accepts immediately the expansion of the remit of the race relations legislation to the police and other similar institutions. He is, after all, the Home Secretary, and he made a point of indicating that he does not simply want to pass by on the other side. He said that we have not got things right in the Home Office; we have not got things right in government departments. I agree with the noble Lord that attitudes must change, but the only significant way to change attitudes is to have structural mechanisms which are capable of enforcement. The secret thoughts of the human heart are not capable of monitoring or enforcement.
Lord Elton: My Lords, we are aware of and admire the programme that Sir Paul has introduced in London in the full glare of publicity. It will be taken forward under the eye of the Home Office, which is still effectively—but not for long—the police authority. Can the Minister tell us how similar programmes will be taken forward in other forces? In paragraph 46.27, the report tells us that similar conditions exist in other forces, and the Statement states that this is confirmed by HMI reports. I am afraid that the other question I would ask the noble Lord is curtailed by the clock.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: No.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if the noble Lord is forgiving, I would ask him whether he subscribes to the views touched on by the right reverend Prelate, which seem to suggest that racism not only causes but arises from fear and mistrust. Communities are separated by cultural differences, as by a screen, and until that screen is removed, people cannot learn to respect, like or trust members of communities they do not understand and discover that there are good and bad people among those of other colours as there are among their own. Therefore, programmes of home visits—which seem incredibly expensive—are nevertheless the only way we will resolve the problem.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think I was right to trespass on your Lordships' prerogative. I thought that the noble Lord should be invited to ask his second question. I agree that racism derives from a number of subtle causes. It comes from history; it comes from culture; and, as the noble Lord said, it comes from deep, profound ignorance, from not knowing. Part of what needs to be done is teaching people at a very early stage in school that racism—apart from being foul and wrong—is simply based on ignorance and not wanting to know, or having the ability to know, that there may be a difference in other people. That is a lesson to us all.
The immediate step of Jack Straw has been to convene a conference in April of all chief constables and police authorities to discuss immediately the lessons
1174
of Sir William Macpherson's excellent report. I said a few days ago in answer to another question that Sir William is a very remarkable public servant. He has produced an extremely distinguished, thoughtful report, as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said, and I should have responded more promptly. It is a phenomenal achievement to produce something so coherent, so focused and so comprehensive in such a short time.

Kosovo
7.19 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on Kosovo which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission I should like to make a Statement on the Kosovo talks. In my Statement three weeks ago I reported that the Contact Group had agreed to summon both sides to negotiations for a political settlement on the basis of the documents tabled by the Contact Group.
"Both sides responded to that summons and took part in peace talks held until yesterday at Rambouillet. As co-chair of the talks, the United Kingdom was fully engaged in brokering agreement between the two parties, and the House will wish to recognise the immense effort put in by officials, some of whom have worked without break and occasionally without sleep. I would record the appreciation of all the British team for the close co-operation of France, both as co-chair and host of the talks.
"At the outset both parties to the talks had a large number of reservations to the Contact Group proposals for the constitution of a self-governing Kosovo. The majority of them were resolved. But the Yugoslav delegation still have some difficulties, such as the limited role of the Serbian courts. The Albanian side are still particularly concerned by the absence of a commitment to a referendum on independence at the end of the three-year period.
"These problems remain, but nevertheless we obtained consensus from both sides to a democratic, self-governing Kosovo, and agreement to the main elements in the detailed texts on its constitution. These texts provide for Kosovo its own assembly, constitution, president, government, taxes, laws, and police and security. They provide a sweeping measure of autonomy for Kosovo, including the right to conduct foreign relations in respect of the areas within the competence of the Kosovar Assembly. The constitution also provides full protection for the national communities within Kosovo, including the right of both Serb and Albanian communities to representative bodies to protect and promote their respective language, culture, religion and educational curriculum.

1175
"There was broad agreement on both sides to a major international presence in support of the political settlement. Elections to the assembly, local communes, and community bodies are to be supervised by the OSCE. Both parties agreed to the appointment of an international ombudsman to monitor human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the texts provide for the European Commission to take the lead role in co-ordinating the economic reconstruction of Kosovo.
"The most difficult issue of all was the proposal for an international military presence in Kosovo. The Yugoslav delegation refused to accept that the presence of foreign troops was consistent with their national sovereignty. There were also serious difficulties on the Albanian side, among whom the representatives of the Kosovo Liberation Army found it hard to accept that a condition of an international military force was that they must demilitarise and surrender their weapons.
"Throughout the talks I made clear the willingness of Britain to provide ground troops to underpin the interim settlement, but that there could be no question of us or our allies doing so without a clear commitment to such a ceasefire and to the withdrawal or disarmament on both sides necessary to make it a reality. Both parties agreed to meet again on 15th March to discuss all aspects of the implementation of the new constitution of Kosovo, including the civilian and military international presence.
"My colleague Hubert Vedrine and I are considering how we can best use the interval between now and then to convince the wider public in Kosovo and Serbia that the outcome is a good bargain for both, and the best deal they will have to end the conflict.
"I regret to inform the House that violent conflict continues in Kosovo. On Monday there was fighting near Vucitrn. Yesterday there was further fighting at Bukos, in which we know that at least one Serb was killed and five injured. We do not yet have figures for casualties on the Albanian side. Today there have been further exchanges of fire near Suva Reka.
"Last night Javier Solana confirmed that NATO expects both sides to respect the ceasefire and remains ready to use whatever means are necessary in support of it. Yesterday all the NATO members of the Contact Group repeated their support for decisive NATO action if Belgrade makes a disproportionate response or takes violent reprisals against the civilian population. We also hold the Kosovo Liberation Army responsible for its part in maintaining a ceasefire. Both sides should use the next three weeks to build on the new agreement for peace, not to break down the existing agreement for a ceasefire.
"When I spoke to the House last on this issue, I ended by saying that I could not confirm that the talks which we were seeking would take place, nor guarantee that they would succeed. We were successful in getting both sides to take part in the talks. As a result, we have created a peace process, and the end of the Rambouillet talks is not the end of
1176
that process, but only the conclusion of its first phase. Both sides have committed themselves to taking part in its next phase.
"I cannot report to the House that we have yet reached complete agreement to the Contact Group texts, but we have secured agreement to the overwhelming majority of them. That result proves that we were right to try for peace by summoning these talks. But it also demonstrates the extra mile we still have to travel. I can assure the House that we will maintain our pressure on both sides to end the conflict through negotiations.
"Neither side is going to end this conflict through military action. Neither side can gain from prolonging it. The longer Belgrade continues to try to resolve the conflict by military repression, the more difficult it makes any final outcome that stops short of independence for Kosovo. And the longer the Kosovo Liberation Army continues to provoke repression, the more difficult it makes it for the international community to stop the bloodshed among its people.
"Both sides have recognised the value of the Contact Group proposals. I urge them now to work with us in implementing those proposals and to turn their commitments on paper into reality on the ground; the reality of a Kosovo free from fear and governed by free elections".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place and for the details that she has given to your Lordships' House of the partial political agreement that has been reached as a result of the Rambouillet talks. From the outset, I should like to take this opportunity to reiterate the support of these Benches for the Government both in their active efforts to seek a political solution to the ongoing crisis in Kosovo under the auspices of the Contact Group, and in their preparations for the anticipated deployment of the British contingent of peacekeeping troops.
I should also like to assure the Minister that we appreciate the complexity and the difficulty of the issues under negotiation. We welcome the news that Belgrade has moved towards a substantial degree of autonomy for a democratic Kosovo, with its own assembly, courts and police and with safeguards for the protection of human rights and members of national communities. However, given the partial nature of this provisional agreement and in the absence of a more substantial concession, I fear that the impression left by the Rambouillet talks remains one of a failure to bring forth anything more than the most meagre of fruits. What once was an event has now become a process.
I should like to ask the Minister how far these talks have in fact altered the status quo that was reached by the ceasefire deal agreed last October, when the noble Baroness told the House that a,
"central part of the Holbrooke package was the agreement by President Milosevic to a political framework to deliver self-government for Kosovo".—[Official Report, 19/10/98; col. 1202.]

1177
Does the Minister accept that when neither party has signed the agreement and when one delegation's acceptance is conditional and the other's is partial, any attempt to claim major progress has all the ingredients of a face-saver? After a year of fighting, after a year of repeated threats of action by the international community as yet unfulfilled, after 17 days of intensive talks, it remains the case that, today, there is still no peace in Kosovo; there is still no agreement on a peacekeeping force; and there is only a half-hearted conditional commitment from both parties to a future political structure for the province.
Does the Minister accept that the three-week period until both sides reconvene on 15th March to work on the implementation of the deal simply represents a postponement of the most intractable issues? Does the Minister further accept that the failure to reach a comprehensive agreement and the subsequent three-week delay may well provide hard-liners on both sides with the opportunity to entrench their obdurate positions yet further?
The Foreign Secretary has said that the next three weeks will be used to,
"seek to convince both the Serbs and the Albanians that the texts that have been discussed and agreed to provide a good bargain for both sides".
Can the Minister elaborate on how that will he done and whether the Foreign Secretary or any other Contact Group Minister will be travelling to Belgrade during that period?
Assessing the Serb perspective, what prospect does the Minister see for Serb agreement in March to the deployment of the proposed 30,000 strong NATO-led peacekeeping force, given the failure to reach agreement on that to date, and given the US Secretary of State's belief that the Serbs must bear the lion's share of responsibility for that, since they did not "engage at all" on this question during the Rambouillet talks?
Will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's position that the political agreement will not work without an international military presence to ensure stability in the province? Will she further confirm that the presence of a NATO-led peacekeeping force is non-negotiable, that such a force must be NATO led and NATO commanded, and that without agreement from the Serbs to such a military presence there can be no deal?
Is the Minister in a position to enlarge on the Foreign Secretary's comments that,
"if other countries want to take part [in such a force] we would welcome that and would explore how they could take part"?
Will the Minister confirm that the threat of NATO action remains a very real one if the Kosovar Albanians agree to the deal while the Serbs do not? Will she give an assurance that President Milosevic should not be lulled into a false sense of security by perceptions that NATO is once again crying wolf?
Does the Minister accept the growing concern that the often repeated threat of NATO air strikes against Serbia is ringing increasingly hollow, and that once the linkage between diplomacy and the threat of the use of force is
1178
made, that linkage must be credible, or else the international community risks undermining its authority? Although any such NATO action is presently hamstrung by Kosovo procrastination, it remains the case that while President Milosevic continues to flout the will of the international community and the result is a three-week consultation period instead of the promised air strikes, it will only serve to encourage him in his defiance.
On that note, is the Minister in a position to confirm Major-General Drewienkiewicz's reported warnings that the Kosovo Verification Mission has received direct indications from the Serbian authorities that they are preparing to launch a major offensive of 50,000 soldiers in Kosovo, in the event of further delay by the Kosovo delegation? And, of very considerable importance, can the Minister outline the Russian contribution to the Rambouillet talks, and can she say what action, if any, the Russian Government have indicated they will take to prevent NATO air strikes against Serbia?
From the Kosovo Albanian perspective, what expectations does the Minister have that the Kosovo Albanians will agree to a deal which does not contain the right to a binding referendum on independence at the end of the three-year interim period, particularly in the light of KLA veteran Adem Demaci's statement that the Rambouillet talks could not bring peace, that KLA disarmament was "out of the question" and that the struggle would continue?
What action will the Government take, together with their Contact Group partners, if the consultations which will take place in Kosovo over the next three weeks lead to a rejection of the deal? In that event, will the Government seek international support to cut off the supply lines to the KLA?
We offer the Government our support for the negotiations when the talks are reconvened in March; but, without doubt, there will be, and should be, reflection on the fact that during the next three weeks the ceasefire will continue to be breached in Kosovo on a daily basis as the fighting grows ever more intense with the onset of spring and more refugees will he forced to leave their homes to add to the 9,000 which the UNHCR estimates have fled in the past few days, while, regrettably, the prospect of a lasting and comprehensive settlement for peace remains as elusive as ever.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. I do not wholly accept the harsh strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I believe that he underestimates the extraordinary difficulty of the problems that have arisen time and again as the former Yugoslavia gradually disintegrates. Perhaps there is no more appropriate quotation than that from the famous social scientist, Max Weber, that politics is like the boring of hard boards. No harder boards exist than the position of the government of the former republic of Yugoslavia. That said, some of the problems that the Contact Group faced in the most recent discussions over

1179
Kosovo had their origins in the inadequate, and certainly inadequately spelt out, conditions of the original Holbrooke-Milosevic agreement, which among other things left very unclear just what was the position of the Yugoslav army or the Serbian police within the province of Kosovo.
I wish briefly to ask the Minister a few questions. First, will she confirm that the situation reached in the recent discussions at Rambouillet took the position with regard to the autonomous government of Kosovo further than it was in 1989, when it was breached by President Milosevic? In other words, will she confirm that advances were made in respect of the spelling out of what is meant by autonomy for Kosovo?
Will she also confirm that the Contact Group was placed in an extremely difficult position by the unwillingness of the Albanian Kosovan delegation to take any single united position; and that the willingness of some in that delegation, in particular those with an elected situation, to proceed to some kind of compromise agreement was much greater than those who happened to lead the Kosovo Liberation Army?
In regard to the discussions that are to take place in the next three weeks, can the Minister tell us what, if anything, the position of the Kosovo Verification Mission is likely to be? Will it continue to stay in the province, or will it be pulled out? Does the Minister believe that there is any future for a civilian mission in the event that there is no decision to agree to the presence of NATO troops, as seems all too probable, on the part of the government of the former republic of Yugoslavia? Finally, will the Minister tell the House whether in any proceedings in an attempt to reach a compromise agreement there will be an attempt to spell out the precise position of the Serbian police and of the army of the former republic of Yugoslavia in much more detail than was ever achieved in the former talks with Milosevic which, I repeat, was one of the problems faced by the Contact Group in the recent negotiations?
7.38 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for their general support. I think that I can say that. Although the noble Lord placed a number of strictures upon the agreement, I thought that he was nonetheless supportive of the Government's position.
It is no secret that this is a partial agreement. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that in making his Statement in another place my right honourable friend was very clear that more had been achieved in these talks than he had thought possible when they began. I believe that was clear in the previous Statement that I repeated, in which he indicated that he was not even sure that the relevant parties would go to Rambouillet for the discussions in the first place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is right in stressing the complexities that there have been in these discussions. They are enormously complex and difficult. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was somewhat shortsighted in the view that he took about
1180
Belgrade's position on Kosovo autonomy. The Statement which I repeated on behalf of my right honourable friend spelt out in some detail the areas of autonomy in respect not only of the constitution but also of the president, the government, taxes, police, security and conducting foreign relations in respect of the areas within the competence of the Kosovar assembly. That is a substantial step forward and that view is taken not only by my right honourable friend but also by the EU foreign ministers to whom he reported earlier this week.
The noble Lord is right. It has been enormously difficult. I have made Statements to your Lordships since autumn last year about the difficulties we were running into on the political track under the stewardship of Ambassador Hill.
The noble Lord asked whether the next few weeks were not just an opportunity to put off some dreadful decisions. I do not believe that is so. I think this is genuinely a time for consultation. One of the reasons it is so important is not only on the Serb side but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, it is about complexities on the Kosovar side. We are not just dealing with the KLA but with a complex number of groupings and individuals on the Kosovar side who have indicated that they need extra time to talk and consult about what they were being asked to sign up to. If it takes the extra three weeks to secure an agreement, I believe we will all feel it was time well spent.
Of course, there have been disappointments. However, I do not think it is fair to say that the discussions have been in any sense a failure. They have not been ideal, nor have they been perfect. But they are considerably better than no agreement at all. I thought that the noble Baroness showed a firm and sensible grasp of the realities of international negotiations.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, asked: "What if the Serbs continue to refuse a NATO ground force?" The Serbs have agreed to discuss the scope and character of an international presence in Kosovo to implement the agreement. That is the crucial point. It is an international grouping to implement the agreement. The Serbs are well aware that they will be held responsible if they block agreement on 15th March.
The noble Lord asked about the position vis-à-vis Russian troops. Russia is a full member of the contact group. The Russian negotiator played a key role at Rambouillet, alongside the EU negotiators and US negotiators. Russia supports the ground force deployment, to underpin a political settlement in Kosovo, so long as it is agreed with the Serbs. Partly for domestic political reasons, of which I am sure we are aware, they find it difficult to accept a purely NATO force. But they have agreed that if the Serbs agree, they want to take part in that ground force.
The noble Lord also asked me to reflect on what triggers there might be for NATO action. The NATO strategy is to halt the violence and support the completion of the negotiations on this interim political settlement and to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, described to us. Steps to that end should, in our view, involve the completion of the negotiations within the specified

1181
timescale. They should involve immediate observance of the cease-fire by the FRY authorities and also of their commitments, including the reduction to agreed levels of forces. There must also be an end to the excessive and disproportionate use of force.
I was asked about other countries which might join some kind of ground force. Several allies have announced that they would be willing to use forces: France, around 5,000; Germany, over 5,000; the United States, nearly 4,000; Canada, between 500 and 800. Italy and some smaller allies have also agreed to contribute. That is important because, although it is the United Kingdom which suggested that we put in 8,000 to 9,000 personnel, we are heavily supported in it by our allies, should the ground force go in.
The key message is that we must keep up the pressure on both sides to accept all aspects of the agreement and to take concrete steps to prepare for implementation.
To answer the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, we are clear that NATO will not lower its guard. Her Majesty's Government are urging both sides to use restraint in the next three weeks, to refrain from provocative acts and to use this time constructively for the consultation which they have both said they need.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if my confidence in the Government needed bolstering, it would have received support from what has taken place this evening. We heard a Statement from the Government which indicated an outcome—though not a final outcome—which most of us can regard as something which we hoped against hope would be achieved. However, we had no confidence that it would. It is not a final result, but when one heard the Opposition response to the Statement, one could only thank goodness that the control of the British contribution was not in their hands on this occasion or by now we would have been launched into a full-scale war. Under those circumstances, my support of the Government is reinforced. I was glad to hear in similar terms from the Liberal Benches.
The Opposition raised the question of air attacks. Is it not the case that air attacks have no part in the situation? They can only achieve a contrary result. Is it not the case, therefore, that if there were ever a situation in which one had to use the methods of peace and possibly peace reinforcement after the event—which one hopes will be the outcome—there is no place for air attacks. Let us hope we shall hear no more about that.
I congratulate the Government on their partial success so far, and not only the Government but all concerned in the discussions. I am grateful to those who participated from all sides. We are in a better position now than many of us thought we might be on this occasion.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Jenkins for his support. As he rightly indicated, this is not just something that
1182
has been achieved by Ministers—albeit partially successful—but, as I cannot overemphasise, on the part of officials who have worked tirelessly in order to try to achieve the agreement.
I must make a confession to noble Lords that I rather enjoy the rigorous questioning of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. He keeps us all on our toes on foreign affairs issues. The questions that he puts are tabled in the spirit of trying to ascertain that little bit more than the Government give in their Statements. I thought perhaps he could have been a little more generous, it is true, and I agree with my noble friend on the point; but I believe that the noble Lord was kind enough to indicate his broad support.
As for air strikes, I emphasise to my noble friend that he must not think that NATO is lowering its guard. I hope I made it clear that NATO will continue to watch the situation on the ground in Kosovo closely and will stand ready to act if either side provokes violent incidents or blocks the agreement. We all hope that that will not be the case and now we have the best chance of it not happening. I hope that we shall be able to go forward with an agreement on 15th March.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, without wishing to pre-empt the debate that will take place considerably later this evening, perhaps I may ask about the number of troops to be provided. Can the Minister explain why the vast majority of the troops appear to have been offered by Britain?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, yes, I can. The ground force that is envisaged will be about 30,000 strong. It is led by the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps under General Sir Michael Jackson. The UK contribution will be between 8,000 and 9,000 men. As I understand it, it is the UK that takes the lead in that Rapid Reaction Corps. It is for that reason that the UK has offered such a substantial number of troops.

Sierra Leone: Foreign Affairs Committee Report
7.50 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone that has been made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a Statement arising from my Parliamentary Answer of yesterday on the report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on Sierra Leone. Yesterday I set out the circumstances in which the Foreign Office received a draft of that report.
"In view of the subsequent comments made by a number of honourable Members I want to assure the House that neither the Foreign Office nor Ministers

1183
took any action on that draft. We did not in any way seek to interfere with the work of the committee or to offer comments on the draft. Indeed, the record shows that the honourable Member for Dundee West did not table any amendments to the draft. Nor did we publish or disclose any part of the draft to the media or to anyone else. I am therefore confident that neither I nor anyone else at the Foreign Office has committed any impropriety on the basis of the draft or broken any of the rules of procedure. But I shall, of course, accept any future ruling which you or the relevant committees may give on this matter.
"In the meantime, I would remind the House that I gave the Select Committee unprecedented access to Foreign Office internal documents and telegrams. Indeed, its report acknowledges that the access it obtained was a quantum leap in openness with Select Committees. I did not obstruct or impede the work of the committee. I did not interfere with the deliberations of the committee, and I have fully respected the role of scrutiny of both the committee and this Chamber".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. I fear that it may come as no surprise to your Lordships' House to hear the news that there has been yet another twist in this unfortunate catalogue of half-truths, obfuscations, misinformation, ill-kept minutes and disappearing documents that is the Sierra Leone affair. A leaked report and an attempt to undermine the inquiry into Sierra Leone conducted by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee can now be added to that sorry list. This raises grave questions about the extent of government collusion in the matter. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer those questions satisfactorily this evening.
As a result of a Written Question asked by the shadow spokesman for foreign affairs in another place, it came to light yesterday that although the Foreign Affairs Select Committee did not publish its report on Sierra Leone until Tuesday, 9th February the Private Office of the Foreign Secretary received a draft copy of the report in the second week of January. Moreover, around 5th and 6th February his office was made aware of certain key conclusions in the report. Can the Minister now inform the House when the Foreign Secretary first saw the report? The Foreign Secretary has apparently sought to justify his response to the leak by stating that in advance of the publication of the report he made no comment to the media about the report except in response to leaks by others to the press. Does the Minister agree that it is deeply flawed logic on the part of the Foreign Secretary to argue that somehow two wrongs cancel each other out?
In his response to a Written Question on 16th February asking who in the Foreign Office was the
1184
first person to have sight of the report, Mr. Lloyd, Minister of State, gave the following reply:
"Copies of the report were collected from the Foreign Affairs Committee office at 0800 on 9 February by the Head of Parliamentary Relations Department and the Parliamentary Clerk".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/2/99; col. WA 751.]
Given that that Written Answer has been shown to be misleading, the question of whether such deception was deliberate must be posed. Can the Minister now confirm whether the Minister of State in another place was aware that the report had been sent to his department in January? If he was not aware of it at that time, when did he first become appraised of it? Further, can the noble Baroness confirm whether the Minister of State approved the Written Answer of 16th February at a time when he was aware of the leak? Given that when in opposition the Foreign Secretary criticised the leak of a Health Select Committee report to the Department of Health, linked it to subsequent changes in the report, described it as extraordinary and a grave situation and sought guidance on whether the matter could be put before the Select Committee on Privileges, does the Minister agree that this is an extremely serious situation? Further, does the noble Baroness agree that should it be discovered that the Minister of State in another place knowingly and deliberately misled Parliament he will have forfeited the confidence of Parliament and that his position as a Minister will no longer be tenable?
As evidenced in the Minister's comprehensive responses to me on many occasions, I have learnt to appreciate that in delicate areas of information flows within the Foreign Office the noble Baroness takes great care to provide well-researched answers. Accordingly, can the Minister inform the House when she herself first had sight of the report? Furthermore, when to her knowledge did her Private Office first have sight of the report, or the draft report, and on what date was it drawn to her attention that the report had been leaked to the Foreign Secretary's Private Office? Can the noble Baroness say why, in her view, the Foreign Secretary did not reveal the leak immediately and inform the chairman of the Select Committee or Madam Speaker?
I believe that there is widespread agreement throughout this House that Select Committees play a vital constitutional role in holding the Executive to account. It is a grave matter indeed when committee members are found to have abused their position. In the light of the damning conclusions reached by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in its report, perhaps the Minister can answer one final question. In her view who should take responsibility for the Sierra Leone affair?
7.57 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, has referred on a substantial number of occasions to matters in another place. This is a matter for another place. I do not consider that it is a matter of significance for this Chamber.
Perhaps I may address myself not to the substance of the Statement but to the appropriateness of repeating in one day in this Chamber three Statements that have been made in another place, in particular a Statement that is

1185
very much concerned with Commons business. Speaking with the support of the Leader and Chief Whip of my group, I believe that it is inappropriate that this Statement should have been repeated. We have just spent two days in this House debating the role of the second Chamber. In the course of a substantial number of speeches noble Lords made reference to the need for a different style and focus, not simply duplication of the business of the House of Commons. Tonight we have in consequence delayed substantially a debate on a timely and important subject. I regret that.
7.59 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am bound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that there is not a great deal that I can add to the Statement made by my right honourable friend. The noble Lord will have the opportunity tomorrow to read in Hansard my right honourable friend's responses to questions put to him in another place today. I am sure that he will do that assiduously.
Perhaps I may deal with some of the points on which I am able to assist the noble Lord a little further. However, I may not be able to go into the full detail that some of the noble Lord's questions require because I do not have the first-hand knowledge so to do. The noble Lord will be aware that the Foreign Secretary has been extraordinarily busy at Rambouillet. The noble Lord may not be aware that my honourable friend Mr. Lloyd is at present in the Great Lakes region to try to secure a ceasefire. I should have thought that that was a rather better use of my honourable friend's time at present than worrying about bits of paper, seriously as we take this issue.
In the second week of January the Foreign Secretary's office received a copy of the draft report. So the answer to that question is the second week of January. Shortly before publication of the report, and at around the same time as leaks critical of FCO officials appeared in the press, the FCO was also made aware of certain key conclusions of the report. I repeat this to the noble Lord. Neither my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary nor any other FCO Minister, official or special adviser took any action to publish or disclose any part of any version of the report or to interfere with the committee's deliberations.
The noble Lord asked me about my own position on this. A copy of the report was delivered to my office about half an hour after the reports were released to the FCO. That is about 8.30 a. m. on 9th February. That was the first time I saw the report in any form. I saw no copy of the report in draft. I saw no part of the report. No one told me that there might be a copy somewhere in the Foreign Office, and no one discussed it with me at any time.
My right honourable friend has complied fully with his obligations to the Foreign Affairs Committee. He did not obstruct or impede the work of the committee. He did not interfere in the deliberations of the committee. He has told another place today that he was guilty of no impropriety, and neither were any other Ministers, and there was no leak to the press from the FCO.
1186
I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I know he has enjoyed going over what has, after all, been a certain amount of government discomfiture over Sierra Leone. I understand that. But it really is time to put this issue to bed. The Legg Report made it clear that Ministers were not to blame for what happened over Sierra Leone, the subject of the Legg Report. The FAC report does not blame Ministers. Others have been the subject of criticisms; those criticisms have been dealt with. It is not right to go on worrying away at these issues with officials, who have already been criticised and the criticisms dealt with. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, will accept that in the friendly spirit in which it is meant.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, at the risk of receiving strictures from the Liberal Democrat Benches, perhaps I may say that I am pleased that this opportunity has been given to the Minister to make it perfectly clear that she did not see any version of the report prior to the day on which it was released. It is important that she should have been able to make it absolutely clear, and the Statement has given her that opportunity.
I wonder whether the noble Baroness is able to assist me by answering this simple question. Who was the first person in the Foreign Office to have sight of a copy of the report; and when—I do not refer to the time of day—was that copy seen? I define "copy" in the common, normal English parlance of a copy: a first draft; a second draft; and a final copy. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness can help me with an answer to that question.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the honest truth is that I do not know who had first sight of the report, which was received in the second week in January. I understand from my right honourable friend's Answer to Questions in another place today that it arrived by fax machine. So I suppose I must say to the noble Lord that it was the person who took it off the fax machine. I do not know who that person was.
I am grateful for what the noble Lord said about my position. I did not know that anyone thought I had seen the draft report. It is nice to know that if he had some cruel suspicions on that point, those have been allayed.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I do not know whether an opportunity will arise later, so I hope that the House will forgive my saying this now. Since reference has been made to those responsible for the incompetence and the troubles of Sierra Leone, does the Minister agree that there are over 200 established posts still unfilled; that the Africa department has lost 100 people in the past few years; that the Sierra Leone desk was dealing with 13 countries; and that the officers concerned were working 70 hours a week? That should be noted and remembered.
I hope that the Minister will agree with me that it seems strange that the MPs on the committee do not seem to understand the convention by which civil servants speak under instruction from their Ministers and for their Ministers and are not allowed or expected

1187
to express private views. Having read the report, the way in which they were treated was disgraceful. They were bullied; they were harassed; and they were treated as though they were very low creatures indeed. That fact should be put on record.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for a great deal of what she said. Of course there were shortcomings over the Sierra Leone affair. That has been acknowledged widely. But we must not allow those shortcomings to characterise a view of the Foreign Office as a whole. As the noble Baroness said, the overwhelming majority of the people in the Foreign Office work extraordinarily hard. The people who have been the subject of criticism have worked extraordinarily hard. Those are good, honest people—
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. My point was never to suggest shortcomings. On the contrary, it was to suggest an explanation of the difficulties.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I had no doubt that that was exactly what the noble Baroness was doing. I sought to reinforce her view by stating vigorously my own.
There are not only the 220-plus posts abroad. An enormous number of people work in the Foreign Office. I knew little about the Foreign Office before I became a Minister. I hope that that is not too shocking an admission to make to your Lordships. However, having worked there for 19 months, I am very proud to be a Foreign Office Minister because I am proud of the staff who work there.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as the House will be aware, I have not intervened on this issue at any time since I left office in May 1997. However, can the Minister do something—I am not sure what—to persuade her colleagues that when papers are submitted to them in their boxes they are properly considered? Had that happened, we would not be in this sorry state; and perhaps (although it is not a sequitur) the people of Sierra Leone would not continue to suffer so much.
I learned a lot in 11½ years in that office, in particular about the staff—not only their commitment to their work but also about what makes it run smoothly. That is team work. I hope that the noble Baroness will find a way to put that right.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we know a great deal about teamwork in the Foreign Office. As the noble Baroness may know, there has been an extraordinary amount of teamwork. I refer to the open days; the bringing in of young people from outside; and the enthusiasm with which officials throughout the Foreign Office have grasped the Government's agenda has been extraordinarily pleasing to Government. The noble Baroness shakes her head. But the team work we have had from officials has been exemplary. I have had cause often to congratulate them on the way that they have picked up on government initiatives.
1188
It is only fair to remind the noble Baroness that after the former Prime Minister the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, had been in office, both she and Mr. Heseltine spoke of the enormous volume of papers that come into ministerial offices. The fact is that not every single one of those papers is always read. When giving evidence before the Scott Inquiry, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, talked about a veritable snowstorm of papers. Mr. Heseltine also said that between 500 to 700 pieces of paper were coming into his office at any one time. Of course selections have to be made from those papers of what Ministers can or cannot read. Speaking for myself, I always read my box to the very end. I am conscious that my level of ignorance has to be compensated by the diligence of the officials who brief me. And I am much too frightened not to read to the end every evening.

Armed Forces
8.10 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne rose to call attention to the problems of current deployment and overstretch in Her Majesty's Armed Forces and the implications of potential deployments to Kosovo; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
This is a crucial time for our Armed Forces. There are at present nearly 6,000 British military personnel in Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia and Greece. And earlier this week, we learnt that the Government have authorised another 2,225 additional personnel to Greece and Macedonia as the advance element of the UK's contribution to any NATO-led peace implementation force in Kosovo. I believe that these troops have now left for this deployment and I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that.
The Defence Secretary has said that this latest deployment represents,
"prudent military planning to ensure that the UK can continue to play its part in bringing about a peaceful settlement in Kosovo".
The news from Rambouillet, while well-spun by the Foreign Secretary on the "Today" programme this morning, is not, I fear, encouraging. Your Lordships will have heard the Statement repeated by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, a few minutes ago.
During my time at the Ministry of Defence, now long ago, world order was shaped by the Cold War. With the collapse of communism, some thought that the world would become a safer place. But the reality is far different. We face a situation of ever greater uncertainty, and one of the most complex situations is in Europe itself.
I would like to pay tribute to the members of the Armed Forces and their families for the commitment and dedication that they show under very difficult circumstances. As the recent Strategic Defence Review recognised, units and individuals, especially in key areas, are separated from their families and base units

1189
too often and for too long. And it is also acknowledged that overstretch and undermanning in the Armed Forces "are linked problems".
Back in April 1998, Army manpower stood at 109,800, representing a reduction of 28 per cent. since Options for Change. Now the Government's own SDR forecasts an increase in Army personnel by some 3,300. However, what may appear to be good news should be seen in the context of the fact that the Army is already significantly under establishment. And although further recruitment is taking place, the Army is having to cope with the problem of heavy wastage of personnel. I understand from figures provided by the Defence Analytical Services Agency that in the 12 months to October 1998, 1,612 officers, no less, left the Army compared with only 1,026 in the 12 months to October 1997—an increase of more than 50 per cent. Most of the exodus is a result of officers choosing to go rather than taking retirement or leaving because of ill health.
These problems are no less serious in the other services. I was fortunate to hear a recent lecture by the Chief of the Air Staff in which he recited at some length the stresses and strains being placed on his personnel by repeated and protracted deployment in various theatres, including the former Yugoslavia, southern Turkey and the no-fly zones in Iraq.
The problem is repeated in the Royal Navy, which has lost somewhere in the region of 12,000 personnel in the past two years. The frigate and destroyer flotilla is to be reduced by three ships and two submarines are to go, which will place a still greater burden on the remaining fleet.
These trends should be seen against the claim by the Defence Secretary in his opening statement in the SDR that he would modernise and reshape the Armed Forces to meet the challenges of the 21st century, and that the review would,
"give our services the firm foundation they need to plan for the long term".
One key to achieving the SDR's objective is a more effective recruiting policy. I understand that future recruitment is likely to be in signals, engineers and logistics troops.
I especially wish the Army well in recruiting more engineers. In my capacity as Chairman of the Engineering and Marine Training Authority, I can tell your Lordships that attracting young people into engineering is one of the most difficult and worrying issues facing the industry. I look forward to hearing how the Army proposes to recruit more engineers. It is not going to be easy and the problem will not be helped by the proposed reductions in the TA.
Until the modestly revised establishment level is achieved, which is not expected to happen until 2004, the problem of overstretch will remain or worsen. In addition, the vital support given to the regular Army by the Territorial Army is to be reduced. Most regular units deploy with a TA increment on operations or on exercises. In Bosnia, some 10 per cent. of the
1190
implementation force and the stabilisation force is supplied by reservists, a total of some 2,500 of whom nearly half are in the infantry.
I would like to turn to events in Kosovo. The Foreign Secretary has made clear that the Government would be willing to send more British troops if there were a clear agreement to a political settlement. He has also said that they will be,
"part of an international force to provide stability in Kosovo so that a political settlement can take root".
While it would appear that troops will not immediately be going to Kosovo following the failure to produce a breakthrough yesterday, the Government have still committed troops to that region. That commitment will have major implications for our Armed Forces and their ability to react to any future major crisis elsewhere.
Given that one division is already deployed indefinitely in Bosnia, the possible deployment of a corps headquarters and a brigade to Kosovo is a huge additional burden. The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, admitted as much himself a fortnight ago when he told your Lordships that the deployment of troops in Kosovo,
"will add to overstretch in the Army, in particular if we end up deploying of the order of 8,000 men".—[Official Report, 11/2/99; col. 389.]
That number is now in prospect. Indeed, I heard the figure rise to a possible 9,000 from the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, a few moments ago.
It would seem that if and when we fulfil this commitment our Armed Forces will be at the limit of their resources. We are told that the deployment will be for three years. Is that up to three years, precisely three years or at least three years? I greatly fear that it will be the latter of those. We shall be the largest single contributor to the proposed NATO deployment in Kosovo and we are committing troops which we can ill spare from other tasks no less important. What will happen, for example, if the situation in Northern Ireland seriously deteriorates? From where will any extra troops which may be needed there be found?
It is a remarkable fact that our Armed Forces seem ever willing to respond to the demands placed upon them, come what may. Perhaps the Chiefs of Staff too easily acquiesce in meeting ministerial wishes. Has the time not come for the Government to recognise the validity of their own statement writ large in the SDR that we,
"must match the commitments we undertake to our planned resources."?
Hear, hear to that. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has done your Lordships' House a service in introducing today's debate. He properly identified these as difficult times. Europe, which has enjoyed peace since the formation of NATO, no longer enjoys that same peace and stability. The noble Lord referred to the collapse of communism which has left the world with areas of great instability that present very real dangers. The Balkans and the current crisis in Kosovo referred to in the noble Lord's Motion make

1191
that place the most immediate flashpoint. Our readiness for such a crisis must be seen and related to the Government's Strategic Defence Review.
The defence review has been much debated and commented on in Parliament and in the country and it took place against the background and legacy of the previous administration. During 18 years in office, the previous government made profound changes in the scale and capacity of our defence provision. Defence spending as a percentage of GDP was cut from 5.3 per cent. in 1984 to 2.8 per cent. in 1997. Overall defence expenditure was cut by almost a third in real terms between 1985 and 1997. The number of UK jobs dependent on defence expenditure and defence exports almost halved under the Conservatives, from 740,000 in 1980 to around 400,000 when they left office. Total service manpower, excluding reserves and auxiliary forces, was cut by a third between 1979 and 1997. a cut of over 100,000. Under the Conservatives the number of regulars in the Air Force and the Navy were cut by 29,000 and 27,000 respectively. Over the same period civilian jobs were cut by more than half, a fall of 115,000.
Under the Conservatives the number of conventionally armed submarines was cut from 28 to 12; the number of destroyers and frigates was cut from 48 to 35; the number of infantry battalions in the British Army was cut from 55 to 40; the number of tanks was cut by 45 per cent.; and the number of aircraft in service with the Royal Air Force was cut by some 30 per cent. Meanwhile, the Conservative government left the Army under strength by over 5,000 personnel against its trained requirement.
The result of these cuts was that Her Majesty's Government inherited a damaging gap between commitments and resources, reduced morale among many service personnel and overstretch in many areas of our Armed Forces. If there is overstretch today, some responsibility for it must be accepted by the Benches opposite.
However, I believe that in the 22 months of this administration real progress has been made. There has been progress in the development of joint capabilities, an area of defence policy in which I am sure we shall see further developments. There has been progress in modernising—and I promise not to say "modernising" too often—the services, from plans to buy two new aircraft carriers to improving the deployability and usability of the Territorial Army, adding some 3,300 troops to the Regular Army and confirming the order for the Eurofighter. The list is too long to repeat now and I should simply be re-running information which we all received from the Ministry of Defence. The SDR was well received and is the basis for ensuring that our services meet all foreseeable demands that may be made upon them.
The Government have developed an ethical foreign policy, through that is not to say that other governments and administrations have not had an ethical basis for their policy in foreign affairs. That means that the defence arm of that policy must be backed up with the tools and personnel to do the job. We want to play our
1192
part as a nation in preventing conflict, supporting the United Nations peace support operations, promoting international arms control and, where appropriate, arms reduction and minimising our nuclear deterrent to that which is necessary and essential. The ban on import, export, manufacture and transfer of anti-personnel landmines is a very real success of our policy.
We shall not fail now, or in the future, to meet our commitments to NATO. The Government are addressing the question of recruitment, to which the noble Lord referred. It is vital that we achieve that objective. Recruitment is always difficult in times of high employment. It is a problem brought about to some extent by the successful management of the economy, resulting in a choice of jobs for our young people. We must ensure that that choice includes the offer of a rewarding career in our armed services.
I know that my noble friend Lord Gilbert is concerned to see progress in recruitment from our ethnic communities and an expansion of posts open to women. That is something I hope to follow up in the future in your Lordship's House. I wish to congratulate my noble friend on all that he is doing in that regard.
The world is not a safe place, a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, properly referred. Ensuring our domestic defence while fulfilling our role in the community of free nations must be the central principle of defence policy. I believe that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has won the support of the country for the policies correctly being pursued and that we can and shall meet all our obligations.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgame, for raising this crucial issue. For the past 10 years, to my certain knowledge, the Ministry of Defence has expounded a consistent, if rather monotonous, line on overstretch: yes, it is admitted, we have a problem over manning and overstretch, but we have turned the corner and noble Lords can be assured that in two or three years' time recruiting will have improved, units will be manned to establishment and tour intervals will be back to the 24 months which is considered necessary for proper balance and longer-term retention and morale.
Of course, two to three years on the situation was seen to be broadly the same and the story was exactly the same: be patient for another two to three years. I imagine that today the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, would have to admit that, although recruiting has improved considerably, poor retention means that the Armed Forces—particularly the Army, but the other services as well—are still significantly undermanned and grossly overstretched, which induces still poorer retention and a more or less chronic situation. I am sure that the noble Lord, of all people, will not again trot out that long-playing gramophone record.
The question is: does overstretch matter and what should we be doing about it? I should prefer to see the forces overstretched than understretched. After all, men and women join the services for activity in the service

1193
of their country and welcome variety and interesting challenges. Besides, if they were invariably understretched, the Treasury would quickly seize the opportunity to erode the Defence Vote even more than usual. Long experience has taught me that only high profile activity in the national interest can keep the Treasury at bay.
I certainly would not want the Government's professional military advisers to advise against a commitment and the legitimate use of force in the country's interests purely on the grounds of overstretch. If you spend billions on your forces, you want to be able to use them. There may, of course, be other reasons why they should not be used. For instance, what is the aim of the whole exercise and can the forces available to be deployed go any way to meeting that aim?
But, of course, overstretch matters. It degrades performance; it sours the families; it leads to cannibalisation of establishments to produce proper front-line strength; and it has a cumulative effect on retention.
What should the Government be doing about it? First, I am sad to say that it is, rather, a question of what should not have been done over the past six to seven years which has made matters worse. The Army manpower ceiling was set too low, and that may have to be corrected further. One of the most serious consequences of the medical shambles has been the inordinate time wasted by front-line soldiers, who are therefore not available for deployment, in waiting for medical appointments because of shortages of doctors and specialists. That has a direct effect on internal unit overstretch.
As the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne said, there have also been excessive cuts in the TA, particularly in the infantry and the engineers, which have needlessly reduced the only reserve we had at this crucial time and when TA soldiers could help to fill the gaps when sudden emergency operations occur.
There has also been a steady erosion of the regimental system, that great motivating force, starting at the rather impersonal Army Training Regiment. The regimental system has received another body-blow—in some cases totally unnecessarily, in my opinion—from the way the cuts in the TA infantry have been implemented on the ground by the military.
What can be done to improve the situation? We clearly need more units, if they can be recruited. I will deal with only one step which could so easily he taken and which I strongly commend to noble Lords; that is, to make more use of the Brigade of Gurkhas, behind whom there is an almost inexhaustible and immediate supply of first-class, trainable soldiers whose forefathers have loyally served the British Crown for over 180 years, who have long since thrown off any fallacious mercenary tag and who are recognised as an integral part of the British Army. Indeed, in recent years they have served in most places that British troops have served including, on an individual basis, Northern Ireland. Such use of the brigade would be splendid and provide an extra deterrent element in any international peacekeeping or peace enforcement operation.
1194
As noble Lords will know, there are in addition to the two Gurkha Rifle Battalions and supporting arms squadrons, five independent companies at Brecon and Sandhurst attached to, in order to strengthen, three British battalions including a parachute company. I hope that the Minister can give an assurance that at least those extra companies will be kept on well past the original date of the year 2000. But a third battalion headquarters would also be an enormous help, both to administer those companies and perhaps to command others which could and should be formed. A third Gurkha Rifle Battalion of five companies and stronger supporting arms would make a significant contribution to a less stretched arms plot. I hope therefore that the Minister will look carefully at the question of a greater use of Gurkhas.
Finally, the important element to ensure that the Armed Forces continue to be ready for any eventuality is not to be complacent. The old story of "very soon everything in the garden will be lovely" just will not wash. Unless positive steps are taken, that situation will not happen and the overstretch will become infinitely worse.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I join with those who congratulate my noble friend Lord Trefgarne not only on securing this debate but also on the powerful speech he made. I shall certainly pick up some of the themes he addressed.
I am also particularly glad to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, even if, as a mere major, I am sandwiched between a Field Marshal and a Marshal of the Royal Air Force in the form of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. One reason I am glad to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, is that we have both addressed this theme in your Lordships' House before. I am particularly thinking of the debates we had on Options for Change some years ago, the defence White Papers which emerged at around that time, and discussions also held in this House about Front Line First. Indeed, the noble and gallant Lord referred to the number of times he has addressed this issue.
Some of the noble and gallant Lord's most trenchant words were in a debate on the infantry held on 10th February 1992 at cols. 556 to 558 of the Official Report. It was interesting to read them again earlier today. It appears that many of the forecasts of the noble and gallant Lord have come about. I well remember his remarks in relation to Options for Change and strongly agreed with him then that over-zealous application of the peace dividend and the cuts that Options for Change foreshadowed were bound to lead to huge and unforeseeable pressures on our Armed Forces. The Falklands War, the Gulf War and the situation in the former Yugoslavia are all largely unrelated to the Cold War. They were not predictable and, in the case of Bosnia and now possibly Kosovo, are of apparently indeterminate duration. If we couple that with a sadly still unresolved situation in Northern Ireland, to which my noble friend Lord Trefgarne referred, the potential for over-commitment of the Armed Forces is

1195
extraordinarily real. It seems as though nearly everything we feared and forecast six or seven years ago has come about.
The Chief of the General Staff said in a recent lecture that 41 per cent. of the Army is now or is being committed to operations. That struck me as a startling figure. Where does it leave the intentions expressed by my noble friend Lord Arran, speaking for the government on 10th February 1992, when he referred to the hope for 24 months between operational postings? Perhaps that is something which can be addressed by the Minister in his reply.
Because of the thoroughly professional attitude of our Armed Forces, we do not hear them voice concern about this problem. They cannot easily do so. Nor is it necessarily right that they should. No one has complained to me. It is for us, as politicians in this House, to draw attention to it if we perceive it. In this House there is almost the sole repository of military experience in Parliament, at least for the moment.
I am a trustee of my now much amalgamated regiment, the King's Royal Hussars. I am glad to see in his place the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby, who served with me. As a trustee of certain benevolent and other funds, I do not become involved in operational matters. But I do what I can to keep abreast of what is going on. I am aware that overstretch is exceedingly real. Although the enthusiasm of all ranks to do their professional duty is marvellous, pressures exist, particularly with families. Last year my regiment had a comparatively quiet year—training in Poland twice; training in Canada; gunnery camp and all the usual activities. But even that quiet year resulted in around 130 nights out of barracks—less than the quiet many of us experienced when serving at the height of the Cold War.
What of this year? As I understand it, my regiment is to deploy one armoured squadron to Bosnia later in the year as part of the continuing SFOR presence. They were last there in 1997, coming back just before Christmas. In order to fulfil that role, the regiment is currently training. All well and good. It is admirable experience and I have no doubt it will be conducted to the highest standards. But now Kosovo arises. For that potential deployment two further squadrons have been warned off—one for the lead armoured battle group and one in another role. Of course regimental headquarters and administrative elements will deploy also.
Again, I have no doubt whatever—indeed I know it to be the case—that the King's Royal Hussars are operationally fit and will accomplish their tasks in the true spirit of the former regiments of which they are made up and of their own considerable reputation developed since they were formed. But there is a snag. My regiment has four armoured squadrons, each of four troops of three Challenger One tanks. In order to man the three potentially deployed squadrons, the fourth has had to be closed down. Why? Because training courses, leave and all the usual features of regimental life still have to go on. And the equivalent to the war establishment to undertake these tasks requires manning which would not normally be required in peacetime.
1196
Additionally, soldiers must stay on the ground in Germany to guard the camp, look after families, maintain undeployed vehicles and so forth. Needless to say, there is a degree of undermanning to the extent of around 20 soldiers. All that speaks to me of overstretch; I cannot think of another word to describe it.
The SDR may aim to correct some of the imbalances of Options for Change and to that extent I welcome it. But it hardly gives confidence that there is any fat in the system and there seems no end in sight to such operational commitments. It was disturbing during the Gulf War that cannibalisation of vehicles, including armoured vehicles, for spares to ensure operational adequacy was such a feature. The tank parks of Germany and elsewhere were littered with cannibalised vehicles. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, can say to what extent cannibalisation of vehicles for Bosnia and Kosovo is an operational necessity, or whether suitable spares holdings have been made available and released.
What are the effects of this overstretch on recruitment and retention? Will the noble Lord give some figures of current undermanning in both the Royal Armoured Corps and the infantry? Will he give the numbers of young officers who have sought to retire early, who have not gone on to regular commissions from short service? Also, what is likely to be the effect of the new, I believe, three-stage commissioning process soon to be introduced?
It goes without saying that my former regiment, as others, will set about its duties in a highly efficient and professional way. It will bring great credit to the Army and to the country, as it has always done. It certainly does not complain about its role. But that superb skill and versatility should not mask the stresses and strains which our over-stretched Army sustains and to which it is our duty, in this House, to draw attention. The elastic cannot be stretched indefinitely. What comfort can the Minister give us that this is not a real possibility?
8.40 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur's very trenchant speech. As highlighted in last year's SDR, and as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who we must all thank for raising this topic tonight, our forces were and are under-manned and over-committed. Although well-known, the frank acknowledgement in the SDR of this crisis was most welcome. It is said that a trouble shared is a trouble halved. Eight months on, how far have the Government gone in halving that problem?
Looking first to commitment, and acknowledging that we live in a troubled world, I am concerned that the resources of the Royal Air Force are still so heavily over-committed. The RAF, although halved in size in the past decade, is more widely deployed than ever it was during the decade before. For many months past, perhaps years, squadrons have been operating at rates of effort far higher than is normal and provisioned for in peacetime.
Such sustained rates of effort, real live operations, flying from overseas locations far from home, place exceptional demands on resources of both men and

1197
material. That cannot be sustained unless extra consumables and overhauls are provided for. Are the additional resources available? If not, the defence shoe will once again pinch, and pinch hard, in areas of acute interest to personnel, such as their quality of life, identified in the SDR as of such crucial importance. It was depressing to read in last week's Sunday Telegraph a report that the Royal Navy ships were being required to cut speeds from 18 knots to 12 knots to save fuel and, presumably, cost.
Meanwhile, widescale logistic support is required if our forces in the frontline are not to grind to a halt. Many of us have viewed with strong misgivings the massive logistic restructuring put in hand by the SDR at the insistence of Ministers. With live operations and an overstretched front line dependent upon superhuman logistical effort, now seems a very inopportune moment to be forging ahead with new, untried and untested arrangements.
How, indeed, can single service chiefs discharge their responsibility for the efficiency of their service if they are deprived of responsibility for their overall logistics? I have already questioned the decision to press ahead with this restructuring when we are so operationally committed. It takes time and a great deal of effort to put in place such major and critically important new arrangements.
If there are teething problems—and there will be—I fear for their impact on our frontline effectiveness. We have been marvellously, incredibly, fortunate that in none of our recent operations have we been faced with any major loss of life or equipment. But we cannot assume that that is the norm. Overstretch could be dramatically increased, by serious loss of life or equipment, due to enemy action, mere accident or even logistic failings.
Against that background, I ask how far have the services been able to find the spare capacity and the time to put in place the "Policy for People" package which was given so much prominence in the SDR. The package, we were told, was to place clear emphasis on providing practical help to servicemen and women. Education and training (vocational and academic) were to underpin promises that people would not be disadvantaged in civilian employment markets. How have we done? Recruitment is better, but what about retention? Are enough of the best seeking to stay on, happy with their lot? I hope that the Minister can give us the picture. I hope that we can be reassured that retention of air crews, in particular, is very much better than it was and that we are seeing the really good people, whom we want to retain to fill the next generation of senior appointments and responsibilities, staying in, not voting with their feet.
A year ago, when we considered the Human Rights Bill, I reminded this House that we treat the Armed Forces in law quite differently from all other members of the public. The Armed Forces Acts are there to ensure that legitimate orders are obeyed and that discipline—essential to the successful use of armed
1198
force—can be enforced if necessary. Such legal requirements may impinge on some of the human rights of individuals in the forces.
Sir Roger Wheeler, the Chief of the General Staff, is only the latest of a number of senior serving officers who have spoken in public about this. We must not undermine the structure and ethos of the Armed Forces. The kernel of all military authority relies on a sense of duty by individuals to their colleagues and their service; a duty to obey a lawful command; a duty to be loyal and supportive of their unit; a duty which at times may have to be given greater weight than any of their own individual human rights.
I hope that the Minister will confirm that one United Kingdom court, perhaps the courts martial appeal court, will be the only one to hear human rights cases brought by service personnel under the new Act. Consistency of treatment across the three services and throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, and overseas, is vital if we are not to confuse our servicemen and women and undermine their sense of duty and commitment to their comrades and to military authority.
I was relieved to see that the Government were seized of the dreadful mess to which the Defence Medical Services have been reduced over a long period of years, and that they were determined to get that right. Against the pressures to recruit into the National Health Service, it will not be easy for the Defence Medical Services to recover to a reasonable level of manning and expertise. It would be interesting to hear tonight how far the many actions now being put in hand for the Defence Medical Services are beginning to bear fruit.
8.47 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, the resources chapter in the Strategic Defence Review states that the defence share of GDP is to drop from 2.7 to 2.4 per cent. by 2002. We continue to suffer serious problems of overstretch and undermanning.
According to press reports, upon which I hope the Minister will be able to comment, members of the armed services are being encouraged to take out private insurance for life and injury cover, and even insurance to cover loss of kit. According to the Defence Committee Report of December 1997 on our peace support operations in Bosnia, some of the troops posted there from Germany actually lost pay and the rising rents of married quarters for families left behind— which were encouraging soldiers to become owner-occupiers—would, the troops feared, have significant adverse effects on morale. Now the arms plot is in serious danger.
No one can doubt that, thanks largely to Options for Change and Frontline First in the first place, the Armed Forces have serious problems of retention and overstretch. There is every reason for many of them to vote with their feet when it seems to them that they are undervalued.

1199
We have just had a defence review which said categorically that we can provide the troops and resources for,
"one relatively short war-fighting deployment and one enduring non-war fighting operation".
The latter seems likely to be Bosnia, where we have been in one guise or another for some years, and are committed to at least, I believe, another three. The other commitment can only be "relatively short". That will presumably be the 8,000 to 9,000 troops earmarked for Kosovo, to say nothing of naval, air and logistical back-up. How likely are we to extricate ourselves from that commitment should it come about in fewer than three or four years? We still have 2,000 servicemen committed in Iraq. We seem only too likely to see a return to violence, and hence a military commitment in support of the RUC, in Northern Ireland. As our defence strategy is driven by foreign affairs, it seems that we have just offered to commit troops to a UN-sponsored peacekeeping force in East Timor. No doubt there will be more such admirable gestures in terms of peacekeeping. Where will it end?
When will the Government recognise that our defence forces have achieved their present high standing only because of their professionalism, which rested on good training, high morale and the knowledge that they are valued? That is what makes them good peacekeepers. If the whole of our forces are tied down to that, professionalism will go and all desire to remain in, or to join, the forces will go too. The best will leave and it will take many years to replace them.
Meanwhile, there are real threats which demand highly trained, highly motivated, coherent armed services—not a series of agencies and privatised units. Russia itself may pose no serious threat for the present, although I wonder how helpful Russia has been over Kosovo. However, Russia's surrogates do pose a threat. Russia's new weapon is proliferation, and that is our new enemy which can be contained only by good intelligence and professional, trained, well motivated troops. I recognise that the Government are taking the whole issue of proliferation seriously and I am most grateful for the excellent briefing papers on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction which I have received from the Minister. However, Russia is to sell 2 billion dollars-worth of military technology and arms to Syria. She has been found (as she was when she continued to make biological weapons) to be selling the techniques of double purpose technologies in the field of nuclear and chemical weapons to Iran and chemical weapons to Syria. She recently sent Russian specialists to Iraq, ostensibly to repair an electrical power plant in the south which was damaged by American/British bombing.
The new head of the state arms sales corporation is Grigori Rapota, the former deputy director of the Foreign Intelligence Service, and Primakov's appointment. Primakov's longstanding links with Iraq, Iran and Libya are well known. I am not citing the extensive Russian arms sales to India and China; nor the sale of fighter aircraft to both Ethiopia and Eritrea, because they are essentially conventional weapons. My concern is for the power to destabilise and the disproportionate threat to peace which the proliferation
1200
of weapons, biological, chemical and nuclear, which Russia is vesting in unstable, irresponsible and dangerous countries can pose. Russia has still not signed the START 2 Treaty. She has still not destroyed her stock of chemical weapons; instead, she is selling the know-how.
In those circumstances, I find it deeply disturbing that we are seeing our splendid Armed Forces tied up by a series of political gestures in long-lasting commitments, however worthy they may be. As we form a significant part of NATO's armed forces, NATO also is being effectively neutralised. So far as I know, there has been no serious, major debate in Parliament about committing our forces to what may prove to be a debilitating war in the Balkans. We have had Statements, as we have had today, but that is not enough. But if it has to be—and, alas, it is the service tradition to accept tasks and to do the impossible to fulfil them—at least action should be taken by the Government both to raise morale and increase retention and to ensure proper training and proper consideration for the needs of families, including, as has been mentioned, the medical services.
There must be more money, if that is what is needed, and the Treasury must learn that value is expressed not only in terms of pounds, shillings and pence—or, as it seems, euros—but in terms of human resources.
There has been too much bad news for the forces lately, from the TA cuts to the unremitting overstretch. The Government seem to want to apply business standards and the language of the market to everything. I can tell them that no self-respecting and successful large business enterprise would dream of neglecting the need to reward professional success, to provide the opportunity for the ambitious to advance, to value status and to listen.
Fortunately, some small but significant step towards reminding society that we have troops—and splendid ones—has been taken in the decision to allow uniforms to be seen on the streets again. But I still think that COs must be having a difficult time convincing not only the men but their families, whose well-being is a vital part of morale, that they are valued by the country. Once they feel that they are not, they will vote with their feet—and who can blame them?
8.54 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for providing us with this opportunity. It is entirely right that from time to time we should consider the conditions of Her Majesty's Forces and, in the present context, see how relevant the Strategic Defence Review continues to be. It was seen as a mature and sensible approach last year. I believe that its significance continues, despite the very serious commitments and burdens which our forces are bearing and which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, mentioned in his reference to the Royal Air Force.
The prospect of a strategic defence review was criticised and derided for between three and four years before 1997, yet it followed a series of cuts and contractions which bore harshly upon our forces. The

1201
contraction was frequently married to dogma as there was apparently an inclination to serve the cause of private loot. That did not help to maintain morale in Her Majesty's Forces. Indeed, I recall suggesting—frivolously, I thought—to some of our political opponents that they would next be selling off Royal Air Force runways and establishing a company that would charge whenever a Royal Air Force aircraft took off or landed. I had not expected an opponent to say, "What a good idea!", but he did. Fortunately, the Conservative Government were too busy mishandling the sale of married quarters to move in that direction—and then the electorate made that wise decision at the last election. We saw too much of that sort of thing previously and morale was inevitably affected.
Had the Government taken a wiser course and pursued a different approach, there may well have been some benefits. It may have been better if they had devoted their energies to persuading our European Atlantic partners to make a more equitable contribution to both European security and international need.
We had reached a situation where morale was at rock bottom. Reference has been made to the Defence Medical Services. The House of Commons Select Committee on Defence remarked that lower morale had been perceived than had ever before been experienced. That was a serious comment from a group in which Conservative Members were heavily involved.
This Government have maintained the responsibilities and commitments. They continue. However, this Government have at least recognised that the burdens on the servicemen and their families are severe. I am delighted that in recent months we have seen the Government embark on a policy which will help to sustain those affected by the very heavy commitments undertaken.
I also think it significant and worth mentioning that the Government have embarked upon training and educational initiatives in the Armed Forces. That is most important. In a modern world it is essential that those entering the services are given the opportunity to train and to equip themselves with skills which benefit not only the services but, in due course, society also.
However, I urge the Government to pursue a more vigorous course in regard to our partners. Some neighbouring European states, which contribute very little towards Europe having a meaningful defence capacity, are extremely eager to see the common security policy—that is, the second pillar—established at a rate of knots. I make that point because some of our partner countries are eager to welcome a British contribution and to commend our sense of responsibility yet, as I have said, they contribute remarkably little themselves, although they may have at least as much economic capacity as we do. In the meantime, our forces continue to pull more than their weight. They need to know that, sooner or later, there will be some relief rather than facing the incessant demands which are placed upon us because the United Kingdom acts rather more responsibly than others.
1202
I do not wish to take very much longer, but I have just one other point to make which relates to retention and recruitment. Before the last debate we assumed that the Government and the service chiefs were seeking to achieve a sensible arrangement in regard to the transfer of pilots from the services to civil aviation. It seems that the airlines tend to lure pilots away from the services whenever demand for pilots increases. I believe that a sensible attitude was adopted by the MoD which sought to obtain a more orderly arrangement whereby pilots could leave the services at appropriate stages in their careers when they perhaps did not wish to go along the command route but wished to enter civil flying, which may well be rather more rewarding financially. However, I do not know whether any advance has been made in that respect. I still believe that it could be a cause for serious concern, even though I welcome the fact that we now have a significant number of pilots serving in the Royal Air Force in a reserve capacity. Indeed, my noble friend the Minister may care to comment on that.
However, as far as concerns recruitment, I should like to refer to a visit which the all-party group made a little while ago to RAF Halton to look at the training of recruits. It was a most interesting visit and I see one or two noble Lords who took part in it are present in the Chamber. I found it delightful because it revealed a wise change in the attitudes which may have dominated recruit training in Her Majesty's Forces until recently. We saw an attempt to lead rather than drive and, indeed, to encourage rather than merely to provide demand. I believe that the quality of that recruit training was first class.
I should add that I was also delighted to find out that one of the recruits who passed out on the day of our visit—and did so with some credit—was a member of the Air Training Corps squadron of which I am president. I wish to conclude by making some references to the Air Training Corps, but I shall be extremely brief.
There is an anxiety that resources will not allow that degree of contact with the service which such a cadet organisation requires. It is not the fault of the present Government. The Royal Air Force suffered enormous cuts so that the stations which are responsible to the variety of squadrons within their region may face an enormous problem. However, there needs to be contact and there needs to be a quality of training because the recruits entering the service from the Air Training Corps tend to be very much more above average, with an interest in commitment and with intention, which we need to see. When he concludes the debate, I hope that my noble friend will be able to offer us reassurance that the quality of opportunity which that organisation offers to young people will certainly be maintained in the future.
9.2 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne for introducing this debate at a most timely moment. I remind the House that I do have an interest, but I shall be very brief. The Minister knows that we support his policy with regard to Kosovo, but we are extremely concerned regarding

1203
overstretch. The noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, made a brilliant job of turning his brief into a quite excellent speech. The noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, also did not disappoint us. But the fact is we still spend a considerable proportion of our GDP on defence and we must remember that there is a guns and butter curve. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hogg, would advocate actually increasing defence expenditure and replacing the cuts. On balance, I found that I have more to agree with in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, especially when he addressed the problems with our European partners.
It seems to me that the problem is that the Army is trying to man three major operations at once—we have Bosnia, Northern Ireland and now, potentially, we have Kosovo. But the problem is that we are running them continuously. The Gulf operation had a military objective that was achieved in about six months. The problem with these operations is that they are continuous and go on for years on end. As we know, the effect is an increase on overstretch. However, if we go to Kosovo, we would need two sets of logistics to support the operation. We would need two transport regiments running at the same time, two engineer regiments, two REME battalions (with which I am involved), two signals battalions and, most importantly, as has already been mentioned, two medical field ambulances.
The latter will result in terrible pressure especially on the families. I have certainly seen the problems in Bosnia. The wives of our servicemen are tending to say, "It's either me or the Army and divorce". I have also been involved with the management of soldiers in such operations who are facing the break up of their marriages. They know that when they go home there may not be a wife waiting for them. Indeed, the divorce rate in the services is horrendous. Moreover, the PVR rate must be of great concern to the Minister. The solution is not easy. However, I believe that the SDR should have managed to balance our commitments with our resources. We are not doing so at present. I have grave concerns regarding the sustainability of our current level of operations. I hope that the Minister is able, at least to some extent, to give us some reassurance tonight.
9.6 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for introducing the debate this evening. We have heard some very good contributions and I hope that my small contribution will also help. Since the autumn of 1989—some 10 years ago—the pace of political and military conflict has accelerated markedly. Starting with the collapse of the Berlin Wall, there has been the unification of Germany and the wind-up of the Warsaw Pact as a military organisation, which took place in March 1991.
We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, the sad story of the cuts under successive defence reviews up to and including the most recent Strategic Defence Review. However, I should like to ask
1204
noble Lords: who would have forecast the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq eight days after the announcement of the options for change?
All these defence reviews are aimed at restructuring our Armed Forces without really attempting to describe realistically the circumstances in which they will be most likely to operate. In the past some people have said that the reductions in our Armed Forces were an arbitrary imposed cut on the part of the Treasury. Personally I do not believe that to be entirely true, although obviously the Treasury had a hand in it. The service chiefs nowadays have much tighter budgets. They have much greater financial responsibility and they alone control where they set their priorities.
Since the Gulf War, and probably even before then, there has been a chain reaction which has led, to put it simply, to a description of our forces as undermanned and overstretched. This in turn has led to an ongoing change of attitude among our servicemen and service women today. I shall attempt to explain this. First, there is the loss of image and links with the civilian population. Today, as regards image, our Armed Forces have a worse image than the National Health Service and the education service, which we read about every day in the papers. There are few large shows of military strength except the Queen's Birthday Parade, the Edinburgh Tattoo and the Royal Tournament, and even that will end next year for good reasons. There are no longer eye-catching events which attract young people into the Armed Forces. I have repeatedly bemoaned the demise of the Junior Leaders Regiments of the Army and I applaud the efforts to bring back apprentice training to enable young people to join the Army straight from school.
Together with the enhancement of the cadet organisation, I hope there will be some improvement in our recruitment and retention efforts. I have to tell your Lordships that as of last Friday there are 503 "true" vacancies in the Army up until the end of April and a further 341 apprentice vacancies. Those two figures added together amount to another battalion. I hope those vacancies will be filled, if not the undermanning situation will continue to worsen, as we have heard.
My second point of explanation is career expectancy, which is possibly better described as career horizons. Over recent years, due to the much reduced places to serve, especially overseas, the length of careers are shortening particularly as regards the technical arms where offers of civilian employment are numerous because of the training that the Armed Services give. I give an example. British Telecom offers signallers of all three services a good career when leaving the services.
We have already heard of visits made by the defence group. Last week the defence group visited 24 Air Mobile Brigade and talked to a great many of the soldiers in that brigade. It was noticeable that they did not complain about service pay or conditions, but they all complained about a lack of manpower and having to do two jobs, including guarding the barracks. Where does this all lead? Shortages and undermanning in many areas lead to a loss of morale. The well known saying "rob Peter to pay Paul" is as true today as it ever was.

1205
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has already referred to the King's Royal Hussars who are currently on their way to a possible deployment in Kosovo. This regiment has had to receive reinforcements which they have neither trained nor worked with. While this is inevitable, it is the numbers of the reinforcements which causes concern and when those reinforcements return to their parent regiment they may well have to redeploy elsewhere at short notice.
Other shortages which face those who may have to deploy to Kosovo comprise trained medical specialists and technicians, dental technicians and certain mechanical and electrical tradesmen. Of course they will cope—they have always done so—but the real concern must be whether the Kosovo operation has a long-term implication requiring large numbers of troops, along with helicopters and other specialised monitoring equipment, as currently deployed in Northern Ireland. There may well be shortages and failures.
Our Armed Forces do a quite excellent job wherever they are deployed. They are, however, overstretched, as they have been for many years. By the turn of the century we must do something about that. Will the Minister say what action the Government propose to take as regards adopting a realistic view on recruitment to our Armed Forces to ensure that they are maintained at full strength to meet whatever exigency that may occur in the future? We must be prepared for the unexpected in the future in this dangerous and changing world in which we now live.
9.12 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, 12 years ago this month I resigned my commission in the British Army. I did so to protest at the defence cuts which were then introduced. One of the defence Ministers at the time was the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, to whom I am grateful for introducing this debate. But it was his fellow Minister, now Sir John Stanley, who wrote, answering my letter, to The Times. He replied to the letter but he did not answer my points. He gave a list of all the defence equipment that had been introduced while he had been Minister. That equipment, of course, had taken 10 to 13 years to produce.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, answered Sir John Stanley's letter saying that I had a point but that he rather wished I had not taken the decision to resign my commission. I understood later that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, went down to the Royal Armoured Corp at Bovington to see what the situation was and whether I had a point. I understand that he came back with the message, yes, what I had said was true—but since I had said it, it should not be taken too much into account.
I am very grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, who is not taking part today, because he, as Secretary to your Lordships' all-party defence group, enables us to visit various formations and units. I am reminded of last year when we visited 1st UK Armoured Division in British Forces Germany. We were taken to the
1206
cookhouse, where we lunched with the warrant officers and sergeants from rifle companies and support companies of the Royal Regiment of Wales. That splendid regiment had some very angry sergeants indeed. They said that they were undermanned, that NCO's of eight to 10 years service were leaving and that the situation was getting worse. I asked them the reasons for this situation. They said that they had recently completed a two-year tour of Northern Ireland, had gone straight into ceremonial duties in London, and were then going to deploy to Bosnia for six months, after six months training, much of which would be carried out away from their families.
We saw the brigadier later and I asked him about the situation in regard to the Royal Regiment of Wales. He said "Yes, this battalion has been hammered, but so have many others". Can the Minister assure us that, as far as possible, all regiments are treated fairly and that great care is taken when allocating troops to tasks in order that units are not over-committed?
We learn that the Army is 5,000 below strength. The Chief of the General Staff, Sir Roger Wheeler, in his excellent speech last Wednesday, 17th February, at the Royal United Services Institute, stated that:
"Manning the Army fully is my top priority and our investment in recruitment and retention measures reflect this."
I believe that recruiting is too serious a matter to be left to the armed services; it concerns us all. This year I have encouraged four young men from non-service backgrounds to join the Army. I suggested that two of them should apply for commissions. One of those who has applied for a commission received a letter from the Director of the Royal Armoured Corps, my friend and former brother officer in the 9/12th Lancers, and a visit to the Royal Armoured Corps is being arranged for later this year.
If the Minister has not already considered the following measures, I urge him to reflect upon them. I know that what I advocate are short-term measures. First, we should consider extending service beyond the 22-year point. Are we not chucking out of the services men and women in their prime who still have much to contribute? We visited the Royal Air Force at Royal Air Force Halton, as the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, has already mentioned, and I know that it is doing this. I understand that the Army and Navy are reluctant to adopt a policy of extending service because it blocks promotion. Secondly, is the Army doing enough to target those who have left the service and encouraging them to re-enlist? I understand that personnel can now rejoin if they reapply within a year. Could this not be extended to two years? Thirdly, we have recently shed numbers of well-trained members of the TA, some of whom are unemployed. Are we doing enough to attract them to join the regular forces?
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for giving way. A great deal is being done on exactly that point. In my own unit we have on orders all the time opportunities for operational tours and support to the regular Army in Canada.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I hope that

1207
in his reply the Minister will confirm that what is being done in the noble Earl's TA company is being done widely throughout the Army.
Finally, are the careers information offices and recruiting sergeants in the right place? Do we still have a satisfied soldier scheme whereby a young NCO or soldier is given leave to recruit in his area? I learnt with some concern that certain battalions and regiments are paying out of their regimental funds to recruit. If that is the case, I hope they will be reimbursed by the Treasury for those endeavours.
The Chief of the General Staff aims to fill the gaps by 2004. That is laudable; it is also necessary. But in his RUSI speech last Wednesday he also, I detected, gave us a warning. He said:
"The more libertarian values of modem Britain with their emphasis on the freedom of the individual rather than obligation to any collective identity are sometimes at odds with the values and behaviour needed to create the spirit and cohesiveness required in battle".
The Armed Forces are not a commercial corporation and must not be treated as such. They have, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, reminded us yet again, unique traditions, history and ethos where the core values are still courage, self-discipline and commitment.
I express concern that performance related pay may be introduced into the Armed Forces next year. Perhaps the Minister can confirm or deny that. We already have a perfectly good and well-tried system based on the annual confidential report system whereby merit is rewarded by promotion and, therefore, by additional pay. If it is introduced, I expect that PRP will cause friction, jealousy and rivalry. It involves commanders at all levels carrying out more what the Duke of Wellington called "quill driving". I hope the Minister can assure us that he. like the three Chiefs of Staff, will put recruitment and retention and the elimination of overstretch at the top of his agenda. And the word "agenda", I remind your Lordships, means, from the Latin, "things to be done".
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, he referred to me apparently in some connection with his resignation. May I assure the noble Earl, in case he is not aware of it, that I had nothing whatever to do with his resignation? I was not connected with it in any way. Nor have I ever, sadly to my regret, been a Minister in the Ministry of Defence. So I shall read with care what the noble Earl said and will certainly consider his remarks.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I immediately withdraw what I said and apologise to the noble Lord. It was a slip of the tongue.
9.22 p.m.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne for introducing this debate today. As your Lordships are aware, we already have 5,000 troops in Bosnia and face the prospect of deploying some 9,000 troops to Kosovo in the near future. In addition, there is cause for concern about the
1208
situation in Northern Ireland which may continue to require a greater commitment of resources than we had hoped. It is therefore right that your Lordships' House should have this opportunity to discuss the capacity of the Armed Forces to fulfil their commitments.
My only qualification to speak in this debate is nine years in the Territorial Army. I hesitate to speak in front of noble Lords with specialist military knowledge and real experience, especially the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Bramall and Lord Craig of Radley, both of whom led our Armed Forces with distinction and have tonight made such illuminating and helpful contributions to the debate. I am also very glad to follow the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, and congratulate him on his most interesting speech.
Since the ending of the Cold War the former central role of the Armed Forces to provide through NATO adequate defence against the threat of attack or invasion by the forces of the Soviet Union has disappeared. The Strategic Defence Review states that the objective today is to meet our purely national requirements and be able to make a reasonable contribution to multinational operations in support of our foreign and security policy objectives. Greater flexibility is now required of our Armed Forces to meet a wide range of perceived and unforeseen threats.
The SDR states that, in addition to providing whatever military support is required for continuing commitments such as Northern Ireland, we should be able to respond to a major international crisis, such as the Gulf War, or undertake up to two medium-sized deployments which might last up to six months. As your Lordships are aware, our deployment of troops in Bosnia has already lasted more than five years, and I expect that the situation in Kosovo will make it impossible for us to withdraw our forces, if and when deployed, within the prescribed six months.
It therefore appears that with troops committed to Bosnia and Kosovo, and given the situation in Northern Ireland, our Armed Forces would already be fully extended. Our soldiers, sailors and airmen are therefore having to spend longer periods away from home more often than was the case a decade or so ago. That, of course, has a detrimental effect on morale and on recruitment. The SDR makes clear that we cannot afford the luxury of having additional forces "just in case". A senior army officer told me this week that the Army does not want to be an army that people are reluctant to use. It likes to be used and likes to be stretched. But it is a delicate balance. The regular Armed Forces are already fully stretched, if not over-stretched.
What I find extraordinary is that in these circumstances the Government have decided to emasculate the Territorial Army in order to increase the regular establishment by 3,000. At a time when our regular forces are fully stretched, we need to maintain our reserves, or even to increase them. I am no advocate of the growing belief that we should always do things the way other countries do. The things that foreigners admire about this country, such as our Armed Forces, and your Lordships' House, are not generally things that we have copied from others. But on this occasion we

1209
should ask ourselves why we are reducing the TA by one-third, from 60,000 to a little over 40,000, whereas most of our NATO allies currently maintain a roughly equal balance between regular and reserved armed forces. The United States volunteer reserves outnumber their regular counterparts; the Australians maintain a balance near parity.
The real outcome for the TA is even worse than the cut of one-third suggests. The TA infantry is to be cut by more than half, from 16,000 to 7,200. London is set to suffer disproportionately, especially so on the basis of its daytime population.
The Secretary of State for Defence has said that the TA should be useable, relevant and better integrated into the regular Army. However, the destruction of the regimental system in the TA infantry, predicated by the replacement of battalion units by multi-cap badge regional headquarters, will do precisely the opposite, besides having a devastating effect on morale and on both TA and regular recruitment. I was proud to serve with 4th Battalion The Royal Green Jackets, the successor to, inter alia, Queen Victoria's Rifles, Queen's Westminster Rifles and the London Rifle Brigade. Two companies will survive, but they will be subsumed into the new London Regiment, which, incidentally, I doubt will ever be able to parade as a battalion; marching in step will clearly be impossible. I rather doubt whether the two surviving Green Jackets companies will possess the critical mass necessary to continue the regiment's identity, spirit, traditions and historical links with London and its boroughs.
Fourth Battalion The Royal Green Jackets has recently been seconding on a continuing basis between 10 and 20 TA soldiers to supplement the two regular Green Jackets battalions. There were around a dozen 4th Battalion TA soldiers with the 2nd Battalion in Bosnia recently; and I understand that there are 11 TA soldiers waiting to join the 1st Battalion when it moves to Northern Ireland shortly. I doubt that the London Regiment will be able to maintain the close connections and identify equally closely with all the regular Army regiments of which its predecessors currently form part. I do not think that the two regular Green Jackets battalions will be able to rely on the TA for additional support in this way in the future as they have in the past.
I am disappointed that the Army Board was prepared to sacrifice the TA for such a small benefit to the regular Army. I do not think that the closure of 180 drill halls and the resulting disappearance of much of the framework of the TA is going to help fill the 8,000 regular Army vacancies which will exist under the expanded establishment. The Minister told me that only some 7 per cent. of regular Army recruits have seen service with the TA. The proportion of former cadets is much higher. But I fear the noble Lord may not recognise the point that the cadets themselves depend heavily on the existence and co-location of TA units.
The station commander of Royal Air Force Halton told me the other day that the RAF also recruits a number of people who have seen service with the TA. Many potential Army recruits, even though they may
1210
never see service with the TA, first inquire about an Army career by visiting a TA centre. TA centres are the Army's shop window.
It was perhaps not the responsibility of the generals to take account of the social benefits that the TA provides to the community, but I am frankly amazed that the Government, who talk a great deal about social inclusiveness, have also missed this important point. In London and many other cities the TA offers much needed opportunities and a sense of belonging to disadvantaged sections of the community such as members of ethnic minorities and single parent families. Twenty one per cent. of the members of 4 RGJ are from ethnic minorities. The Government want to see a more inclusive regular Army and in this respect the TA can provide leadership. There is certainly no institutional racism in the TA.
My recollection of the TA and the extraordinary breadth of skills and experience that weekend soldiers bring to it lead me to believe that its usefulness and relevance to the regular Army are enhanced and not diminished by the changed role of the Armed Forces today.
The TA has given the nation good value for money in defence terms and also bridges the gap between civilian and military life—another of the Government's declared aims. Its emasculation removes our insurance policy that we could, at a time when our regular forces are fully stretched, nevertheless rely on reserve forces to meet an unforeseen threat or natural disaster such as a serious flood.
I hope that the Government will think again and reverse the cuts in the TA now being implemented before it is too late and the Army's footprint fades across vast areas of the country. Our fully stretched Armed Forces deserve to be complemented and backed up by adequate reserves who themselves deserve the country's full support and appreciation.
9.32 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for giving us the opportunity once again to debate briefly issues which are close to the heart and the interests of the Armed Forces. I am sorry that the debate is taking place so late at night and in such a sparsely populated House.
I wish to concentrate my remarks this evening on the Army, although the Motion refers to the "Armed Forces". I wish particularly to speak of the Army because a long time ago I had personal experience of handling the problem in the British Army. Way back in the 1950s, I was a staff officer in the War Office, as it then was, in a branch which was, for some obscure military reason, called "staff duties". It had nothing to do with staff duties; it was entirely to do with the organisation and manpower planning of the regular Army. My task at that time was to plan, or take part in planning, the shape and size of the Armed Forces, with special reference to the requirements of the notorious 1957 White Paper. Older Members of the House will recall it with some nostalgia.

1211
We had two golden rules when we were carrying out all the planning and number-crunching. One was that if you are faced with over-stretch in your Armed Forces you must either increase your resources or reduce your commitments. It all sounds simple but we kept it constantly in the front of our minds. The other lesson, still equally relevant today, is that if you plan an Army which is designed only for low intensity operations and peace-keeping operations, it is almost impossible to move into a high intensity situation with the same Army. However, if you plan a high intensity Army, there is no difficulty in performing low intensity tasks.
Most contributors to the debate this evening have, quite rightly, spoken of the need to maximise resources. I should like to place greater emphasis on what we do about our commitments. At the moment it is unrealistic, especially so shortly after the Strategic Defence Review, to expect any substantial increase in military resources. I mention the Strategic Defence Review because it was, as at least one other noble Lord has said, a serious and imaginative attempt to plan a post-Cold War army and match commitments with our resources. Of course there was Treasury involvement in it. It would be foolish to expect that there should not be Treasury involvement in a spending department of this kind.
However, generally speaking, it is true that the shape and size of the forces brought about by the Strategic Defence Review was based on the views and operational analysis of the General Staff. One cannot want much more than that. We heard that later all three Chiefs of Staff told the Defence Select Committee of another place that each individually signed up to the Strategic Defence Review. What results from that very careful, constructive and effective review is that now we have an Army—I shall not go into the details of its deployment—that is able to solve the high intensity/low intensity problem. We have an Army which, although small, is designed for high-intensity operations and is also trained for other forms of activity short of war.
General Wheeler, Chief of the General Staff, who has already been referred to this evening, said recently that in his view the Army was better balanced and nearer the manpower need than it was three or four years ago. Incidentally, for those noble Lords who are especially interested in this area of national policy—I imagine that that includes all noble Lords who are in the House at the moment—there is a fascinating interview with General Wheeler in the current issue of Jane's Defence Weekly. There he gives his views on overstretch, commitments and resources. That is an extraordinarily upbeat and confident article that I believe will provide considerable comfort to a good number of people.
But as to resources and commitments, perhaps we have not quite solved the problem. Other noble Lords have already mentioned this, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and, specifically in relation to retention, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, who made the very important point that this was a vicious circle. If one has overstretch and loss of morale not only recruitment but retention of the forces that one already has also suffers.
1212
It would be foolish to expect any great increase in defence resources at this moment. To ask what may sound a rather crass question, can we reduce our commitments? I believe that we must consider that question although it may not be a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, himself to answer. We should bear in mind that armed forces are basically for military purposes. The following are perhaps the three most important roles for our Armed Forces: first, the defence of the realm; secondly, as a contribution to alliances; and, thirdly, as backing for our foreign policy. But it now appears that we expect our Armed Forces to become involved in a broad range of other rather dubious commitments. I mean "dubious" in the sense that the problems do not always seem to me to be ones with which the British Army should deal.
There may be a case for peacekeeping operations but there is often a far less strong case for British forces being involved in humanitarian activities. I am not entirely sure about demands that are often made on our Armed Forces in the area of disaster relief. It is possible that some of those activities are justifiable and are a necessary demand on our resources. But I suggest that the British Armed Forces should not be expected to act as the world's policeman or the world's welfare officer, intervening in crisis after crisis—not always military crises. It seems to me that sometimes—I slide now into the field of foreign policy—we are intervening perilously near the internal affairs of other states. However, I leave that for the moment. We should not expect to take a disproportionate share of military responsibilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Hardy, mentioned our allies. It is true that we have close to us France and Germany and, not so close, the United States. France has an army of over 200,000; Germany has an army of nearly a quarter of a million; and the United States has an army of 480,000, nearly half a million. Yet we are expected apparently to take on the heaviest share of Kosovo operations. Eight thousand to 9,000 troops have been mentioned today.
I conclude with two quotations from the Strategic Defence Review. We now have,
"designed a future force structure matched to level of commitments we plan to be able to undertake".
Those are important words. Later there is this sentence:
"We must match the commitments we undertake to our planned resources".
Noble Lords will note the emphasis there.
I leave it there. I only ask the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, who I know has the welfare and efficiency of the Armed Forces very much at the centre of his attention, whether it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government to ensure that we do not take on more commitments than we can match with our resources.
9.41 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for initiating the debate, enabling us to have a discussion, effectively, on defence matters. He has, of course, laid himself open to contributions from this side of the House as well as from his own side.

1213
I need not elaborate on the interesting contribution of my noble friend Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld. He pointed out the enormous reductions in defence capability under the Conservatives. My noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath also picked up that point. It is worth considering how the Conservative government did that. There were two major reductions in defence expenditure. Many believe that the first, at the beginning of the 1980s, resulted directly in the Falklands campaign. The second, in the early 1990s, resulted in a horrendous situation for those members of the Armed Forces who were subject to it. Both were easily seen to be completely Treasury driven. They were nothing to do with foreign or defence commitments.
Let us compare that situation with what has happened since the advent of the new Labour Government. The Strategic Defence Review received plaudits from all parts of society and the Armed Forces in this country. It was also recognised as being sensible by others outside the United Kingdom. We need to say "Well done" to the Government for their Strategic Defence Review.
It has been a fascinating debate. One of the advantages of speaking late is that many of the points have already been made so I do not need to repeat them. However, it gives one the opportunity to highlight and pick up points already made. I was impressed by the contribution from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. He pointed out that overstretch was better than understretch. Perhaps we should push the Treasury in the direction that the Armed Forces would wish.
I was fascinated by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, who pointed out that his old regiment spent 130 nights out of barracks. I suddenly remembered that, on average, Members of the House of Lords spend 134 days away from home; that is, if they are regular attenders and live outside London. That puts the issue in perspective.
We need to recognise that there are serious problems for individual units in the Armed Forces which are required to do tour after tour of duty, whether in Northern Ireland or Bosnia, which take them away from their families for a number of consecutive Christmases. I hope that my noble friend Lord Gilbert will assure us that individual units will not be subjected to that dislocation of family life which is so distressing.
Much has been said about recruitment and retention. The overall figures suggest that recruitment is on the increase and we have heard that the Government are taking action on a number of fronts in respect of retention. I am sure that my noble friend will comment on that. The previous government first introduced the higher activity levels of women in the Armed Forces and I pay tribute to them for that. This Government have continued the policy and have also sought a higher level of recruitment of the black and Asian members of our society who are under-represented in the Armed Forces. I am sure that my noble friend will reassure us on those issues and recognise that one of the pleasant aspects of such a debate is that it gives Members on all sides of
1214
the House the opportunity to pay tribute to the sterling service which our Armed Forces perform for our society.
9.47 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, first, I apologise to your Lordships and to the noble Lord. Lord Trefgarne, in particular for being absent at the beginning of the debate. I was scribbling away upstairs and did not look at the monitor. I was therefore unaware that the previous debate on the Statement had finished.
I must declare an interest in that I have recently completed an Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship with Shorts Bombardier which manufactures some defence systems and some aircraft which may be used in the military world.
I have seen the overstretch at first hand over a considerable length of time. I was in the armed services for 23 years, 17 of which were spent in Northern Ireland with the Ulster Defence Regiment and later the Royal Irish Regiment. We saw many units coming in under-strength which provided more work for us. I am not saying that it was as hard as it might seem. We were part-time, so the more work we did the more we were paid. However, there were shortfalls in the strength.
I thank this Government and the previous government for the way in which they resourced the equipment we had. We were never short of it at any stage, and in the fight against terrorism that is most important.
My noble friend Lord Allenby spoke about unpredictability and the invasion of Kuwait. I remember that we were on an All-Party Defence Study Group trip to SHAPE during the week prior to the invasion. We asked the Deputy Supreme Commander about the various threats. When we dealt with the southern flank, which included Turkey and Kuwait, he said, "Don't worry about that. We have got far bigger problems elsewhere". So the world is very unpredictable!
We were led to understand in the SDR that, although there would be a reduction in total manpower of reserves and regulars, that would be compensated for by directing more resources into fully equipping our services. Does the Minister accept that in some key areas the Government are failing to do that? That is not to say that they are the only culprits; it applies to the previous government as well. Things have not improved a great deal and perhaps not as much as the Government would like to think.
For example, I should like to turn to my recent experience with Shorts. The short-range anti-aircraft capability includes the Shorts-built self-propelled, high-velocity missile Starstreak, which is new in service. This is a revolutionary short-range anti-helicopter and anti-aircraft system. Without encroaching on confidential information, I can say that it transforms the time taken from acquisition to a hit on the target and that it has an unsurpassed percentage rate of hits. It has ground-to-air and air-to-air capability. In testing in the US in November it achieved a 100 per cent. success rate when fired from an Apache attack helicopter.

1215
I believe that, since the Government introduced the 3 per cent. year-on-year budget reduction, it has been decided to equip fewer Royal Artillery sub-units with the system than was originally envisaged. In effect, that is a cancellation which is in the public domain. It means two things. First, there will be a reduction of high-tech support for the soldiers on the ground and for friendly aircraft in the air, contrary to the Government's stated policy. Secondly, it is not a good message for exports when we are seen to be slightly less supportive than previously of our own British systems. It will also mean a higher unit cost, and any orders lost overseas may mean a net loss to the Exchequer of more than it would have cost to equip an additional sub-unit.
We have recently been introduced to the phrase, "joined up government", or co-operation between departments. Can the Minister tell us whether the reduction in units to be supplied with this system is permanent and, if not, how soon the position will be rectified? In addition, I believe that the MOD has delayed any requirement for air-to-air capability of this system on the UK Apache fleet until 2005.
In order to reduce the effect of overstretch and lack of manpower, we must complete essential programmes taken on and not leave them half-finished. Here we have the most sophisticated attack helicopter but we deny it the most effective weapons system to support those on the ground.
The Government are fully aware of the importance of air superiority, which as the years go on becomes the major issue in the modern field of conflict, as has been proved in the Gulf War and the no-fly zone over Iraq and Bosnia. Can the Minister tell us whether this serious delay can be shortened to ensure that our forces are sent into operational areas with the most up-to-date equipment, especially when it is British?
I have a question relating to this system and its export to America. It is far superior to any system there in the short-range field. What are the Government doing to help overcome US protectionism, when additional sales overseas would reduce the unit cost to the MOD? Her Majesty's Government could then afford more systems, thus reducing the effect of overstretch.
I wish to talk for a moment about another programme in which Shorts is involved. Astor is a long-distance, airborne surveillance system, which the MOD has indicated that it will purchase. It is of use in both peaceful and war-time environments. In fact, 95 per cent. of surveillance takes place in peace-time. The system will be mounted on one of two long-range, converted intercontinental executive jets. Operationally, it could be tasked from this country to central Africa and back without refuelling.
I believe that a couple of years ago over 50,000 refugees were lost, having fled their homes in central Africa. It took some days or weeks for aid workers on he around to find them. It could have been done with Astor in a day or two.
I have two questions to ask the Minister. First, opinion is that the optimum number of aircraft is five or six o ensure that enough are operational at all times. However, there is a feeling that only four may be
1216
ordered. How many will be ordered? If it is only four, will that not be yet another overstretch of an important resource?
Secondly, the two aircraft involved are the Gulf Stream 5 and the Shorts Bombardier Global Express. Of course there is a question of jobs in Ulster, but I do not want to be too parochial about it. From a long-term point of view, Gulf Stream 5 is an older design and airframe, perhaps coming to the limit of future modifications which it can withstand. It is also much smaller and only just large enough to carry this equipment. An Astor will use the maximum amount of inboard electronic power that can be carried.
No doubt in the future there will be developments to that on-board surveillance equipment and any requirement for additional power, which is almost a certainty, or additional manpower could be catered for only in an aircraft the size of the Global Express, which is brand new and can therefore be modified more easily in the future. Can the Minister tell us which way he sees things going?
Overstretch is a problem, and not for the first time. The only way to help reduce its effect is to procure the latest and best equipment available, especially when it is British.
9.55 p.m.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I was slightly surprised by some of the speeches from the Benches opposite, which tried to make party political capital from what has happened in the past. I believed this debate to be about the future. Towards the end of another long day I shall not detain the House for many minutes, but I should like to make a few brief points some of which have been referred to already this evening.
In the main, service personnel are superbly trained. However, it is clear that the standard of training is at risk as a result of the frequency of operational tasks. I am sure the whole House will join me in not wanting inadequately trained personnel to be put at risk through a lack of training.
I understand that there is a great problem from poaching in relation to retention, particularly in relation to signals, helicopters and pilots. I throw in as a thought: should we look to longer-term "contracts of employment" for the major categories at risk who have, after all, been trained extensively and expensively by the taxpayer? I have been advised that there is also a problem with retention payments; that the reward for signing on for a further period of service is greater at three years than at six years. Someone who has been trained for three years is of great use thereafter; but someone trained for six years is a trainer and has much greater experience. Why should he receive less in the way of retention payment than someone with three years' experience? I find that extremely difficult to understand.
My next remarks are directed to the training corps. I believe the position is increasingly difficult, as painted by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath. Will the Minister give a commitment to continue the funding and backing of the cadets, particularly maintaining, if not

1217
increasing, the flying and gliding opportunities which attract the better quality cadets to the Air Training Corps. Around 30 per cent. of the RAF recruits come from the Air Training Corps and I understand that around 40 per cent. of the current officers started their service lives as cadets. If funding was to be reduced it would impact either on the poorer areas where the greatest recruitment problems arise already, or on areas where the best recruits come from, neither of which makes any sense and is certainly not desirable.
I should like to refer briefly to Astor, the Short aeroplane. I had not intended to do so but the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, mentioned it. I am sure that it is absolutely fine, but is he aware that the radar capability in Astor is already 16 years-old and upgraded, whereas the other team Astor has brand new radar developed by Racal? Two hundred people have been employed on it. The Government have already spent over £100 million on this development.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I apologise. I am probably not as well informed as the noble Lord.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Trefgarne for giving us the opportunity to have this discussion.
10 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, having already spoken only two days ago on the debate on the future of the Lords, I should not wish to speak again too soon lest your Lordships accuse me of chattering. However, I received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, Secretary of the All-Party Parliamentary Defence Group, as I suspect did many of your Lordships who are speaking today. He is unfortunately not able to be with us due to the unforeseen circumstances of the debate being put forward. It is events which catch us all. However, it is not quite as ill a wind as all that because we have gained the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, to open the debate and it has blown back a little sooner the dear and noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, who is not technically my noble friend, at least on this side of the House, although of course she is.
It has also been a pleasure listening to my noble and gallant friends, and, indeed, to all noble Lords who have spoken. Having spent the past two days in the Chamber listening to over 95 of your Lordships and to some of the best speeches I have ever had the pleasure to hear, it was in the early hours of this morning that my noble friend Lady Warnock dropped me off in Lambeth. All I could think of was to crawl into bed with one or two useful books which I thought I might run through later in the day when it came to writing a speech. Unfortunately, when I woke up later this morning, I discovered that they were a little out of date. So, I have many grateful thanks to the office of the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, at the MOD for its help and kindness and for the accurate and up-to-date information.
However, as this debate is all about overstretch, I was rather interested in the correlation between the two sets of MOD figures then and now, as I am sure your
1218
Lordships will be also. I only hope that there is no significance in the fact that in 1992 the figures were produced on 1st April, whereas now they are produced in January or December. To be fair, I should say that five of those years were under the Conservative government and two under Labour.
In the Royal Navy in 1992 there were 62,100 people on the strength. On 1st January this year there were 39,325, a drop of nearly 23,000. In the Army in 1992 there were 145,000 men. On 1st December last year there were 96,822, a drop of nearly 48,000. In the Royal Air Force there were, in 1992, 86,000 and on 1st January this year, 55,905, a drop of nearly 30,000.
I think that those figures speak for themselves. Seven years ago we did not have any more commitments than we have now. In fact, with Bosnia now an ongoing situation and Kosovo possibly starting, perhaps less. Yet we have 23,000 fewer people in the Royal Navy, 48,000 fewer in the Army and 30,000 fewer in the Royal Air Force.
Although we are always working towards the magic and desirable figure of 24 months between front-line tours, it is still never more than 18 months and sometimes very considerably less. I hope that those figures will indeed draw attention to the thinness of the red line. We are talking about people. However well trained, efficient, brave and loyal they all are, they are still people and cannot be stretched too far.
Now to Kosovo, on which we have already had a Statement, so I can cut out huge chunks of my speech. As we know, there are 1,250 international observers in considerable danger, of whom 101 are British, and the rescue force, which is currently called an extradition force, of 500 is currently on standby in Macedonia, awaiting the arrival of ships carrying the necessary equipment which were due to dock at six o'clock tonight.
Here, I do not think that it does matter that my books are a little bit out of date, because the whole situation in Kosovo goes back to the foundation of the Ottoman Empire, with its founder Othram, or rather his son, Orchan, whose vizier, Black Habil, conceived the idea of trained slave armies of Janissaries, made up of captured Christian children trained as professional fighters. At the same time as that was happening in Asia, Serbia, under Stephan Dushan, was emerging as a battling and patriotic Christian state. Stephan Dushan's son was Lazarus, who was a sort of William Wallace and Robert the Bruce rolled into one. He started a great Christian campaign against the Moslems with a huge assorted army of Serbs, Bulgars, Poles, Hungarians, Bosnians, Albanians and Mongols, none of whom spoke the same language, and when they met the Moslem army at Kosovo under Orchan's son, Murad, composed of Christian enslaved children, now grown-up and welded into a taut, professional fighting body, the great conglomerate did not stand a chance, and lost. But Murad, the Moslem leader, was killed. That was in 1389, about the time of the Battle of Poitiers. It was the Serbian Dunkirk, and is so celebrated.
However, before noble Lords move that I should be no longer heard because of talking irrelevantly, I can skip 600 years to 1989 when Slobodan Milosevic

1219
celebrated the 600th anniversary with a huge rally on the site and banners of himself and King Lazarus. By this time, Kosovo, a province of Serbia, had a population of over 90 per cent. Albanians. The land was the same, the battle site was the same, but the people were not. Speaking to my daughter in Washington early this morning, she said, "Everyone here is talking about the Battle of Kosovo". "The Battle of Kosovo?", I asked. "Yes", she said, "1389".
While we always pray for peace and do what we can to preserve it, we do not want to fight 600 year-old battles for other people. The protection of our own forces, however reduced they are, must always be our first priority.
10.7 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I should thank the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, for referring to my distinguished ancestor, but my recollection of what I have read about the Battle of Stirling Bridge is that William Wallace's forces were neither very well trained, nor organised into trained regimental units, nor supplied with adequate reserves. Thankfully, the English were even worse supplied at the time.
I am grateful for this debate on such an important subject. In another place on Monday, the Secretary of State for Defence said very soberly that maintaining the deployment in Bosnia and Kosovo would be very demanding. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in saying that we have a number of other existing and potential commitments about which I hope the Minister will be able to say a little when he replies. I refer, for example, to the question of whether in East Timor there will be a need for a UN-sponsored peace keeping force. I understand that the Secretary of State for International Development is making a major speech the week after next on the use of armed forces in development and disaster relief. That is another potentially substantial role for our Armed Forces. There is also the whole question of defence diplomacy and defence training in central and eastern Europe. Those are all considerations.
The lesson that we are learning very rapidly from Bosnia and Kosovo is that, in the post-Cold-War world, we need flexible armed forces and we need the ability to expand and contract our full-time professional forces as different demands present themselves. As a number of noble Lords have suggested, that requires us to rethink the role of reserves. I recall that 100 years ago continental armies had a number of battalions which were held at CADRE strength with reserves to come in. That is perhaps the sort of thing that we need to consider ourselves. We clearly need an adequate and skilled ready reserve, from which individuals could be integrated into units at relatively short notice. After all, 10 per cent. of the forces in Bosnia have consisted of people called up from the reserves. There is considerable anxiety in this House and in another place that the cutbacks in the territorial forces have not provided sufficiently for this.
I should like now to raise a related question which I have mentioned on previous occasions. It seems to me that the preference of the Armed Forces for long-service
1220
personnel causes a number of problems. There has been much discussion during this debate about the problem of retention. Again, I should like to suggest that it might be worth considering moving towards a higher proportion of shorter serving soldiers, which would lead to a higher turnover of people on the full strength but also to a higher proportion of reserves. Fewer of those younger people would have wives and families and, therefore, the problems of morale and high turnover, and so on, would be rather less. I suggest that the MOD should consider encouraging a greater number of shorter term recruits by perhaps offering a period of full-time service followed by a priority reserve obligation. That is the sort of flexibility that we should consider.
I should also like to reiterate the point that several of my colleagues have made from these Benches on previous occasions; namely, that we perhaps may need to consider the "arms plot" under which whole units are moved around together. There are those in the services who consider that to be a source of inefficiency and misuse of manpower. A move towards multi-battalion regiments, in which sub-units and, indeed, even individuals, could be posted on a rolling basis, should also provide for more flexible arrangements when long overseas postings are necessary. One may anticipate that the obligation to maintain some military forces in Bosnia will be medium to long term. If a peacekeeping force goes into Kosovo, we may anticipate that that will also require a long-term commitment.
I should like to make one further suggestion in that respect. What we are seeing in Bosnia, and what I hope we might see if a force goes into Kosovo, is the demand for an initial, substantial heavily armed force and then, slowly, a reduction in the level of force and in the heaviness of the weapons provided. It seems to me that the sort of Petersburg tasks which the European militaries are now facing will require rather more gendarmerie-type armed forces. We have had some difficulties in Bosnia in matching the gap between the provision of the civilian police from Britain on secondment and full-scale highly-trained armed forces. There again, it seems to me that there is a cause for rethinking precisely where in between civilian police and full strength Army units we might perhaps need to have an intermediate force in the long term.
Moreover, in the long term it seems to me that there is a great deal to be said for encouraging closer European co-operation and more joint forces so that—and this relates to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy—others of our allies will be more effectively able to share the burden. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, commented on the larger size of the German Army. However, I am sure that he is well aware that, out of that larger size, the German Army has considerable difficulty in providing at short notice as substantial a number of troops as the British Army is able to provide. In that respect, it seems to me that the British Government's latest European defence initiative—the San Malo declaration, and so on—is exactly the right direction in which we should be moving. Indeed, I hope that they will move further with the pursuit of closer integration of British forces with those with whom we are most likely to find ourselves in joint

1221
operations in the future. Having said that, I intend to follow the good example of many speakers before me and sit down before my time is up.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, it is particularly opportune that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne should have introduced this debate within minutes of the House receiving a Statement on Kosovo, because it is Kosovo and its associated problems which have revived the doubts as to whether the Armed Forces are capable of doing all that may be required of them. At the same time perhaps I may say what a joy it is to listen to my noble friend Lady Park. It is a gloomy joy in the light of what she had to say. However, my noble friend has returned to this House with a bang, making speeches in both of the two debates this afternoon.
Within the past week both the Chief of the General Staff and the Chief of the Air Staff have made speeches in which they have expressed their concern about overstretch. With 5,675 servicemen in Bosnia and its neighbouring countries and 2,225 as the advance guard of the peace implementation force in Kosovo, any senior commander must be looking nervously over his shoulder to see where the next demand will come from. Air Marshal Johns is already particularly concerned about overstretch in connection with aircrews.
But if we think we are overstretched now, there is undoubtedly worse to come. It must at least be possible that more troops will be sent to Northern Ireland if the situation deteriorates, as it well could. Within NATO there must be a major fear that Kosovo, if not Bosnia, will suck in an increasing number of men for a period of at least three years. Outside NATO, South Africa is already a far from happy place. Chile has apologised to the Argentine for its support of Britain at the time of the Falklands. It has problems. We have commitments to the United Arab Emirates, Brunei and Kuwait. Belize remains a hotspot, while Australia, as has been said, may have troubles with countries to the north, in particular East Timor. Today's Statement on Sierra Leone concerned another point, but a rescue mission—if not more—is already in place.
The proliferation of NATO is, almost more than anything else, due to the wish of many of the new members and applicants to make use of Article 5 of the treaty whereby they may call upon other members of the organisation to come to their aid if they are in trouble. It is unlikely indeed that all, or indeed a number of these, will hit us at once, but more than one could do so, and that would be a problem.
The position of the Secretary of State and all concerned with financing the Armed Forces is an extremely difficult one. It is not reasonable to expect expenditure to increase to a higher proportion of GNP in the face of other demands which are perceived to be of greater importance, particularly education and health. Therefore the generals and their equivalents have to do the best with what they have in the hope that those who have been responsible for formulating the foreign policy on which the SDR was based have got their sums right. It is at this moment that
1222
I must demand the resignation of the Minister who is recorded in Hansard yesterday as having described 3rd Mechanised Division and 4th Armoured Division as being "deplorable". I hope that he was misquoted.
It is not only a question of money. The SDR is now nine months old but its presumptions are already showing signs of strain. The trouble is that the British Armed Forces are too good, everyone wants them. Britain is the only country in NATO which has a rapid reaction corps and even that is only kept up to strength and maintained with relevance to any particular forthcoming operation by borrowing from other units. Those points were well made by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur and the noble Viscount, Lord Allenby.
The United States has a "one for one" policy whereby every man will spend a month at home for each month on deployment abroad. There is no way that this is achievable here. On Monday the Member for Carlisle in another place recorded that the Border Regiment had spent the past two Christmases in Macedonia and Bosnia and it is now rumoured that it will be in Kosovo this coming Christmas. For, as the Chief of the General Staff pointed out, British forces went to Bosnia on the strict understanding that it would be for six months only. That was seven years ago. While we aspire to reducing our commitment this summer, in common with our allies, it is much too soon to say that the worst is over. And now Kosovo, with the ARRC and a two-battle group brigade on standby. is already consuming 8,000 men. Before Kosovo, 28 per cent. of the trained strength was either on operation, preparing to deploy or recovering. Including the forces warned for Kosovo, that figure goes up to 41 per cent.
In the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has said, I should say that my noble friend Lord Attlee has passed me a note. He has his nose much closer to the grindstone than anyone else in your Lordships' House, and he is telling me how much the soldiers enjoy relief work and other civilian activities in which they are asked to take part.
All the work that our Armed Forces are doing comes at a time when recruitment, we are told, is up by 18 per cent. Premature voluntary release, commonly known as PVR—these acronyms are horrible, and that is a particularly nasty one—is also well up. A number of noble Lords have referred to this, and a Written Answer in another place yesterday showed the increasing number of Army officers and RAF pilots who have left the service for voluntary reasons. That figure is much higher than it was three years ago.
Of course recruitment is important—vitally important—but retention is even more so. These are the middle-ranking officers and men on whom the Armed Forces so particularly depend. The Government have compounded the problem by four mistakes, for which they alone are responsible. Two, already made. are reversible; two are in the process of being made but I believe them to be avoidable. First, the Government have written into the SDR forecasts and assumptions regarding the intensity and duration of operations which are less demanding and less realistic than the professional planners would have recommended. As I understand it,

1223
the Chiefs of Staff overruled the planners at the last moment in the interests of getting an acceptable document. To compare the folly of that, we should look at the original predicted costs of Concorde.
Secondly, with overstretch already a problem, the Government have reduced reserves when these are an essential factor in managing overstretch. To increase reserves, rather than to reduce them, was the logical consequence of the SDR foreign policy base line. Incidentally, I note that at the present moment the Ministry, as the noble Lord will confirm, has not yet trawled the regiments for volunteers for Kosovo.
The mistakes which the Government are now making are of ignoring the warnings of their professional advisers with regard to the evidence and implications of overstretch. Unfortunately, they believe their own propaganda about the success of recruitment. The Government are committed to full staffing by 2004. I fear that is optimistic.
If I sound critical, I hasten to say that no one would say it is easy. From these Benches, I may be unwise to criticise the state of the Defence Medical Services, and we certainly do not want the German system where they have 84 doctors in a brigade. But I believe I am right in saying that there are only three orthopaedic surgeons in the whole Army; and if you break a leg in Kosovo you are in trouble! Without doubt, we shall have to rely on the reserves and can only hope that relations between the MOD and the National Health Service are good.
Maybe—and I am not being sarcastic—if there is to be a proliferation of problems, the Ministry of Defence will have to employ Sandline. After all, until after Waterloo, British forces continually employed large numbers of Germans, particularly Hanoverians, and Americans. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, is himself a member of an American regiment. War may well have to be privatised if we do not have the resources to carry it on professionally ourselves. But let us remember, as has been said, that we have the Gurkhas. Yes, they are mercenaries, but let us increase and strengthen the force of Gurkhas. That is very much an easy method of increasing our capability to deal with any problem. I must say that I should like to let them loose in Northern Ireland.
Let us hope that in all of this I am being over-pessimistic. But we are treading a very narrow path. I am sure the Ministry of Defence realises the difficulties and dangers. Do the rest of the Government and the whole of the country realise them?
10.21 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, I agree with all the encomiums that have been delivered to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and I thank him very much for raising this subject for debate. I confess that in the middle of the debate I said to the noble Lord that I did not think I would take up my full 20 minutes. However, so many interesting points have been raised that I think I will have some difficulty in keeping to 20 minutes. I will do my best, as usual, to answer in as factual a way as I can all the points that have been raised.
1224
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, asked me how many troops have already left on deployment to Kosovo. According to the figures I have available to me this evening, as of now a total of 1,332 personnel are in the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia and Greece and it is planned that a further 390 will fly to Skopje tomorrow. Of those 1,332, 305 are at Thessalonika in Greece preparing for the reception and onward delivery of heavy equipment and vehicles that will be arriving there by sea shortly, 40 more are at the extraction force headquarters in Kumanovo barracks in Macedonia and 987 are at Skopje. That figure includes the UK contribution to the NATO extraction force and personnel who have deployed since last weekend for possible peace implementation in Kosovo. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's question.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and other noble Lords discussed the whole question of overstretch. That is what the debate is about. I will not contest many of the figures that have been quoted in the debate for the very obvious reason that I am quite sure that noble Lords have been ringing my office to get the right figures. So I am in no position to contest them, am I? However, it is a fact that recruitment is improving and it is also a sad fact that retention is not improving. Retention is going down. That is not a secret; it is not even an open secret; everyone knows that. The Government fully recognise the difficulties. We have set some targets. We hope to be at 95 per cent. by 2001 and fully up to the higher establishment for the Army by 2004.
I can assure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that I sing no complacent tune about this. It will be extremely difficult to achieve these figures. I hope they are not optimistic, to use the word of the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, but they will be very difficult to reach. The fact is that recruitment is up. It is up very satisfactorily at the moment. Most gratifying of all—this touches on the point raised by my noble friend Lord Hardy—recruitment from the ethnic minorities is up. We set ourselves an initial—I emphasise the word "initial"—target of 2 per cent. of our recruits to come from ethnic minorities. That will be a rolling target, increasing over time. I believe I am right in saying that the figure stands at 1.8 or 1.9 per cent. already. That is extremely gratifying.
I emphasise the extremely important point made by my noble friend Lord Hogg during his perceptive remarks; namely, that it is very difficult to recruit for the Armed Forces at a time of high levels of employment in the economy as a whole. I am sure that your Lordships accept that.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, referred particularly to the recruitment of more engineers. With his normal candour he said how difficult it was to attract young people into engineering work in civilian society. During every visit that I make to a defence manufacturer I ask the question: "What are you doing about employing more women engineers?". I gave the chairman of a well-known company a hard time this very afternoon on precisely that subject. The more that your Lordships can help in increasing employers' awareness that one of the great under-utilised assets of this country is the brainpower of

1225
young women—as we have not succeeded up to now in persuading them that there is a career available for them in engineering—the better off the country will be as a whole.
I quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, over his remark that support of the Territorial Army for the Army is to be reduced. That is certainly not the intention of our proposals for the Territorial Army. Our aim is to make it much more closely integrated with the Regular Army, and that has occasionally been a matter of some controversy.
I take issue with the noble Lord on one or two further points. He said that the reduction in the number of submarines would increase overstretch. First, we shall not be reducing the number of submarines for a couple of years yet. My remarks will apply equally to the number of frigates that will be taken out of service, and also to the reduction in the front-line fast jet strength. Perversely, those two decisions will work to reduce overstretch because the proportion of trained men available to the assets will increase.
I wish to make one general point about the Royal Air Force's difficulties over pilots. The problem is not in any way unique to the Royal Air Force. It has been going on for many years in almost every country that has an air force worthy of the name. I believe I am right in saying that the Royal Air Force currently has a pilot-to-fast-jet ratio of the order of 1.5:1. For that, we should be grateful; I have seen some horrific figures in other countries. We are not complacent. We know that there are great problems of retention. However, we are not nearly as badly off as some noble Lords may imagine.
The question was raised as to why this country is the biggest contributor to possible forces in Kosovo. There are two reasons. One is that Britain, as the framework country, will be supplying the headquarters for the ARRC. If that happens, it will be of the order of a couple of thousand men at least, which brings the figure up to 8,500. Our contribution to forces in the field will be very much along the line of those that are presently contemplated from France and Germany and from the United States.
The noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Chalfont, raised the question as to why we were providing so many troops if we compare the size of our Army and comparative overstretch with the contributions of our major partners in western Europe. The answer is, as the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, said, that our forces are very much in demand—everyone wants them. In addition, we derive great benefit from the fact that our forces are entirely volunteer. It is much easier to deploy a higher proportion of a volunteer army than a conscript army. That is why the efficacy of the British Armed Forces—and I am sure I carry your Lordships with me—is much greater than that of other countries which have nominally much larger forces but do not have the effective deployment capability and the trained men that we have in this country. That is one of the principal reasons we find ourselves making such a major contribution to international forces.
I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, for the notice he gave me that he would talk about the Gurkhas and the Defence Medical Services. I confess
1226
I had a similar view of the Gurkhas when I was in another place as the one put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Burnham. All I can say at the moment is that more Gurkhas would be useful. I shall write to the noble and gallant Lord when I have studied the text of what he said to see whether I can add anything positive to his remarks.
I am sure that, like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, is seized of what the Government are trying to do with the Defence Medical Services. I have had many exchanges of correspondence with the noble and gallant Lord and I do not think anyone in the House would dispute that at least the Government are trying hard to do something about the condition of the Defence Medical Services.
I take the point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Braman, that the Army manpower ceiling may have been set too low, but at least the Government have raised it for the first time for quite a while. I hope very much that we shall be able to achieve the 3,300 extra.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will give way for one moment. I quite understand that on the general question of Gurkhas he would want to write to me. The last time I made an observation I received an answer from the Minister with responsibility for defence 18 months later. However, I am sure this Government will write much earlier than that.
Can the Minister say something specifically about the companies which were to be taken on until the year 2000? I thought it might have been in his brief and that he could have given an assurance about that. If not, I shall await the letter, whenever it comes.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, perhaps I may also intervene with regard to the Minister's statement that he will write to the noble and gallant Lord. It would be extremely useful to your Lordships if the letter could be included in Hansard as if it were a Written Question.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, it is for noble Lords whether they put down a Question to me. I shall be happy to put a copy of any letter in the Library and if a noble Lord wishes to put down a Question I shall be happy to answer it in the normal way.
I now come to the important points first raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, about times between postings and cannibalisation. I am not aware of any cannibalisation for Bosnia or Kosovo. That does not mean it has not taken place; it is quite possible that it has. I set myself the task when I first arrived in this post in May 1997 to try to ensure that we never again found ourselves in the situation we encountered in 1991 where we were cannibalising tanks and planes in Germany in order to have those in the Middle East fully operational.
It is an important part of the smart procurement initiative that we say to manufacturers that they will be responsible for the supply of spare parts for the equipment they sell us right through the life of the equipment so that we share the risk. They are responsible and there are financial penalties attached to any failure on their part to match up to their responsibilities. These will be

1227
contractual obligations. Of course, it will take some time to move fully into that situation, but at least we have initiated what I hope the noble Lord will agree are important first steps in that direction.
The noble Lord asked about shortfalls in the Royal Armoured Corps and infantry. I have some figures here hut, given the time, perhaps the noble Lord will find it acceptable if I send them to him. With respect to harmony guidelines in general—this question was raised by many noble Lords—it is perfectly true that they are not as satisfactory as they should be. I am briefed to say that the Army's harmony guidelines are still being met in most cases but there is a serious problem with combat support services and the infantry in particular.
Noble Lords will be aware that many units undertake operations with gaps of only 18 months or even shorter, and individuals can be even more adversely affected. I am informed that most Royal Air Force personnel are within their harmony guidelines and serve no more than 140 days a year in Germany or away from their UK or German base. But some Tornado and Harrier crews (air and ground) spent over 70 per cent. of 1998 preparing for, conducting, or recovering from, operations. The Navy generally meets its harmony guideline that personnel shall spend 40 per cent. of their time averaged over two years in their base port. But from time to time individuals whose skills are particularly valuable may find that their ship comes into port and they are whisked away again quite quickly. The Government do not dispute that there is serious overstretch.
I turn now to some of the points raised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. I also thank him for giving me notice of the questions he intended to ask. I should like to deal particularly with questions to do with quality of life. I am sure he will be glad to know that this very afternoon I raised questions in the Ministry of Defence as to the facilities that would be available to our troops in Kosovo or Macedonia, particularly given the extremely harsh climatic conditions in which they will find themselves which are rather different from those experienced by our troops in the Gulf. Troops have already been issued with additional cold weather kit: boots, mittens and hats. They will be served fresh food. The toilet facilities there are a mixture of chemical and purpose-built ones. Accommodation is a mixture of buildings and tents.
I asked particularly as to the availability of chip machines and mobile phones. I can inform the House that private telephone facilities will be available using the military system at present until a commercial facility can be established. I have inquired as to whether or not UK mobile phones can operate in that part of the world. The news is not very encouraging. We have already authorised free newspapers, a British Forces Post Office mail service with free aerograms, and concessionary parcel rates in both directions, library services and the provision of British Forces Broadcasting Service radio and television units. We are doing what we can in short order.
With respect to the generality of what we are doing to improve the quality of life of our services, I can best answer the noble and gallant Lord's question by rattling through some of the titles of the units we have created.
1228
We have already created a service families task force, a veterans' advice unit, which has been extremely well received and used, and a career transition partnership. We are also introducing an Armed Forces overarching personnel strategy. We are extremely seized of the importance of the quality of life in order to improve the retention rate in our Armed Services. We are not too proud to consider what our American friends have done under the GI Bill of Rights to see what we can make available in practical terms to our people along those lines, within the limits of resources.
I turn to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Park. I am delighted to see her skipping up and down the steps after her operation. We have missed her badly for the past two months and I hope that it will not be too long before we see her on the tennis courts, the ski slopes and possibly going to ballet classes. It is wonderful to see her again. The noble Baroness startled me, as did the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, with some reference to East Timor. It was news to me that we were expecting to send troops to East Timor. Having consulted rapidly, I am told that no such indication has been given by Her Majesty's Government. I think that that is probably a hobgoblin that we can put behind us for the indefinite future.
I normally agree with almost everything the noble Baroness says. However, in this case—I think I have her words correctly—she spoke about our committing forces to a debilitating war in the Balkans. I think I know what she is saying: that she is afraid that if our forces go into Kosovo they may be subject to perpetual attrition and attacks. We shall not go into Kosovo unless there is agreement by all the forces involved there, as my noble friend Lady Symons said today: the various groupings of Albanians and the government of whatever is left of Yugoslavia. We shall certainly not fight our way into Kosovo. We shall go in there by agreement with our allies. So I think that I can set the noble Baroness's fears at rest.
The noble Baroness wanted us to reward success and give opportunities for the ambitious to advance. On the other hand, the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, was worried about the introduction of performance related pay. I cannot satisfy the noble Earl and the noble Baroness at the same time. In this case, I think that the noble Baroness will win. We are intending to introduce performance related pay, I think, in the year 2000.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, rightly drew attention to the need for the sustainability of our forces in Kosovo. This is a matter of considerable anxiety for us, mainly because of the difficulties of physical access. There are not many roads and railway lines from the Thessalonica part of Greece through Macedonia and into Kosovo. If we are talking about a total land force of 25,000 troops with heavy equipment, this will be a massive problem. With the Ministry of Defence in the lead, we shall be well placed to see that arrangements are as efficient as they possibly could be if we have to set up an armed headquarters there.
I am aware that I have gone over the time allotted. I hope that various noble Lords will not accuse me of discourtesy if I have not dealt with all the points they raised. I shall undertake to write to them.

1229
I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government not to take on more commitments than we can handle. It is easy for me to say that, but I can assure him that it is a matter that has the attention of the Secretary of State on a regular basis.
I cannot get into debate with the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, or the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, on the merits of candidates for the Astor procurement, the competition for which will shortly come before Ministers. I have been lobbied by about 65 different people now for the three different solutions. Unfortunately only one will win; and I shall have unhappy friends all around me. But there will be a winner and two losers. I think that we shall know the answer to that conundrum within a very few weeks.
I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, about different retention payments. I was not aware of that. I shall look into the issue to see whether I can advise him why the present pattern exists or whether we might be considering having it changed.
I was fascinated by the tutorial of the noble Baroness, Lady Strange, on the Ottoman Empire. One of the most marvellous things about this place is that you learn something new every day. I must study Hansard to obtain full benefit from her remarks.
I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Burnham, will acquit me of discourtesy, but I do not believe that they made a point which I have not already dealt with. I shall study Hansard and respond to them in writing as soon as may be.
10.50 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords and the two noble Baronesses who have taken part in the debate. We have had a most useful and interesting discussion. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive and helpful reply and for his coming to answer the debate at all. I know that it was arranged at short notice and that he had to rearrange his diary. I am greatly obliged. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Deregulation (Pipe-lines) Order 1999
10.51 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th November 1998 be approved [2nd Report from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Pipe-lines Act 1962 is, in effect, planning legislation for certain onshore pipe-lines and has been with us for a number of years now.
There is, therefore, a considerable body of expertise and experience in administering the Act and it is that experience which has indicated that some changes to it may now be appropriate. The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 gives an opportunity to make some changes to the Act. These changes will make it somewhat easier for companies which need authorisation for their proposed pipes from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to achieve that authorisation. I can assure the House that all necessary protection has been maintained, as evidenced by the report from the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, which states that the order as submitted is in a form satisfactory to be submitted to this House.
The changes to the Act are, first, repeal of Section 2 so that proposed short pipes need no longer be notified to the Secretary of State. Secondly, repeal of Section 3 so that short diversions of existing pipes no longer need authorisation from the Secretary of State. Thirdly, repeal of Section 7 so that short pipes can be added to existing pipes no longer need authorisation from the Secretary of State. Fourthly, the introduction of a written representations procedure which could be used to deal with objections to an application for authorisation from the Secretary of State. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 30th November 1998 be approved. [2nd Report from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee]—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the order. I am entirely content with it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Weights and Measures) Order 1999
10.53 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th December 1998 be approved [4th Report from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order removes some of the burdens currently imposed by the law upon businesses when they seek to supply weighing and measuring equipment for use for trade purposes within Great Britain. The law in question is contained within Section 11 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985.
The provisions of that section require any weighing and measuring equipment, before it is placed into use for trade, to be verified by an inspector of weights and measures. That is to say, an inspector must test the equipment to satisfy himself that the equipment complies with all applicable statutory requirements, as well as with an approved design, and that it measures with sufficient accuracy. If satisfied, he will then pass the equipment and apply the prescribed mark, known as "the stamp" to indicate that the equipment is fit for use for trade. Some of your Lordships will be familiar with the stamp on the sides of beer glasses—clearly not the noble Lord, Lord Burnham! But. of course, it is also to be found on

1231
many other types of measuring equipment, including weighing machines and petrol pumps, which are used for trade measurement purposes where it has been considered necessary to ensure that the equipment is verified in this way.
The requirement for the verification to be conducted by an inspector of weights and measures is considered to be an unnecessary burden by many of the businesses associated with the manufacture, installation and repair of weighing and measuring equipment because of its intrusion into the planning of their normal business activities. Businesses have to depend upon the availability of inspectors to conduct verification activities and consequently have little control over the incorporation of these activities into their working schedule. The proposed amendments will give increased flexibility to business, providing them the opportunity to exert greater control over the planning of necessary testing and stamping of equipment as fit for use for trade.
In addition, businesses have to bear the costs associated with the verification activities being conducted by weights and measures authorities. These proposals will provide business with the opportunity to make savings both in respect of the fees paid out and the costs borne which normally arise with the present requirements.
The order eases the burden in three ways. First, through the issue of an approval by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry it will allow manufacturers, installers and repairers of weighing and measuring equipment to conduct their own verification. Secondly, it will allow those persons who are manufacturers and are so approved to apply the stamp before testing and passing the equipment. This, we consider, will carry great benefits to manufacturers of capacity measures such as beer and wine glasses, as they will be able to integrate the stamping of the glasses into the production processes. Thirdly, where businesses seek verification by an inspector of weights and measures they will be able to provide the inspector with test results pertaining to the equipment from a suitably qualified test laboratory within the European
1232
economic area which the inspector would use as part of his determination as to whether the equipment complied with the relevant requirements.
The Government are satisfied that the legislative changes contained within the order maintain the necessary protection to both seller and buyer in circumstances where weighing and measuring equipment is used for trade, as presently provided by the regime under the Weights and Measures Act 1985. Applicants seeking to use these provisions will need to satisfy the Secretary of State that they have the necessary competence and systems in place to be able to conduct verification correctly and that they are fit and proper persons to be so approved. Also, weighing and measuring equipment will still he subject to the same accuracy and other requirements as those applied when verification is carried out by inspectors and to the same requirements covering construction and conformity with the approved design.
The proposal has completed the preliminary scrutiny procedures for deregulation orders under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee of your Lordships' House and the Deregulation Committee of the other place have separately assessed and reported on the proposal. Both committees have indicated that they are content with the draft order as it stands. Therefore I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th December 1998 be approved [4th Report from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the order. The last time I spoke to a weights and measures order I spoke about yards and metres. I used the wrong word and my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham interrupted immediately to correct me. Perhaps it would be best if I left all debate and said that I was entirely content with the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at two minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Coalfield Communities
  Coalfield Communities
  Victim Support
  Victim Support
  HM Prison Coldingley
  HM Prison Coldingley
  Women Offenders: Sentencing
  Women Offenders: Sentencing
  Military Corrective Training Centre, Colchester
  Military Corrective Training Centre, Colchester
  Mothers in Prison
  Mothers in Prison
  Deportation: Families with Children
  Deportation: Families with Children
  NATO Summit: Washington
  NATO Summit: Washington
  Iraq: US Policy
  Iraq: US Policy
  Nigeria: Support for Electoral Process
  Nigeria: Support for Electoral Process
  Submarines and Mine Clearance Diving: Employment of Women
  Submarines and Mine Clearance Diving: Employment of Women
  Land Command Order of Battle
  Land Command Order of Battle
  Muslim Children in Care
  Muslim Children in Care
  Less Favoured Areas
  Less Favoured Areas
  BSE Inquiry
  BSE Inquiry
  India and Pakistan: Aid and Compliance with Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
  India and Pakistan: Aid and Compliance with Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty