Sitting of 10 June 1999

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

    Numeracy Hour
    Helen Jones: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the numeracy hour; and if he will make a statement. [85393]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): The national numeracy project has been evaluated by the National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales. Seven hundred and fifty schools took part in the project. Using a baseline of two years earlier with similar children, there was up to a 16-month improvement in the performance of those who had been part of that programme.
    Helen Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Would he agree that, if the numeracy project is to be effective, one of the essential ingredients is for staff to be properly trained and supported? Will he join me in congratulating teachers on the work that they have done so far on the various initiatives that the Government have introduced? Will he take this opportunity to assure the House that proper support and training will be provided for the introduction of the numeracy hour in all our schools?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am very pleased to give that assurance. The evaluation of the project undertaken by Ofsted shows that teachers were able to plan, organise and teach mathematics much more effectively. Obviously, training teachers is a crucial factor. We have put £55 million into training and materials for the programme and 1,760 extra teachers are providing model lessons. Teachers in every school in the country—including the head and a governor—will have the opportunity to receive the necessary training in the months ahead. We have expanded by one day the number of training days available this summer to facilitate the training programme. As teachers become more familiar with the numeracy programme, the sort of figures that we have seen for the literacy hour will be reflected—90 per cent. of primary teachers have said that they found that framework helpful and positive and have welcomed it.

    Single Work-focused Gateway
    Mr. John Healey: What assessment he has made of the role of local authorities in the planning and delivery of the pilots for the single work-focused gateway. [85394]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): Local authorities have been encouraged to be full partners in the new one service. They are represented on the national project team and on local implementation teams. Due to the demanding time scales to which we are working to get the pilots up and running in June and November, it made sense to allow for the phasing in of the councils' service involvement, but some council staff, premises and functions will be involved from day 1 and their contribution is invaluable.
    Mr. Healey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that the Education and Employment Select Committee recently took evidence from the Local Government Association on our inquiry into the single work-focused gateway? Is he aware that, while the LGA strongly supports the ambition of the one service, it told us of the pilots whose participants felt that they had been invited to join the train but that it had already left the station and was 2 miles down the track? In the light of that, will my right hon. Friend explain what efforts have been made to ensure that local authority staff have been open to recruitment as one service advisers? Are there any local authority sites from which the one service will be delivered in the pilot areas?
    Mr. Smith: Not only has the association been invited to join the train, it is on the train. The LGA is fully involved. Local authority staff have been encouraged to apply for jobs as personal advisers in the new one service and a number have already been appointed. Yes, local authority premises will be used from day one, including in some towns where there has been no access to benefit and employment services. As I said in my earlier answer, there will be an opportunity for councils to pace the extension of their involvement over time—something that the councils very much wanted—so that it accords with their own priorities. Also, discussions on resourcing are taking place so that local authorities will be resourced in relation to their involvement on the same basis as the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service.

    Masterclasses
    Mr. Ben Chapman: How many schools are piloting the use of masterclasses for more able pupils. [85395]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): Ten schools are involved in the pilot of masterclasses for gifted and talented pupils. We are also developing a separate pilot of about 40 summer school projects, based in a range of schools and education action zones. Further details will be announced shortly.
    Mr. Chapman: We still need to improve the education of all our children and to provide lifelong learning for others, but are not special measures needed for gifted and

    767
    talented children, in particular in inner-city areas, as they are still not given the priority that they deserve? What are my hon. Friend's plans for masterclasses for those gifted children and for ensuring that those are more widely available?
    Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For too long, there has been the feeling that able children will do well despite school rather than because of it. It is about time that we recognised the fact that allowing every child to reach their potential means giving attention to every child, including those who have a particular ability or talent. My hon. Friend will know that a key strand of our work on the excellence in schools project is to ask those participating to work with their most able, gifted and talented children to ensure that they achieve their potential and that they achieve at a level that has not until now been available to them.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: I recognise that masterclasses may indeed be beneficial for the more gifted child, and no doubt the trials will be carefully evaluated, but does the Minister recognise that able and gifted children should be assisted in mainstream education and that, from the word, go there should be streaming in secondary schools to ensure that those children are given the challenges that they need? Does she further agree that perhaps, in addition, special help could be provided at the end of the school day to continue that impetus?
    Ms Morris: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Lady has just said. It is absolutely crucial that the needs of those children in mainstream schools, whether primary or secondary, are met. For too long, schools have been good at meeting the needs of children who are thought to be less able and struggling—which is right and may it continue—but have often left those who are doing well to get on at their own pace. We are looking for a change of culture. We need to work with schools and teachers so that they develop strategies and teaching styles that will extend the abilities and the potential of every young person.
    Every school should look carefully at pupil grouping. Certainly there is a lot of evidence showing that setting children can raise standards. That is setting children by ability for different subjects rather than streaming children, to which the hon. Lady referred, which puts them into the same stream for all subjects. Again, under the excellence in cities initiative, we are requiring all schools to look carefully at the way in which they group students and seriously to consider setting, unless they can prove to us that another way of grouping children is achieving the same high results.
    Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I welcome the Minister's responses to these questions. As she knows, the Select Committee on Education and Employment recently published a report on the needs of highly able children. I agree with her comments that we have tended to neglect this group because of the concern about struggling children and average standards. Does she agree that, although the masterclass initiative is a very important one, perhaps the key, as the Select Committee suggests, would be for every school to have a policy for highly able
    768
    children and probably a named senior member of staff with special responsibility so that that group is no longer neglected?
    Ms Morris: That is absolutely right. I welcome the Select Committee report on gifted and talented children and I look forward to my appearance before the Committee in about four weeks' time. The main theme of the report is absolutely right: in all our schools there are able and talented students who need to be recognised and supported. I know that the Chair of the Select Committee will welcome the fact that, as part of excellence in schools, we are requiring every school in the 25 pilot areas to designate one member of staff to be responsible for monitoring gifted and able children. Over the next few months, we will draw those teachers together, provide them with training and make links so that they can support each other. I have every confidence in saying that much that the Committee espouses in training will be delivered through excellence in cities over the next 12 months.
    Mrs. Theresa May: The masterclass initiative and the excellence in cities initiative, which includes masterclasses, are, like so many Government initiatives, strong on rhetoric and weak on delivery. How many children will be moved to another school for some part of their education as a result of these initiatives? The Minister has talked today of the need to meet the needs of more able pupils, but the masterclass initiative within excellence in cities is based on selection by ability. Last week, the Prime Minister told head teachers that there should be no return to selection by ability because it was too devastating for those who were rejected. What confidence can parents, pupils and teachers have in statements made by the Secretary of State and the Minister on meeting the needs of more able pupils when the Prime Minister so obviously disagrees with them?
    Ms Morris: I find it amazing that the hon. Lady has failed to grasp the central difference between her policy for gifted and talented children and that of the Government. Unlike the Opposition, we do not believe that gifted and talented children exist only in selective schools. We believe that, in every school, there are groups of children who are gifted and talented and whose needs have been ignored. The thrust of our policy is to ensure that a gifted and talented child does not have to be in a grammar school to get extra support. That will give parents confidence that, whether their child goes to an existing selective school or to a comprehensive school in a city or a rural area, there will be policies to support the child in realising their potential. That is what parents want—not a few children siphoned off for extra attention.

    Longer-term Unemployed
    Mr. David Stewart: What steps he is taking to help the longer-term unemployed. [85396]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): With the excellent policies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Employment Service and the new deal are already delivering to young and older unemployed people. We now have the best record in terms of the number and

    769
    percentage of people in employment in our history. We have the lowest youth unemployment for 25 years. There has been a 40 per cent. drop in long-term young unemployment. We have seen 266,000 young people go into the gateway, with 95,000 getting jobs, of which 70,000 have been sustained. The £3.6 billion that we are putting in is the wisest and most effective investment ever on unemployment.
    Mr. Stewart: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he share my concern about ageism in the workplace? I recently met a 50-year-old insurance manager who had been unemployed for two years and felt that he would never work again because of such ageism. Will the Government's new code of practice outlaw age discrimination in the workplace?
    Mr. Blunkett: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities will launch the code in a few days. He will spell out our measures for working with industry and commerce to build on some of the excellent examples of which my hon. Friend will know in Scotland. There, the older workers unemployed subsidy for start-up pension funds, the older is bolder programme of workshops to raise employers' awareness of older workers and the 50-plus initiative—pilots for which will be rolled out in the autumn as in the rest of the United Kingdom—will all take head on the problem of ensuring that older people are not neglected. As some of us get older, we feel this more strongly day by day.
    Mr. John Bercow: The right hon. Gentleman's response to the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) notwithstanding, will he abandon his self-satisfaction and acknowledge that the Government are guilty of the most monstrous age discrimination imaginable? They are spending just short of £2.6 billion to assist the 118,000 young people who qualify under the new deal, but less than £500 million on the 194,500 older unemployed people. When will he put his own house in order and explain exactly what he has against older people who suffer the misfortune of unemployment?
    Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman has not counted all the existing and newly developed measures outside the new deal that the Employment Service is adequately and effectively implementing for older workers. He ignores the fact that, under the new deal 25-plus, 10,600 older men and women have entered work. The 28 major programmes that have been put in place on the British mainland are already showing just how effective they can be. The performance and innovation unit has been commissioned to identify ways of increasing the effectiveness of our policies and opportunities for older people. I would welcome all parties in the House making a positive contribution to improving the well-being and opportunities of older workers rather than griping about the success of the Government.
    Mr. Barry Jones: May I say to my right hon. Friend that you are only as old as you feel? He seems to be carrying the burdens of office very well.
    In 1980, my constituency suffered the largest post-war redundancy in western Europe when 8,000 steelworkers, together with many thousands of others in associated
    770
    work lost their jobs overnight. Some of those steelworkers still have no work largely because there are fewer and fewer unskilled jobs. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House and my constituents of any progress that he is making in assisting older redundant steelworkers to find new work?
    Mr. Blunkett: I thank my hon. Friend for his flattery about my ageing process—some days are better than others, Madam Speaker.
    I agree with my hon. Friend—how could I not, coming from a steel area myself?—about the challenge of ensuring that the reskilling programme is available. We place great emphasis on that investment in training for older workers. The 50-plus initiative, which was announced in the March Budget, will be of particular help to older workers who have spent their life in heavy industry; their futures will be enhanced by those measures, as they will by the reports and recommendations of the skills task force, which we established when we took office. I hope to announce new measures shortly that will enhance still further the available training opportunities.
    Measures will also be proposed in a White Paper, which we hope to publish in a few weeks, on a coherent programme, policy and funding for all post-16 education and training.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: I pay tribute to the measures taken by the Government to date to tackle the scourge of unemployment. We have had good success in Northern Ireland, and I welcome the continuing fall in its unemployment rate. When considering further measures to assist the longer-term unemployed, will the Secretary of State consider the unintended consequences for experienced teachers of local management of schools funding? Those teachers now have great difficulty finding long-term secure contracts and they may risk joining the ranks of the long-term unemployed.
    Mr. Blunkett: We are mindful of the need to retain the services of long-serving and experienced teachers and measures that have been set in place in broader policies are aimed at doing precisely that. I am happy to talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the matter. We have introduced greater flexibility for local authorities and schools so that they can vary the formulas for LMS and fair funding to take account of salary levels and the need to retain teachers who are more expensive because of their long service and grading. That will avoid precisely the danger that the hon. Gentleman describes. It is why additional money is being provided for posts for teachers with advanced skills. It is why the Government's Green Paper on reforming the promotion prospects and rewards for teachers will specifically earmark money to fund those initiatives so that money does not have to be found from existing resources.
    Mr. Damian Green: The Secretary of State has referred to the new deal as a great help to the long-term unemployed. Can he explain why his Cabinet colleagues evidently do not agree? The numbers of young new deal trainees taken on by Government Departments make fascinating reading. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for International

    771
    Development have taken on none. The Lord Chancellor's Department has taken on none. The Northern Ireland Office has taken on none. Even the Home Office, with its 50,818 employees, has taken on just one. Why should the long-term unemployed take the new deal seriously if the Government, when acting as employer, regard it as completely irrelevant?
    Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful for the reminder to all Departments—we have issued exactly such a reminder ourselves—of the importance of their role in such schemes. [Laughter.] Well, we are almost at the end of term when we usually get reports that say, "Doing extraordinarily well, but some classmates could do better." That assessment would probably be appropriate. We are, however, making fantastic progress. We are about to reach the 50,000 mark in terms of the number of employers who have signed up. Not only are a range of Departments taking on new dealers, but their agencies and the bodies that they fund are doing so as well. It ill becomes anyone to chide the Lord Chancellor for whom he takes on, given the difficulty that he has experienced in appointing a special adviser.

    Former Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement about progress in implementing his funding policy in respect of former grant—maintained schools. [85397]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): The Government's aim is to establish a unified funding system for all state schools involving higher delegation by local education authorities and funding for all schools on an equal basis. We have put transitional arrangements in place to ensure that the changes required of grant-maintained schools are manageable.
    Mr. Swayne: One of my more distasteful duties is to answer letters sent to me by parents who were unable to secure a place for their children at the Arnewood secondary school in New Milton, despite the fact that they live in the catchment area. Similar problems attend the Burgate school in Fordingbridge and Ringwood school. Although those are three of the most successful comprehensive schools in the country, they now face cutting courses and staff and even charging for some lessons. In total, grant-maintained schools have lost£100 million. The former Minister for School Standards, now the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, said that it was not the Government's intention
    "to cut the amount being spent on pupils in GM schools but to increase the funding … in other schools. We are … levelling up."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 12 February 1998; c. 461]
    Is that loss the meaning of levelling up?
    Ms Morris: If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence that any school in his constituency is charging pupils for attending lessons, I trust that he will bring it to our attention immediately. It is illegal, and I should be totally surprised if it were going on. I hope that he will help us in upholding the law in that regard.
    The hon. Gentleman has written to me about what has happened to Arnewood school's budget this year. I, too, have duties—distasteful or otherwise—in replying to
    772
    letters from Members of Parliament, so he will be aware that the school's budget has been protected in cash terms. Much of the change for Arnewood school has been the result of changes in pupil numbers. The hon. Gentleman will know that last year, against the advice of the local authority, the projected numbers for Arnewood school were based on a wrong calculation. That must be put right this year.
    The hon. Gentleman speaks with some passion about the needs of children in his constituency. I am sure that he will welcome the fact that all the pupils in his constituency area will benefit from the extra £25 million that the Government have allocated to the local authority—a 5.9 per cent. increase in funding compared to last year.
    Mr. David Willetts: Will the Minister confirm that approximately two thirds of grant-maintained schools face such severe funding cuts that they have to receive transitional protection? Will she also confirm that her Department forecast that approximately only one third of grant-maintained schools would be in that severe position? This year, many grant-maintained schools are struggling on last year's cash budget; there is no extra money to meet inflation and for teachers' pay. Does the Minister not realise that the Government's attack on grant-maintained schools has created nothing short of a crisis in the funding of the GM sector? What is she going do to about it?
    Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman must realise that those GM schools that are receiving transitional protection are receiving more money than local authority schools in similar circumstances. I would not pretend for one minute that it is easy, in a relatively short time, to move from the funding system that we inherited from the Conservative Government—in which school funding was based not on need, but on category. We will have no truck with that system. We shall move to a system in which every child is valued, whether they go to a community school or a foundation school. We shall ensure that that transition is carried out as easily as possible for GM schools.
    The hon. Gentleman has a bit of a cheek to huff and puff at the Dispatch Box, talking about the difficulty for schools as they move from one funding system to another. Under the previous Conservative Government, how many times did he tell the House about the difficulties suffered by 23,000 schools as pupil funding was cut by £40 per pupil during the last three years of that Government? What is true is that every school is benefiting from the increase in money, whether capital or revenue funding, that the Government have given. We are able to celebrate the fact that, throughout the education service, there is an extra £200 per pupil of Government funding this year and over the next two years.

    National Curriculum
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: If he will make a statement on reform of the national curriculum. [85398]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): On 13 May, I launched the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority's proposed revisions to the national curriculum. That

    773
    consultation will conclude on 23 July, and orders and changes will be announced in the autumn. The intention behind the review is to contribute to the agenda on raising standards, to retain stability and consistency in the curriculum, to ensure a full and rounded entitlement to learning for all pupils and to encourage the development of best practice. Establishing the literacy and numeracy framework as a key part of the curriculum has been a priority in our mind, and we are pleased with the welcome that that has so far received.
    Mrs. Laing: I thank the Secretary of State for that very full answer. I am sure that he agrees that, to get on with the important job that we expect them to do, teachers and head teachers want a degree of certainty, so that they can plan what they are going to teach in the months ahead, and less bureaucracy, so that they can spend their time teaching children, not filling in forms for the Department for Education and Employment. Therefore, is there not a contradiction in the Secretary of State's answer, in that he says that his top priority is retaining stability in schools, but that the review of the national curriculum will not be published until the autumn?
    Why is the right hon. Gentleman not telling teachers and head teachers sooner what should be done in the next term and the next school year? Why do they have to wait such a long time and have to go through so much bureaucracy, instead of being able to concentrate on the basics? There is a difference between the rhetoric, which is very good, and the practice, which is not.
    Mr. Blunkett: Let me pause to draw breath. I have a statutory duty to consult on the recommendations of the QCA, and I am using the minimum time available to ensure that that consultation concludes at the end of a summer term. It is not possible to issue the immediate response to that consultation to schools during August, because they are on holiday. When schools return in autumn, we shall get the results of the review to them as quickly as possible. Through the standards fund and the web, we shall provide information, schemes of work and updates so that everyone has the necessary information. We shall ensure that schools have the rest of the academic year to prepare for the main changes, which are minimal and which will be introduced from 2000. All reasonable people will recognise that is the fastest that we can act.
    Mr. Tony McWalter: I welcome the introduction of thinking skills to the new national curriculum. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he is willing to respond positively to the recent offer of help made to him by the National Committee for Philosophy in developing that curriculum in such a way that the committee's expertise is made available to the schools sector?
    Mr. Blunkett: We strongly welcome advice and support and have made a point of ensuring that we open up access to the information and advice that is available outside the Department. I shall be happy to take on board the suggested contribution to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Phil Willis: The Liberal Democrats welcome the review of the national curriculum—although it is rather ironic that it was introduced without any consultation. We particularly

    774
    welcome the fact that the Government have taken the Crick report seriously. As we shall see huge voter apathy in today's European elections, does the Secretary of State believe that citizenship should be not only taught, but practised? How does the Secretary of State propose to introduce citizenship into schools, and to ensure that school councils and active participation are the norm rather than the exception?
    Mr. Blunkett: I strongly welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments. About a third of our secondary schools are conducting the recommended citizenship programmes, which will be implemented by 2002. The development of citizenship and democracy in our schools is an essential feature of a modern, civilised society. It will help students to understand the world around them and their part in it. However, even in my wildest dreams, I do not imagine that the introduction of citizenship and democracy into the curriculum will improve voter turnout in European elections.

    Youth Service
    Ms Dari Taylor: If he will make a statement on his plans for the youth service. [85400]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. George Mudie): After analysing and considering the national audit of the youth service published last year, we are considering policies for the benefit of young people, including the role of the youth service. We will consult—in fact, we will issue a consultation document—on the future of the youth service, but context, content and timing will need to be determined once we have decided on the wider services for young people generally. I shall make an announcement in due course.
    Ms Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that too many young people in the 13 to 19 age bracket feel excluded, and that far too many believe that they are criticised and blamed for the things that go wrong in our society? Those young people are definitely keen to be involved—although their participation is often not recognised. Will my hon. Friend consider how the voluntary sector agencies can participate in consultation about youth provision? The youth service—certainly in my constituency—is an able group, which could be involved, and participate at the appropriate level, with young people.
    Mr. Mudie: My hon. Friend and the House will be aware that a main thrust of Government policy is ending social exclusion. I say time and again—whenever I have the opportunity—that the youth service plays an important role, and is a vital partner in allowing colleges, schools and universities to widen participation and end social exclusion. The voluntary sector can play a valuable role. For example, one of its great strengths is its willingness to provide new solutions and opportunities. We fund the voluntary youth sector through the scheme for national voluntary youth organisations, and the Secretary of State announced late last year fresh grants for 81 organisations and a 30 per cent. funding increase. We support the voluntary youth sector not only verbally, but financially.

    Disabled People
    Mr. Tom Levitt: What steps his Department is taking to assist people with disabilities when they return to work. [85401]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): The Government are committed to providing high-quality services to help disabled people who want to return to work. They include access to work, the job introduction scheme, and advice and guidance from the disability service teams. Measures taken by my Department sit within a broader pattern of across-Government help, including the new disabled persons tax credit and initiatives within the health service.
    Mr. Levitt: I am sure that my hon. Friend will have noted that the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill provides improved linkage rules which give added confidence to disabled people who wish to return to work. Does she agree that equally important is the question of job retention for disabled people? If people suffer from a progressive disability—such as reduced hearing, sight, dexterity or mobility—the extra assistance provided to help them stay in work will not only increase their earning power, but retain skills within the work force and decrease the benefits bill in the long run. It is better for an individual's dignity if, despite a disability, he or she can be encouraged to stay in work rather than fall out of the work force.
    Ms Hodge: I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. We consider the retention of people in jobs to be such a high priority that we are working with colleagues in the Department of Health, the Department of Social Security and local government social services to find out what new measures we can take to ensure that there is better rehabilitation and retention of people who fall ill at work. [HON. MEMBERS: "Remploy."] On Remploy, I should hope that there would be cross-party support for our initiative to ensure that people are integrated into mainstream employment opportunities and given the dignity of working alongside others, rather than being segregated in factories as they have been for far too long. The previous Government should have tackled that issue many years ago.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: Will my hon. Friend take note of a case in my constituency in which Barclays bank sacked a person who was suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome, or ME? When that person asked for extra time to recover, the request was denied. Is there something that we can do to impress on employers the fact that they have a responsibility to dedicated workers who develop disabilities, and who should be given assistance instead of being sacked and left with no hope of further employment? Can we do something to help those people?
    Ms Hodge: I would be most grateful if my hon. Friend would write to me about the case to which he referred because it strikes me that, if there was discrimination against that employee, there might well be a case against the employer under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
    776
    The Department has now received the first stage of research on the early cases taken under the Disability Discrimination Act. That demonstrates that more cases have been taken under that Act in its early days than were taken under the equal opportunities and race relations legislation. It demonstrates also the beginnings of the Act's good impact; for example, a person with a visual impairment received an award of more than £100,000. We hope that, when our Disability Rights Commission is up and running, there will be further support to individuals to ensure that they have rights at work.

    Non-maintained Schools
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: If he will make a statement on the regulations to govern the purchase of provision by local education authorities from non-maintained schools. [85406]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): The legislation that the Government introduced last year enables the Secretary of State to prevent the introduction of a new locally funded assisted places scheme. We shall publish draft regulations in due course.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: During the proceedings on the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, the Minister's predecessor told the Standing Committee:
    "We shall begin the consultation after Report and Third Reading, when the House has expressed a view on new clause 12. That is part of the conventions of Parliament, and that is how we shall conduct our business."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 3 March 1998; c. 786.]
    The Minister did not conduct his business in that manner. In February, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) tabled a written question to the present Minister, asking when draft regulations would be published for consultation. She replied:
    "It is planned to issue draft regulations for consultation in May 1999."—[Official Report, 22 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 20.]
    We now hear from the Minister that she refuses to give any date for those regulations.
    When individual schools and education action zones have the power, without regulations, to buy places at independent schools, why are such regulations needed? Conservative-run Surrey local education authority, which has already shown the Government a lead by bringing in the private sector to manage a maintained school, is ready and willing to show the Government a lead in building new bridges with the independent sector. Give us the tools and we shall do the work.
    Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman is getting very exercised on this issue. My predecessor said that we would publish regulations after Report and Third Reading, and we shall do so. It is a matter of prioritising.
    As far as we know, no local authority has plans to reproduce the assisted places scheme at a local level. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have introduced many regulations since the passage of the school standards legislation. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), and I feel, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues do, that we spend much of our time in Committee discussing statutory instruments. We have

    777
    discussed and laid statutory instruments on admissions, parental appeal, funding and the new standards framework. It was a greater priority for us to implement for the start of the next school term the new framework and the new funding, admission and appeal arrangements. We shall come to further secondary legislation in due time, as I said.
    Mr. David Willetts: On the Secretary of State's comments about citizenship and the European elections, may I invite the Minister to congratulate our education Whip, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), on already having done three hours' telling in the European elections? Ministers are worried about turnout; it helps if one fights an election campaign. We find such telling quite a good way of increasing turnout.
    On the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), there is a serious problem. Guildford had to follow cumbersome rules, which were set by the European Union procurement policy in the absence of any regulations guiding procedures in the area. How come Islington can do a quick deal with one company for the private management of some education service virtually overnight, but education authorities that want responsibly to consider purchasing private management of schools must undergo time-consuming procedures? That is why the regulations are needed. LEAs have been kept waiting for far too long.
    Ms Morris: I wonder which group of Conservatives the Whip was counting—those who are pro-European or those who are anti-European—and at which school she was doing so.
    More seriously, the point raised by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) relates to our fear that assisted places schemes would be reproduced locally. We do not want that; we have made that clear. We want the private sector to be involved properly in the education service, where that is appropriate. We shall ensure that ways of enabling that to happen are implemented.
    The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) should realise that much of what we heard from his Government about the relationship with the private sector did not transpire. Over the past two years since we have taken power, we have been very carefully building up contacts and establishing rules and regulations to enable a relationship with the private sector, in order that it may contribute to the wider agenda of raising standards. That has happened in both Guildford and Islington. We shall reflect on those processes and, if need be, simplify them. We have no intention of allowing local authorities to reproduce assisted places schemes locally.

    Reading
    Ms Gisela Stuart: What steps have been taken by his Department to encourage parents to read to their young children. [85409]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): Encouraging parents to read to their young children has been a very important part of both the literacy strategy and the national year for reading. We have run a series of television and radio advertisements for a free leaflet entitled "A Little Reading Goes A Long Way". The
    778
    leaflet offers parents practical advice about how to read with their children. More than 1 million copies have been requested so far, and a further 2 million have been distributed through various outlets, including supermarkets and doctors' waiting rooms.
    Ms Stuart: I thank the Minister for that answer. Reading to young children is beneficial not only to the child-parent relationship but to educational development. Is the Minister aware of the project that was first piloted in Birmingham in 1992, in which parents were given a leaflet and book alerting them to access to libraries when their babies attended hearing tests? In 1997, that scheme was run again for the whole city and, in the past two years, 25,000 children have received as part of the core-school partnership a pack of a book and information on the library. I gather that the scheme is being rolled out nationally. How much support will the Department give to the book start project?
    Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the city of Birmingham, in which both our constituencies lie, an incredibly positive scheme, which was originally called "Books for Babies", was launched. The issue is about changing the culture and giving parents the confidence to realise that libraries are for them, and that they can learn from libraries and help their children. We are indeed rolling out the programme nationwide, with funding from the national year of reading and, I am very pleased to say, from private sector sponsorship. My hon. Friend will know that, when key stage 1 children in Birmingham and a control group were tested, the improvement in attainment rates among those who had been part of "Books for Babies" was quite remarkable. I therefore look forward to many more young children and their parents benefiting from the rolled-out scheme, and to rising reading and numeracy levels among children aged six and seven.

    Secondary School Closures
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on his responsibilities in relation to proposals for the closure of secondary schools. [85410]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): Madam Speaker—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Thank you to the fan club.
    Proposals for the closure of schools are usually brought forward by the local education authority and are copied to the Secretary of State. If there are no statutory objections and the proposals are not called in for decision by the Secretary of State, the decision may be made by the local education authority. If proposals fall to the Secretary of State for decision, they will be decided on their individual merits, taking into account the advice of Her Majesty's inspectors and any points made by interested parties in the local area.
    Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed and helpful reply. Although I am totally in favour of excellence and success, I also support the idea of a number of schools being designated to take those with learning difficulties. League tables, unless responsibly used, can mean that a school will suffer as a result of the

    779
    fact that it takes youngsters with learning difficulties, and many parents may opt to send their children to other schools.
    Will the Minister, the rest of the Government and the bodies that are to take responsibility for making decisions on the closure of schools take into account the fact that some schools take on the burden, and the important task, of dealing with children with learning difficulties? Should that fact not be borne in mind before a hasty decision is taken to close a school because of a reduction in numbers?
    Mr. Clarke: The short answer is yes. The hon. Gentleman has made his point powerfully and correctly. In several of the individual cases that I have had to consider during my time in office, the issues that he has raised have been taken into account, because of the considerations that he has mentioned. The general issue that he raises is the difficult one of the relationship between league tables and people with special educational needs. We are thinking carefully about how to ensure that crude league tables are considered only as part of a fully rounded view that takes into account all the issues that schools must address in trying to meet the needs of pupils in their areas. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest, and commit myself to respond positively to his approach.

    School Playing Fields
    Mr. Nigel Beard: What plans he has to restrict the sale of school playing fields. [85412]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): We have already delivered on our manifesto pledge to protect school playing fields. Since 1 October 1998, section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 has meant that local authorities in England may not dispose, or change the use, of school playing fields without the prior consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. On 7 June, earlier this week, we published the criteria against which decisions on applications from local authorities and governing bodies will normally be made.
    The first criterion is financial; any proceeds from sales must be returned to education or used to enhance sports provision. The second relates to schools' needs; the playing fields and other sports facilities that will be left must meet the needs of local schools, particularly primary schools. Thirdly, there are community needs; the playing fields and other sports facilities that will be left must meet the needs of the local community. The fourth criterion involves consultation; there must have been adequate consultation both locally and with recognised national bodies such as Learning through Landscapes, the Central Council of Physical Recreation or the National Playing Fields Association, so that their views can be taken into account. Those proposals offer a clear way forward in improving playing field provision in schools.
    Mr. Beard: I thank the Minister for that answer. It was one of the scandals of the public asset stripping under the previous Government that 5,000 school playing fields were sold off. Does the Minister share the concern recently expressed by the National Association of Head Teachers about the level of fitness of many of their pupils,
    780

    and their sedentary life styles? Will he give an assurance that school playing fields and sporting facilities will be used to ensure that standards of, and improvements in, fitness keep pace with classroom achievement?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with the points and sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. We have a series of initiatives to develop a much healthier approach to life in school, ranging across changes in the national curriculum, our playing fields initiative, and our approach to diet and food. We have a joint healthy schools initiative, which I and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health chair, to bring together and to develop activity in this area. We go down the line that has been set out by my hon. Friend. It is critical that we develop more resources for school playing fields and sporting activity, and better use of those facilities. Yesterday, I met representatives of the Central Council of Physical Recreation to discuss ways in which we might develop that approach.
    Ms Harriet Harman: Does my hon. Friend recognise that there are major new opportunities for sport and for music, art and drama in the Government's new nationwide network of after-school clubs? What can my hon. Friend's Department do to ensure that these clubs take good care of, and look after, the children involved, and extend to them opportunities for sport, music, art and drama, which are often not available to them during their time in school?
    Mr. Clarke: I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend, who puts the case with her traditional power and force. We are making resources available through the new opportunities fund, with £125 million being allocated for schools, councils, community groups and other organisations to improve access and develop the activities to which my right hon. Friend referred. We are encouraging out-of-school activity in music, arts and drama in the way that she suggests. We believe that that is an essential approach. Critical to it is developing a much better relationship between schools and their local communities and community organisations, so that real co-operation can be built up. We give this initiative major priority, and it is important that we continue to drive it forward.

    Educational Attainment (Inner London)
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: If he will make a statement on the current level of educational attainment in schools in the inner-London boroughs. [85415]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): In 1998, the attainment of pupils in schools in the inner-London boroughs was below the national average in literacy, numeracy and science at the ages of seven, 11 and 13, and in the achievement of five or more higher grade GCSEs. However, between 1997 and 1998, the improvement in literacy and numeracy tests was twice the national average, and the improvement in higher grade GCSEs was more than three times the national average.
    All our policies to raise standards are contributing to urgent and essential improvement in inner-city education. That has been most recently drawn together in the excellence in cities programme announced in March this year.
    Mr. Robathan: All of us who live in central or inner London, even if only for part of the week, must be

    781
    concerned about education standards in those areas. Does the Minister accept—I know that she did not mention this—that the dreadful performance of the education service in Hackney and Islington is partly due to the ridiculous education philosophy put into practice by Labour education authorities in those two boroughs? Does she further accept that it is perhaps not appropriate that someone who was responsible for the dreadful education performance in Islington—the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge)—should now be the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment? Will the Minister give her candid opinion of those who denied selection to other parents, but were prepared to send their children across London to get away from dreadful education services to schools such as the London Oratory in west London?
    Ms Morris: I am not sure that the best way in which to tackle vast under-achievement in inner London, and some other urban areas, is to lay blame on actions taken many years ago and on those who were in post more than a decade ago. It is necessary now to accept that things must change and that action must be taken. The hon. Gentleman will know that, in Hackney and Islington, there has not been a failure to support schools in the past two years. However, there was a failure to support schools over a long period. The Conservative Government did nothing to put matters right.
    Over the past two years, the Government have speeded-up Ofsted inspections of local authorities. We have made it clear that we will take action without fear or favour where there is under-achievement. We shall retrain teachers to teach better literacy and numeracy. We shall put more money into our schools, we shall have high expectations of them and we shall prioritise them in terms of £350 million in excellence in city initiatives. If the Conservative Government had done only one tenth of those things over the previous 18 years, I probably would not have to tell the House that there is chronic under-achievement in some of the inner-London boroughs.

    National Grid for Learning
    Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on the benefits to schools of the national grid for learning. [85416]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): The use of information and communications technology in the classroom can bring learning gains, increased motivation and improved attitudes to learning. The national grid for learning is a nationwide programme to bring those benefits to all our learners, by providing access to the national focal point for education on the
    782
    internet, stimulating the development of high-quality educational resources, and organising them in such a way as to make them useful and easily accessible to teachers and students.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply, which rightly emphasises the potential benefits of the national grid for learning. However, given that only 12 per cent. of primary schools have access to the internet, owing substantially to the prohibitive cost of line rental, and given also that Gawcott county first school in my constituency has to pay the same £1,200 per year as a large comprehensive, will the hon. Gentleman undertake to go back to the drawing board and consider by what means arrangements can be improved so as to reflect the different needs and ability to pay of the primary and secondary sectors?
    Mr. Clarke: I will commit myself and the Government to intensification of our massive commitment to get ICT into schools—a commitment that was introduced by this Government in an area that was flagrantly neglected by our predecessors. Substantial sums are going into the programme, together with substantial training for teachers, physical kit, internet connections and software development. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are different demands in different parts of the system, as between primary and secondary schools, which we are actively addressing in our strategy to roll out the ICT programme.
    I can commit myself to taking into account that specific point when we consider the connections that need to be made. However, the core point is that there must be a major national initiative to drive forward and use the advantages. I believe that we are part of that initiative, and I regret only that it has taken the election of this Government to start to move it forward.
    Mr. Don Foster: Does the Minister agree that, if we are to get our pupils on-line, we must also get our teachers on-line? Can he therefore explain why, despite all the hype from the Government, the Chancellor and his Department are making available sufficient money for only 6.5 per cent. of teachers to have a lap-top computer?
    Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need to focus on teachers. None of the potential benefits can be liberated unless teachers possess the means to implement the change. The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the benefits of the lap-top for teachers scheme. Where we have introduced it, it has brought real benefits; we are looking to extend it in various ways. He will be aware that the key issue is to ensure that in every school and on the internet and the national grid, there are resources that can be used by teachers beneficially. That is what we are focusing on, and what I believe we are delivering.

Business of the House
12.33 pm
Sir George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 14 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Health Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 15 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Immigration and Asylum Bill.
WEDNESDAY 16 JUNE—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Conclusion of remaining stages of the Immigration and Asylum Bill.
THURSDAY 17 JUNE—Debate on Kosovo on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 18 JUNE—Debate on tourism on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The provisional business for the following week—I emphasise to the House that it is more than usually provisional, because of all the obvious reasons related to Kosovo—will be as follows:
MONDAY 21 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Access to Justice Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order.
TUESDAY 22 JUNE—Second Reading of the Food Standards Bill.
Motion on the Church of England Cathedrals Measure.
Motion on Care of Places of Worship Measure.
WEDNESDAY 23 JUNE—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day [14th Allotted Day] (First Part). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Consideration of any Lords amendments that may be received to the Tax Credits Bill.
THURSDAY 24 JUNE—Opposition Day [15th Allotted Day].
There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
FRIDAY 25 JUNE—There will be a debate on innovation and enterprise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 16 June there will be a debate on incineration of waste in European Standing Committee A.
[Wednesday 16 June 1999:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union documents: 12756/97, 12791/98, Incineration of Waste. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: HC 155-xiii and HC 155-xxxi(1997–98). Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 34-viii and HC 34-xxi(1998–99).]
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business and an indication of the business for the following week. We welcome next week's debate on Kosovo. Will it be opened by the Prime Minister?
784
Will the right hon. Lady find time soon for a debate on the report of the royal commission on long-term care, published some three months ago? There is concern, expressed in early-day motion 405, that the important issues that it raises should not be ignored.
[That this House congratulates the Government for its commitment to tackling the inequalities and inefficiencies of the present system of funding long-term care for older people; commends the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care for reporting within 14 months after consultation with over 2,000 organisations and experts in the field as well as members of the public; and joins with Age Concern in calling on the Government to produce a clear timetable for introducing long overdue changes to the system in recognition of the fact that older people do not have the time to wait for further debate.]
Likewise, there is a need for a debate on drugs following the first report of Keith Hellawell. Might those two subjects be debated shortly?
Given the real concern that those who served this country in Northern Ireland 30 years ago in the Parachute Regiment might be put needlessly at risk, may we have an opportunity to debate soon the issue of their anonymity in the Bloody Sunday inquiry?
As Britain experiences today its first taste of the closed list and proportional representation, would it not be sensible to have an early debate so that hon. Members can share with the Government their constituents' experience of the voting system and the new method of representation?
Finally, in the interests of all those who work in the House, can the right hon. Lady shed some light on the summer recess? If she cannot tell us the date, can she gives us the week, or, failing that, the month, in which it might commence?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman who will open the debate on Kosovo, but I doubt that it will be the Prime Minister. However, that is still under discussion because of ministerial commitments.
The right hon. Gentleman requested debates on long-term care and on drugs, and I shall bear that in mind. I am conscious that interest in debating those matters has been expressed. Obviously, the report on long-term care was detailed and the Government are giving a great deal of careful thought to its conclusions. As he will appreciate, and as he knows that I have said before, we have lost a lot of time as a result of the Kosovo issue, although I do not think any hon. Member regrets that. It was necessary to find time for proper reporting to the House, but it has made a difference to our finding time for other issues.
With regard to the inquiry in Northern Ireland, I understand that the issue of anonymity, which I accept is important, is today being considered by the courts, so not only do I not want to comment further, but, depending on what the courts say, I doubt whether it is a matter on which we could have a debate. Moreover, those are very much matters for the inquiry; it is for the inquiry to make those decisions.
I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on our constituents' experience of the European elections, although I rather doubt that, faced with a ballot paper on which they were invited to make a free choice on such a vast number of names, they would be as grateful as

785
Conservative Members seem to think that they would be. No doubt, we shall have a great deal of anecdotal comment, but whether we need a debate is another matter.
As for the recess, I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's generosity in the breadth of the indication that he invited me to give. I can certainly tell him that we hope that we might rise in August.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On this day, will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that some United Kingdom subjects will not be able to exercise their vote in the European elections and, unlike the majority, would really like to do so? I refer to the people of Gibraltar. Because of the widespread cross-party interest and support in the House for Gibraltar, and bearing in mind that my hon. Friends on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs are bringing forward a report in about a week's time, may we have some dedicated time on the Floor of this Chamber, not the new one, to discuss Gibraltar? That is something that we owe those people who are denied the franchise today—something that I regret.
Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend takes great interest in those matters and is an enthusiastic advocate for the people of Gibraltar, but I fear that I cannot undertake to find time in the near future for a debate dedicated to their affairs. I am sorry that he rejects the notion of having a debate elsewhere.
Mr. Mackinlay: In addition.
Mrs. Beckett: Yes, but I would simply say to my hon. Friend that there are many worthy matters and we are unlikely ever to find time to debate them on the Floor of the Chamber, which is one reason why the majority of Members of the House decided to provide extra time in another way.
Mr. Phil Willis: The Leader of the House may be aware that two of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Adams, were last week on holiday in St. Petes Beach, Florida. They were arrested—
Madam Speaker: Order. I understood that, in asking about business, the hon. Gentleman was speaking on behalf of his party, not on behalf of his constituents.
Mr. Willis: With respect, Madam Speaker, I am raising an issue that affects all citizens of this country who visit Florida.
Madam Speaker: Perhaps we can move to that issue. I called the hon. Gentleman at this stage because I had been given his name as the Member speaking on behalf of his party.
Mr. Willis: The party has asked me to raise this issue, and I say to the Leader of the House that my constituents were arrested, strip searched and put in jail on a charge relating to child abuse, although all that they did was leave their hotel room and go to the side of the pool to watch a firework display. Will she please ask the Foreign Secretary to issue guidance to all families who are about
786
to travel to Florida on holiday, to make sure that they are not subjected to the level of abuse to which my constituents were subjected by the authorities in Florida?
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate specifically on that matter in the near future, although I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, both for his constituents and about the impact that the problems that they faced would have if they were to be faced by many others. However, there is a debate on tourism on Friday next week and, although it may have been intended to focus on tourism within the United Kingdom, an opportunity might arise to work the matter into the discussion.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: My right hon. Friend will have read the horrifying case reported in the press on Tuesday this week of the 17-month-old girl who was found to have a 1.5 in hypodermic syringe lodged within her kidney; it had been there for nine months. I have made some inquiries, and that incident is in no way unusual: eight people died last year because surgical detritus was left in a wound following an operation and 749 people suffered in the same way without dying. Such incidents are not unusual and this matter is important enough for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House next week to make a statement saying what advice and guidance is given to surgeons to make sure that negligence in operating theatres does not lead to such horrifying consequences.
Mrs. Beckett: I sympathise with those involved in that difficult case, and so will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The Government have put extra investment into the health service and we intend to use it to raise standards. All I can say to my hon. Friend is that I do not think that I can find time for a debate on the matter, and I am not sure that my right hon. Friend will be able to make a statement on it in the near future. However, we are dealing with the remaining stages of the Health Bill on Monday and it is possible that an issue arising in the debate might allow this matter to be discussed.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Before the Leader of the House made her statement today, I received earlier this week letters from UNICEF and Amnesty International telling me that the remaining stages of the Immigration and Asylum Bill would be dealt with next week. Would I be asking too much if I requested that the House be told of such matters before outside organisations, however worthy they may be?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand, and sympathise with, the right hon. Gentleman's view. My understanding is that that is what those organisations expected and that the letter said "probably", although I do not recall receiving a copy myself. He will know that there has been some discussion about the Immigration and Asylum Bill coming before the House at an earlier stage and that further work was needed. I think that those organisations had anticipated that, although the Bill had not reached the House quite as early as had perhaps originally been thought, it would be considered in the near future. I

787

understand and take his point that it is right for the House to know about such matters first, and we try to observe that convention.
Mr. David Winnick: Has my right hon. Friend been told whether the Tory Opposition are still calling for an inquiry into the start of the war? I have not heard a word about that over the past few days, and certainly not since last night.
By the time of next week's Kosovo debate, will we have been told whether those in the discredited gang of appeasers outside—people like the Pilgers and the Pinters—have written to apologise for getting it completely wrong?
Mrs. Beckett: I am fairly certain that, if any comment is made that is thought worthy of being reported to the House, it will be reported in the debate to which my hon. Friend refers. As for whether the Opposition are still calling for an inquiry into the start of the war, I can only say that I, like my hon. Friend, have heard no more about that lately. No doubt, whether the call is renewed will depend on how things go.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Should we not, as a matter of urgency, have a debate next week on the percentage of people who voted in today's European elections? If, as seems possible, three quarters of Britain's voters go on strike today, have we not an obligation to review the democratic outrage whereby people are being asked to vote for a party, and to leave it to the party bosses to decide who is elected to the Parliament? If there is a massive strike today, have we not a duty to debate the issue next week?
Mrs. Beckett: If there is a relatively low turnout in the European elections, I doubt—unfortunately—that anyone will be dreadfully surprised. I think that all hon. Members regret the turnouts that we have seen even for general elections—and especially for local and European elections—which I, certainly, would like to be higher than they have been in recent years. Down the years, there has historically not been as high a turnout as most of us would wish.
I am always interested when Opposition Members refer to the notion that party bosses rather than the electorate will have the say on who are the candidates, as if they themselves were chosen by the electorate to be candidates for their parties and their constituencies. As far as I am aware, none of them was.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Is it not time that we had a debate on the Government's 10-year strategy on drugs? In 10 years' time, the drugs tsar will have resigned, the Prime Minister is likely to be Lord Sedgefield—
Mr. Mackinlay: Viscount Sedgefield.
Mr. Flynn: By that time, we shall have seen at least 1,000 avoidable deaths, and, if we follow the current trend and go on repeating our failures, the situation will continue.
788
There has been a change in the public perception of the debate. Even the Daily Mail, which is the voice of the middle-aged and the middle class, has described the Government's policy as mere window dressing. It has talked of the hypocrisy of that policy as perceived by the public, and has called for a debate on the legalisation of drugs in order to reduce the harm done by them. Why on earth are we stupidly continuing to repeat the tired, failed policies that have killed thousands of our young people, rather than imitating the success of countries that have reduced the amount of drug harm?
Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about the issue, and takes every opportunity to advocate his point of view. As I told the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), we are conscious of the need to find time to debate the drugs strategy. I hope that we shall be able to debate it at some point, and that my hon. Friend can make his case again.
I am not sure whether my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has any wish or aspiration to become Lord Sedgefield, or indeed Viscount Sedgefield. I can only say that, as a loyal member of the Cabinet, I feel confident that I ought to suggest that he should at least be a duke.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I accept that, quite properly, the Leader of the House is reticent about commenting on matters that are before the court today. However, the question of anonymity for former soldiers in the Parachute Regiment is of great concern throughout the country, not just in Aldershot.
The Prime Minister has said that he can do nothing, although he was responsible for setting up the inquiry. May I suggest a solution? If the soldiers are not to be granted anonymity because the court cannot do that, could not the Leader of the House present a one-line Bill to give the security of the law to former soldiers who have served the country so well and put their lives at risk?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman expresses. I understand, too, that he expresses it very much on behalf of his constituents, which is very much what all hon. Members are here to do. I accept that the concern goes wider than his constituency, but I know that, in his constituency, there will be particular worry. I can say only that, while I understand that concern, it is a matter for the inquiry; it is not a matter in which the Government can intervene. From his question, I am not entirely sure whether he is aware—he invited me to bring in legislation—that events have moved on to some degree and that the courts are looking into that matter at this moment.
Mr. John Healey: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the impact of the national minimum wage, a measure to which she gave a strong helping hand? Such a debate would allow the House to examine the emerging evidence that more than 400,000 jobs have been created since the national minimum wage was announced last year, including more than 100,000 in typically low-paid sectors. Such a debate would also allow the House to expose the baseless fears that the Conservative party tried to raise on the impact on jobs of the minimum wage, which is proving to be a boost to jobs, not a threat.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Conservative party did allege that—I think that the final

789
figure was that about 2 million or 3 million jobs would be lost if any national minimum wage of any kind at any level were introduced. That was always nonsense.
My hon. Friend is right to say that, alongside the introduction of the national minimum wage, we have seen an increase in the number of jobs and in levels of employment. Although I would not say that we have evidence to link those two, as we pointed out before the election, it is true that, in, for example, parts of the United States and elsewhere, there has been evidence of the existence—and also of an increase in the level—of the national minimum wage and increases in employment at the same time, which again shows how ridiculous Conservative Members' claims were. However, I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the follies of the Opposition in the near future.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: I follow the question that was raised earlier by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), who has left his place, but do not follow in his footsteps. What progress has the Leader of the House made in securing a debate in Government time on the national drugs strategy, so that hon. Members on both sides of the House and of the argument can have plenty of time to debate the matter? She will, I know, acknowledge that there has not yet been a debate in Government time in the current Parliament, and that the time given at the time of the statement was inadequate for the breadth of the subject.
Mrs. Beckett: However assiduous the Government are in having statements in the House, it does not allow for the full exploration of a subject in the way that debating time does. All I can say is that I will certainly bear the hon. Lady's remarks in mind.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Pursuant to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on appeasers, I say frankly that I shared platforms with John Pilger and Harold Pinter and the apology for which my hon. Friend asks may be forthcoming, but it will be in five years, when the position might be altogether clearer.
In welcoming Thursday's debate, may I say that there are some of us on the Labour Benches—I do not know how many—who would welcome it being opened by the Prime Minister. As my right hon. Friend will remember, when she was the hon. Member for Lincoln, Harold Wilson often intervened in major foreign affairs debates; during the time of Vietnam, he certainly did so.
It is not a matter just of the amour propre or the self-importance of the House of Commons because, had there been a proper parliamentary debate before the bombs were dropped, much more would have been said by some of us about the need to act in concert with the Russians—if the Russians had not been sidelined for a whole fortnight, much agony might have been saved—we would certainly have asked questions about the refusal to use ground troops at an early stage, and we would never have allowed unchallenged the decision to start bombing and to refuse to use ground troops, leaving vulnerable the very people whom we were hoping to help.
Mrs. Beckett: I am well aware that in the past—certainly in the days of our late friend Lord Wilson—Prime Ministers used to take part in a greater variety of debates, as my hon. Friend rightly says. He will recall, as I do, that that tradition was sharply changed by Lady Thatcher. I am sure that I am right in saying that that policy was not much altered, if at all, by her successor and that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister comes to the House more often than his predecessors. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is true, I am afraid, and the statistics clearly bear it out.
I will certainly undertake both to my hon. Friend and to Opposition Members who have raised the matter to draw to the Prime Minister's attention the request that he should open the debate, but hon. Members will be aware that the pressures on him have been extremely heavy of late. It is not clear to me what my right hon. Friend's commitments might be, or whether that would be practical. We keep talking about the Cologne summit as though it were around the corner, but it is not—it has not yet taken place. I have a horrid feeling that that debate might be on the eve of the summit and that it simply may not be possible for the Prime Minister to be here. However, I undertake to draw the request to his attention.
I also take my hon. Friend's point that it is too early to know how events will turn out in the Balkans, although all of us obviously hope that they will improve, and we have taken some strong steps in that direction.
The Prime Minister has made five of the statements on that matter to the House. As to whether, if we had had a debate opened by the Prime Minister at an early stage, events might have gone differently, I fear that I cannot share my hon. Friend's view. As the Prime Minister has repeatedly said in the House, there have been intensive discussions with the Yugoslav authorities for a long time. Most of us would contest any suggestion that the Russians were sidelined. They have been very much a part of the discussions throughout, including right back at the beginning. I understand my hon. Friend's view and can assure him that opportunities will continue to be provided for those matters to be aired.
Mr. Christopher Chope: When will the electronic commerce Bill be published? It was announced with a fanfare of trumpets in the Queen's Speech, but it appears to be part of a policy that is in a certain amount of disarray. Have the Government abandoned any idea of producing such a Bill? Also, will the right hon. Lady tell us what has happened to the appointment of a so-called digital envoy? Two names were passed to No. 10 in March and we still await an announcement on whether such an envoy is to be appointed. There are rumours that the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) will be appointed instead. Will the right hon. Lady deal with that matter, too?
Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date when the Bill is likely to be published, but I hope that it will be in the near future. Nor, indeed, can I give him information about the appointment of a digital envoy, although I will certainly draw his request for information to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

791
Moreover, Trade and Industry questions are next week, so the hon. Gentleman may be able to ask my right hon. Friend directly.
Mr. Tony Colman: Next Wednesday, Thursday and Friday a major United Nations conference is taking place at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre across the road. I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister will address it, along with a number of his ministerial colleagues. The conference is organised by the World Health Organisation and is on health and the environment. A number of issues are to be considered, including a legally binding protocol on water and health, and a charter on transport, environment and health. In view of the importance of that conference, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the business for next week, or arrange for us to have a debate before the end of the month on the outcome of the conference?
Mrs. Beckett: I certainly cannot undertake today to do that, although I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's remarks. I accept that it is an important conference and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will make an important contribution to it. I fear, however, that the request for a debate in this House will have to take its place on the list of eminently worthy subjects that we should debate.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I join my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House in asking for a debate at the earliest possible date on long-term care. The matter is of great importance to a growing number of people.
My real question is whether the Leader of the House is prepared to arrange for a debate in Government time on the procedural changes needed in this House as a result of devolution and the other changes that the Government have introduced to the way in which this country is governed. The right hon. Lady will know that I chair the Procedure Committee and that we recently published a report on the procedural consequences of devolution. If the House is to be fair to all parts of the United Kingdom, it is important that changes take place here to reflect the changes that the Government have brought about.
Mrs. Beckett: I have taken on board the request for a debate on long-term care. May I gently remind the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members that it was this Government who set up the royal commission? Although he is right to say that this is a problem of great importance, it has been around for nearly 20 years—for most of which time his party was in power. I am sure that he regrets as much as I do the fact that more was not done about long-term care at that time.
On the possibility of a debate in this House on the procedural consequences of devolution, I am aware of the important and serious work being done by the Committee chaired by the hon. Gentleman and I understand his wish to have those issues aired here in the near future. Such is the pressure on time that I cannot readily see my way to finding time for an early debate—and in due course we
792
shall have a little more experience under our belt of how these changes are developing. I have taken on board his request, although I cannot grant it now.
Mr. Tom Levitt: Will my right hon. Friend find time at an early stage for a debate on the subject of lip reading, given the high degree of cross-party support for my early-day motion 573?
[That this House recognises that more than eight million people are hard of hearing or severely deaf; notes that most of them rely on spoken English for communication with family or friends and for equal access to leisure and social activities, public services, employment and education; further notes that the acquisition of lipreading skills is vital to this end and that this is best facilitated through lipreading classes taught by qualified tutors; believes that such a programme will encourage people with acquired hearing loss to maximise their opportunities to remain active and participating members of society; and calls on the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to require the new local learning partnerships to recognise their role in providing lipreading classes, at no charge to hearing-impaired users, in each locality.]
The provision of lip reading classes across the country is patchy. Provision exists and access is easy in some parts but not in others, and courses are charged for in some parts but not in others. Because lip reading is so important to the older generation as they lose their hearing, it is vital that we have consistent provision and easy access to lip reading classes across the country. Will my right hon. Friend draw this matter to the attention of her right hon. Friends and arrange for an early debate on it?
Mrs. Beckett: I recognise my hon. Friend's great interest in the matter and the importance of lip reading to many people who suffer from hearing deficiencies. It is the Government's wish and intention that those who have responsibility for providing educational opportunities for adults should work together and provide effective services that are accessible to people across the community. My hon. Friend may or may not know that the disability rights task force is considering how its work on rights for people with disabilities can help to support and encourage the provision of such services. We look forward to its recommendations later in the year.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Leader of the House ensure that we have a statement, or an opportunity for a debate, on the national parks? Is she aware of the growing concern about the number of applications which are being submitted to national parks in respect of dormant quarries, and is the Government's view that the national parks have sufficient power to deal with them, even though there are serious questions about their power once appeals are made and about the cost of compensation? This is a matter of growing concern in the national parks—and I know that the right hon. Lady knows the Peak national park very well.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. The national parks are a great treasure for us all. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has held discussions on the matter. I will draw his attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He may have some information for him.
Mr. Tony McWalter: The centrality of biotechnology to the Government' s science

793
policy is shown by the Government's papers on scientific research. Even in particle physics and astronomy, the presentation of the figures deals more with biological and life sciences than with physics, astronomy or mathematics. Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is widespread public disquiet about biological engineering and genetic modification of crops and food? Is not the centrality of biotechnology to the Government's science policy being rapidly eroded, if not evaporating, as a result of public loss of confidence in the strategy? I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend regards as urgent the need for a debate on science policy to dispel some of the myths so that we can consider judiciously the benefits and disbenefits of the technology and get the Government's science policy—perhaps somewhat amended—back on course.
Mrs. Beckett: I recognise my hon. Friend's point. There has been some public disquiet, partly, and understandably, based on experience of some recent problems. That obviously had an impact on discussion and balanced analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of various courses of action. I understand my hon. Friend's wish for a debate on science policy and I shall bear it in mind, but I am not sure that I can find time soon for such a debate. He knows that several recent reports have started to put arguments on various sides of the case, so we are not wholly dependent on debate in this House for a wider airing of the issues.
Mr. Tony Baldry: The Immigration and Asylum Bill is of interest to all hon. Members, but Government information officers seem to be freer with information than Ministers are in briefing the House. The "Today" programme this morning carried a detailed explanation of the concessions that the Home Secretary is apparently making to buy off a revolt by Labour Back Benchers. If that is correct—it appears to be because it was such a detailed briefing—would it not be more courteous for the Home Secretary to write to all hon. Members to explain the concessions that he intends to make on Tuesday and why he intends to make them, so that we all have time to consider them? The impression was that the Government Whips would have rung round Back Benchers to brief them over the weekend, while the rest of us would have heard nothing until Tuesday.
Mrs. Beckett: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can be entirely serious in suggesting that information and opportunities for debate have been withheld from the House. The Bill has been to Special Standing Committee precisely to encourage open, informed debate. Any changes that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary may be considering—if he is—are no doubt in response to the many points made by the Committee and those who gave evidence to it. After all, the House exists to scrutinise legislation so that issues can be aired. I am well aware that the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported regarded it as a black mark against Ministers if they listened to anything said by anyone who was not a member of the Government. We do not do things that way.
Mr. Peter Luff: May I preface my main question by asking whether the Cologne summit has been reconvened? I understood that the Prime Minister made a statement on Tuesday on its conclusions.
794
Can the Leader of the House say whether the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is likely to seek to make a statement next week on his decision on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of milk? He has had it for four months and the continued uncertainty is damaging the dairy industry and farmers. On a parliamentary note, my Committee—the Select Committee on Agriculture—is anxious to begin investigating the subject but cannot do so until the Secretary of State reaches a decision.
Mrs. Beckett: May I add to what I said a moment ago to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry)? I remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's answer to a parliamentary question on some of the issues relating to the Asylum and Immigration Bill is in Hansard. I meant to say that, but did not get round to it.
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) asked about the Cologne summit. I accept that I should not have used the shorthand and referred to "the" Cologne summit. There is a G8 summit coming up. I rather think that it is also taking place in Cologne, or at least in Germany. That is what I meant. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to make that clear.
As for the report on which the hon. Gentleman commented, I am afraid that I do not have information on it. I cannot enlighten him and cannot offer to find time for a discussion on it in the near future, but I undertake to draw his concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: During the recess, the Education and Employment Committee heard devastating evidence from the independent Bank of England on the employment consequences of joining the euro. The Deputy Governor said that it would take hundreds of years to know whether joining was a good idea. The Governor said that it would be an act of faith. When can we have a debate on the real threat to jobs from joining the euro?
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of the evidence-taking sessions of the Education and Employment Committee. There is no proposal at the present time to join the euro, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is well aware. All the issues must be borne in mind. That is precisely why the Government say that we have to consider the overall impact on Britain's national interest. If we were to have a debate on the matter in the near future—I cannot at present see my way to find time for it—it is just possible that people might get round to noticing that the Conservative party argues simultaneously that the high level of the pound is costing British jobs and that the low level of the euro is costing European jobs. It can argue one way or the other, but it will have some difficulty in continuing to argue both ways.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Will the Leader of the House make time in the near future for a debate on an important matter relating to the way in which Parliament spends taxpayers' money—namely, the subject matter of early-day motion 709 on allowances for hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies?
[That this House notes the decision of the Scottish Parliament to reduce the allowances of regional Members of the Scottish Parliament on the grounds that they do

795
not have constituency responsibilities; further notes that honourable Members representing Scottish constituencies will also have fewer responsibilities after 1st July 1999; and consequently invites the Senior Salaries Review Board to consider whether it is appropriate for honourable Members representing Scottish constituencies to be paid an allowance similar to that of other honourable Members.]
The right hon. Lady may not as yet be aware that, earlier this week, the Scottish Parliament passed a motion that Members who sit for regional constituencies—those who have been elected on a list—should have a reduced allowance on the grounds that they do not have constituency responsibilities. Given that, after 1 July, Members of this House who sit for Scottish constituencies will have reduced constituency responsibilities because many of those responsibilities will be taken over by MSPs, surely the House ought to have an opportunity to debate whether Scottish Members of this House should continue to receive the same allowance as Members who still have full constituency responsibilities.
Mrs. Beckett: I certainly cannot undertake to find time for such a debate in the near future. I strongly hold the view, as the hon. Lady will know, that there is not, and should not be, such a thing as two different kinds of Member of Parliament. I should be surprised if my hon. Friends who sit for Scottish and Welsh constituencies—of course, they are only hon. Friends; there are no Scottish or Welsh Members on the Conservative Benches—find their work loads reduced. The hon. Lady is asking me to comment on a decision made by the Scottish Parliament, for which I am happy to say that I do not have responsibility.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: This week, we have heard the Prime Minister extol the virtues of both the single market and the single currency. Will the Leader of the House give him the opportunity to come to the House to explain to us and to the people of this country why he has changed his mind? In 1983, he stood on a platform of leaving the European Community. In 1986, with the Labour party, he voted against the Single European Act, which set up the single market. The right hon. Lady may not be aware that, in 1986, when the right hon. Gentleman opposed the European monetary system, the precursor of economic and monetary union, he said:
"the EMS is essentially a deutschmark bloc. It could be said that we would be putting Herr Pöhl"—
the then president of the Bundesbank—
"in 11 Downing street."—[Official Report, 29 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 990.]
Should we not now know why the Prime Minister not only believes that he was so fundamentally wrong on Europe for all that time, but thinks that people should vote for him today because he is now so miraculously right on it?
Mrs. Beckett: I certainly cannot undertake to find time for such a debate. Apart from anything else, it would clearly be a complete waste of time. It does not seem to have struck the hon. Gentleman that, although the Conservative party put through the Single European Act,
796
many Conservative Members seem to regret it. If we are talking about people changing their minds, the Conservatives should look into their own record.
As to why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister might have changed his mind since 1983, no doubt he did so for the same reasons that I changed mine. I was an anti-European and a sceptic long before some of those Conservative Members who now make those claims—and with much more assiduity than them. However, I realise that it was the decision of the British people to remain in the European Community and that that decision was reaffirmed in 1983. The balance of advantage and damage of staying in or coming out has long since swung in favour of our membership of the European Union, as it now is. In that case, there is no question but that it is in Britain's interests to work to make the greatest possible success of our membership of the European Union. That is the Government's goal, because we have long since concluded that to leave the EU would be a huge disaster for Britain. However, that seems to be the direction of the Conservative party.
Mr. David Heath: I support the views expressed by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) about the importance of the publication of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report into Milk Marque. That is crucial to dairy farmers and food processors in my constituency and throughout the country.
My main reason for rising is to welcome the debate on Kosovo. Will it cover not only the important subjects of foreign affairs and defence but the essential responsibilities of the Secretary of State for International Development? Will we consider the humanitarian efforts that have been accomplished during recent months and those that will be undertaken in the future? Will the debate cover the important question of the extent to which the budget of the Department for International Development will be protected to enable the Department to do its job, not only in the Balkans but elsewhere?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot add to what I said earlier about the MMC report. I have undertaken to draw hon. Members' concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I am sure that issues touching on the responsibilities of the Department for International Development are bound to be raised during the debate on Kosovo. That will give an opportunity for hon. Members to put questions such as those which the hon. Gentleman has just asked me.
Mr. John Bercow: Will the Leader of the House find time for a statement next week on any Government proposals which we can debate for a statutory allocation of time off for involvement in future European elections? I am sure that the right hon. Lady will understand that I make that request not because I want to bunk off myself—she knows that I am an assiduous attender of the Chamber—but for a different reason. Although Conservative Members of Parliament found plenty of time to campaign for national self-government and for Britain to be in Europe, but not run by Europe, I am genuinely concerned—on the grounds of the importance of the vitality of our democracy—that Ministers seemed unable to find time to

797
argue for Labour's policy of capitulation within the European Union. Does the right hon. Lady intend to address that point in future?
Mrs. Beckett: I was not quite clear for whom the hon. Gentleman was asking for time off during future European elections. I now understand that it is for the House—for Members of Parliament. If he has been paying attention—as I know that he does during Question Time—he may recall that I have pointed out previously that there is only one precedent for the House not sitting during European elections. That was in 1994, when the Conservative Government were desperate to avoid scrutiny of any kind.
As for Ministers not finding time to campaign, I am afraid that I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman: 250 campaign visits have been undertaken by Ministers since the local elections.
Mr. Bercow: Unnoticed.
Mrs. Beckett: Indeed, it is a matter of much concern to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends that they did not achieve more publicity. We have come to a conclusion as to why that is so; it is because we have been consistently advocating the same policy throughout the campaign, which the press find very boring, whereas the Conservatives, excitingly, change their policy every day.

BILLS PRESENTED
  FOOD STANDARDS
  Mr. Nicholas Brown, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Reid, Mr. Secretary Dobson, Secretary Marjorie Mowlam and Mr. Secretary Michael, presented a Bill to establish the Food Standards Agency and make provision as to its functions, to amend the law relating to food safety and other interests of consumers in relation to food; to enable provision to be made in relation to the notification of tests for food-borne diseases; to enable provision to be made in relation to animal feedingstuffs; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 117].
  ROYAL PARKS (TRADING)
  Mr. Peter Brooke presented a Bill to make provision about certain offences under section 2 of the Parks Regulation (Amendment) Act 1926: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 116].

Defence in the World
[Relevant documents: The Third Report from the Defence Committee, Session 1998–99, on 'The future of NATO: The Washington Summit', HC 39, and the Government's response thereto, HC 459.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
1.20 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): The choice of title for this debate—defence in the world—could not be more appropriate. The defence and security of our country can be guaranteed only by looking beyond the immediate horizons of the United Kingdom. Our security is inextricably linked to the security of our continent and the wider world. As Kosovo has demonstrated only too well, it is only by standing firm with our friends and allies that we can secure peace and stability.
Britain's contribution to collective defence and international security is founded on a unique national asset—the capabilities and commitment of our armed forces. I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to the men and women of the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the Army, and to their families and the civilians who support them, at a time when the demands that we place upon them are greater than ever.
During the strategic defence review, one of our concerns was the growing lack of knowledge and understanding in society as a whole about defence and the armed forces. In future, we might have to return to that problem of keeping defence in the public eye, but—for the time being at least—the role of the services and the skill and dedication of our service personnel are clear to everyone who picks up a newspaper or turns on a television. Kosovo provides an object lesson in the need to be able to deploy high-capability armed forces when diplomacy fails—a need that was at the heart of the strategic defence review.
Sadly, it took 11 weeks of concerted NATO bombing before Milosevic and his generals were prepared to agree terms for the withdrawal of Serb forces from that tragic province, thus paving the way for the introduction of an international military force to enable the return of the refugees. Now, we must ensure that the final diplomatic steps are taken, that the Serbs abide by their word, and that KFOR crosses the border as soon as possible. We hope that, very soon, the military focus will shift from the air campaign to the task facing the ground troops and all those engaged in the reconstruction of Kosovo. We wish them well.
On this remarkable day, it might help if I remind the House how we got to this position: how we worked, since at least February 1998, to try to get a political settlement and halt the violence then taking place in Kosovo; how we went the extra mile for peace; and how we adopted a series of economic sanctions in the European Union and a mandatory United Nations arms embargo on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In October last year, as Ambassador Richard Holbrooke visited Belgrade against the background of a worsening security situation in Kosovo, we went back to the UN. We got a chapter VI1 resolution, determining that that was a threat to regional peace and security and that there was an imminent humanitarian catastrophe.

799
NATO played its part by threatening the use of force. Milosevic listened, because the threat was credible. In October, he did a deal with Holbrooke, promising to reduce the number of his forces and to restrict their operations, and to allow unarmed verifiers into Kosovo. He then reneged on his word and, through no fault of their own, the members of the Kosovo verification mission were unable to prevent matters from worsening. Then, in January, there was the massacre at Racak.
For 18 days in February, the parties were brought together, under joint British-American chairmanship, in the chateau at Rambouillet. A vital part of the Rambouillet accords concerned the military implementation arrangements; at their heart was a NATO-led military peacekeeping force to ensure a stable security situation in Kosovo. However, when the talks moved on to Paris, it was immediately apparent that Milosevic was unwilling to have any military implementation force at all and that he was simply creating obstacles to a settlement.
At this late stage, there was still a place for diplomacy—but Milosevic let it pass, calculating that the international community lacked resolution. How wrong he was. Since then, we have had more than 11 weeks of bombing, in which the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy submarine-launched cruise missiles played an important part.
Eventually, the pressure wore the Serbs down. We never said that it would be easy, and so it proved. On 2 June, Milosevic and the Serbian Parliament agreed a peace plan put to them on behalf of the international community by President Martti Ahtisaari of Finland and Viktor Chernomyrdin, the Russian representative. Last night, following considerable prevarication in the past few days, senior representatives of the Yugoslav army and of the Ministry of the Interior police signed the detailed agreement committing them to a tight withdrawal timetable.
Let me make one thing absolutely clear. The military technical agreement signed last night was not "negotiated" with the Serbs in the tent at Kumanovo. NATO made no concessions. Any changes to the agreement were made purely on the grounds of military practicability. General Sir Michael Jackson is no soft touch and he has done a remarkable job.
The task in front of General Jackson and the international community is formidable. The Serbs' track record of honouring promises is certainly not good. Once a verifiable—I emphasise that word—withdrawal has begun, there can be a pause in the bombing. The United Nations Security Council resolution, the text of which the G8 Foreign Ministers have already agreed, can then be passed. KFOR, with its strong NATO core and its unified command, can then deploy. Only when all Serb forces are out of Kosovo—and the security zone within Serbia itself—will the campaign be brought to an end.
Mr. David Heath: Although I understand that this would not form part of the military technical agreement, is there any sign that Yugoslav army troop concentrations will also be withdrawn from
800
Montenegro? Is there any way of monitoring the extent to which the Yugoslav forces remain in Montenegro in the next few months?
Mr. Robertson: No, because this agreement is about Kosovo and the campaign was about Kosovo. It has been agreed that the Serbian forces inside Kosovo will be withdrawn into other parts of Serbia, not into Montenegro. The hon. Gentleman's point about the importance of Montenegro is well taken. President Djukanovic, the elected President of Montenegro, is an individual of some character: he expressed several views during the conflict that clearly mark him as a man for the future.
We are very sensitive to the prevailing circumstances in that part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. If, by some mischance, Milosevic had won and if alliance unity had not held strong, he would certainly have turned his attention from Kosovo—where he had succeeded in expelling a dissident population—to Montenegro and tried to subjugate it to the same form of dictatorship as appears to be his only ambition.
Mr. John Wilkinson: The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made an important point. Will the NATO alliance monitor extremely carefully the possibility that Serb forces within Serbia—which can now be replaced by those withdrawing from Kosovo—will, as a consequence of the withdrawal from Kosovo, augment the Serbian military presence in Montenegro, thereby putting pressure on its civil democratic Government and potentially destabilising a fragile political situation?
Mr. Robertson: Yes, of course, we shall monitor the situation as it develops. As I have said, Montenegro is relevant to the future of the Balkans. We made it absolutely clear that, if Milosevic attempted to destabilise the Government of Montenegro, the NATO alliance and the wider international community would consider that of the utmost seriousness.
Kosovo is a tragedy. British soldiers, sailors, aircrew and ground crew have helped to prevent it from becoming a permanent disaster. They are bringing hope to hundreds of thousands of victims of this last great act of 20th century barbarity at the heart of our continent. Kosovo contains major lessons for the international community, and in analysing them we must beware of preparing to refight the last war. That process of analysis will be helped by the fact that, in most respects, Kosovo is an operation of the kind that we have been preparing to conduct since the strategic defence review. All the main themes of the review have applied in one form or another.
How can defence help to ensure that the next century is different, and that it is a century of dialogue rather than one of destruction? Our starting point must be a realistic assessment of the world in which we live and with which we have to deal.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before the Secretary of State leaves the subject of Kosovo, I want to ask a question. He knows very well that an enormous problem faces any military personnel who have to distinguish between civilians and guerrillas. That will be particularly difficult in the case of the ethnic Albanian community and the Kosovo Liberation Army. What are the Secretary of

801
State's views on the disarming of the KLA? Will he tell the House what undertakings have been given by the KLA's chain of command?
Mr. Robertson: Of course there will be problems for the implementation force and KFOR, one of which is the problem that my hon. Friend has identified. If any of the Serb paramilitaries decide to stay out of uniform or if other irregulars do not obey their central command, the difficulty of identifying them and dealing with them will be formidable. However, I know that General Jackson has already faced up to that problem and I have absolutely no doubt that he has made plans.
The KLA will be part and parcel of the UN Security Council resolution, and its demilitarisation is a fundamental part of rebuilding the security of the area. The KLA's leadership have publicly made it clear that they will co-operate with the terms of the UN Security Council resolution and, having signed up to Rambouillet and the strictures applied by that agreement, they will take on themselves another obligation in the new circumstances.
As I said, we must have a realistic assessment of the world in which we live and with which we have to deal. We do not need rose-coloured spectacles that mislead us about the risks and challenges or comments of despair that leave us wringing our hands on the sidelines. There are those who have said, "We can do nothing. This is a civil war. Let the blood flow and eventually the situation will stabilise." We have conclusively proved those people wrong. I hope that, at some point, they will apologise for the situation that they would have created if we had been so foolish as to take their advice.
Two years on from the analysis of Britain's security priorities in the changing world that underpinned the strategic defence review, it gives me no pleasure or satisfaction to say that events have borne out our assessment. At the most strategic level, we still face no threat to our national survival, and the prospect of such a threat emerging in the foreseeable future looks, if anything, even more remote.
Instability, however, continues to bring human suffering on an almost unimaginable scale in its wake. In Europe, Kosovo is the starkest example of the consequences of the break-up of states and the ethnic and religious conflict that follows it. Further from home—in successive crises in central Africa, for example—the lesson that international peace and stability is about the lives of ordinary people has been repeated time and again.
The strategic defence review concluded that Britain had a clear national interest in working to deal with such problems and an equally clear responsibility to do so. The Government committed themselves to a security and defence policy based on engagement and not isolation. We pledged ourselves to use the armed forces as a force for good in the world and to play a leadership role that would enable us to make a difference. Our policy was not an easy option. With the benefit of hindsight, however, I am more firmly convinced than ever that it was the right option for the UK.
Today's challenge is to make the post-cold war institutional framework work more effectively. There has never been a single institutional answer to Britain's security requirements. Too often, however, we have sacrificed operational effectiveness for political
802
symbolism. Our European defence initiative, which was developed in close partnership with France and has been embraced by allies and partners on both sides of the Atlantic, is designed to redress that balance.
At last week's European Council in Cologne, European Union Heads of State and Government endorsed progress so far on that initiative, and pointed the way forward. We are all determined that the EU should play a full role on the international stage. The in-coming Finnish presidency has been invited to take forward the work that is necessary to develop, in the EU, the means to take decisions on crisis-management tasks and political control of military operations.
I draw the House's attention in this context to the sterling contribution to resolving the Kosovo crisis made by the President of Finland, Martti Ahtisaari. We were all hugely impressed not just by his brilliant and eloquent English on our television screens but by the superb and elegant diplomacy that led to President Milosevic accepting the inevitable.
The agreement at last week's European summit in Cologne builds on NATO's Washington summit, where the allies stated their willingness to adopt arrangements for ready access by the EU to the collective assets and capabilities of the alliance. It is also fully consistent with the UK's approach to the European security and defence debate. We have argued for developing capabilities for defence decision making in the EU, while drawing the bulk of military capability from the forces which we and our allies contribute to NATO.
We have also consistently made it clear that this debate must address the shortfalls in European military capability. At Cologne, the EU member states committed themselves to developing more effective European military capabilities. That will—I say "will" and not "would" because I believe that there is a determination across our continent—allow us to make a stronger and more coherent contribution to NATO and to take action when the alliance as a whole is not engaged.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: On capabilities, many people are concerned—I am sure that the Secretary of State is much concerned as well—that, given the stretching of our commitments and, perhaps, an unending commitment in Kosovo, we will not have the number of men required. Is he going to cover that subject, and say whether he intends to increase the number of soldiers in the armed forces?
Mr. Robertson: I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are increasing the size of the Army. By contrast with the previous drift downwards in numbers, the strategic defence review proposed an increase of 3,000 personnel. That is probably the first time that the Army has been increased by a peacetime defence review. The extra people will be used for the enhancements requested by the Army, which we believe are necessary.
Of course the present crisis, and the handling of the existing crises elsewhere, whether in Northern Ireland or Bosnia, will impose a strain, especially on human beings. Although recruitment has increased dramatically in some arms of the services since last year, because of the degree of overstretch, retention is becoming a bigger problem. That is a matter of concern for the House as a whole, especially for Ministers, and we are addressing it. I might

803
point out to the hon. Gentleman that our objective is to increase the size of the Army beyond simply filling the gap in recruitment that we inherited, so as to make our forces stronger and more usable.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Last night, while answering questions on his helpful and welcome statement, the Secretary of State told the House that about 10 per cent. of the forces now deployed in Bosnia come from the Territorial Army. Has he now an open mind about the extent to which he should reconsider the assumptions in the strategic defence review about the Territorial Army, especially the assumptions about its numbers? If, as most people now accept, we are in for a long haul in Kosovo, is there not likely to be a requirement for more extensive use than expected of soldiers from the TA to ensure that our presence in Kosovo is maintained at proper strength?
Mr. Robertson: We are always looking to see where the reserve forces can help the regular forces. That is why, alongside the increase in the regular strength of the Army, we reshaped and restructured the Territorial Army so that in circumstances such as those that we now face, it will be more relevant and useful.
I wish that those who speak out about the Territorial Army would recognise that the reforms that we put in place have now been accepted by the Territorial, Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association and the TA and are being implemented with enthusiasm. We are already hearing strong messages from the TA that it has got precisely what it asked for. The training time has been increased, better equipment is now available, and the TA is being directed towards more relevant functions. All that is designed specifically to make it more usable, more integrated and more deployable, so that, when their country needs them, the TA's forces will be available.
There is little or nothing left of the grumbling now. People are getting on with the job that they have been set and making it work. They are content that the right decision was taken at the right time, and that the Territorial Army has a considerable future role to play within the forces. I hope that people with genuine concerns will recognise that our purpose was to prepare for the sort of conditions that exist now, rather than having large numbers of people in the Territorial Army trained up for functions completely irrelevant to the present moment.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman suggested that his increase in the regular Army would meet the needs of the commitments already under way. However, the additional troops are not expected to be fully in place until 2004. In the meantime, what percentage of Land Command is committed to operations?
Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that, if I may say as much to him, he is giving a slight impression of complacency? He has great ambitions for Britain to play a role in the world, yet he seems not to will the means by which those ambitions can be fulfilled. As I said to him last night, it is likely that our troops will be heavily committed for a long time in Kosovo.
Mr. Robertson: I certainly do not feel complacent. Yes, I feel fatigue that is tinged with elements of relief
804
and pride, but not complacent when so many of our troops are engaged in what, over the next few days, will be dangerous activity by any standards.
When I say that we produced a strategic defence review and that I intend to have it implemented, I am talking not from complacency but from a driving ambition that we shall match our ambitions as a nation with our capabilities. I shall not be partisan because I know that most people have forgotten that there was a Government before the Labour Government. However, we inherited—[Interruption.] The Opposition are trying to forget that more than the country is. We are not even allowed to mention the Conservative Government any more.
We inherited a very serious manning situation. That was especially so in the Army but it applied in the other two arms as well. It is a problem that we are addressing. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces who, because of a family bereavement, unfortunately cannot be in the Chamber, has done sterling work. I believe that the figures for Army recruitment are up by 17 per cent. on last year's. We are also addressing the problems of retention, which will make up the balance. There is no complacency about our determination to ensure that we have and retain the best armed forces. As for the specific question about the number of troops who are on operations, I shall give the House the latest figures in a moment.
The House might like to be informed of the situation in the outside world. I understand that the latest information from NATO is that Supreme Allied Commander Europe is unlikely to be in a position to verify the withdrawal of Serb forces by 3 pm, as was earlier anticipated. This will inevitably delay somewhat the passing of the Security Council resolution. We have always made it clear that the withdrawal of Serb troops, which we are confident will take place, must be proven and verifiable before we move into the next stages. When we receive information, I shall ensure that the House is kept informed.
Defence and security policy is much more than large-scale multinational operations and sweeping diplomatic initiatives.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: A propos the right hon. Gentleman's comment about there being no signal that Serb forces have begun withdrawal, how long are we prepared to wait until we get this signal? Was there not a statement made at some time during the past few days that, if they did not comply with what they had agreed, bombing would be restarted? Am I correct in that?
Mr. Robertson: Yes. It has been made clear that, if there was any non-compliance with the agreement that has been arrived at, the air assaults will recommence. We mean that; we mean business. I did not say that there had been no withdrawals. I said that SACEUR was not yet in a position to verify withdrawals. There were certainly signs this morning that some troop formations, which could well have been preparations for movement, were taking place. It is only when we are certain that there have been withdrawals that we shall pause from the bombing campaign. We are still hopeful that that will be done, but our patience is not endless.
As I have said, defence and security policy is much more than large-scale multinational operations and huge diplomatic initiatives. It must embrace all activities that

805
can contribute to stability and security, and hence to preventing crisis and conflict. The strategic defence review gave renewed impetus to defence diplomacy in activities of this kind.
In parallel with the grander initiatives, the armed forces make a contribution to humanitarian missions that all too often goes unrecognised. For example, in Sierra Leone, they have helped to deliver essential food and medical supplies, to clear wells contaminated by rebel forces and to re-open local schools that were damaged during the nightmare of fighting that took place in that country.
For the longer term, we are now helping to get Sierra Leone back on its feet by contributing training and advice for the creation of democratically accountable armed forces. Using the armed forces' skills for defence diplomacy and in operations of this kind is an investment in conflict prevention and crisis management that results in vital but often unquantifiable benefits.
The armed forces have also played an important role in the fight against the international drugs trade. Last week, HMS Marlborough seized 4 tonnes of cocaine in an operation in the Caribbean—its second seizure inside a week. That was an excellent example of co-operation between the United States and the United Kingdom in the fight against drugs activity in the Caribbean, which was highlighted in the strategic defence review.
The MOD takes seriously its commitment to the security of UK nationals overseas and can deploy effectively and at short notice when there is a possible threat to the lives of British citizens overseas. That commitment has been demonstrated most notably in response to conflicts in Africa over the past 12 months—in Sierra Leone, the Congo and Eritrea.
At the heart of the strategic defence review was the recognition that security depends upon our willingness and ability to deploy high-capability armed forces when diplomacy fails. Sadly, that has been underlined by recent events.
Our forces must be deployable at short notice and in difficult and inhospitable terrain. They must be sustainable, often with the minimum of host nation support, and in operations that will inevitably be prolonged. We are obliged to maintain concurrent commitments with separate lines of communication, as we see in Kosovo, Bosnia and the Gulf.
Operations are placing a premium on precision weapons and force protection. With 50 per cent. of the British Army now engaged in, preparing for, or recovering from, operations, we cannot afford the luxury of unusable forces. No one could have predicted precisely the nature of our commitment in Kosovo, but the strategic defence review provided a template that fits in most respects.
Indeed, the main problems that we face are in exactly those capability areas in which shortfalls were identified in the SDR but in which, barely a year after the publication of the report, implementation has not yet been completed. The strategic air and sea transport, additional soldiers to man the second line of logistic communications, and the extra deployable brigade for the Army, all of which are in the pipeline, would all have been welcome enhancements to our Kosovo commitment.
As I said, the high level of commitments leads to increased pressure on individuals, especially in some of the critical specialisations. Until the necessary
806
restructuring identified by the strategic defence review is complete and full manning, particularly in the Army, is achieved, many of our people will be redeploying on operational commitments more often than is desirable for operational effectiveness or the health of family life for our armed forces.
Those who are affected are not only from the "teeth" arms, such as armoured infantry battalions and air crew, but from elements of the very important supporting arms, such as communications personnel. We are vigorously pushing ahead to achieve the restructuring and full manning to relieve pressure on our people and their families.
In opening the debate, I have inevitably concentrated to a large extent on Kosovo. It is right that we should focus on the greatest challenge to security and stability in Europe since the end of the cold war. However, it would be a mistake to treat the circumstances of Kosovo as unique. Milosevic, ethnic hatred and ethnic cleansing, the humanitarian crises in south-eastern Europe and more widely, the risks of overspill and destabilisation—all these carry powerful lessons for every one of us.
I spoke at the outset about keeping defence in the public eye. We must not cease to strive to ensure that defence in Britain is stronger and better integrated into society, so that the contribution made by our service men and women as a force for good in peacetime, crisis and conflict in the world will go on. We must be prepared to contribute as well.
Long after NATO has achieved its objectives in Kosovo, long after the headline writers have moved on to the next subject and the next crisis, a job of work will still be being done in that area, as it is in Kosovo today, by men and women who, supported by the civilians who back them up and by the families who are an integral part of that great team, have committed themselves to international law and order. Without them, it would be a much more dangerous world for future generations.
1.55 pm
Mr. John Maples: Kosovo has dominated defence and foreign policy issues for some three months now, almost to the exclusion of everything else. I shall use today's debate to talk about one or two other issues that may not have had the attention that they deserve during the last three months.
The Secretary of State spent a lot of time talking about Kosovo, and not much on other issues, perhaps because, as appeared, he did not have anything new or interesting to say about them. However, there have been some interesting developments, and I want to spend some time on the European security and defence identity.
Before I do so, I shall say a word about the timing of the debate. We have one debate a year on defence policy, which is important. Defence is not high on the political agenda at the moment, but it is fundamental to our security. It is the only one of three debates in which the Secretary of State has spoken, yet the Government have scheduled it on European elections day, when they must know that hardly any hon. Members will be here. I am sure that it is not the day that the Secretary of State himself would have chosen, but will he have a word with the business managers to see whether future debates can be held on a day when many more hon. Members are present? A Thursday would usually be a good choice, but not when the European elections are being held.

807
I want to consider one or two issues briefly before coming to the European defence identity. Defence industries are undergoing a major restructuring. I am delighted to see the British Aerospace-Marconi merger, which I hope will successfully jump all the regulatory hurdles.
The policy pushed by the Government and initiated by other European Heads of Government to try to create a European defence and aerospace conglomerate was misconceived. If we do not maintain a transatlantic link, we shall not be anywhere. The fortress Europe against the fortress America model, which that would have created, would have led us down a blind alley. The Americans spend three times as much on defence research as Britain, France and Germany combined. If we had cut ourselves off from the United States in terms of markets and technology, we would have gone down a blind alley for which we would have paid for a long time.
The commercial realities that British Aerospace and GEC have introduced give us some hope that one of the three or four global defence companies, which I imagine will develop during the next few years, will have a significant British component and British base, both in employment and technology. I hope that those commercial considerations will continue to prevail, that transatlantic links will be developed between European and north American defence corporations and that we shall not try to corral people into United States and European manufacturing fortresses.
The Secretary of State touched on the strategic defence review, rather optimistically because Kosovo has revealed some weaknesses in that in terms of a mismatch between resources and commitment. Overstretch is getting worse. We shall want to take a detailed look at that when the war is over, as that will probably be the right time to do so. We do not know what the long-term troop commitment to Kosovo will be, or whether it will extend into other parts of the Balkans, as I suspect that it will. I suspect that we shall have a long-term commitment in Bosnia and Kosovo, and perhaps elsewhere as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) will deal with that in more detail when he replies.
What is happening with regard to the Bloody Sunday inquiry is appalling. I wrote to the Secretary of State about that some time ago. I know that the Ministry of Defence is trying to help those involved, but, if the inquiry has handed over the names of serving paratroop officers to lawyers for the victims, that is an extraordinarily cavalier way to deal with people's lives and safety and the security of their families. I know that the matter is back in court for judicial review of the inquiry's ruling, and I do not intend to talk about the ruling for that reason, but I urge the Secretary of State to do everything that he can to make sure that that simply does not happen. If anything happened to those families or those soldiers, it would be an inexcusable lapse of duty—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I think the hon. Gentleman has made his point and it would be advisable if he did not pursue it any further.
Mr. Maples: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend has mentioned the part that is being played by the Ministry of Defence
808
in supporting the soldiers concerned in their legal costs, and that is to be welcomed warmly. Is he aware that I wrote to the Prime Minister, who has ultimate responsibility for those matters, on 11 May and 8 June, and that I have not had the courtesy of a substantive reply from him? Is that not disgraceful?
Mr. Maples: Yes, it is, but I must say that I received a reply from the Secretary of State and we have talked about this matter, which my hon. Friend has pursued assiduously; he represents Aldershot, where the Parachute Regiment is based, and I hope that he will continue to press his case. The solution to the problem is in the Government's hands and they could' alter the terms of reference of the inquiry to provide anonymity.
Mr. George Robertson: There is a judicial review; the matter is in the courts today and it would be highly improper for any of us to discuss it in Parliament. However, the hon. Gentleman chose to raise the issue of the allegations that are being made about the disclosure of some of the soldiers' names. That is, first and foremost, a matter for the independent inquiry and its spokesmen have said that it is investigating the circumstances in which the documents were released and the status of those papers in terms of their earlier public availability. We are of course concerned about the safety of any individuals and we are urgently considering what needs to be done.
Mr. Maples: Some matters are absolutely for the inquiry; I completely agree and I have not touched on those.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I repeat what I said earlier: nothing more ought to be said on that particular subject and we ought to move on.
Mr. Maples: A public consultation is taking place on the Government's proposals for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, and we will respond in some detail to that, but we are concerned about total privatisation. Certainly partial privatisation—[Interruption.] No, the reason is that some agencies of government are not performing quasi-commercial activities and the Government need them as an independent source of advice and evaluation. They need such advice on computers and telecommunications—they have an agency, which they have not privatised—and I think that they need it on defence.
If the Government were to rely on commercial organisations—which are motivated by commercial considerations and could be in partnership with a competitor to a bid that they were evaluating—it would be difficult for them to know that they were receiving independent, objective advice. Whatever the outcome and whatever the solution, we want them to make sure that they have available to them independent and objective evaluation of, and advice on, defence proposals and technologies. It is, of course, important that the manufacturers involved in Government deals also have confidence in that arrangement.
Before moving on to European defence, let me say a word about Bishopton. We have the basis of a problem in other areas because, in pursuit of reduced costs, the Government are inviting people from around the world to bid for contracts. Foreign suppliers bid on a marginal cost

809
basis, but the Governments for whom they work do not usually put their own contracts out to tender. In the case of Bishopton, foreign companies were able to bid on the basis of marginal cost and their costs were financed by contracts with their own Governments, which were not put out to tender. Royal Ordnance, however, has to bid for such contracts on a full-cost basis. That may save the Government some money, but an absolutely inevitable consequence is that organisations such as Royal Ordnance will disappear and we will be reliant on foreign suppliers. We have been in trouble with that in the past.
The Secretary of State said that he was not prepared to spend £20 million—arguably, the figure is considerably less than that—but we have to be 100 per cent. certain that we are prepared to rely on foreign supplies for ammunition. It is one thing to buy aeroplanes or tanks from foreign countries—once we have them, we have them—but buying renewable supplies such as the ammunition needed to make aeroplanes or tanks of any military use at all is a different matter altogether.
I turn to the development of the European security and defence identity and its relationship with NATO. We have seen a 180 degree U-turn in Government policy. This was not Government policy during the election, and it was not Government policy during the strategic defence review, whose report made no reference to the European Union's having any role here. In fact, it said:
"Development of the European Security and Defence Identity within NATO will enable the Western European Union to carry out these roles".
At the Amsterdam summit two years ago, the Prime Minister spoke of the proposals to which he signed up in Cologne last week. He said that Europe's defence should remain a matter for NATO and not the EU, which had proved itself unable to run a successful foreign policy.
"What matters is what works; and what works for Britain and for Europe is NATO,"
he said. The Franco-German plan was
"like an ill-judged transplant operation".
What was an ill-judged transplant operation in May 1997 has apparently become the solution to all our problems in May 1999. That is a 180-degree U-turn, of which we have had absolutely no explanation. It is no use the Secretary of State pretending that it is not a great big change. Whether it is right or wrong is a matter for debate, but to say that there has been no change is to fly in the face of the evidence.
It all changed in the run-up to the Portschacht summit in Austria at the end of last year. While the debate on the strategic defence review was proceeding in the House, the Prime Minister was briefing the political editor of The Times that he was prepared to drop Britain's long-standing objections to the EU' s having a defence capability. That was confirmed at the Portschacht summit, when the Prime Minister spoke of developing mechanisms that were "complementary to NATO"—not part of NATO, but complementary to it.
As I have said, this represents a fundamental shift. On 19 October—on the same day, and probably at the very same hour, that the Prime Minister was briefing Phil Webster—the Secretary of State told the House:
"The Government's view on the common foreign and security policy and how it relates to European defence was determined definitively at the Amsterdam summit … The challenge for the
810
European Union is … to apply the common foreign and security policy to events".—[Official Report, 19 October 1998; Vol. 317, c. 974.]
That reiteration of the Amsterdam position took place exactly when the Prime Minister was doing his 180-degree U-turn.
Winding up the debate on the following day, the Under-Secretary said exactly the same. He had not been brought up to speed at that point. He said:
"We are also playing a central role in developing an effective European security and defence identity in NATO."—[Official Report, 20 October 1998; Vol. 317, c. 1176.]
The Prime Minister is clearly talking about the possibility of doing something outside NATO.
Others realised the significance of the Prime Minister's point. In "Bulletin Quotidien Europe" of 26 to 27 October, a couple of days later, the Prime Minister was seen as going much further than he had in his Times interview. This was considered to be the sign of a true reversal of British policy, which was traditionally hostile to the European Union's responsibility for security and defence matters. It may not have been seen as a reversal of policy by Defence Ministers, but that is how it was seen by our allies and partners in Europe.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) was so concerned about the change of attitude that he secured an Adjournment debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I have no idea where he is, but I am sure that he will he here on Thursday to make his points in the Kosovo debate.
My hon. Friend performed a useful service to the House, because, in replying to his Adjournment debate, the Under-Secretary rather let the cat out of the bag by saying that his aim was
"to enable the European Union to have a more united and influential voice".—[Official Report, 11 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 301.]
It had taken a couple of weeks to bring the Under-Secretary up to speed, but he was up to speed by then.
Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the common European security and defence identity. However, I feel that I must apologise in advance for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on Thursday. I happen to know that he will be visiting the Duma on that day.
Mr. Maples: I am told that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate is out campaigning in the European elections today. No doubt, that is what all the other 200 or 300 hon. Members who would be present if this were not the day of the European elections are doing.
Let us be clear about what we are discussing. We are discussing a European security and defence identity—not an identity within NATO, as set out in the 1996 Berlin NATO summit, by the Prime Minister in Amsterdam or by the Secretary of State for Defence during the debate on the strategic defence review, but a European Union military capability. That is fundamentally different.
The Prime Minister took his position a little further in an article in the New York Times on 12 November, where he said:
"To speak with authority, the European Union also needs to be able to act militarily on its own … Britain backs that".

811
The next day, at the North Atlantic Assembly in Edinburgh, he did the same by saying:
"We must change this, by ensuring that the EU can speak with a single, authoritative voice on the key international issues of the day, and can intervene effectively where necessary."
Dr. Julian Lewis: Does my hon. Friend agree that the key point about a common foreign and security policy is not simply whether European NATO states and EU states that are not in NATO agree to work in harmony on defence issues, but whether a majority of those states can impose a defence or foreign policy commitment on a minority of those states that might disagree?
Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Clearly, at present, that is a separate pillar of the European Union, and it will require unanimity to do anything, but we have been down that road a few times before on other subjects. We find that what starts out requiring unanimity soon does not. I will come to our reasons for thinking that European defence is much better dealt with in NATO than within the European Union and why it will be dangerous to have two overlapping alliances.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I am most interested in the hon. Gentleman's analysis. As he knows, I take a much more sympathetic view towards the idea of a European security and defence identity. If his fears are well founded, why is it that, in the United States, there has been support for the initiative that the Government have been taking, with the support of others, including ourselves?
Mr. Maples: I will come to the United States position, but it is not supporting that idea. It supports the development of the European security and defence identity within NATO. It makes that clear again and again. What was agreed at Cologne breaches the principles that Madeleine Albright set out in her Financial Times article about decoupling, discrimination and duplication. When one talks to American diplomats and the American State Department privately, they say that they are very concerned about the matter. I will come to why that is so.
Therefore, there has been a fundamental shift in defence policy. There has been no change of circumstances. There has been no international event to provoke the necessity for rethinking our defence alliance arrangements. There has been no explanation of why the shift has happened. The House of Commons has not had an explanation of why the Government have thought it appropriate to make a 180 degree change on defence policy.
It is a big change. We have had no explanation. The Secretary of State made no attempt to explain it today, and the Prime Minister made no attempt to explain it on Tuesday, because it is being done not for its own sake but for the sake of good relations with Europe. If we can throw a few British interests into the pot to have a better weekend in Austria, Cologne or wherever it is, let us do it. It has been done not to improve our security, but because the UK is not in the euro.
812
We are running up from 1 January 1999. Everyone else will be in the euro. The Prime Minister wants to be at the centre of Europe, at the core of decision making. He is getting left behind because we are not in the euro. He needs to find something else that will get him into it. That is an appalling way to govern the country, where the UK's national interest is not put first; the Prime Minister's ego is. It is, apparently, not enough for him to enjoy the sycophantic adulation from his Back Benchers; he needs it abroad as well.
I cannot think why the Prime Minister bothers to go to these meetings because he just signs up to anything that the French or Germans put in front of him. We saw that then. We saw it at St. Malo and in Cologne. We saw it when the presidency document on the matter was signed by the Government without debate or criticism. That is not the right way to look after our interests.
Our position on the issue is what it has always been and what the Government's was until 19 October last year: the development of a European security and defence identity within NATO is an excellent idea. Michael Portillo was at the forefront of the initiative at the Berlin NATO summit in 1996. We are all for more European military co-operation.
The relationship between British and French forces at operational level is fantastic. It should be developed. We are the two countries most serious about defence in Europe. We are all for greater interoperability, which we need if we are to act together in joint task forces in Kosovo and such places. We need to do things together. We need to set up mechanisms by which Europeans can act without the United States if the United States does not want to be involved—we all agree about that—but that is in place. That was set up at Berlin. The arrangements were set up to allow that to be done, using the Western European Union and NATO planning and command structures that are already in place.
The United States made it clear that, in those circumstances, it would make available its heavy lift, intelligence and communication assets, which we do not have. We cannot undertake such operations without those assets. We do not have them, but the United States has said that it would make them available.
We do not support the responsibility being transferred to the European Union. It will undermine NATO. We will have two parallel overlapping alliances with slightly different agendas in Europe. If it undermines NATO, it will undermine the United States's commitment to NATO and to the security of Europe. That is fundamental.
The European Union is not able to have common policies in those areas not because the institutional framework is not in place, but because we are different sovereign states with different interests, agendas and histories. We find it difficult to agree on those things. If we had the same objectives, we would have no difficulty in acting together, as we have, for example, over Kosovo. It is not the machinery that is at fault.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I am straining to understand the mischief that the hon. Gentleman is describing. If he looks at the Official Report later, he will find that he said, among a long litany of things, that there could be circumstances where there could be some conflict in Europe with which the United States does not wish to be involved; I think that he said that.

813
Therefore, it seems plainly obvious that we need to have the mechanisms and institutions with which Europe can respond collectively. Inexorably, logic tells us that the vehicle for that must be the European Union.
Mr. Maples: I thought that I said that we supported what was initiated at the Berlin NATO summit in 1996, which made arrangements under which the European members of NATO could act without the United States, using NATO planning, command and control procedures and American assets. There may be circumstances in which the Europeans want to act without the United States. At the moment, it is difficult to envisage that happening because we seem incapable of doing anything without the United States taking the lead. Kosovo is an interesting example of something that the Americans probably would expect us in Europe to be able to sort out by ourselves, but which we clearly could not either at an operational level or in terms of leadership. If we get to the point where we can, let us be able to do it—I have no problem with that—but the arrangements are in place by which one can undertake the task through NATO.
I come to the American opposition to the moves. It is significant and it was signalled way back in June last year, when William Cohen, the United States Secretary of Defence, said that its commitment to a greater role for Europe was evidenced by its support for WEU as a vehicle for strengthening the European pillar of NATO and for the European security and defence identity within NATO. He made it clear then that the United States saw the development as something that would happen within NATO, but the Prime Minister took the policy further by signing an agreement with the French in December in St. Malo. That is where it is out in the open.
Paragraph 3 of that agreement says that
"the European Union will also need to have recourse to suitable military means (European capabilities pre-designated within NATO's European pillar)"—
the things that were envisaged at Berlin—
"or national or multinational European means outside the NATO framework."
Clearly, that was seen by President Chirac as a major shift in policy. It was no wonder that he was pleased because the French have been pursuing that agenda for some time. He succeeded in changing the opinion that successive British Governments had held for many years and in opening a chink in the United States-United Kingdom relationship, something that has long been a French policy objective. It is not fully integrated into NATO. Unfortunately, we did not succeed in getting it fully integrated two or three years ago when we made serious efforts to do so.
The United States's response to that was again cautious. James Foley, the State Department spokesman, said:
"In general terms, we are encouraged by the document's references to strengthening the capability of Europe's armed forces so that they can react rapidly to new circumstances, to contributing to NATO's vitality, and to preserving the alliance's prerogatives."
"We want a European partner that is capable of acting"—
nothing about anything independent happening outside NATO and within the European Union.
Madeleine Albright wrote a definitive article a few days after that in the Financial Times. The American position was made politely, in the friendly way that we would
814
expect from our closest ally, but absolutely clearly. She said:
"We will examine all proposals on European defence and security with a simple question in mind: does it improve our effectiveness in working together? … the emphasis should be placed on enhancing the practical capabilities Europe brings to our alliance.
This means avoiding what I would call the Three Ds.
First, we want to avoid decoupling: NATO is the expression of the indispensable transatlantic link. It should remain an organisation of sovereign allies, where European decision-making is not unhooked from broader alliance decision-making."
What happened at Cologne does exactly that—it unhooks European decision making from alliance decision making. Mrs. Albright continued:
"Second, we want to avoid duplication: defence resources are too scarce for allies to conduct force planning, operate command structures, and make procurement decisions twice—once at NATO and once more at the EU."
However, Cologne sets up a series of committees and staff structures. It talks of developing satellite, intelligence and heavy lift capability, all of which is duplication on already stretched budgets. She continued:
"third, we want to avoid any discrimination against NATO members who are not EU members."
The Cologne document makes a passing reference to making some arrangements by which those members can be involved, but important members of NATO are not members of the EU—Turkey, Norway and the three new members, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. There will probably be more. Those states will not be involved.
The Western European Union provided a forum in which all of those states could be involved and have access to NATO assets. We are now developing something that excludes those states. At Cologne, all those principles were broken.
It is pretty clear where our European partners are going. In February, Emma Bonino wrote an article in the Financial Times saying:
"Now Europe has Emu, it should try for DMU—defence and military union."
Mr. Prodi, the new President of the European Commission said in "On the Record" two weeks ago that Europe needed to develop its own army to enable it to act quickly to intervene in crises like Kosovo.
That is how they see it. What the Germans, French and Italians want is clear and we are going along with it. No doubt, we think that we can get off this roundabout, or this train, at some point and that we do not have to go the whole way. It is 100 per cent. clear to me where those countries want to go and it is not in our interests to go there with them. There should be some extremely good reason for doing what seems to me to be acting against our national interest and the views of the United States.
Mr. George Robertson: Given circumstances in the world today and the situation in Kosovo at this very moment, I find it remarkable that the hon. Gentleman should engage in a theological discussion that seems to play only to the Back Benches. Why, among all the documentation and bits of paper that he has produced has he not mentioned the Washington communiqué of the

815
NATO summit? Perhaps he intends to read this passage out—it is certainly worth reading. The communiqué stated:
"We welcome"—
that is, the 19 nations of NATO—
"the new impetus given to the strengthening of a common European policy in security and defence for the Amsterdam Treaty and the reflections launched since then in the WEU and—following the St. Malo declaration—in the EU, including the Vienna European Council Conclusions."
The next paragraph states:
"On the basis of the above principles and building on the Berlin decisions, we therefore stand ready to define and adopt the necessary arrangements for ready access by the European Union to the collective assets and capabilities of the Alliance, for operations in which the Alliance as a whole is not engaged militarily as an Alliance."
That communiqué was backed by the United States and members of NATO, who are not all members of the EU. They signed up to it. How come it is only the British Conservative party that stands isolated again?
Mr. Maples: It is not a question of being isolated. I will come to those documents, which make it clear that what NATO agreed to, and the United States is happy about, is the development of that capability within NATO. However, what was talked about at Cologne is outside NATO and is not what was agreed at Washington or what people were happy about. The change in policy raises the concerns of the United States.
After Cologne, the German Defence Minister said:
"There is a single market, a single currency and an intense economic co-operation and we need something comparable in foreign and security policy."
President Chirac said that the creation of a European defence identity was the next major project of European unification after the introduction of the euro.
Ambassador Vershbow said—this is the noted American caution—that
"It is important … that the transatlantic link not be weakened … That means avoiding … duplication of assets or discrimination against non-EU allies … We will be assessing the results of today's EU Summit in Cologne with these considerations mind."
Let us consider what happened in Washington. In the new strategic concept, which is the really important document, there is only one reference to this matter, in paragraph 30, which is headed, "The European Security and Defence Identity". It clearly talks about that being within NATO, stating:
"On the basis of decisions taken by the Alliance, in Berlin in 1996 and subsequently, the European Security and Defence Identity will continue to be developed within NATO."
My concern is that it is being developed outside NATO. We are perfectly happy about development within NATO—I have no difficulty with that. The Secretary of State quoted the communique, which is a less important document than the new strategic concept, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree.
Mr. Robertson: No.
Mr. Maples: It is. What is more, the communiqué seems to have been drafted by someone completely
816
different, on the hoof at the summit, as I understand that it was because some countries—Turkey in particular—had considerable misgivings about the original draft of the document.
Mr. Robertson: They agreed it.
Mr. Maples: After some redrafting. The communiqué makes it perfectly clear that development should take place within the WEU. It reaffirms our commitment—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State should listen before he crows too hard about his reading of the agreement. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State must not keep interrupting from a sedentary position.
Mr. Maples: I have no problem about that being done inside the Alliance but it is being done outside it. As the United States keeps pointing out, the mechanisms were put in place at Berlin. It wants the ESDI to be firmly anchored within NATO but what is set up at Cologne is something different. It is a European Union structure to develop a military capability outside NATO. It is a parallel and overlapping alliance—a recipe for confusion. The United States is concerned that it will act as a caucus within NATO and that EU members of NATO will meet first to decide a collective position to take to NATO. It breaks all those three Ds—discrimination, duplication and decoupling—that Mrs. Albright set out and it undermines US commitment to NATO, and for what? What is the purpose? What is the change of circumstances that led to it? It would be useful if it helped to advance British interests, but I do not believe that it does. It is all for the sake of being, in some rather intangible sense, at the heart of Europe. There is no advantage for the country, even if it makes European summits nicer for the Prime Minister.
As the Secretary of State pointed out, we are doing this in the light of what is happening in Kosovo. Surely the lesson of our military intervention there is that we are in capable of doing such things without the United States and without American military capability and leadership. The United States would love us to be able to develop more European capability, but we cannot handle Kosovo by ourselves. Of the 1,100 military aircraft that I understand have been involved in operations, 80 per cent. have been from the United States. There was no question of any aggressive ground intervention without the involvement of American troops. That decision was always going to be made in Washington. Therefore, at best, the European Union is taking a pretentious stance. Frankly, it is going to be a fantasy unless we are all prepared to spend much more on defence.
Mr. Dalyell: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's speech with great interest. What does he see as the role of the United Nations in Kosovo? Should not it have been brought in at the earliest stage specifically before any military action was taken?
Mr. Maples: I do not want to be drawn into the debate about Kosovo because we will debate that next Thursday and we have been over that ground many times. We have

817
spent much more time on Kosovo than on the European defence identity. Furthermore, if we had waited for the United Nations to act, we would not be anywhere near a solution that would have secured Kosovo for the Kosovar Albanians.
What the EU wants to do will work only if it is prepared to spend an awful lot more on defence.
Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene as I thought that the House would want to know that the Secretary-General of NATO, Javier Solana, has announced the suspension of air strikes.
Mr. Maples: I am delighted to hear that, as is everyone else in the House, I am sure. Presumably, the next step is that the Security Council will pass a resolution and KFOR will move into Kosovo. I think that the Secretary of State was pointing out to me from his seat that a substantial British contingent is involved and we all wish them well. In some ways, the most difficult part of the Kosovo operation is about to begin. It involves danger to far more military personnel than has the air operation. They will encounter difficulties.
I was talking about defence spending. The development of a parallel military capability makes some sense if we are prepared to spend a lot of money on it. We shall have to duplicate some of what happens already in NATO in command and control structures, and intelligence satellite facilities. It will cost a lot of money. Yet, we are all cutting defence spending. The Government are cutting defence spending by roughly £1 billion over the three years of the defence review. The United Kingdom and France are the only European Union members, other than Greece and Portugal, that spend more than 2 per cent. of their GDP on defence. Germany spends only 1.5 per cent. Yet for all the ways that we might improve Europe's defence capabilities by spending more, we shall spend scarce assets on duplicating what NATO and the United States already possess and what is already available to European members of NATO under the Berlin arrangements. Therefore, it makes sense only if we spend more than it costs to cover the duplication.
Can the Secretary of State name a single European member of NATO who is planning to spend more on defence? The answer is that nobody is. We will not spend more on defence. They may be wrong, but all the political pressures are in the other direction. Everybody wants money released from defence spending because of the end of the cold war.
If we set up these parallel arrangements without spending much more money, we risk the worst of all worlds: a continuing militarily weak Europe and undermining the United States' commitment to NATO. It could be argued that we could do without the United States' commitment to NATO if we were prepared to build up a serious military force in Europe, but it cannot be argued that we can do without that commitment, unless we are prepared to build up that force. We have reached a dangerous halfway stage in this: we are undermining the American commitment to NATO and we are not building up the necessary military forces ourselves. That is a high price to pay.
At the very least, we deserve an explanation for this change of policy, which we have not had. There has been substantial bipartisan consensus on these matters since the
818
end of the cold war and since the Labour party dropped its anti-American, CND defence policy a few years ago. Yet the Government have sacrificed that. Not only that, but they have sacrificed Britain's true interests and the transatlantic link, which is vital to our security, and they have risked undermining NATO, which has been the foundation of that security for 50 years. For what? Some transitory and illusory, weekend goodwill within the European Union.
2.33 pm
Ms Gisela Stuart: First, I apologise that I cannot stay for the winding-up speeches because I will have to return to Birmingham to vote in the European elections. That brings me to a point made by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples). He said that today was an inappropriate day to choose for a debate on defence in the world, but I think that today is most appropriate because it is important to recognise that what has been happening in Europe is significant to post-world war 2 peace.
Today is the day after last night's announcement on Kosovo and the Secretary of State has just given us the latest announcement, both of which are significant. Today, we should recognise what the part that we have played in Europe has done for peace within the framework of defence.
One of my most moving experiences since I became a Member of Parliament came a few weeks ago, when I was privileged to be with the Prime Minister in Aachen when he received the Charlemagne prize. French Prime Minister Jospin gave the recommendation speech and a British Prime Minister received a significant European prize in recognition of his work on European unity and maintaining peace. It was an extremely proud moment for someone like me, who has a somewhat international background. I like to think of myself in some way as a representation of how far Europe has moved, not least because I was born near Munich and have ended up inheriting Neville Chamberlain's seat by purely democratic means. Much has been achieved by democratic, peaceful means, and through Britain's role in Europe complementing NATO, not being apart from it.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Is not the lesson to be learned from the hon. Lady's inheriting Neville Chamberlain's seat not that Europe moved in a particular direction, but that Germany became a democracy? Germany became a democracy because British democracy defeated German militarism. To put that down to Europe rather than to a victory in a war and the maintenance of an alliance in peace is misleading and unworthy of the debate.
Ms Stuart: I regret having given way. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the British people of Edgbaston who elected me. It had nothing to do with the German Government.
The defence debate is not about hardware. Sometimes, there is a danger that it is about boys talking about toys. We have defence to protect people. It is no good pulling faces and saying that this is some unworthy debate. Defence is about people. We have defence to protect people.
Kosovo reminded my generation, the post-war generation, that war is essentially bloody. It came as a shock to realise that, in the heart of Europe, we could still

819
have the kind of ethnic cleansing that we thought belonged to a different age and certainly to different parts of the world. Yet it was happening right under our noses. The most distressing aspect was how we responded to it. It took quite some time before the forces pulled together. It is thanks in no small way to British leadership that we have reached the point that we have today.
Let me return quickly to my experience in Aachen. The Prime Minister gave a speech about military action in Kosovo. Some of my German and French colleagues said that no French Prime Minister or German Chancellor would have dared to make that speech. That kind of leadership and determination to keep Europe united in one force is easily underestimated here in London, where we do not realise what the Prime Minister and the British forces have achieved.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to the mainland European experience of being a refugee—something that we tend to forget in this country. Britain has not been invaded for a thousand years. We read about, and see pictures of, Kosovo and people—a whole generation—being displaced in former Yugoslavia. In a country such as Germany, virtually every family will have first-hand experience of, or—as I did—will have grown up with, stories about what it is like to be told that one has three hours to leave with only one suitcase. My generation may have been brought up, as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon rather glibly said, in the post-war CND era. Yes, we oppose war, but we also realise that there is a place for it, and an appropriate place for it when it comes to protecting people. We are in the heart of Europe and we must play our part there constructively.
It is difficult to understand why Europe has easily accepted economic and industrial leadership—Britain is the fifth largest economy in the world—when there is reluctance to accept similar leadership for defence. In some ways, we continue to behave like dependants on the United States, when it is a partner. The hon. Gentleman rightly said that Kosovo has shown that we need the States. My conclusion from that is not that we should not go on developing European defence strategies, but that there is even more reason to develop them because we should be able to deal with any future Kosovos.
The Prime Minister's initiative in Portschach signalled the Government's determination to move in that direction. The Franco-British declaration in St. Malo took the initiative further. To say that Britain goes into these negotiations simply signing what the French and Germans dictate to them is either an extraordinary failure to understand what is going on or deliberate mischief making.
Mr. David Heath: Both.
Ms Stuart: Indeed.
Britain's leadership and political determination are unrivalled in the European context and are supported by the professionalism of British troops. Some 8,000 British troops stand ready to be part of the peace agreement—the largest contingent of any nation. British forces have led the way in Bosnia in ensuring that war criminals are brought to justice.
820
Our peacekeeping commitment is easily forgotten in talking about defence. However, defence is not just about the narrow window of warfare but about what happens afterwards, which can be more important than the immediate engagement. Britain has been leading that work. Later this year, Britain will become the first permanent member of the United Nations Security Council to sign an agreement with the United Nations to make more of our forces available for UN peace support operations.
The United Kingdom's approach has primarily involved finding practical ways to improve political and military capabilities. Our military capabilities would be inconsequential without the political framework to support them. There have been institutional changes to help us achieve that. The Secretary of State mentioned the need to take political control of military decisions. I am sure that other hon. Members will mention military hardware, but we should always remember that hardware is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Merely possessing weapons or talking about the percentage of gross domestic product spent on defence tells us little about defence, which is about protecting people and maintaining peace.
On the international co-operation required to deal with refugees, Britain has again taken the lead. The aim is to return people to their homes. It is no good throwing refugees out and dispersing them all over Europe. The aim should be what Britain has done in Kosovo by supporting the United Nations and enabling all the displaced people to return to their homes. It is also about facilitating restructuring. The post-war period and the early development of the European Community teaches us that economic reconstruction provides long-term peace.
We need to develop our European structures not in duplication of, or competition with, those of NATO but as a complement to them. Within that, participating Governments will and must retain their sovereign authority to commit or withhold their troops. To talk about a European defence strategy is not to cede sovereignty but to recognise common interests.
I commend what the Labour Government are doing on preventing conflict and arms control. We have elevated defence diplomacy and conflict prevention to one of the seven core missions of our armed forces, which underpin all our defence planning. The prevention of conflict is as vital a part of defence policy as the strategy for responding to it.
It is easy to forget the impetus that we have given to international arms control. Not only have we banned the import, export, manufacture and transfer of anti-personnel land mines in line with our manifesto commitment, we have extended the ban to cover their operational use. No British soldier on operations will ever again lay an anti-personnel land mine. That has gone hand in hand with strengthening our forces, not least by enabling them to respond quickly to any conflict as it develops.
The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who is not in his place, accused the Secretary of State of wishing to lead Europe but not willing the means. Again, he fails to understand what has been happening in the past two years. I fundamentally disagree with his assumption. The fact is that Britain and the Prime Minister have given leadership to Europe. The professionalism of British troops, the Prime Minister's leadership during the

821
Kosovan conflict and the way in which he carried his European partners cannot be over stressed. It is no good saying that that did not happen, because it did. France and Germany followed the lead given by the Prime Minister. No other European leader could have given that lead so successfully. I am not complacent, but we can be proud of that leadership.
I conclude with a reminder. If I have one sadness, it is that we have ended the millennium with the ethnic cleansing and conflict in Kosovo. I hope that my children will have the privilege that I have had, of which my mother, a victim of ethnic cleansing after world war 2, forcefully reminded me when I once made a derogatory remark about armed forces. She told me that I had had the privilege of never having had to wait on whether the Russian or American armed forces arrived first. My life had never depended on waiting for the armed forces, and I hope that those of my children will not do so. In the meantime, we have the responsibility of maintaining our armed forces within a European defence framework that complements, and works with, NATO, not one that thinks that Britain can, on its own without such co-operation, attain what we have achieved so far.
2.47 pm
Mr. David Atkinson: I shall confine my remarks to the missile defence of Europe. My qualification for doing so is as the rapporteur on transatlantic co-operation on ballistic missile defence for the Western European Union Assembly, which unanimously adopted my second report on the subject during its December 1997 part-session. Both my reports warned that Europe was defenceless against ballistic missile attacks. That remains true.
Since then, we have had the outcome of the Government's strategic defence review. To echo the Secretary of State, it concluded that the risk to Britain from ballistic missiles of nations of concern was many years off, that we should continue to monitor the position and that we should remain in close touch with our allies. I find that complacent and alarming. As I shall explain, it contradicts the policy now adopted by the American Congress through its Missile Defence Act, which President Clinton is expected to sign into law soon.
We in western Europe have every reason to be sensitive to the need for missile defence. There has been a missile threat to Europe ever since the first cruise missile, the V1, and the first ballistic missile, the V2, were developed more than 50 years ago. In all, more than 4,300 V2s were fired and they had a disproportionate political, economic and psychological effect because of the helplessness of our air defences.
Today, such missile technology is more easily obtained than ever and has been used many times in recent years. We in Britain will never forget that two of our ships were sunk by Exocets during the Falklands war. In 1986, Italy was shaken by a Libyan missile that struck the island of Lampedusa. Beyond Europe, during one phase of the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq rained missiles on Teheran and other cities. During the Gulf war, Saddam Hussein used his strongest card to attack Israeli towns and an American base in Saudi Arabia with Scud missiles.
In March 1997, China fired four ballistic missiles into the sea near Taiwan during its presidential elections. That did not intimidate the voters, but it caused Lloyd's of
822
London to refuse to insure any ship going to Taiwan, which damaged its economy and that of Japan. Last year, a North Korean Taepo-Dong 1 missile overflew Japan. Today, India and Pakistan are proliferating their missile capabilities, with warheads to match.
Those are recent events which we should not ignore. Missiles have been used to destroy, to threaten and to intimidate. They can affect whole economies and impact on foreign policies. Today, a growing number of third world Governments are buying or developing missiles. Such missiles are easier to man and cheaper to acquire than squadrons of fighter aircraft.
According to Lancaster university, 35 non-NATO countries have ballistic missiles, 18 of which are capable of installing nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological warheads on them. Lancaster university also estimates that 67 non-NATO countries possess cruise missiles. So any future western rapid reaction force in an out-of-area operation now needs far greater protection than was provided during Desert Storm.
Two years ago, as the new Labour Government embarked upon their defence review, it had long been appreciated that the greatest potential menace were the five rogue regimes, some of which have helped each other's missile programmes—Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria and North Korea. Fired from Libya, North Korean No-Dong missiles with a range of 700 miles would threaten southern Europe, while its Taepo-Dong two-stage rockets, which it is developing, would threaten all the capitals of Europe. Despite all this, the Government's strategic defence review concluded that the risks to Britain from ballistic missiles were many years off.
Since that conclusion was reached, the American Congress has responded to three reports. The Rumsfield commission report last year said that the USA and Europe could be facing a substantial threat by 2010, an assessment which some believe has already been overtaken by recent missile developments in the third world. This year's national intelligence estimate of the CIA concludes that any country, regardless of its missile development experience, could field an intercontinental ballistic missile by 2015. Two weeks ago, the bipartisan committee chaired by Congressman Cox reported that China had spent the past 40 years stealing from the United States nuclear technology which it has spread to unstable regimes around the world, including those close enough to attack Britain and Europe with ballistic missiles.
It was in anticipation of the Cox report that the Clinton Administration withdrew its opposition to a Bill to build a missile defence shield against nuclear attack. It received an overwhelming 67:3 majority in the Senate, and a 3:1 vote in the House of Representatives. So, if the United States now plans to defend itself in this way, why not Europe, and why not the United Kingdom?
When the WEU Assembly debated my report on 3 December 1997, we expressed concern at the rate at which the threat to Europe appears to be accelerating and the length of time that it would take to develop an effective ballistic missile defence shield. We noted that there had been no progress whatever in developing European early warning and anti-missile defence systems. We passed unanimously recommendation 621, which urged our Council of Ministers to pursue with far greater urgency the development of a common anti-ballistic missile defence system, and European Governments to

823
provide the budget necessary; to carry out a specifically European study of the architecture of anti-missile defence systems foreseeable in the short, medium and long term for the coverage of the continent; and to examine the possibility of co-operation with Russia over anti-missile defence.
In its reply, the Council noted that European nations were participating actively in NATO studies on extended air defence and to develop plans for theatre ballistic missile defence. That was presumably a reference to the new NATO air command and central systems which, in principle, will give Europe an initial capability to defend itself against ballistic missile attack. However, in practice, according to Jane's Defence Weekly of 28 April this year, there are no cohesive efforts under way to develop anti-missile defence for Europe.
In Europe today—unlike in the American Congress—there is no sense of urgency to respond to an accelerating threat, and about the time that it would take to respond to that threat. That complacency is now contrary to the new approach adopted by the United States. In the light of that, I urge the Government to review their review on missile defence. I hope that the Minister of State will respond to those concerns in his reply, and assure the House that the ballistic missile defence of Europe will be in place before new threats emerge.
2.56 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: The Select Committee on Defence, of which I am a member, recently published its report on the future of NATO. There is an important case for reform of NATO. It has been somewhat overshadowed by the situation in Kosovo, but we must come back to it, especially in relation to nuclear weapons, and this debate is a good opportunity to do so.
I successfully pressed for a number of amendments to the report, which I shall run through briefly for the House. One of them called for an improvement in NATO's links with humanitarian aid agencies and for them to work together in peace support operations. Following events in Kosovo, that is now very relevant. My amendments also called for NATO member states properly to respect human rights in their own countries, and to maintain stable democracies and civilian control over their militaries.
The amended report urged restraint on NATO's out-of-area operations where there was no direct threat to NATO's interests; called on NATO to respect United Nations philosophy and ensure that any operation that it undertook was legitimate under international law; called for a strengthening of the role of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe to allow it to play a fuller part in crisis prevention and management as well as post-conflict reconciliation; contained a welcome for the French formally to re-enter NATO's integrated military system whenever they felt prepared to do so; and called for a strengthening of security co-operation between Russia and NATO, including the European countries of NATO, so that Russia was co-opted into collective security rather than adopting a narrow nationalism. The report made many recommendations in relation to Russia, such as that Russia should help its former military officers to set up small businesses. It expressed concern about anti-semitism in Russia.
824
I also successfully made amendments to the report concerning nuclear weapons—an issue on which I wish to concentrate most of my speech. The report called for early unconditional ratification by Russia of the START 2 nuclear disarmament treaty and rapid commencement of negotiations on a START 3 treaty between Russia, the United States and other NATO countries with nuclear weapons.
We pay tribute to Ukraine for abandoning its nuclear weapons and call for support for it in dealing with the problems of Chernobyl. We call for a new mission even-handedly to promote non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and counter-proliferation objectives. We call for restraint to avoid a new path of nuclearisation. We warn that that could happen if the United States decided to contravene the anti-ballistic missile treaty. That warning relates directly to what the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) has just said. We would be on a most dangerous path to nuclear proliferation if we went for a so-called ballistic defence approach, which would only increase the pace of a new nuclear arms race. We must, therefore, restrain ourselves—as, it is to be hoped, will the United States—from breaking the existing treaty.
I also ensured that the report gave a proper explanation of the rationale for a policy of no first use of nuclear weapons. Ambassador Thomas Graham, the leader of the US delegation to the non-proliferation treaty talks four years ago, put that rationale to the Committee. He said that the world urgently needs to lower the political importance of nuclear weapons and that only the nuclear powers could do that. A first-use policy increases the perceived political importance of nuclear weapons and encourages nuclear proliferation.
Such a political approach is important in states other than those which already hold nuclear weapons, because they might develop nuclear weapons for the same reasons that we developed them. For example, India and Pakistan already give the same reasons as us for having adopted those weapons. That logic could apply to other countries.
In his evidence to the Committee, the Secretary of State referred to the new definition of deterrence when he said that uncertainty equals stability. That seems to be the new creed. However, it encourages proliferation in other states not only of nuclear weapons but of other weapons of mass destruction. Those states could claim that such weapons create uncertainty and, therefore, stability. That is not a good creed.
Ambassador Graham made a further point in relation to the argument about the political importance of nuclear weapons. He said that, at present, Russia puts a heavy emphasis on the first use of nuclear weapons, especially as its conventional forces have withered. We need to move the Russians away from that policy, but they will not even begin to move while we maintain the first-use approach. Ambassador Graham pointed out that nuclear weapons do not offer a proportional response to a non-nuclear attack—for example, one using biological or chemical weapons. Those are weapons of mass destruction, but such destruction would be significantly less than if nuclear weapons were used. The ambassador noted that, under international law, there is a doctrine of belligerent response and that international commitments are waived once there have been such attacks. His view was that a first-use policy is unnecessary and counter-productive.

825
At the Select Committee meeting on 17 February, I put that view to the Secretary of State, who responded with two arguments. First, he said that nuclear weapons
"are essentially political weapons that are to be used only in the case of last resort; to be used only in the case of national survival."
Secondly, he said that a no-first-use policy could lead the other side
"to take actions in a conventional sense or in an asymmetric sense, (in a chemical or biological context), which would allow them to take risks knowing that there was to be no penalty for doing that."
Those are crucial arguments.
I have already pointed out that such approaches apply to other countries as well and are a driver for proliferation. First use cannot be regarded as a last resort, nor is it a matter of national survival. As Ambassador Graham said, it is not a proportional response—even to chemical or biological weapons. However deadly those weapons may be, they do not threaten national survival. In any case, they are covered by the belligerent-response provision in the international arrangements. If we take the approach of getting in first, that is immensely dangerous; it is the attitude of a Dr. Strangelove.
There seems to be a fear of a massive first strike, but that would be phenomenally risky, whoever undertook it—whether or not there was a first-use policy. Theoretically, it could happen in either case. Getting in first is more likely if there are huge arsenals of nuclear weapons, mistrust and first-use policies on both sides. A no-first-use policy would make that less likely, because it would put pressure on other countries, such as Russia, to agree to the same policy.
In relation to the Secretary of State's point that countries could use asymmetrical weapons—chemical and biological weapons—without penalty, there is indeed a penalty. We have only to consider Iraq to see that there is an enormous penalty for that country's flirtation with chemical weapons. Iraq is suffering a phenomenally heavy penalty and that fact will not be lost on other countries. The belligerent-response doctrine also applies in that case. A no-first-use policy would help to ensure that everyone signed up to internationally agreed treaties on chemical and biological weapons, with proper inspection. As Ambassador Graham pointed out, first- use policies make that much harder to achieve. We need to lessen the political importance of nuclear weapons, but the UK Government and other NATO Governments appear to have no strategy for doing so.
In its response to the strategic defence review report, the Select Committee noted:
"We regret that there has been no restatement of nuclear policy since the speech of the then Secretary of State in 1993; the SDR does not provide a new statement of the government's nuclear deterrent posture in the present strategic situation within which the sub-strategic role of Trident could be clarified. We recommend the clarification of both the UK's strategic and sub-strategic nuclear policy."
The Government's response to the Select Committee on 19 May was the same, word for word, as that given by NATO in its press communiqué "The Alliance's Strategic Concept", NAC-S(99)65; clearly, it must have been written by British civil servants at the Ministry of Defence. The communiqué stated:
"The fundamental purpose of the nuclear forces of the Allies is political: to preserve peace and prevent coercion and any kind of war."
826
It continued:
"They demonstrate that aggression of any kind is not a rational option."
That was said at the Washington summit—presumably thanks to those British civil servants. Well, tell that to the Serbs; nuclear weapons certainly did not put them off aggression. That shows how poorly thought-out is our whole current approach to nuclear weapons.
We received an assurance from the Secretary of State that he would consider the meaning of that sub-strategic role. It means lowering the threshold—that nuclear weapons might be used. However, the Secretary of State came up with an answer:
"The purpose of our nuclear forces is to deter aggression against the United Kingdom or its Allies. The Strategic Defence Review confirmed that, in addition to its strategic deterrent role, Trident would also perform the sub-strategic nuclear role, formerly assigned to RAF Tornado aircraft. A sub-strategic element is an essential component of a nuclear deterrent policy. In extreme circumstances of self defence, a capability for the more limited use of nuclear weapons would allow us to signal to an aggressor that he has miscalculated our resolve, without using the full destructive power that Trident offers.—[Official Report, 26 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 433.]
What a strategy that is—one in which there can somehow be light use of nuclear weapons. That seems to be a contradiction. That strategy—the sub-strategic use of nuclear weapons—is to be used against another nuclear weapons state. Let us turn it around: if someone dropped light sub-strategic nuclear weapons for us for the same reason—to deter us from aggression—what would our response be? Would we accept it, or would a nuclear exchange be likely? That shows how ill-thought-out the policy is. Even if the circumstances are truly extreme, why not have a no-first-use policy? We cannot use nuclear weapons sub-strategically as the Government pretend. For example, can India and Pakistan use nuclear weapons sub-strategically?
Dr. Julian Lewis: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's long and consistent commitment to unilateral nuclear disarmament by this country, but let me give an example that shows that matters are not as simple as he thinks. Imagine two nuclear powers, one of which has the capability only to retaliate using large strategic nuclear weapons against cities, and the other the capability to initiate a much more precise and accurate attack against troop and military formations. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, unless the systems are balanced, there is a danger that one of those nuclear powers might think, wrongly, that it could attack troop concentrations with impunity, because the other side would not retaliate in the only way that it could, against cities, and thus risk losing cities in return? The situation is not as simple as he suggests.
Mr. Cohen: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. The lesson of Kosovo is that a response is more likely if troops suffer, so nuclear exchange is more, not less, likely if we start to nuke troops. The hon. Gentleman's argument seems to be in favour of bombing a non-city area. Where is his constituency? It is not in London, is it?
Dr. Lewis: New Forest, East.
Mr. Cohen: Exactly. If the Russians bombed the New Forest as a sub-strategic warning, what does the hon. Gentleman think the Government's response should be? That shows the nonsense of his argument.

827
I refer the House to a parliamentary briefing from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which makes a series of points about disarmament negotiations: basically, such negotiations are all stuck. The briefing refers to the conference on disarmament in Geneva, the CD. It states:
"After almost four months of negotiation the CD has still failed to agree a work programme for its current session and, as a result, has failed to begin negotiation of a Fissile Material Treaty (FMT) i.e. a treaty that would ban the production and use of the two crucial nuclear explosives—plutonium and highly enriched uranium—that make up nuclear weapons."
The Government say they are in favour of a fissile material treaty, but negotiations are being blocked in Geneva.
The briefing goes on to talk about five proposals:
"The South African proposal for an Ad-Hoc Committee to 'deliberate upon practical steps for systematic and progressive efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons as well as to identify if and when one or more such steps should be the subject of negotiations in the conference'.
The Egyptian proposal to 'commence negotiations on a phased programme of nuclear disarmament with the objective of the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.'
The Belgian proposal (supported by Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Norway) to establish an Ad-Hoc Working Group to 'study ways and means of establishing an exchange of information and views within the Conference on endeavours towards nuclear disarmament'.
The Canadian proposal to establish an Ad-Hoc Committee for 'the substantive discussion of nuclear disarmament issues with a view to identifying if and when one or more such issues might be negotiated multilaterally'.
The G-21 proposal (proposed on their behalf by Cuba) for an Ad-Hoc Committee on Nuclear Disarmament to 'start negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified framework of time, including a nuclear weapon convention'."
None of those proposals meets with the favour of the Governments of the UK, the United States and France, who have suggested merely that:
"the President of the CD consults 'on ways and means of establishing an exchange of information and views … by holding informal, open-ended consultations … by consulting with delegations'"
and other such means. Presumably, all that can be done at any time. There is no practical programme of action, nor even a programme for a programme of action. That follows two years in which nothing was achieved except agreement that negotiations could begin in 1999 on a fissile material treaty.
CND states:
"The CD has negotiated all the major multilateral international arms control agreements to date and is the only UN body that has a mandate to negotiate and agree such agreements. If it cannot agree a means to begin the process of ridding the world of nucluar weapons then no one can."
The CND report concludes:
"without a fully implemented Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, without an FMT, with the CD in deadlock and the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty lacking any future direction, no hope of START II ever being ratified and no prospect of START III being agreed and NATO re-emphasising the importance of NATO retaining nuclear weapons as an essential part of their military structure, one has to conclude that there is no hope whatsoever currently of achieving a world free of nuclear weapons.
828
Whatever window of opportunity existed upon the end of the Cold War has now firmly been slammed shut and the deadlocks and bars been put in place."
The UK Government in their strategic defence review report, and NATO in its Washington press release on the deliberations on its strategic concept, shirk the issues of nuclear weapons reduction and seriously attempting to stop nuclear proliferation. That do-nothing approach does not mean that the status quo will last for ever. Instead, proliferation drives us down the road of shirking action—for example, when India, Pakistan and other countries develop nuclear weapons—and of increasing military intervention, albeit only when it suits us. That makes for a far more dangerous world. Defence in the world is not helped by the current nuclear weapons policy. The Government must return to the subject seriously and with a will.
3.17 pm
Mr. Mike Hancock: I am sorry to be unable to apologise to the Secretary of State in person for not having been here for the beginning of his speech. I was detained representing Parliament on the political committee of the Western European Union in Paris, in which we discussed many of the matters that have been raised this afternoon. I would have apologised to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) if I had missed his speech as well, but I was fortunate enough—if that is the right expression—to be present to hear it.
It is disappointing that today—European election day—has been chosen for the debate. To hold those elections today was not a sudden impulse—we have known for some years when they were coming—yet the debate was scheduled on 24 March, despite there being time and flexibility enough in our timetable to have it on another day. For it to be held on a day when so many Members are distracted with other matters is a great disappointment to the House and to Members unfortunate enough to be unable to attend. I am sure that there will be no repetition in future and that lessons have been learned.
The debate gives us an opportunity to discuss many matters, but hon. Members who have already referred to Kosovo will not blame me for expressing my thoughts on that subject as well. The Secretary of State brought us the good news which will be universally welcomed, that the Secretary-General of NATO has ordered that bombing should stop. I hope that it is the first of many steps to establish a lasting peace, but achieving that end will probably involve a campaign far more difficult than the 10-week air war carried out over the former Yugoslavia. Nevertheless, we should give a big vote of thanks to the men and women of our armed forces who have done so much, both in the air and on the ground, to bring about what has so far been achieved. We should not forget the enormous commitment of our service men and women to alleviating the plight of refugees in Macedonia, Albania and elsewhere in the region.
I also offer my compliments—I am sorry that Conservative Members do not feel able to do likewise—to the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence. [Interruption.] I understand that Opposition Members congratulated them last night, but I think it is nice to thank them again today. They have played an important role in showing the determination and leadership that was sorely lacking in some aspects of the run-up to the campaign against Serbia.

829
We can learn many lessons from this action, not least regarding the lack of military intelligence before and during the campaign.
It appears that few people had any informed knowledge about the reaction of, first, the Serbians and, secondly, Milosevic. No one seemed to grasp his difficult personality and the likely outcome of a bombing campaign against him. We slipped up badly in that area. I am sure that committees throughout NATO and the Parliaments of countries involved in the campaign will be quick to seize the opportunity to learn those lessons and take steps to clarify those matters for the future.
I believe the Prime Minister had to play a leadership role because, on this occasion, the White House showed, at best, slow leadership and, at worst, no leadership. Someone had to give the people of Kosovo and the surrounding area some confidence that there would be an effective response. It was clear to many of us that we had delayed intervention to the point where people would suffer needlessly. I am sure that the failure to provide proper leadership was instrumental in prolonging the air war—and many people suffered as a consequence. I hope that we have learned that strong, firm and determined leadership is necessary. We must give confidence to those men and women whose lives are put on the line by the actions of politicians.
As hon. Members have said, we have won the air war in Kosovo. However, I hope that we are prepared for the real job of winning the peace. We were not prepared for an air war of 10 weeks' duration; I do not believe that anyone in the Ministry of Defence or NATO genuinely believed that it would take that long. I hope that winning the peace will not involve short-term solutions. People should not believe that peace will be won quickly. We must learn some real lessons from the situation in Bosnia. Those who have visited Bosnia recently will be aware of the fragility of that nation. The fabric of Bosnian society would collapse quickly if the troops were withdrawn. The only thing holding that country together is the international community's commitment to keeping troops on the ground.
Mr. Dalyell: Having stayed with his national service regiment in Bosnia for three days last year, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the idea of leaving that country without full military capacity is unthinkable? It is one thing to commit troops, but a completely different matter to pull them out. I did not support the commitment of troops to Bosnia in the first place, but for the life of me I do not see how, morally, we can pull out in the foreseeable future—by which I mean in my lifetime.
Mr. Hancock: Sadly, I think the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: I cannot conceive of a situation in which it would be either easy or desirable to pull troops out of Bosnia. That outcome could be considered only if some firm democratic framework were established that would give that country's democratic processes some depth. There is no evidence that that is happening: the three communities in Bosnia are as divided today as they were when the fighting stopped. We have the ability to hold the peace in Bosnia and, unfortunately, we will have to repeat that exercise in Kosovo.
Mr. Robert Key: I am slightly mystified by the hon. Gentleman's comments. How does he explain
830
the fact that the Muslim and Christian communities in Bosnia lived together fairly peacefully for some 300 years until Mr. Milosevic turned up? Does the hon. Gentleman think Mr. Milosevic has had no impact on the situation in the past decade? Did he not start the trouble—and learn the error of his ways only recently?
Mr. Hancock: No one dissents from that point of view, but realistically, nobody else is in a position to finish what Milosevic has started. It will take more than a generation to rebuild and bring the communities together. We are mistaken to believe that the mischief perpetrated is the work of a one-man band. There is no evidence to suggest that Milosevic's removal will not be followed by the arrival of Milosevic mark 2. I would like to see the abundant evidence—some hon. Members seem to think it exists—that points to the conclusion that the removal of Milosevic will bring enlightenment to Serbia and peace to the entire region. I doubt it.
Real pain and suffering will continue to be experienced by the next generation to be born and raised in that region. Sadly, Milosevic's legacy will extend well into the next millennium. The 300 years of peace and harmony to which the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) referred have been torn apart by less than a decade of mischief and evil. We have paid a high price for the tolerance that we—among others—showed to the Milosevic regime over the past 10 years. As a community, we should have taken a firmer hand with Milosevic over Croatia and Slovenia.
We owe a debt of gratitude to those in the region who have stood by us. We must help to rebuild and stabilise the shaky fabric of democracy in Macedonia. If we fail to do so, we may have a real problem on our hands. I do not believe the KLA will be an easy force to reckon with. I share the view expressed by others in this House and elsewhere in Europe that, if there is a real attempt to disarm the KLA, that force will fight United Nations soldiers. That is a real possibility. I do not believe that it will be easy to disarm, with Tornados and Harriers, KLA troops holding Kalashnikovs. The troops on the ground will have to remove those weapons physically.
The KLA soldiers will not go home quietly—I have said that in the House before. I met three different KLA groups on three separate occasions and I am far from convinced that the KLA' s ambitions are aimed at a free and autonomous Kosovo. Many of the KLA soldiers to whom I spoke came not from Kosovo but from Albania and are fighting for a greater Albania—which includes the whole of Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia and part of Montenegro. They will not settle for second best: they are armed and they are on a roll. It will be enormously difficult to contain the aspirations of the KLA.
It will also be difficult to handle the payback issue in Kosovo. We cannot ignore that fact. I do not envy those men and women in the British and United Nations forces whose task it will be to police Kosovo. That is a thankless job that will continue for 10 years or more. Just look at our experiences in Cyprus: 25 years later, United Nations garrisons are still keeping the communities apart.
Mr. Bob Russell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the short-term solution in Bosnia has already become a long-term solution? The overstretch of British

831
troops is such that the European Community needs to devote more resources to supporting operations in Bosnia and in Kosovo.
Mr. Hancock: I agree. This morning, I attended a meeting in Paris of the political committee of the Western European Union at which members from Italy and France suggested that it would take 2 per cent. of the gross domestic product of all the NATO countries to rebuild Kosovo and Serbia and to restore what we have knocked down in Montenegro. Does anyone believe that such expense would be an easy proposition to make to this House, let alone other Parliaments in Europe? It is reckoned that such a commitment will be necessary not only to keep the peace but to rebuild those areas so that people can go back to them. We shall realise the extent of the damage only when our troops have gone in.
We must consider past experience. Sadly, there are refugees who have spent over 40 years in camps in Palestine. Cyprus has been divided for 25 years, and there is still a huge UN commitment to the island. We need to learn lessons from that, and we must try to build communities and bring them together.
That brings me to the role of the WEU and the Council of Europe. If ever there were a missed opportunity for two organisations to take action, it was the situation in Kosovo over the past 12 months. If the Council of Europe and the WEU had been able to work together, perhaps with NATO's support, and had got to grips with some of the issues, we might not have the result that we have today. Certainly, there must be a role for those organisations in the future, and they need to find that role.
We must consider the small-scale experience of the Multinational Advisory Police Element, made up of the police forces of 21 countries, which is currently operating in Albania and is about to be expanded. That police force is making a determined effort, against all the odds, to bring some semblance of order to the Albanian police force. The task is difficult and, some might say, bizarre, considering the sad state of some of the Albanian police force and its practices in the past.
I have a constituent who has a distinguished war record and was highly decorated for his services in Yugoslavia. I refer to Sir Alfred Blake, former Lord Mayor of Portsmouth and a marine commander, who, for a sizeable chunk of the second world war, fought with Tito and his partisans. He explained to me the difficult and complex nature of the region's people—not only the Serbs, but others—the difficult terrain, the problems of trying to get people to work together and the fragile nature of the operation. Why did not, or could not, our military intelligence—I refer not only to the UK, but to NATO—give us better information about targets and the personalities that we had to deal with?
When we consider what is happening to our defence expenditure, we notice that significant changes and slippages are already occurring. Coming from Portsmouth as I do, I have asked a number of questions about the Royal Navy. It is interesting that there has already been a slow but determined effort to retard or cancel scheme after scheme. That is obviously a disappointment. When one considers those schemes individually, one might think that there are good reasons for cancelling them, but when one
832
considers them collectively, one begins to wonder whether a trend is emerging. Developments that were made two years ago are beginning to slip away and some schemes have been dropped altogether. Some schemes for updating ships will be put on hold for such a long time that they will no longer be practical. I hope that the Select Committee on Defence will consider those issues in the near future.
We have an opportunity today to discuss wider defence issues, and there is a significant trend in defence expenditure that leads me to believe that all three arms of our armed forces are experiencing a drop-back in procurement. Despite the best efforts of Ministers and the assurances made in the House by the Secretary of State, the Minister for the Armed Forces and the Under-Secretary, we are not yet doing enough to retain and recruit the service men and women that we desperately need.pa We have a number of continuing commitments. The Secretary of State rightly referred in his speech to some of the on-going roles fulfilled by our service men and women. We should not forget that we still have a significant garrison in the Falklands which requires a considerable sum from our defence budget. I am glad, however, that we now have a more realistic approach to the islands' south American neighbours. I hope that we are learning that greater friendliness and co-operation will, in the long term, lead to a better future for the people in the Falkland Islands and, possibly, faster progress in reducing our defence commitment to the islands.
Gibraltar has, once again, proved that it is a vital part of our defence interests. It has played a role on two or three occasions in the past couple of years. We need to continue to make a strong stand against our colleagues in Spain to ensure that they do not put undue pressure on Gibraltar. We must continue to assure the people of Gibraltar that we support their view.
It is clear that we shall continue to use the bases in Cyprus for a long time to come. The two sovereign bases have served this nation well. They are home to several thousand service men and women and their families, and I cannot believe that there could be a rundown of those bases.
In Germany, we have a slightly different problem. The rundown of our forces there has caused problems in my area of Hampshire because men and their families have been returned and are experiencing pressures. I should like the Government to demonstrate greater commitment to making sure that those families' needs are better met than at present. The Secretary of State mentioned the Royal Navy's continuing role in combating drugs in south America and the Caribbean. He was right to congratulate the captain and crew of HMS Marlborough on their work.
Such roles give rise to a number of issues but, like Kosovo and Bosnia, they provoke questions about overstretch and the resulting problems for various elements of our armed forces. The "Partnership for Peace" is excellent, and we need to build on it. It brings together people who are currently outside the NATO family. There is a greater need for our people to work with them, but the simple fact of co-operating with countries such as the Ukraine means that service men will spend time there working with the people on exercises and planning. That, too, puts pressure on their units, and overstretch causes many problems.

833
The House is somewhat depleted, but I am sure that most hon. Members who are present will want to speak, so I shall try not to delay the House too long. However, I want to address the moral obligations that the Ministry of Defence has on four key issues that have existed for a long time. One has been around for nearly 50 years, and I hope that, when the Under-Secretary replies to the debate, he will at least offer some light at the end of what is a very long tunnel.
The first issue is the way in which we have responded to the problems of our nuclear test veterans. I read with interest recently that the Government will make payments to the Fijian Government so that they can compensate their service men who were involved in those tests. I represent a substantial number of ex-service men who went through those tests. Sadly, their number is being depleted because many have become ill and died. Their claim for justice has still not been answered, and our lack of consideration of that issue is a stain on this country's character.
The second issue, for which many hon. Members have fought long and hard, is the treatment of members of the armed forces and their civilian workers who worked with asbestos. Not a day goes by without an inquest into the death of somebody in Greater Portsmouth being reported in the local newspaper, under headlines such as "Civilian Worker in Her Majesty's Dockyard Dies of Asbestos-Related Illnesses"—illnesses which were contracted mostly when delagging warships in the 1950s and 1960s. Sadly, that issue still has not been addressed. If it was right to give national recognition to miners' claims for illnesses that caused them so much distress, surely it is right to do the same for those in the defence industry.
Thirdly, we must continue pressure on the Government to speed up the resolution of problems concerning the illnesses of Gulf war veterans. Fourthly, the MOD must end, once and for all, the barbaric practice of experimenting on animals, whether by shooting bullets into pigs or putting goats into decompression chambers and increasing the pressure until they die. Most people would think that the MOD could have long done without such practices. I hope that those four points, which are major issues to many people, will be addressed.
I take this opportunity, as I am sure other hon. Members will, to thank the reserve forces for their work. It is still not too late for the MOD to recognise the vital role that they have not only played but will yet have to play in Kosovo for a long time to come. I am sure that there are some—even among the three Ministers—in the MOD who feel a twinge of conscience and are willing to think again on the issue.
Mr. Keith Simpson: No.
Mr. Hancock: The hon. Gentleman, who is wearing some spectacular House of Commons socks, says that he does not think so. I would be a little more generous. Perhaps he needs to pull his socks up.
Mr. Simpson: Is the hon. Gentleman a candidate?
Mr. Hancock: No; my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) and I are the only two who have not signed up for the campaign trail.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): There is still time.
Mr. Hancock: Sadly, for me, that time has long passed.
834
We have armed forces of which the whole nation can be very proud. Their commitment is unquestionable. We should thank them, but more importantly, we should ensure that, in their endeavours, they have not just the full support of this House but leadership in government that convinces them that the Government are on their side. On all occasions when asked, on issues across the world, they have been on our side—the right side.
3.42 pm
Mr. John Healey: I should first apologise to both Front-Bench teams, as election commitments in my constituency may mean that I will be unable to stay for the winding-up speeches.
I cannot avoid paying tribute to the unshakeable determination of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues in their campaign to force Milosevic to back down and to prevent the Serbian capacity committing atrocities in the region. We have grown used to the chilling phrase "ethnic cleansing", but my fear is that it is a euphemism and that, as Serbian troops pull out and ours go in, evidence will emerge to reinforce our sense of rightness in the campaign over recent months.
Nevertheless, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we face a formidable task truly to settle the situation in Kosovo. During business questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said that it may take five years to be certain that the military action has achieved its long-term aim. I fear that that may be true, although it is also surely true that the military technical agreement signed last night is a very welcome and important step towards that long-term aim. The signing of that agreement is a major military and political vindication of the action that the Government and NATO have taken in recent months.
I also pay tribute to the soldiers, aircrews and ground crews who have carried out the campaign—some from my constituency and many others from elsewhere in South Yorkshire—as well as to the armed forces and aid agencies that have dealt with so many traumatised refugees in and around the Balkans. Britain, one must remember, has been one of the largest and most active donors in the effort to improve the provision of humanitarian relief for the refugees. The Government's aim of directing the humanitarian effort, in order that the refugees are helped to stay in the region until they are able to return to their homes, is surely right. As a Government, we have committed more than £40 million to that effort, and more will clearly need to be done.
It is obviously right that, if possible, the refugees should remain in the region before returning home, although I welcomed the recent commitment of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to beef up the United Kingdom's commitment to take refugees who needed to leave the region. I extend a welcome, as many are in Rotherham, to the first refugees from Kosovo who are due to arrive there next week.
It is clearly right that Kosovo has dominated any discussion on, or attention to, military issues in recent months. To that extent, today's debate is a welcome opportunity to reintroduce some of the wider perspectives that the House must consider. In doing so, British forces could truly be said to be a force for good in the world at present. The British armed forces have a proud tradition of promoting peace and stability; Kosovo is just the latest example of it.

835
In Bosnia, our British forces led the way in trying to bring suspected war criminals to justice. In Iraq several years before, Britain, in concert with the United States, led efforts to contain Saddam Hussein. Royal Air Force pilots of course still protect Iraqi Kurds in northern Iraq. The proud tradition extends beyond the previous decade. For more than 40 years during the cold war, British forces were committed to the defence of Europe, and stationed in Europe to undertake that responsibility.
British armed forces have a vital role to play in promoting peace and stability throughout the world, particularly Europe, as they do in peacekeeping and peace-support operations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) pointed out, later this year, Britain is due to sign an agreement with the United Nations to make more of our forces, including all our rapid-reaction troops, available for UN peace-support operations. Should we sign that agreement, we are set to become the first permanent member of the UN Security Council to do so, thereby giving a lead to others.
NATO has obviously played the lead role in Kosovo, but we need to beef up the UN's capacity to play a leading role in future peacekeeping operations, to carry out the so-called Petersberg principles of humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping, peace-making and, of course, crisis management.
It is fair to say that the new Labour Government have put new emphasis on our armed forces' role in conflict-prevention. That was made tangible by designating one of our armed forces' seven key missions as defence diplomacy and conflict prevention—core missions and responsibilities that underpin defence planning now and in future.
The second way in which the Government have put added emphasis on the role of our armed forces in conflict prevention has been in aiming to realise the aspirations of the commitment of EU states to a common foreign and security policy, on which the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) dwelt so long. I remind him that the CFSP originated under the 1992 Maastricht treaty, which was signed by the Government of whom he was a member. That treaty pointed to the eventual framing of a common defence policy, which was given further impetus in 1997 by the Amsterdam treaty, and added impetus more recently in Cologne.
It seems to me that the aim on the European front should be to reinforce the capacity of European states to act together in pursuing foreign policy and security interests. The Secretary of State underlined that in his opening address when he said that he was determined that the European Union should play a full role on the international stage.
The elements that require further development are fairly clear. We need to develop more common policies, more effective decision-making procedures, shared access to military advice, planning and intelligence, and better political control of the strategic direction when we are involved in crisis-management operations. Above all, we need a stronger European defence capability for use within a NATO, a European Union or a UN framework.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, whom I welcome back to his seat, said several times that he was concerned about the military resources likely to be
836
required should a common European approach be developed further. It is a startling fact that the European members of NATO collectively now spend two thirds as much as America on defence, yet can only project a small fraction of America's military capability beyond their borders. European taxpayers are much more likely to get better value from their defence budgets if their Governments and armed forces can work more closely together.
It may be common sense to share resources and strengthen co-operation in that way, but it is certainly not straightforward. Recent experience in the Balkans has proved difficult, and has provided a learning experience for many European states concerning the difficulties of pooling efforts to prepare and deploy peace support operations beyond our borders. Thirty European states contribute to SFOR, and an unknown number will contribute to the KFOR operation in the coming months.
I am under no illusions about the fact that the military involvement of European states will be essential in the Balkans, and will continue to be essential for the foreseeable future. I am also under no illusions about the fact that developing a common foreign and security capacity will be complex and protracted, and will involve dealing with some of the difficulties that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon set out. Surely, however, that is the right way to go.
There is also the broader area of personnel matters associated with the future of our armed forces and their operation and deployment in the United Kingdom and overseas. Clearly, the extent of our overseas commitments is placing considerable strain on our armed forces, as I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister would concede.
In that context, the major recruitment drive that the Government have recently launched across all three services is welcome, as is the emphasis on quality rather than quantity, and the drive to recruit more women and black and other ethnic minority service personnel. As the Secretary of State pointed out, that will lead to an increase of 3,300 personnel in the Army. The extra personnel will be directed to tackling some of the present shortfall in front-line troops.
May I also direct my hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 585, which has now been signed by 96 Members from both sides of the House, about the International Labour Organisation convention on child soldiers. The Government have been involved this month in the ILO discussions on a new convention that will prohibit the employment of children under 18 in most hazardous forms of labour—and clearly, armed conflict is one of the most hazardous forms of labour that one could imagine.
Although recruiting young soldiers for our armed forces is right, I urge the Minister and his colleagues in the Department to consider seriously the case for not deploying service personnel under 18 in battle zones, thereby supporting the new ILO convention.
I also urge my hon. Friend to give extra emphasis to the new learning forces initiative that has recently been introduced, which offers new opportunities for service personnel to gain accredited qualifications while serving. That will achieve two things. It will help to boost recruitment and retention in the armed forces, but equally, it will help to equip personnel who wish to leave the forces to return to civilian life.

837
Members of Parliament, especially those who represent areas such as mine with deep-seated high unemployment, will be familiar with the situation of constituents who, having served in our armed forces for five, eight, 10 or even 12 years, return to their home areas ill equipped to take the opportunities that may exist, and unskilled for the sort of civilian jobs available—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey), but will the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) contain himself?
Mr. Healey: I welcome a further initiative that the Department has introduced recently—the veterans advice unit. That will act as a single point of contact to which ex-service personnel can turn for advice or information on any matter that they wish.
That is an important step, and will provide a service for ex-service personnel across the board. In that context, may I gently urge my hon. Friend to think about the fact that we should show the same respect and recognition to those who served in the Suez canal zone in the 1950s as we do to those who have served in the Balkans in the 1990s?
3.57 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: I shall begin by referring briefly to Kosovo, because, although this is a debate on a wider subject—defence in the world—much reference has been made to Kosovo, and we can use it as a useful starting point from which to draw some wider lessons. The significance of the Kosovo campaign has been that the House has had to consider how to react as a democracy in peacetime to the resurfacing of the sort of barbarism that it had been thought had been finally defeated earlier this century.
The alliances in favour of, and against, taking military action in Kosovo cut across the usual alignments of party politics. Those of us who supported taking military action at an early stage were disappointed that the Government unnecessarily stated, right at the beginning, that there would be no use of ground forces in an opposed environment.
That sent a signal to Milosevic that that was one major threat that he need not fear. It was a mistake by the Government to send that signal, and it was a mistake by my party to endorse it. I know why the signal was sent: it was because we live in an age in which we fight wars in the full glare of media coverage.
We know that, on previous occasions, the military burden has been gigantically greater on this country. Casualties have run into tens of thousands in a given battle, and millions for all participants over the period of a war. Yet that has been accepted because, during those extreme circumstances, draconian methods of censorship, and to a considerable extent self-censorship, apply. We have only to consider the preparations that were made in southern England before the Normandy landings. Areas in the south of the country were closed for access. They were hermetically secured and there was no way in which the normal rights of civilians in towns and villages in southern England were being preserved.
838
That was a strange paradox for a democracy. A democracy hates to adopt the methods of the dictators whom it is trying to defeat. Yet, if it is to defeat those dictators, it will have to adopt at least some of their methods. Sir Karl Popper summed up this problem in what he called "the paradox of tolerance", which holds that we must tolerate all but the intolerant—because, if we tolerate the intolerant, the conditions for tolerance disappear and the tolerant go with them. In other words, to a considerable extent, we have to fight fire with fire.
I was pleased that the Government gradually withdrew from the unwise commitment that had been given at the outset not to use ground forces, if necessary, to defeat Milosevic. Assuming that everything works out to plan, that the campaign has come to an end at this stage and democracy is restored in the area concerned—it may be many years after all that has happened when we have access to the documentation, the archives, the considerations, and the intelligence appreciations on which the conflict was eventually decided—I believe that we shall discover that two elements, in addition to the proper use of air power in context as part of a campaign, proved to be decisive. Those two elements, as I indicated briefly last night in response to the Secretary of State's statement, were the involvement of the Russians and the covert threat that, after all, ground forces would be deployed if Milosevic did not comply.
It is worth considering what the outcome would have been if there had been no way of obtaining Russian acquiescence in forcing the Serbs to back down. The outcome could have been very different. It is important that we do not draw from this episode the false conclusion that, whenever trouble arises, whenever dirty deeds, murders and ethnic cleansing, for example, face the democracies of Europe in future, we need only send a few score bombers to bomb the offender. I think that that will be proven in time not to have been sufficient by itself.
I have been surprised at the readiness with which commentators such as John Keegan, a distinguished military historian, have been prepared to say, "I was wrong. I said that bombing alone would not work and it has worked." Perhaps some people are better historians than they are contemporary analysts. Let us wait until the John Keegans of the future have access to the archives and the materials on which proper history can be written. I think it will be found that the diplomatic triumph of getting the Russians on side and the killer threat of ground forces being deployed—if necessary—against armed opposition, made Milosevic surrender in the end.
I shall move on from Kosovo. As has been said, the consideration of wider defence problems has been stymied to a considerable degree by the natural tendency to focus upon the crisis in the Balkans. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, on a masterly analysis of the risks that face us with the creation of a European common foreign and security policy and defence arrangements that will cut across the defence arrangements which have served us so well in NATO.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who is no longer in her place, took pride in the award of the Charlemagne prize to the Prime Minister at the hands of Lionel Jospin, the French premier, in Aachen in May. I took the liberty of leaving the Chamber for a few moments to retrieve the press cutting that I remembered of that occasion. There was something that

839
I knew I wanted to lay before the House and I could not rely on remembering it accurately enough if I did not make a check. I am glad that I took the trouble to check. I now know what it was that so jarred when I listened to the hon. Lady. It was the inscription on the medal presented to the Prime Minister. It read, "Peace and Merger in Europe". Unfortunately, I fear that that is being lined up for this country.
Imagine what the effect would have been if the United Kingdom had been merged with a united Europe in many of the wars gone by. We would have been forced to abandon the geographical defence advantages that our country, being an island, has conferred upon us. The arrival of a defence set-up in Europe would mean that, if we disagreed with a majority of our fellow European partners on a defence policy to face down aggression or to respond to a threat, we would be overruled. That would have led in the past to a situation where our salvation and the subsequent salvation of occupied states in Europe could never have been achieved.
I was struck by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) earlier in the debate about ballistic missile defence. I have been impressed by the fact that my hon. Friend is never afraid to be something of a lone voice or something of a prophet. Some would even say that he is a something a Cassandra. I remember previously listening to him stressing to the House time and again the dangers of the millennium bug. At one stage, he was a voice in the wilderness. However, everyone believes in the millennium bug now. My hon. Friend has moved on and has turned his attention to possible future problems arising from our lack of ballistic missile defence, and the danger that guided missiles could be used to wreak destruction with no protection for this country. Perhaps it could be speculated that the advent of the millennium bug will save this country from the use of ballistic missiles against it. Perhaps after the year 2000, they will not function properly. However, I should not like to gamble with our future security purely on that basis.
Mr. David Atkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. Is he aware of the report in The Daily Telegraph recently which quoted an American defence official who warned that if Saddam Hussein wanted to send a missile to Europe, 1 January—the next new year—would be the day to do so?
Dr. Lewis: No, I was not aware of that report, but the example of Saddam Hussein is apposite. The point about ballistic missile defence is that it can be applied in three very different contexts.
The first context is that to which my hon. Friend alluded when he referred to the V1 and the V2. The V1, as he rightly pointed out, was the first cruise missile, and the V2 was the first ballistic missile. This country had no physical means of defence against the V2. Although it was possible to create counter-measures against the flying bomb—the V1—it was impossible to do anything against the V2, other than to use deception measures to convince the Germans that they were overshooting the targets when they were falling short, and thus to persuade them to shorten the range still further.
If one can develop a defence against conventionally armed missiles, one will proportionately reduce the weight of the attack. What that means in ordinary
840
language is that, if one can knock down 70 or 80 per cent. of those incoming missiles, one will reduce the damage to one's country by 70 or 80 per cent. However, the situation gets more complicated in the era of weapons of mass destruction, whether nuclear or biological. Under those circumstances it is not good enough to knock down 70 or 80 per cent., because if 20 or 30 per cent. get through, the devastation will be equivalent to total annihilation.
There is therefore another circumstance in which ballistic missile defence is valuable, and a third circumstance in which it is of no value whatever. Ballistic missile defence in the mass destruction era is valuable if the aggressor has at his disposal only a small number of nuclear or biological weapons. Because he does not have anything like an overkill capability, it is worth being able to counter as many of the incoming missiles as possible, as there is a chance of knocking out of the equation all those that would otherwise get through, or at least making a significant difference to the level of damage that the country would suffer.
However, against a super-power equipped with hundreds or even thousands of weapons of mass destruction, it is living in a fool's paradise to believe that ballistic missile defence can save one's country from destruction. In a way, that is a good thing. I have always been a believer in nuclear deterrence. I have always supported our national policy of minimum nuclear deterrence.
That policy depends on the very fact that, once one has the ability to retaliate against an aggressor by replying with 50 or 100 nuclear warheads that will reliably reach their targets, it does not matter whether the aggressor has many thousands of nuclear warheads with which to threaten his victim. Precisely because a relatively small proportion of nuclear warheads getting through in retaliation is all that is required to inflict unacceptable damage on an aggressor, his overkill capability is worthless, meaningless and of no value except perhaps political—certainly, of no strategic significance.
The Secretary of State said that people should not forget the Government before this. Nor, in my view, should people forget the Opposition before this. Who would have dreamed 10 years ago that we would find ourselves with a Labour Government who had, rightly and apparently successfully, stood up to military aggression on a point of principle, as I said in the Kosovo debate the other week, because we were not prepared to see innocent people being murdered and brutalised? Who would have thought that a Government of the Labour persuasion would supervise a successful military campaign that inevitably involved inflicting considerable devastation on a civilian environment?
It is astonishing to see the way in which the workings of the democratic system in this country have paid off. Those of us who fought to persuade the unilateral nuclear disarmers on the then Labour Benches that they were mistaken may have had an intellectual input into the debate, but the people who really deserve the credit for the fact that we now have a Government who are prepared, under the right circumstances, to use military action properly are the electorate of Great Britain who, in 1983 and again in 1987, showed the Labour party that it would not get re-elected unless it dropped the policy of one-sided nuclear disarmament.

841
I welcome the fact that Labour dropped that policy. It pretended to drop it in 1989, using various formulae such as "We will give up one of ours if the Russians will give up one of theirs." That was rather like someone who lives in a bungalow and his neighbour who lives in a skyscraper each offering to give up one floor. However, between 1989 and July 1991, when the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) wrote an article in The Guardian—where else?—finally admitting that Labour would keep nuclear weapons as long as other countries had them, the Labour party slowly crept back to a responsible position on defence.
As someone who believes more strongly in the defence of this country than in the victory of any particular political party at a general election, I welcomed that, even though I know that it would make my job as a Conservative political organiser much harder in terms of fighting the Labour party in the future. I am glad that Labour did what it did, and 1 think that now most members of the Labour party are also glad that they did what they did.
One or two Labour Members are not so pleased. Among those I include the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), who is not in his place at present. He has consistently supported the unilateral nuclear disarmament line. Because I disagree with him on that, it does not follow that I must disagree with him on every point in his analysis. He was right, for example, when he said that, in terms of deterrence, it is a mistake to say that uncertainty is equivalent to stability.
Over the past 20 years, I have heard that argument advanced by many people who believe in NATO and in nuclear deterrence. They say that the key to deterrence is uncertainty. Well, only up to a point: uncertainty whether one will use force is obviously better for purposes of deterrence than certainty that one will not use force. But the certainty of retaliation with force if necessary is the best deterrent of all.
That was why, to return to the point with which I began, it was a terrible mistake, even if we did not intend to use ground forces in Kosovo, to say that—because we replaced what limited value uncertainty as to whether we would might have had, in our bargaining position with Milosovic, with certainty on his part that we would not do so. As I predicted before, and as time will bear out, it will eventually be discovered that Milosovic gave in when he no longer held to the certainty that we would not use ground forces if he did not comply.
I have some examples from history. During the second world war, we used two different methods of mass destruction on German and Japanese cities. Terrible fire storms were caused by the 1,000-bomber raids and terrible destruction and annihilation were caused by the dropping of the atomic bombs on two Japanese cities. Strangely enough, more people were killed—at least initially—in the fire raid on Tokyo in 1945 than in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. So why did the individual bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki bring about surrender whereas the fire storm on Tokyo did not?
The answer comes back to the word "uncertainty". When the bombers took off for a fire raid, be it on Tokyo, Nuremberg or Hamburg, no one could know in advance with certainty how that would work out. The outcome could have been, as it was in the case of Tokyo, Cologne and Hamburg, absolute devastation. On the other hand,
842
the outcome could have been, as it was in the case of the infamous Nuremberg raid, that the bomber stream would be intercepted, that the fleet of aircraft would be massacred and that the city would hardly be touched at all. Precisely because the target country did not know in advance that it was certain to incur the devastation and destruction that did occur, it was prepared to take the risk of incurring it. But as soon as the Japanese saw that there was no uncertainty, that the dropping of single bombs meant the certain destruction of their homeland city by city, they had no alternative but to surrender. Therefore, the maintenance of deterrence depends on the certainty of one's opponent that he cannot possibly escape the military consequences of defiance and attack.
I am sorry to have dwelt in some detail on that point, but it is essential that a myth is not created by what seems to have been the successful result of the Kosovo campaign—that one can rely on unsupported conventional air power to bring about compliance. One day, we may get into a situation where other decisive factors—the possible use of ground forces and Russia's diplomatic support—may not be available. Then we would discover our mistake too late.
I was surprised at the references made by the hon. Member for Edgbaston to the maintenance of peace, and the achievement, of which she is rightly proud, of being returned to the House—as someone born in Munich—for a British constituency, but I found it difficult to follow the mental processes that led her to conclude that that was something to do with the European Union or any of its predecessor institutions. I am not aware of any military threat to our democratic systems between the end of the war and the creation of those institutions, which was done away with by the creation and the activities of those institutions.
The reason why the hon. Lady was successful—I congratulate her on being elected democratically to represent Neville Chamberlain's old seat—was because Britain, America and Russia won the war. Having done so, they imposed on Germany a system of democracy and helped to resettle western Europe with a system of free independent democratic states. As I have said before, and shall no doubt say again, the lesson of history is that wars seldom, if ever, break out between two democratic states. They break out between combinations of democracies and dictatorships, and dictatorships and dictatorships, but seldom, if ever, soley between democratic states.
As a result of the creation of a system of free independent democratic states in Europe, together with the military alliance of NATO with which they can be involved if they wish, or from which they can distance themselves or withdraw if they wish, the system that has secured the peace for half a century can be preserved. Only now that it has been put to the test, at the end of the century, can we see that it has been capable of dealing with a re-emergence of something that should never have been allowed to get this far.
Therefore, to put at risk the system that has preserved the peace, by messing around, monkeying around and fiddling around for the sake of some basket of trade-offs, as my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State said—because the Prime Minister wishes to remain at the heart of European affairs, and he knows that he dare not try to take Britain into the single currency at this point—is folly in the highest degree.

843
I understand that, today, we are not discussing in detail the question of the release of the identity of the soldiers being investigated in relation to Bloody Sunday and I shall be careful what I say. I refer to it only in one connection, although it is a connection that may prove fatal to them. Whatever the court decides, there is a risk that the damage has already irrevocably been done. If their names and addresses have been released quite independently of the court's decision, and if they go on to the internet, there will be no prospect of preventing them from being copied, recopied, published and advertised to those in terrorist organisations who would wish to do the soldiers harm whether they be guilty or innocent.
The internet is not always dangerous. It can sometimes have a use which is more poignant and constructive. I close my remarks by referring to a site which I found recently—the site of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. There, it is possible, by keying in the name of anyone killed in the first or the second world war, to find out the place and date of death and such other details as were available at the time. I was moved the other day to do that in connection with the father of a close friend of mine, Mr. Ray Brooks of Totton in my constituency. He expressed an interest in learning what details had been retained. Sure enough, up came the information, and the certificate in memory of Stoker 1st Class Bert Brooks of HMS Cape Howe, Royal Navy, which I have here, was duly printed off. The ship went down fighting on 21 June 1940, and he was aged only 33.
We owe peace in Europe and the triumph of democracy to the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of people such as Bert Brooks. It would be a terrible disgrace to their memory if we wilfully destroyed what has been built up so successfully, and what has been tried and tested so recently, by undertaking unwise experiments to modify and replace institutions that have proved their value beyond all question.
4.31 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I take the view that there should be some time sharing among us when colleagues have been waiting all day to speak, so I hope to be succinct and shall put my speech in the form of questions.
The first question arises out of the speech of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). I listened extremely carefully to what he said about air power, and this question is perhaps less to him than to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. Is it true that air power was decisive? As I understand it, the attacks round Mount Pastic by the KLA guerrillas early last week threatened to split the Yugoslav forces by capturing the road linking Prizren and Pec. At that point, they had to come out from bunkers and from their positions to deal with what were, in effect, land forces.
The KLA fighters were land forces at the time and, in those circumstances, the Yugoslays took serious casualties—they had to deploy large units and therefore became relatively easy targets, for the American Warthogs in particular. If that is considered accurate by the Ministry of Defence, does it not suggest that land forces were indeed decisive in persuading the leadership in Belgrade to act as it did?
844
Secondly, I was asked—in rather strident terms at business questions and far more courteously by the Secretary of State for Defence—to apologise. There will perhaps be an apology from me, but it will not come until five years have elapsed. I think that Pandora's box has been opened and the horrors that have been unleashed by the bombing are almost unimaginable.
I say that partly out of experience of Bosnia. As one of those who never wanted us to go into Bosnia in the first place, I have to agree with the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock): how on earth and—this question has to be asked at an early stage—in what circumstances will we ever get out of Kosovo? I do not think that we will do so in my lifetime and I rather doubt whether we will do so in the lifetime of the youngest among us.
My third question is, how exactly do the Government think that the Russians fit into this picture? What is to be the Russian chain of command? Is it not true that the war ended earlier than it would have done because of remarkable Russian good will? That is ironic, because the Russians were sidelined by the United States and the United Kingdom for at least a fortnight at the beginning of the conflict. When we found that immediate bombing did not work, we realised that we needed the Russians.
I shall quote briefly my friend Paul Wilkinson, who is a professor at St. Andrews university. He says:
"A major lesson is that Russia, for all its domestic problems, is still a key player. It is foolish and dangerous to world peace to try to exclude Russia from the top table of international decision making. The same is true of China".
I have a particular question about the Russians, which has been eloquently put in a letter from a man I do not know, Albert McFall, to The Independent. He says:
"If a Nato and Russian peace-keeping force does eventually enter Kosovo, there could be problems in the future.
If as seems very likely the Serb government breaks agreements and resumes ethnic cleansing, Nato would presumably withdraw its peace-keeping troops. The air attacks would start again and Nato would then be bombing Serb and Russian troops who would remain. Would Nato also attack Russian lines of communication such as ships and transport aeroplanes?"
That question needs at least a comment.
The military advisers to Mr. Chernomyrdin, as I understand it, were insistent that there should be an autonomous Russian chain of command and it is reported that there was some conflict between him and his military staff officers. He had to say rather sharply that he alone had President Yeltsin's authority to negotiate, but those people are still there in Moscow and we should take notice of that. What is the Government's understanding in respect of the treatment of Russian troops who may be in Kosovo for a long time?
My fourth question refers to the Kosovars. They think that they are to go back to Kosovo and will get independence, although they also think that we may have gone back on that. Have we inherited another Balkan protectorate? The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South raised very powerfully the question of the KLA, which is now a tough little guerrilla army. Those partisans are unlikely to welcome the transition from beneficiaries of NATO close air support to disarmed wards of NATO peacekeepers now serving as the outriders of Serb sovereignty, if it be the case that Serb sovereignty is to remain.

845
I think that disarming the KLA is an horrendous prospect, partly because I am sufficiently old to remember my contemporaries going to Malaya when I was in the Rhine Army. One of the problems in Malaya was that we could not tell the difference between a civilian and a guerrilla. It would be the easiest thing in the world for the KLA fighters to melt away, pretend to be civilians and then—unless there is a rigorous chain of command, which I gather does not exist in such a form—simply reappear.
It is difficult to be sanguine, and how on earth will we make sure that the KLA surrenders arms? I am afraid that my question of Tuesday to the Prime Minister remains: is there any evidence that the KLA will be any more willing to give up its arms than the IRA? If NATO troops enter Kosovo, the peacekeepers may find themselves having to protect Serb civilians from the KLA. It is undoubtedly true that Agin Ceku—who, incidentally, is a Croat—and Hashem Thaqi, who is one of the political leaders, are among a whole group who are absolutely determined on revenge. It seems that we will be in Kosovo for a very long time.
On 8 June, in The Independent, Timothy Garton Ash wrote:
"So you thought it was all over? Don't fool yourself, please. There are several nightmares still ahead. Even if the Yugoslavian military finally accepts withdrawal terms, they—and especially the paramilitaries—can make a last round of bloody mayhem on the way out. On their heels will follow the KLA, a rag-tag army of furious young men, who have seen comrades killed, sisters raped, families deported.

I and the public know

What all schoolchildren learn.

Those to whom evil is done

Do evil in return.

Auden was right; and these Albanians will do evil in return."
They are determined to do so. How will we prevent them? It will be a mightily difficult job.
Yesterday I asked about war crimes, which, I understand, are not mentioned in the peace proposals. I also understand that the Russian Parliament is unwilling to accept a draft resolution calling on all concerned to help in the investigation of atrocities.
Fifthly, the Prime Minister urges the Serb people to overthrow their ruler, and says that there will be no money while he remains. Some of us think it more likely that, if left to themselves, the Serb people will deal with President Milosevic. If we try to insist, even at this stage, that they chose a ruler on our terms, is it not more probable that President Milosevic's power and grip will be strengthened? As the policy towards President Milosevic and war crimes was left out of the formal document, I now ask what it is.
Sixthly, may we have some facts about the massacres? The Albanians have repeatedly said that all these people have been massacred. The fact is that, although they are in a terrible state, many seem to have emerged. In war, all sorts of things are exaggerated, and one does not know what to believe. Undoubtedly appalling atrocities have taken place, but it would be helpful to know the scale of those atrocities, and in particular to know about rape. Serbs have vehemently denied that rape has taken place on a large scale. No doubt it has happened from time to time, but they deny it, and I think that it is now up to us to produce evidence relating to what is, after all, an emotive subject—and rightly so.
846
Seventhly, may we have some information about the attitude to depleted uranium? A survey should be carried out as quickly as possible, especially in respect of those removing tanks that have been hit by armour-piercing shells. I may be in a slightly different position from Ministers in this regard, but in Iraq I saw the results of depleted uranium—used in the Gulf war by, I think, the Americans rather than us. There is every evidence that these appallingly emaciated infants are victims of that kind of shelling, and we really do need to conduct a survey as soon as possible.
When I asked about that last night, the Secretary of State for Defence replied:
"On the environmental impact, certain aspects of Yugoslav life will be affected by the bombing."—[Official Report, 9 June 1999; Vol. 332, c. 749.]
That is certainly true, but the scale of the environmental catastrophe affects all of Europe: environmental catastrophe knows no boundaries.
My eighth question is this. What is the assessment of the number of soldiers who will return in the next few months to find that they have no jobs, because their factories have been knocked out? It is a classic problem: a returning army finds that there is unemployment, and inability to work. Therein lies huge mischief.
Ninthly, I want to ask about the clearing of cluster bombs and other armaments. Kosovo is littered with unexploded cluster bombs—dropped by us, I understand. They are not very different from land mines. The Ministry of Defence can take great credit from the land mines treaty, but, although the seriousness of that problem has been recognised, we have not been told who will clear up the cluster bombs.
General Sir Michael Rose has said:
"As the peacekeepers prepare for the formidable tasks ahead of them, they will be reflecting that, in the Balkans, nothing unravels so rapidly as a peace plan where the details have not been clearly defined and agreed by all sides."
My final point is this. What will be done about conflict prevention? In particular, what will be done about the Carnegie report, which has been with the MOD for two years, and about the crisis management unit proposed by the Finns?
I promised to share the allotted time, and I will stick to that promise.
4.47 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: The Chamber has shown itself to be fully representative today—representative, perhaps, of the apathy in the country in regard to the European elections, and the lack of attention that we politicians sadly display in regard to defence matters—even on the day after the signing of the historic agreement between the commanders of the Yugoslav armed forces and NATO on the withdrawal of Serb forces from Kosovo.
Before I say anything else, I must pay tribute to the courage and dedication of our forces in the Balkans, and in particular to the crews of the Royal Air Force, both in the air and on the ground. Air power has shown itself to be the crucial determinant of events in this conflict—as, indeed, it did in Operation Desert Fox, in the Gulf war and in the earlier Falklands war. Although air power has had its detractors during this conflict, we must remember

847
that it is highly unlikely that the Serb negotiators would ultimately have signed without its decisive and devastatingly accurate effects on their compatriots.
The European Union's common foreign and security policy will prove to be no effective substitute for the integrated command structure of NATO and the existence of assigned formations to NATO on the part of its member states. The policy, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) so eloquently criticised, is much more. It is—I quote from paragraph 5 of annexe 3 of the Cologne summit communiqué:
"a new step in the construction of the EU".
It is much more the construction of a new political step than the creation of a more effective military defence for our country, western Europe and our alliance as a whole.
Indeed, there is a risk that the European Union's common security and defence identity, which will subsume the role of the WEU by the end of next year, will not, in practice, offer the assurance of complete mutual defence commitment that is enshrined in the Brussels treaty, notwithstanding assurances to the contrary in the communiqué. I believe this to be the case because of the participation in the common foreign and security policy of neutral states such as Eire, Sweden, Austria and Finland, which, in their various ways, have stood aside during the great challenges of the cold war and have not participated in a number of the operations in which our alliance has been engaged in the Gulf and elsewhere. Indeed, there is a risk that token obeisance to
"consideration of ways to ensure the possibility for WEU associate partners to be involved"—
in the phraseology of paragraph 5 of the EU Cologne summit presidency communiqué—will replace the possibility, which should become a reality, of applicant countries such as the Baltic states becoming full members of the NATO alliance.
We should remember that, in London not so long ago—in fact, only a few weeks ago—Foreign Secretary Ilves of Estonia emphasised the crucial benefit to his country and to his two Baltic neighbours of full participation in the Washington treaty's mutual defence obligations for the Baltic states. The Baltic states are democratic. They have the rule of law. In every way, they are as much entitled to be full members of NATO as to be full members of the European Union. The EU's common foreign and security policy provisions are no substitute for the genuine security guarantees that NATO membership could offer to the Baltic states.
The risk is heightened by the demarche—the initiative—towards good relations with Russia, which I fully understand, in the Cologne summit communiqué. Friendly relations with Russia are, of course, fundamental to peace and security in our continent, but we must never allow Russia to dictate the membership of NATO, or to preclude the enlargement of NATO through the accession of democratic nations such as the Baltic states or, for that matter, Romania and Bulgaria, which, by virtue of the rule and law and democracy, are fully entitled to that membership.
848
I must criticise, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon—I quote from the annexe to the communiqué—
"the need to undertake sustained efforts to strengthen the industrial and technological base, which we want to be competitive and dynamic".
The objective of the Cologne meeting was laudable in this respect. Everyone wants better value for money for the defence forces. Everyone wants to ensure that defence procurement is, in the jargon, smart and efficient and presents the best equipment for our armed forces at a price which we can afford, but the means that the European Union has chosen will militate directly against such competitiveness and dynamism. The European armaments agency of the leading EU nations will inevitably accord priority to procurement from EU member states and institutionalise European protectionism against the most cost-effective defence equipment in the world, which is usually American.
The common foreign and security policy summit declaration contains no mention of heightened transatlantic co-operation in weapons procurement. That flies in the face of the commercial benefits derived by British Aerospace, Rolls-Royce, GKN and many other leading British defence equipment companies from their participation in the north American market.
Paragraph 5 of annexe III of the Cologne summit communiqué speculated that
"by the end of the year 2000 … the WEU as an organisation would have completed its purpose."
The end of the Assembly of the WEU would be a great loss, as a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on ballistic missile defence, clearly demonstrated. He has been a rapporteur of his committee on that subject and has contributed a great deal to the work of the WEU and the Council of Europe.
Defence budgets are introduced by national Governments and passed by national Parliaments, so it is fitting that the European parliamentary deliberative body on defence issues should be the Assembly of the WEU, whose delegations comprise Members of national Parliaments, not the European Parliament. The latter's Members have no place in their national Parliaments, little democratic endorsement from their electorate if today's turnout is replicated elsewhere in the European Union, and no direct effect on national defence budgets or defence policy debates.
The intended takeover of the WEU by the European Union is clear from the common foreign and security policy assumptions about the EU taking responsibility for the strategic studies centre and the satellite reconnaissance facility, both of which are WEU institutions.
There is a risk that the creation of a European common foreign and security policy supremo in the person of Mr. Solana, the former socialist Foreign Minister of Spain, will compare unfavourably with the traditional efficient partnership of a European Secretary-General and a United States Supreme Allied Commander Europe for NATO.
Would Britain's intervention in the Falkland Islands war have been facilitated had there been a Spanish EU common foreign and security policy supremo in post? I doubt it. The British victory owed almost everything to United States support, while European backing was singularly absent.

849
The greatest risk in the European Union's obtaining a defence role in its own right is that it will acquire an instrument for the potential physical coercion of recalcitrant member states—an armed capability against possible secessionist nations.
That may seem alarmist today but, since the European Union asserts the primacy of EU law over that of its member states, is developing its own corpus juris and offers no mechanism for withdrawal from the treaties—the unanimity that such a procedure would require is ruled out in practical terms by the British Prime Minister and others—the alarmism which I display on the issue today could prove to be the realism of tomorrow.
4.59 pm
Mr. Tony McNulty: Sadly, I must begin as a number of other hon. Members have done by apologising to your good self, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to both Front-Bench spokesmen, as I doubt whether I will be in my place for the replies. I should add my apologies to those who are waiting for me where I am going, as I will get there rather later than anticipated, but that is by the by. For reasons that I will discuss, I thought it important to be involved in this debate.
As an aside, I have also been asked to mention that hon. Members who have a right and proper concern about nuclear proliferation and defence in the world could do no better than attend tomorrow's debates on private Members' Bills. Hopefully—it is a great hope—the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), will be No. 4 on the Order Paper. I come to the Friday sittings. That Bill seeks to ratify a protocol that would make inspections of countries with nuclear capabilities easier to carry out than is the case now.
Mr. Simon Burns: The Bill is No. 5 on the Order Paper.
Mr. McNulty: The hon. Gentleman tells me that the Bill is No. 5, so support in spirit, if not in physical presence, will be welcome tomorrow when we shall also be discussing football hooliganism, on which I shall not dwell now.
It was a little churlish of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), who is not in his place now, to have a little dig about the Adjournment debate on a subject as important as defence being held on European election day, but it is easily done. Imagine my joy on leaving the Chamber, knowing that the last time there were European elections the recess happened to spill over into them, to look up what I thought was the equivalent date in 1989—8 June—and seeing that the Conservative Government had tabled a debate on the Army for that day. I thought that that was a nice little reproach to the hon. Gentleman, until I discovered that the European elections in 1989 were a week later, so my point is not well made. Equally, those who cherish the arts and our heritage may throw up the same remark about what the last Government did in 1989 because arts and our heritage were the subject of the Adjournment debate on 15 June. So, head counts, asking where everybody is, the various little digs that we make and the games that we play in this place are inappropriate, certainly from those on the Front Benches.
In both 1992 and 1997, I was perhaps not as aware as I should have been of how significant defence was and is to my constituency. I have the great pleasure—at times a
850
dubious one; I shall come on to that towards the end of my comments—of having Raytheon, Racal and Marconi in my constituency, as well as RAF Stanmore Park, although sadly no more, RAF Bentley Priory, which has consolidated the work of RAF Stanmore Park and is significant in terms of the RAF, and a Territorial Army unit. Given that background, defence must be of significance and interest for me. That does not mean that I must speak up in favour of everything in connection with Raytheon, Racal or Marconi. Occasionally, this presents me with dilemmas, but I shall come on to that.
I am mindful of the fact that others wish to speak, so I shall dwell on three matters and keep my comments fairly brief: the United Nations; Kosovo, which cannot be ignored; and, given what I have just said about companies in my constituency, procurement—smart or otherwise.
Last year, the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) and I, together with others, shared a trip to New York essentially to visit the United Nations. It showed me my profound ignorance of the real internal machinations of the whole range of institutions that make up the United Nations and how they engage with each other. We were there a week or so before the first abortive sorties over Iraq. The planes were literally pulled back at the last moment.
My most lasting impression is of the discussions with both the Security Council personnel and its admin staff, and the peacekeeping staff. They were saying emphatically that, given the collapse of the cold war, the United Nations must reassess and refocus its activities. Those elements have been brought sharply into focus by Kosovo. Back in October or November last year, they were saying that political and military regional bodies had to do much, much more. That means NATO, the Western European Union or the European Union, and equivalents such as the Organisation of American States and the Organisation of African Unity.
Post cold war, as we move into the new millennium, we find that regional conflicts invariably start with—and are sometimes contained within—internal conflicts within a nation. That forces us to reconsider our view of international relations. Even in some democratic areas—certainly in some tyrannies—civil wars, ethnic conflicts or other internecine strife predominate. We have moved away from bloc against bloc or nation against nation. Regional conflicts and power struggles, perhaps carried out by proxy in an internal conflict, as in the Democratic Republic of Congo, are challenges that the military and political architecture of regional and world military relations are not grasping. That is why the United Nations, and in particular the veto power of the five permanent Security Council members, was found wanting.
I want to consider some of the remarks of those who opposed the conflict in Kosovo, because many of them did not make sense. I preface my remarks on the Kosovo conflict and settlement by noting that it is essential that we learn real lessons from the conflict of the past 75 days. Ultimately, I would welcome an apology from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but he is right to say that we will not see the consequences of the fallout of the conflict for at least five years.
If we learn only the lessons of the past 75 days, we will have failed. We had to go through the Kosovo conflict because we did not learn the lessons of the previous 10 years in the Balkans in Bosnia. I am not making a

851
party political point and knocking the previous Government, but we did not understand fully what the wrenching away of the autonomy of Kosovo meant. Going back further, we did not understand what the death of Tito meant to the holding together of Yugoslavia. We must consider the reverse domino effect of Slovenian independence, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Krajina, Vojvodina—throw it all in. If we do not understand the complexities and what really went on in that period, but concentrate only on the past 75 days, we will not learn the real lessons of south-eastern Europe and the Balkans. That would be cause for regret.
If we do not analyse properly the sometimes abject failures of Europe and America in dealing with what happened in the Balkans over the past 10 years, we will plant the seeds of further failures. I do not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow perhaps would, include what we have achieved in Kosovo as a failure, because it was very necessary. If we do not analyse the past 10 years properly, no amount of Balkans Marshall aid for Serbia post Milosevic will enable us to bring peace, stability and harmony not only to Kosovo but to the entire Balkan region.
The role played by this House over the past 75 days and before was often strange and perplexing. I freely admit that all Front Benchers acted with discretion and responsibility, but there is a fine line between enjoying the fruits of democracy and maintaining responsibility. I do not think that a significant party leader who, half way through a military action, calls the whole thing unpardonable folly is grown up or responsible. That was shaming, and it should be said loud and clear. That individual should not forget it.
I do not think that it is grown up, responsible or appropriate in the middle of a military action for someone from a military background who is now a Member of Parliament—I am deliberately not naming individuals because it would not be that helpful and many of them are not here; we will have plenty of time to name them later—to call for the head of the commander of the armed forces. "Guthrie must go" is not that useful or appropriate a thing to say half way through a war.
If I am honest, there has perhaps been more intolerance and unworthiness on the Government Benches in disagreements on Kosovo before and after the conflict. I absolutely exclude my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow from that.
Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically unreasonable, if I might put it that way as a compliment. In the absence of the person who said, "Guthrie must go"—I did not necessarily agree with my hon. Friend—the hon. Gentleman should note that those of us who have at any stage, as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has, served in the armed forces, tend to be cautious before we say, "Let us get in there, boys." I do not state this expecting any praise, but it is part of being in the armed forces that one's life is possibly at risk and the lives of the soldiers under one are at risk. We know what happens when people are killed, and we care about that. The hon. Gentleman has been
852
reasonable, but he should realise that most people of military background do not want to see war for that very reason.
Mr. McNulty: I am grateful for that intervention, and broadly I accept it, but it does not exonerate the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), who said half way through a military action that the commander-in-chief should go. If people have legitimate doubts in a democracy, they can express them, but in their role as politicians rather than in the military, they must accept that with their democratic freedoms come real responsibilities.
Yesterday was the fifth anniversary, or perhaps the 10th—it may be even longer; I cannot remember—of the introduction of broadcasting of the Chamber on television. [Interruption.] Radio broadcasting was probably 10 or 15 years ago. It is a train-spotting thing that I read birthday columns and anniversary dates, but I do not remember.
The rights and responsibilities of politicians in a democracy are writ large. We have heard of the strength of the internet. The strength of mass broadcasting is phenomenal. We all know that a word out of place here goes straight down to Belgrade state television. People should make their comments within that context with some tolerance of other opinions and some caution. I contend that no one in the Chamber is a warmonger. No one wanted to run gung-ho to bomb Serbia or its people to hell and back. No one glories in military action.
I defer to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan); I have no military service. I had throughout my life no intention of going into the military in any capacity. That is not to deprecate people who do; we owe a hell of a lot to them. It has been glib in the past 75 days for people to say on their behalf what should and should not happen. I deprecate that, but equally I deprecate those who oppose military action, saying, "There is any number of gung-ho armchair generals here", or, "There are plenty of Biggles here. They do not need me." It was suggested that, if one were in favour of the military action, one could not care less about the lives of the individuals on the front line or their families back at home, and that we regarded it all as some elaborate computer game. I do not take that position. I merely say that those who opposed, and will continue to oppose, what we tried to do through international action in Kosovo should speak with responsibility in a democracy.
It is not right for people to say, as was said at the start of the action, that it was a profound political mistake to suppose that Milosevic was not supported by the mass of patriotic Serbian people, who form one of the great fighting nations of Europe. When we read those words now, 75 days on, half of them sound like a party political broadcast for Milosevic' s socialist nationalist party—or whatever it is called. Such words were spoken by grown-up, serious politicians. The words that I noted were spoken by someone who has served for decades in this Chamber. One has to believe that, for some Members on both sides of the House, partisan preferences prevailed rather than the good of our military, the interests of our country and the success of the action. That is reprehensible.
The words that I quoted were spoken by a Conservative Member, but all hon. Members will be aware that I could find equivalent words spoken by Labour Members, which

853
I should condemn equally. However, when one condemns such words or seeks to engage with them, intolerance creeps in. During the first Adjournment debate on the conflict, I said to one of my right hon. Friends, "What you are saying is all very interesting, but it is not going to do anything for the people of Kosovo. If not this route, what is your alternative?" The best that he could say—and, being practically the Father of the House, he had one up on me—was that perhaps I did not get into the Chamber that often.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman has to say. If he wants to personalise his contributions in the way that he has done, he ought to satisfy the House that he has notified all the right hon. and hon. Members to whom he refers before making those remarks.
Mr. McNulty: I fully accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I began my speech I said that I was deliberately not going to make such remarks and then I strayed. I shall not do so in future.
Last night, when one of my hon. Friends made some points in relation to the statement on Kosovo—the happy statement that we are at the beginning of a resolution, at least of the military aspects of the situation, although I accept that there is much to do on the peacekeeping and political side—another of my hon. Friends described him as "tired and emotional". As we all know, that is the Private Eye code for being less than sober. I do not think that that was appropriate.
My key point is that, in peacetime or during military action, when the House discusses—as is right and proper—defence or military issues, we should be aware that we have a cherished, democratic Chamber, and that brings responsibilities. During the debates on Kosovo, I think that those responsibilities have been abused, and systematically abused, by some hon. Members, although happily by only a few. None the less, that is to be deprecated.
Also to be deprecated is the scant regard for any intellectual depth or rigour in the analysis pursued by some hon. Members. From some Members on the Labour Benches, we hear what might be best described as Mickey Mouse Trot analysis, in which the reality was not how to stop such a brutal tyrant, end ethnic cleansing and stop this madness in Europe at the tail end of the 20th century. Instead, we heard of some elaborate plot—no doubt, an imperialist one—by NATO, in support of economic interests. Stripped bare, that had nothing to do with the military integrity of south-east Europe or Europe, or with British defence and military interests therein; it was all some woeful American ploy to colonise south-east Europe, along with the rest of Europe on an imperialist basis. In the middle of a military action, the House and the people of this country deserved far more than that sort of Mickey Mouse analysis.
We also deserved far more from those Conservative Members—none of whom are in the Chamber at present, I am happy to say—who, half way through the process, did not merely make passing comments about the way in which we should carry out the action, but gave real succour and support to those who opposed us and who might have been firing at our troops, if we were not at the stage that we reached last night. Those Members gave our
854
opponents succour by totally undermining the way that we were going. If they were here, I would happily name them. I think that my analysis will stand.
We need to return to such issues to ensure that all Members of the House conduct themselves properly at all times, but especially at times of military action. Given that our proceedings are recorded and broadcast, it is not appropriate for hon. Members simply to dismiss those with opposing views. I was not elected to bomb other nations or to impose sanctions on them—I am not a warmonger, nor is any Minister. It is outrageous that any hon. Member on either side of the House should show such scant regard for their responsibilities in a democracy as to suggest that anyone who supports action such as that taken in Kosovo is some sort of Biggles or warmonger.
It is crass to believe that, had we followed the suggestions of those who criticised and carped from the sidelines but who offered no alternatives for action—they proposed that we should do nothing while atrocities were committed—we would have reached the stage that we reached last night, of having hope that there will be a lasting settlement. That is nonsense.
Some people now tell us that, had we spoken to the Russians 75 days ago, we would have got to where we are now. They are wrong. Others ask why Kofi Annan was not brought in some time over the past 75 days and why he and the United Nations were not allowed to sort things out. What were they doing during the 10 months prior to our reaching the unfortunate stage of having to take military action?
I hope that all those who, from their comfortable armchairs, attempted to undermine our military action of the past 75 days will look to their laurels and reflect on the sequence of events that has brought us to the unfolding of the peace process. That process will take a long time. Even if an international presence has to stay in the Balkans for a long time to police the area after the return of the refugees to Kosovo, that will be far preferable to our action of the past 75 days, because it may lead to lasting peace and stability.
Finally, I turn to the fairly complex matter of two significant programmes that are crucial to the future of military procurement over the next couple of years. The first is the ASTOR programme—the airborne stand-off radar programme. On behalf of my constituency, I happily recommend that we accept the Lockheed Martin bid, which fortunately includes Raytheon and Marconi, both of which are located in my constituency. Together with Back Benchers on both sides of the House who have similar constituency interests, I hope to persuade Ministers that that is the right way to go.
I have greater difficulty with the other programme, but Members of Parliament have to make decisions regardless of their constituency interests. The programme concerned is BVRAAM—the beyond visual range air-to-air missile programme—which is also essential in terms of smart procurement. My difficulty is that, on the one hand, there is an American-led bid that includes Raytheon, whose headquarters are in my constituency; and, on the other, there is a European bid centred on the Meteor programme, which is led by Alenia Marconi Systems and Matra British Aerospace.
Even though I have two profound and competing constituency interests, I am bound to say that, on balance, I recommend the European bid, not least because it carries

855
an air-to-air capability that the Raytheon bid does not have. I have met and discussed the issue with representatives of Raytheon and Marconi and, despite my dual interests, I have concluded that the European and Marconi Meteor programme is preferable.
I shall conclude where I began—I apologise for speaking for longer than even I had anticipated—and stress that defence and military interests are crucial. I wish that hon. Members would take more interest in those issues: they should not constitute the undignified and untrendy wing of international or foreign affairs. The defence industry is a significant employer. When we embark upon military action—I hope that we will not do so again during my term in this place—[HON. MEMBERS: "Four years."] Please let me finish. I hope that that means there will be peace for 20, rather than three, years.
As and when there is military action, those of us in democracies must act in a grown-up and responsible fashion. I fear that, in debating this action over 75 days, some hon. Members have demonstrated a far from grown-up and responsible attitude. That is to their discredit, and I hope that they will reflect on their actions long and hard in the coming weeks and months.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
5.26 pm
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Hon. Members are saying "Hear, hear" because they want me to be brief. I think the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) is being a little unfair to hon. Members. He assumed that anyone who disagreed with him or did not agree totally with the Government was somehow guilty of disloyalty, of letting down the troops or of being cackhanded. The hon. Gentleman suggested that those hon. Members did not know what they were talking about—or that, when they did, it is was not very palatable.
If the hon. Gentleman had been in the House during the Suez crisis, the Falklands conflict or the Gulf war, he would have heard plenty of criticism flying around the Chamber—just as there was during the second world war. That is how it should be. There is a limit beyond which people should not go, but they should not be muzzled just because this country is involved in a conflict that is hardly controversial. It would be terrible if hon. Members were muzzled in that way.
Mr. McNulty: The hon. Gentleman makes my point far more eloquently than I can. I suggested that many hon. Members went beyond that line. I do not deny that hon. Members should engage in democratic debate.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The hon. Gentleman keeps using the word "many". Some hon. Members might regret what they said, but they have apologised and I do not think that their comments were particularly reprehensible. There is no doubt that their views were controversial, but our troops were not in action—we were not in the middle of a Passchendaele scenario. One must have a sense of proportion in such matters.
856
It is generally agreed that our debates were conducted in a good spirit—although one criticism is worth making. I thought it was wrong to give notice—it was not just the Government's responsibility—of our intention not to send in ground troops. It is a good idea to keep that kind of information in reserve and perhaps state our willingness to use a ground force in some circumstances—some observers went further than that. On the whole, I believe the Government played a notable role in defining NATO's policy, which generated considerable public support and backing from this side of the House.
In that connection, I shall follow up some of the comments made by the Opposition spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples). I do not wish to speak for longer than is necessary, but I think that we should stress this important point. When the defence industry in this country develops its ability to contribute more powerfully and effectively to our defence structure and to advance technology, it should not be leaned on by Government if it enters into a marriage with American companies.
I have visited the United States many times in recent years and toured many factories. I assure hon. Members that American industry trusts us and thinks that we have something to offer. It does not believe that, if American industry enters into an alliance with us for making equipment, we will leak import information to the opposing side or to its competitors. That is an important point.
I wish to develop some other issues raised by my colleagues. I have no doubt that the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) were particularly welcome. He drew upon his great experience gained in the Royal Air Force, and his remarks about the importance of air power were confirmed during the Balkans conflict.
I joined the NATO parliamentary assembly in 1981 and therefore frequently come into contact with military and civilian members of the North Atlantic Alliance. NATO's vitality, resilience, adaptability, the power within its grasp and the influence that it brought to bear from 1981 to the present convinced me that, politically and militarily, it is a force that deserves our full support. When we went through the worst period of the cold war, that force helped to preserve peace. In fact, I wonder whether many of us would be here today, speaking our minds, if NATO had not existed.
It is therefore little wonder that, when the awful situation in the Balkans came to the crunch, I could not contemplate NATO's failure. To have done so would have spelt the end of the most successful political and military alliance in our history. As the cold war ended, the Berlin wall came down and the Soviet Union ceased to exist, one questioned the extent to which people jumped on the bandwagon and said, "There is no need for NATO. We need something else."
I shall turn in a moment to the European security and defence identity. It is my fervent conviction that no steps should be taken to undermine the effectiveness of NATO. The new strategic concept that it announced at the Washington summit last month should lead us to believe that there is no security architecture alternative to that presented by NATO. The statement that was issued at the Washington summit recognised NATO as an organisation capable of playing a constructive and defining role in

857
underpinning the stability and peace without which prosperity, democracy and respect for human rights cannot exist. That is NATO's raison d'etre.
I shall quote some of the comments made in that statement in Washington last month:
"Fifty years ago, the North Atlantic Alliance was founded in troubled and uncertain times."
The statement reminded us of what had been achieved and then continued:
"This new Alliance will be larger, more capable and more flexible, committed to collective defence and able to undertake new missions including contributing to effective conflict prevention and engaging actively in crisis management, including crisis response operations. The Alliance will work with other nations and organisations to advance security, prosperity and democracy throughout the Euro-Atlantic region. The presence today of three new allies—the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland—demonstrates that we have overcome the division of Europe."
The statement later added that those three new members would not be the last. That point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood.
We recognise that, if NATO extends its boundaries, it must learn to co-operate with those countries, notably Russia, which fear the advance of the new NATO strategic concept. I have found no difficulty with that because I know very well that we have no designs on Russia. On the contrary, as many hon. Members have pointed out in today's debate, we have taken extensive steps to work with the Russians and to ask them to come on board. In a minor way, we in the NATO parliamentary assembly have taken our own initiatives. We have had Russians accompanying us, and they have been invited to NATO headquarters to discuss exactly what their difficulties are and the extent to which NATO is trying to bridge the gap that existed between the old NATO and the old Soviet Union.
I have no doubt that the attempt is working because of the willingness to extend NATO's umbrella from the Atlantic across Europe and to fight, through the Founding Act—which was signed by NATO and Russia only in 1997—for the Russians to co-operate with the new NATO strategic concept. That leads me to believe that we now have an opportunity to lay to rest for our lifetime—and, one hopes, for ever—conflict in Europe. For too long, we have suffered instability and bloody wars. I accept the criticism of all who thought that we could have intervened sooner in Bosnia. But we all know democracies; we take time to learn the lessons and to act on them.
We must consider not only how far we can develop the new institutions that have been formed under the Founding Act, the European-Atlantic pact and so on, but whether we can strengthen those already in the alliance. I shall quote from the communiqué and the statement of intentions made in Washington recently concerning the European Union:
"The European Union has taken important decisions and given a further impetus to its efforts to strengthen its security and defence dimension. This process will have implications for the entire Alliance, and all European Allies should be involved in it, building on arrangements developed by NATO and the WEU. The development of a common foreign and security policy includes the progressive framing of a common defence policy. Such a policy, as called for in the Amsterdam Treaty, would be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within the framework of the Washington Treaty."
All the way through that statement and others explaining in more detail the objectives of NATO's new strategic concept, there is an emphasis on a European
858
security defence identity in NATO. My worry is that there are those who, for other reasons, think that the time has come for those in a European pillar to express themselves not necessarily within NATO.
European countries have rightly taken decisions that will require close co-operation between NATO and the WEU and, if appropriate, the European Union. It has been set out clearly in treaties that it is sensible for the EU to develop a sense of responsibility toward its foreign duties. That is why there is talk of a common foreign and security policy. The EU ought to debate those matters. I can understand such talk, but I hope that I will not be accused of having an attack of Europhobia if I suggest that it is one thing to have such a common policy, but another to create, in analysing one's needs and policies, some special European defence identity that is separate from America.
Labour Members, including the Prime Minister, would deny to one's face such an intention, but I know people on the continent—I mix with them through the NATO Parliamentary Assembly—who have not always been happy with what they call "American domination". They fail to realise that the only reason why we had peace during the cold war and why we can have stability and security and take on the responsibility of the Balkans is that the Americans are on side.
Such people do not talk about a European defence identity; they talk about a Euro-Atlantic security system. That is what it is and, unless we recognise that fact, I fear that, once again, we shall place an impossible burden on some European countries that do not want to take responsibilities—they rarely have in the past—or carry the clout that is necessary for the influence that we think important to stability in the Euro-Atlantic area; such stability inevitably leads to ever closer co-operation with the former Soviet Union.
I shall not go into too much detail because I am about to finish my speech. Ten of the members of the Western European Union are also in NATO and the European Union but, when we consider the countries that are in NATO but not the EU, we see a problem. They are the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Turkey, Norway and Iceland. There are also other countries that are not in NATO or the EU, such as Estonia, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
When all those people and all those countries are spread across all those different organisations, why muddle things? Why make things more difficult than they already are? We already have a club worth belonging to, which has worked well. Let us not assume that the European security and defence identity would somehow be better served and more effective if we rearranged the furniture. I do not see why it should be.
Of course one gets worried about that idea. Within five minutes of being appointed, Mr. Prodi was talking about a European army—someone quoted him earlier in the debate. We cannot have that, not when defence is a matter of life and death. It is unrealistic to suppose that we have reached such a degree of comfort with our allies in western Europe that deciding whether to go to war or spend money on defence is a matter that can be taken away from national parliaments.
I beg Government Members, especially defence Ministers, to ask themselves this question. It is one thing to have a row with the Americans about bananas;

859
we could have rows with the Americans day after day about trade, and even argue among ourselves. However, if we are to have an argument about defence—
Mr. George Robertson: I always listen to the right hon. Gentleman with great care, because he has a lot of experience, and it is true that we share a close relationship with our allies across the water. We have not fallen out with the United States. The communiqué from the Washington summit made it clear that NATO and the Americans welcomed the initiative being taken forward.
The whole purpose of the Prime Minister's speech and what followed from it is to build European capabilities so that we can complement, not duplicate or compete with, the efforts being made by the United States and NATO. Only an hour ago, I spoke to Defence Secretary Cohen, and congratulated him on, and thanked him for, the United States' contribution to the air campaign. All four Defence Ministers have said that we are committed to building European capability so that we can act with the United States when that makes sense; but alternatively, so that we can take military action sensibly and effectively when the United States does not want to be involved.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman says; his intentions are pure, and would not undermine anything that I have said. That is his view—but there are other views, and they exist among his European allies. That is the point.
People talk about a federation. I am not a Europhobe; I am happy about co-operation with the European Union, but I want to draw a line here. It is difficult to assume that a Europe-wide institution can make decisions for us on matters of life and death. It cannot. Such decisions must be made by consensus, in which case I want a consensus within a wider organisation—one that involves the Americans.
I know what I hear from some senators and congressmen, decent internationalist blokes though they are, who suspect that there are people in Europe who resent what they call American dominance of the alliance, and feel that Europe would be freer, more independent and more responsive to European needs if it had its own defence identity—not within NATO, as is stated in the text of the summit. A European identity is what they hanker for. We cannot deny that when we know that Mr. Prodi is talking about a European defence system and a European army. However, if we adopt that approach we will seriously weaken our position.
I am darned if I can believe that an international organisation that merges into a federation involving a wide range of issues, such as economics and politics, can put defence into the same basket. It is not the function of an international organisation, on a vote, to send people to war, where they may possibly lose their lives. If there is consensus, certainly, but if it is to be done, it should be on the basis of the NATO Alliance, with all its strength and might.
It is difficult for me to assume that we are on the right lines when we do not talk sufficiently, and do something, about the lack of capability in Europe. Only two countries in western Europe—the United Kingdom and France—can act internationally. That is one of the issues that we
860
should be discussing with our continental friends, so that we can get some action out of them rather than talk about institutions. That would be a way of making progress.
We have a duty to bring stability to Europe. The first and difficult problem on the agenda is to ensure that stability and prosperity are brought to the people of south-east Europe as a consequence of peace. It will be difficult, and I am indebted to an article in a publication entitled "The World Today", which drew my attention to the seriousness of the problem that we face. It reads:
"'No language can describe adequately the condition of that large part of the Balkan peninsula, Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina and other provinces—political intrigues, constant rivalries, a total absence of public spirit, hatred of all races, animosities of rival religions and an absence of any controlling power.'"
The writer of the article adds:
"Those were the words of Benjamin Disraeli in 1878. They are all too apt today."
5.47 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am delighted to be able to take up the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), not least because I know of similar words from the 19th century. No one could ever accuse my right hon. Friend of being anti-European because he has made a career of not being so. The fact that he should draw attention to the concerns that many of us have about a drive towards a common European defence policy is extremely important. I trust that right hon. and hon. Members on the Treasury Bench will take heed of that.
On a day when British troops are going into what may turn out to be hostile territory in the former Republic of Yugoslavia, it is depressing that so little interest is shown in defence in the House. I know that the European elections are taking place. However, my presence and the presence of every other Member will make no difference to the turnout in my constituency and in all others, and in the regions. It is depressing beyond belief that there are only three Labour Members present, one a Back Bencher, only two Liberal Members and only eight Conservative Members. There are far too few of my hon. Friends in their places and it is a great pity that there is only one Labour Back Bencher present on an historic and worrying day.
I shall concentrate my remarks on Kosovo, not least because I will not be here next week. Many of the points that I wanted to make have already been made and I will not repeat them at too great length. I had many concerns about the campaign, which I made public. I was deeply sceptical that bombing alone would bring the Serbs to the negotiating table. However, it appears that it has done so, and we have an agreement. The Minister will know that not everything is over, but I congratulate NATO and the Government on what has been achieved so far. I hope that the process will continue and I hope also that all the refugees will go home as soon as possible. It is to be hoped that, eventually, we shall see democratic rule established in Serbia, quite apart from anything else.
It will not surprise anyone when I say that I have a few qualifications. I do not think that there is anybody present to gainsay me—no Member, anyway—when I say that, when I was in the Army, I was taught the principles of war. As I recall, the first principle was the selection and maintenance of the aim. The aim on day l was to prevent

861
humanitarian disaster and ethnic cleansing, and we know that that did not happen. There is no doubt that the principles will have to be rewritten. We know that surprise went out of the window long beforehand. As I am sure that the Minister recognises, the staff colleges will need to re-examine those principles before they try to teach them to any young officer, as I was at the time.
The situation in Serbia, Kosovo, Montenegro, Macedonia and Albania is not better than it was before the bombing campaign started. That does not mean that the bombing campaign was wrong, but we have to admit that the situation is no better than it was then.
We have a long-term commitment, as we have heard, and a huge financial commitment, which Britain, together with others, should be generous in meeting. We also have a huge commitment in terms of troops.
Is the Minister confident that the settlement will lead to some form of democratic administration being established in Kosovo? It has not been democratic up till now, as is self-evident. Rugova appears to represent the Kosovo Albanians, as far as it is possible to know, but it would be tragic if our actions had produced a worse situation in Kosovo than existed before.
The position of the Serbian minority in Kosovo was raised yesterday by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), among others. It is extraordinarily important that we do not replace one form of ethnic cleansing with another. NATO and the United Nations have turned a remarkably blind eye to the situation of the Serbs in Krajina, who were expelled—ethnically cleansed—by the Croatians, yet we seem to be extremely pally with the Croatian regime of President Tudjman. That is as close to hypocrisy as one can get. One child, one woman or one man is just as good as another child, woman or man, and ethnic cleansing by one group is just as bad as ethnic cleansing by another.
That leads me to the question of who our enemy in Kosovo will be. Troops need to know who their enemy is. When they come across two bands of people shooting at each other, whom are they to defend? It will be extremely difficult. None of us wants to see British troops or others killed in any crossfire, just as we do not want to see people killing each other in Kosovo.
What is the future of the Balkans to be? I say to hon. Members in all parts of the House that the future of the Balkans must be in the hands of the peoples of the Balkans. It is not for us to determine exactly what should happen. Britain, NATO and the United Nations should beware of trying to be the policemen of the Balkans. Down that road may lie chaos.
I have many friends currently in the Balkans who are likely to go into Kosovo in the near future. I will not name them, as that would probably blight their careers for ever. I wish them and everyone else well as our armed forces go in. They will have a great deal to contend with, as we know. In particular, NATO is likely to take casualties from land mines. It is the worst of all things when someone is killed not in action but just walking down a street or through a wood.
On a more flippant note, the old adage warns that we should not go to war in the Balkans or march on Moscow. We have gone to war in the Balkans. I am going to Moscow next week, and I hope that the Minister can assure us that we will not be marching on Moscow next week.
862
One overriding lesson emerges from the Kosovo campaign. NATO has shown determination and unity, and NATO has achieved success. I shall not repeat what was said extremely well by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden. However, the Government speak of a common European security identity, which undermines the organisation that has achieved so much and is likely to sideline America in the North Atlantic Alliance. I find that extremely worrying.
I have served in Northern Ireland. I think that I am the only hon. Member present who has done so, although one or two officers and officials in the House have. I speak with feeling because I have seen the intimidation, fear and daily barbarity that can go on in some of the ghettos in Northern Ireland. I have been to funerals of friends and I have spoken at funerals of soldiers, and I have friends still serving there in the armed forces. The Government cannot bend over backwards any further to accommodate the terrorists in Northern Ireland. The Minister will know that we must keep troops there to combat the terrorism.
I particularly speak on this occasion of members of the special forces who have done such sterling work in Northern Ireland in the past. If soldiers fear that they will be identified for any action that they take, if they believe that their lives or those of their families may subsequently be threatened, they will not take the action that we require of them. That is blindingly obvious, but it needs to be stated.
Some in public life, including me and many hon. Members, receive advice and assistance on our personal security. But we understood that that might be a possibility when we went into public life. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) are tailed by heavies in Range Rovers. Lord Mason still has an escort, and I am sure that other former Ministers do too. We expect that, but public servants do not. They expect to be protected by the Government. We must protect public servants or we betray their trust. I am sure that the Minister and the Secretary of State will agree.
I caution the Minister to read the headline of the City edition of the Evening Standard today which says, "Paras go in". If we want the paras to go into Serbia, Kosovo or elsewhere, we must protect them, wherever they may be, and we must protect past paras from the prying eyes of murderous terrorists.
I served for 15 years in the armed forces and I was single throughout that time. Single men enjoy being active, on operations and abroad. I was away in various different countries for 12 months in one 15-month period. It was lucky that I was single because a wife would not have tolerated it. However, I had no chance of getting married because I could not meet anyone. Those whom I did meet probably did not fancy me. However, it is a single man's life—or a single woman's life—and young single people enjoy being on operations. But in peacetime, families, and single people who want a social life, become tired of being on operations, and they will vote with their feet and leave.
Retention policies are marvellous but, as the Minister knows, there will be no retention policy if people are fed up with being on operations. For each person on operations, another should be preparing for operations and another recovering from operations. If 40 or 50 per cent.

863
of the armed forces are on operations, that will not be possible. That would be a great tragedy for Britain and its armed forces.
The armed forces—I used to say this to the previous Government, so the Minister need not parrot it back to me—are too small for the country's and the Government's ambitions. If we are not careful, the common European defence policy will mean that we will not have the Americans to help us either. We have insufficient troops, and, if we are to maintain those ambitions, we may need to pay more for defence.
In the past few weeks, several generals have told me and, I am sure, others, that, based on their experience in Bosnia, the only people who could be trusted when they signed an agreement were the Serbs. They saw that as a bit of a paradox because they did not necessarily have a great deal of time for the Serbs, who had murdered, pillaged and raped. However, they did say that, when the Serb generals put their name to a document, they stuck by it, whereas the Croatians and the Bosnians did not. I very much hope that that turns out to be the case in Kosovo.
5.59 pm
Mr. Keith Simpson: We in the Chamber are indeed an inclusive body of men and women, although a number of colleagues have said that this important debate on defence policy has been unfortunately timed. I know, for example, that the Chairman of the Defence Committee has written formally to the Leader of the House—and, I believe, to Madam Speaker—to protest about the debate being held on a day on which, for good reasons, a large number of colleagues want to be in their constituencies.
Many hon. Members who would have liked to have contributed were unable to attend, and I mention two of my colleagues—such stalwarts as my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). I should also like to mention the absence of another colleague, but for a different reason. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) was unfortunately struck down with a brain tumour at the weekend, but I am glad to say that he is recovering reasonably well. I feel his presence in the Chamber; sitting over my left shoulder, he would have undoubtedly made a number of contributions, both from a sedentary position and from the Floor of the Chamber. I am sure that all Members of the House wish him the best for the future.
We have nevertheless had a good debate and we have heard 11 Back-Bench speakers, a number of whom have had to leave to vote or to return to their constituencies—to stir up apathy, in the words of Viscount Whitelaw. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) spoke about Britain and her role in defence. I do not necessarily agree with some of her conclusions, but she spoke warmly. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), who has done a considerable amount of work on ballistic missile defence, raised an important point, which I and other colleagues raised in the defence equipment debate.
The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), who is a member of the Defence Committee, talked, in his inimitable manner, of his
864
reservations about nuclear weapons. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, talked with great feeling about the situation in Kosovo and referred to cuts in defence expenditure. I have to say to him that it would have been helpful during the debate on the strategic defence review if the Liberals had voted for our amendment pointing out the cuts in defence expenditure and in the Territorial Army instead of abstaining.
The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) rightly spoke about the outstanding part played by our armed forces, not only in Kosovo, Northern Ireland and Bosnia, but in the United Kingdom, where they work so hard. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who has been tremendously consistent in his view that what we are doing in Kosovo is right, once again gave us a superb tour d'horizon on nuclear deterrence and history.
I was surprised that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) restrained himself and talked only about the effectiveness of the air campaign. I think that he asked only eight or nine questions of the Minister; somebody behind me jokingly said that he would ask about 79, but, in his own way, he has always been very consistent. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) used his speech largely to attack a number of hon. Members, many of whom were not in the House. I might disagree with those hon. Members, as might Ministers, but they nevertheless have the right to express their views.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who completed long service with the Royal Air Force, spoke well on behalf of those who agree with his critique, saying that the European security and defence identity is no substitute for NATO. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith)—who, dare I say it, has considerable experience in defence matters going back decades—also spoke forcefully on why our main defence effort should be within NATO.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who was the last Back-Bench contributor, brought to the debate his own perspective, which was gained from serving in the armed forces. All Members recognise the fact that, without the men and women who make up our armed forces, this debate on our wider defence policy would be rather academic.
The debate is taking place 10 months after the strategic defence review, and 11 weeks into the bombing campaign against Serbia. As many hon. Members have pointed out, it has been influenced by unfolding events in Kosovo: the welcome news of the Serbian agreement to the military framework, given by the Secretary of State last night, and the news that he gave us this afternoon about the decision by the Secretary General of NATO that we could end the bombing campaign.
I compliment Ministers, and all the military and civil servants in the Ministry of Defence. I understand the strain that they were under, and appreciate all the work that they put in. During the Gulf war campaign, I served as a special adviser to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), and I know what the responsibility involves. I pay tribute to Ministers on their ability—on the whole—to present information to the House, and to accept with considerable good grace the comments and, at times, criticisms made not only by Opposition Members, but by some of their hon. Friends.

865
The paying of that fulsome tribute, however, will not restrain me from commenting on aspects of the Government's defence policy that I believe need changing or modifying.
All hon. Members have rightly said that the British armed forces are real force multipliers. Their sheer quality, their professionalism and the fact that—dare I say—they have a demonstrable war-fighting capability enable them to deter and, when they must use that war-fighting capability, to defend our freedoms. However, they obviously need the resources that will allow them to maintain that high standard: equipment, and the support that they and their families need.
Ironically, last night's statement, like earlier statements, is being overtaken by global communications. The same happened during the Gulf war. I am struck by the frequency with which Ministers who come to the House in all honesty to present what they think is information are behind the intemet or, indeed, CNN. This is an opportune moment for us to assess British defence policy against the Government's own baseline, the strategic defence review. We need to assess it in terms of foreign and security policy, then in terms of commitments and resources, and finally in terms of equipment and people.
I must tell the Minister, in a gentle manner, that—along with many other hon. Members—I am still waiting for answers to questions that we put to Ministers during the defence equipment debate on 26 April.
Mr. Spellar: They have had nothing else to do since then.
Mr. Simpson: I am aware of that, but I have telephoned twice, and have twice been given promises—not by the Minister's office, but by another office. As I say, I am making my point in the gentlest possible way, but I must say that debates such as this are rather a waste of time if hon. Members who ask questions are given no answers.
The MOD will of course want to assess the role of the armed forces in the continuing conflict, but I think that many hon. Members expect both the Government as a whole and the MOD to make their own inquiries about the origins of the conflict—about where we made the right decisions, where we made the wrong ones, and how we should correct our mistakes.
Finally, let me ask the Minister when we can expect the publication of the defence White Paper which now replaces the statement on the Defence Estimates. Can we look forward to receiving copies before the summer recess?
I want to say a little about the baseline of the strategic defence review. I remind the House that both the Select Committee on Defence and the Conservative Opposition pointed out that the real element that was missing from the report—an element that is still missing—was a foreign-policy baseline. We have not had a proper Government foreign policy debate since May 1997, and I believe that one is needed now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) outlined Conservative Members' deep reservations about the way in which the Government have, crab like, moved away from maintaining a European defence and security policy under the umbrella of NATO towards something that many people believe will end up
866
competing with NATO. As many of my hon. Friends have pointed out, that will compete with resources. Many serving officers, some of whom are directly involved in Kosovo, are also deeply sceptical about the effectiveness of a European defence organisation that is outside NATO. The one thing that the Kosovo conflict has proved is that, however creaky NATO has been, it is effectively the most significant political military organisation to which we belong.
Another equally significant development during the Kosovo crisis has been the articulation by the Government that we are moving into an era of humanitarian intervention. In a speech in Chicago in April, the Prime Minister laid down what became called the Blair doctrine, outlining a policy of humanitarian interventionism, with a number of caveats. That is an important development, but we have not discussed it yet in the House.
If the Government are determined to go ahead with a policy of humanitarian interventionism, it will have an enormous impact on our foreign policy, on our relations with NATO, on the structure of our armed forces and on resources. Will there be a debate on that at some time in the Chamber? Will there be any geographical limits to humanitarian interventionism? What co-ordination have the Government had with the United States of America and our European allies? As a number of my hon. Friends have pointed out, 80 per cent. of the air power and many of the strategic assets in the Kosovo campaign were provided by the Americans.
What are the implications of the Blair doctrine for British defence policy, particularly in terms of the budget, equipment and personnel, given the resources constraint that is built into the strategic defence review? Finally, will there be a reassessment of the SDR and will that form part of the defence White Paper?
In an ideal world, we would have established our foreign and security policy before allocating the necessary resources. When the strategic defence review was published, it was obvious to all informed sources that there was a cut in the budget—about £1 billion. Treasury calls for efficiency savings are making it even more difficult for Ministers to deliver what in management terms we have to call a military output. Even before Kosovo, my hon. Friends and I argued that a cut in defence expenditure while maintaining and, in some areas, increasing commitments, undermined the credibility of the SDR.
Events in Kosovo and the consequence of the Government's declared foreign and security policy of humanitarian interventionism totally undermine the financial basis of the strategic defence review. That is not something that merely I put forward as a Conservative spokesman. Many hon. Members find that members of the armed forces and their families recognise that fact. They are not taken in by politicians coming out merely with trite political propaganda. They are intelligent, sensible people and understand that there is that contradiction.
Will the Government now admit that their claims that the SDR would establish our defence requirements in the period to 2015 have been undermined by the cuts and seriously been questioned by international events? What representations have the Minister and his colleagues made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister about the level of resources for the defence budget?

867
Failure to address the major question of resources, which underpins the SDR, will result in a significant lack of confidence among members of the armed forces.
One of the major consequences of the Government's failure to match resources to commitments has been the serious problem of overstretch and retention, as touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby.
As of 22 April—the figures are probably higher now—89 per cent. of land command, which is the deployable Army, is either committed to, or warned for, operations. The Secretary of State himself said this afternoon that 50 per cent. of the British Army was preparing for, deployed in, or recovering from, operations.
The armed forces are there to be used and they expect that. They are not to be kept in a band box, shined up and never used. However, everyone recognises—the Government recognised it in the SDR—that there is a limit to how much longer we can continue that level of commitment without members of the armed forces voting with their feet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby said.
I hope that the Government will deal with that problem directly—that will take some difficult decisions. I know that they are hoping that the Kosovo commitment will not continue on such a scale or for longer than six months, but, as General Sir Roger Wheeler, Chief of the General Staff, reminded us in a lecture at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies on 17 February 1997:
"We are now in our seventh year in Bosnia, despite the original deployment being ordered on the strict understanding that it was for six months only."
Long overseas deployments and back-to-back deployments mean that more trained personnel are leaving the armed forces than recruits can be brought in. I am sure that the Minister will remind us that the Government have dealt with the problem of recruitment, but for every service man who is coming in through the front door, two or three are leaving through the back door.
The latest shortfall in numbers of trained personnel is 4 per cent. for the Navy, 6 per cent. for the Army, 2.5 per cent. for the Royal Air Force and 8 per cent. for the Royal Marines. For every soldier, sailor or airman who is not there, others have to stand in and work harder.
The Government have failed, despite all their remedial efforts and hype, to resolve the relationship between commitments and resources. If anything, matters are worse than they were a year ago. How are Ministers going to resolve that?
The most glaring example of the SDR failure is the cuts in the Territorial Army and its subsequent reorganisation. Under pressure from my hon. Friends and many Labour Members, the Government were forced to make concessions in their reorganisation in the autumn. The Secretary of State acknowledged last night that 10 per cent. of our forces in Bosnia now come from the TA. Any significant war fighting in the Balkans would directly involve a large-scale call up of the TA.
The Government were wrong to cut the TA to extent that they did. Many TA soldiers are now reluctant—because of the Government's cuts and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) said last night, because of worries about the security of their employment and pensions—if they are called up for service.
868
I have raised a series of issues in the debate and I have done so not merely to play some sort of intellectual ping pong. I hope that the Minister will recognise that many of those questions were put to me by serving members of the armed forces, civil servants and, not least, people in British defence industries.
I want British defence policy to be proactive. I believe, as do all my hon. Friends, that Britain has a part to play on the world stage. I fully support our membership of the United Nations and our leading role in NATO but, if we are to undertake that sort of role and if we expect our armed forces to go into harm's way almost continuously, we must either cut a commitment somewhere or put in more resources.
General James Wolfe, who died at Quebec, said that war was an "option of difficulties". Today, defence policy is an option of difficulties and I hope that the Minister will be able to offer us some thoughts for consideration.
6.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): First I give the apologies of the Secretary of State for not being present for the winding-up speeches. He has a long-standing engagement, hosting Her Majesty at beating the retreat. I have just had a message from his office and I am pleased to inform the House that the United Nations Security Council resolution has been passed. The voting was 14 in favour with only one abstention. It will now go to the North Atlantic Council for it to authorise NATO's deployment. I am sure that that is welcome news to the House and the forces.
It is only natural that much of the debate has focused on events in the Balkans. Whether one is critical or supportive of Nato's actions, one cannot deny the importance of what is happening there and, indeed, evolving even as we have been speaking. It is not surprising that the subject has pre-occupied hon. Members this evening, but it is also important to look at the broader context, as a number of hon. Members did, and, as the Secretary of State said in his opening speech, not to forget that much else has occupied us over the past 12 months.
It has been a debate with a number of the usual suspects and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) said, with a number of absentees. We should have liked to see the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) after the Scottish electorate gave him their view of his intervention. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) apologised for the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), but I should have preferred to have seen him here himself tonight apologising for his disgraceful attack on the Chief of Defence Staff—but let us leave that aside.
We have seen events in Kosovo confirming the analysis that we conducted to inform the strategic defence review and the foreign and security policy framework in which it was set.
At the time of the SDR, as the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) said, our policies and plans were met with approval by our allies. It was recognised by a wide variety of independent commentators as radical, imaginative, well reasoned and forward looking. The SDR was given good reviews by academics, journalists and diplomats from Los Angeles to Moscow to Tokyo. Most importantly, it was welcomed by the men and women of

869
our services. Britain was seen to be giving a lead in adapting to the realities of the new millennium and the post-cold war environment.
Our defence and security policy is founded on Britain's need, as a trading nation with a strongly international outlook and a considerable number of citizens living abroad, to be involved on the world stage. The Government's defence and security policy aims to provide and improve our abilities to take our place on the world stage.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East said, the British have never been ones to stand idly by. Our policies are designed to ensure that we are not forced to. In particular, they are designed within the context of the NATO alliance. That is why the United Kingdom made a significant contribution to ensuring that Nato's 50th anniversary summit in Washington set a challenging agenda to keep Nato relevant for the future and commemorated 50 years of keeping peace in Europe. I am sure that the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who spoke at some length about the history of NATO, will also recognise the key, initiating role of the post-war Labour Government in setting up NATO and the support of subsequent Labour Governments for that organisation.
Headlines at Washington were naturally dominated by Kosovo, where the display of Nato unity was of immense military and political value, but several other important decisions were also taken on the further adaptation of Nato.
The new strategic concept sets out clearly Nato's key tasks, giving proper emphasis to non-article 5 missions and clear guidance on the development of flexible, deployable and sustainable forces suitable for all Nato missions.
The UK was active in developing the defence capabilities initiative, which should allow the alliance to develop forces that are ready to undertake the range of operations we may face in the future. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) spoke of his concern about duplication and in that context mentioned heavy lift. We in the alliance will be absolutely delighted to have duplication of heavy lift. When we took over the strategic defence review, one of the key areas on which we focused—indeed, one of the key deficiencies that we inherited—was a shortfall in heavy lift. We are making major efforts to rectify that in terms both of sea and air lift. The initiative echoes the principles that underpinned our strategic defence review. We are pleased about the emphasis on making European forces, including multinational forces, more effective.
We are also closely involved in the Western European Union's audit of European defence capability and aim to ensure that both initiatives are complementary, mutually supporting and, most importantly, result in a sustained drive to improve defence capability. I think that that is what Conservative Members should have concentrated on in their orations on Europe.
Washington marked the culmination of much of the work to create a European security and defence identity within the alliance. As has rightly been said, that was initiated by Michael Portillo when he was Defence Secretary at Berlin in 1996. The United Kingdom has been instrumental in establishing a programme to continue that development. Decisions taken at the summit will
870
ensure that the European pillar of the alliance is a vital element in our drive to give Europe a greater voice in foreign and security policy.
As well as formally welcoming the three new NATO European members at the highest level, the summit clearly reaffirmed our commitment to future enlargement. We agreed positive language naming all nine current aspirants and stating their right to seek membership, backed up by practical advice and assistance in shaping membership action plans. There was also a meeting with countries from south-east Europe at which a consultative forum on security was established.
That puts the European security and defence initiative in its proper context. I was slightly surprised that the contributions of the Opposition spokesmen were dominated by that subject. It is an important issue but I understood the difficulty of the Conservatives, for whom everything seems to come back to Europe. They are like those who believe that the Freemasons, the Bilderberg group, the Rockefellers, or, in the good old days, the communists and Trotskyists, were the root of every problem. European issues are important but the balance must be got right.
Even discussing defence, the Conservatives talked as if there were a polarisation between the European defence industry and our relationship with the United States. However, British companies and defence industrial policy very much aim to get the best of both. In many ways, the consolidation of the European defence industry is designed to enable British and European industry not only more effectively to compete, but more effectively to collaborate, with American industry. We said that both in opposition and in government. The consolidation of the American industry means that it is necessary for us to match it that so that we can bring something to the table in discussions. That is understood not only by us but by our American partners.
At a recent conference addressed by me and the American Under-Secretary, John Hamre, it was asked whether we were creating fortress Europe. We are not. Equally, Fortress America is not a sensible option. We have to get the balance right. Equally, we have to consider consolidation of the European defence industry and that is already moving along, not only commercially but with the letter of intent.
There is also the harmonisation of requirements. Having a range of slightly different requirements for roughly similar products across Europe means that we get less effective military capability for the money that we spend and a less effective European defence industry. That is why I am pleased to draw the House's attention to a statement made today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the British Army will get the medium-range TRIGAT to provide its medium-range anti-tank guided weapons systems, in collaboration with France, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium. Contracts will also be let for the project definition phase of the next generation light anti-armour weapon.
Those are important developments and part of the development of the European defence industry, because mutual dependency is becoming an increasing feature of defence equipment procurement. We need to recognise that and consider it within the context of, for example, discussions about Bishopton and Royal Ordnance. In the United Kingdom, there has been a reduction in orders for

871
ammunition from £300 million a year to about £70 million or £80 million a year. That is mirrored across Europe. To cope with that will require consolidation and specialisation but also assurance of supply, which requires mutual dependency. That cannot be done by companies alone; it will involve Governments. We need to do it within a co-operative framework and we must not be frightened about whether that is part of some overall Euro-plot. It is good business and sensible business, and good defence. So that debate will continue.
It is necessary to clarify for hon. Members what the European security and defence identity is about. It is not a question of competing with NATO. We have made that clear throughout negotiations with our allies and partners. St. Malo recognises that military capabilities for EU-led operations might be drawn from multinational or national sources outside the NATO framework. However, that merely reflects the fact that not all European capabilities that are currently answerable to the WEU are assigned to NATO.
We do not support the further development of military capabilities outside the NATO framework purely for use in EU operations. That is supported by the United States, which supports the impetus to create an ESDI. It has expressed concerns that were rightly identified by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon and also our concerns that any moves should not result in decoupling, or lead to duplication or discrimination against NATO members that are not members of the EU. That is consistent with our approach.
We believe that Kosovo has demonstrated, not undermined, the enduring strength and value of the transatlantic alliance. It has also emphasised the need for Europe to play a stronger part in that alliance. I am sure that that is a cross-party view. The progress that was made on the initiative at last week's Cologne European Council capped a busy and productive spring. Rapid progress has been possible because the focus of the debate has been on practical requirements, not institutions—practical requirements for defence decision making in the EU and for strengthening European military capability. We are sure that that outcome will be good for NATO and for transatlantic relations.
There is a strand of opinion in the United States that questions whether the United States bears too much of the burden and whether Europe bears its share. We aim to ensure that Europe plays a full and active role.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) stressed the need for Europe to be able to act. I have identified the ways in which we are developing that ability. She also rightly stressed the role of British leadership in Europe.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) talked about ballistic missile defence technology. We are certainly not complacent, but we recognise, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does, that the technology is changing extremely rapidly. It would be premature at this stage to acquire such a capability because it might prove ineffective. However, we are monitoring developments on the risk posed by ballistic missiles and cruise missile technology and the technology available to counter them. We are participating in a NATO study and will work
872
closely with our allies to inform further decisions. We are also aware of the considerable cost of ballistic missile defence and of the need to prioritise expenditure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen)—
Mr. Cohen: Before my hon. Friend comes on to me, may I comment on his response on ballistic missile defence technology? The one point that my hon. Friend missed out was that there is a treaty in existence. His missing it out implies that we would be prepared to agree with the United States that the treaty can be abrogated. Will he refer to that treaty?
Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend should not draw that conclusion from what I said. I was talking about our interest in keeping in touch with, and considering, technology. We should have to consider treaty arrangements in parallel with that.
My hon. Friend helpfully read out not only his own views on several subjects, but the replies of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That saved me a considerable amount of time. He also drew particularly helpful attention to the role of NATO, and especially of the UK, in retraining Russian officers to enable them to enter civilian life and find gainful employment. That has been of great assistance and has been much appreciated.
The hon. Member for New Forest, East started off with an interesting dissertation, which sounded for all the world like an Oxford seminar; I checked and found that he had attended that university and had been awarded a DPhil, so it was hardly surprising. I was most taken by his remark that he believed more strongly in defence than in a victory for one political party. From that, I draw the conclusion that he also believes in the need for a national defence policy. I shall deal with that later.
I was pleased that the hon. Gentleman had found the Commonwealth war graves internet site to be so useful. That site has been widely appreciated and heavily used. It has been of considerable help to many families. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made a considerable number of extremely detailed points. He would not expect me to reply to all of them this evening, but I or another Minister will certainly reply to him in the near future.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) is not in his place, but told me that he would have to leave the Chamber before the end of the debate. Not surprisingly, he mentioned the importance of air operations and paid tribute—with which I am sure that we all agree—to the air crews who served over Kosovo.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) stressed the need for rebuilding in Kosovo. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) also pointed out that a considerable of amount of such work would need to be done. I am sure that both hon. Gentlemen will be encouraged by the discussions on south-eastern European stability. There is a need to recreate civil society and organisation as well as the important job of physical reorganisation and building.

873
I was slightly surprised by the concern of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South over procurement drop-back. I do not think that he really has read the answers to which he referred.
Mr. Hancock: I have.
Mr. Spellar: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not drawn the right conclusions. I should certainly be more than happy to discuss the matter with him if he has some particular concerns.
I was also slightly taken aback when he said that not enough was being done about recruitment. I fully accept that we need to make further improvements in retention, but the recruitment story is a very good one. In all the services, the advertising campaign has been extremely good—as have the activities of the recruiting teams, including the ethnic recruiting teams. Ministers and senior officers can keep sending out the message, but what really gets through to the young man or woman in the West Bromwich labour exchange—which I visited recently—is hearing what life is like in Her Majesty's forces from people from the many communities. Those people are our best salesmen and they are doing extremely well. We are proud of them and are pleased with the work that they undertake.
The hon. Gentleman said that the case of the nuclear test veterans had not been examined. The case has been extremely well examined. I regret that he does not accept the answers that we, and the best scientific advice, have come up with. The case has been considered by the National Radiological Protection Board, not once but twice. People are entitled to make criticisms, but if they do so from a scientific standpoint, they should do it in proper scientific papers. Those papers should be published in peer reviewed journals so that they can be subjected to the scientific method. That is what the NRPB has done and that is what anyone else who wants to undermine or attack its arguments should do.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned those who have been afflicted with asbestosis and the other cancer that I always have difficulty pronouncing. He appeared to be speaking about civilian employees as well as service personnel, but my understanding is that civilian employees have all along been able to bring industrial injury compensation cases, and that the difficulty has been with service personnel, who have only more recently been able to bring such cases. I should be grateful if he would clarify that point.
Mr. Hancock: I was talking about both categories—civilian employees and service personnel. Service personnel never had that right before and they continue to have problems. Civilian employees have a problem of proof, because it is extremely difficult for them to gain access to documentation relating to their work, which in some cases was carried out 40 years ago. If a former dockyard employee spent his entire working career working for Her Majesty at the Royal Dockyard in Portsmouth, it should be obvious that the contamination came from that source. Such matters should be agreed in compensation cases but, sadly, they are not.
Mr. Spellar: I am sorry if there are such cases. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will
874
consider such cases as part of his general review of the problem. I should have thought that it would have been easier for dockyard workers to demonstrate the source of contamination than, for example, some of the people with whom I used to deal as a union official: contract workers on the Clyde who moved from company to company and were never formally employed in the shipyards. They had to get attestations from people who had worked with them or from employers, but the companies involved no longer existed. If there are unreasonable difficulties, I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman brought them to our attention and they will be examined.
Like other hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman spoke about the role of the Territorial Army. The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk referred to the 10 per cent. who are already serving in Bosnia, and we value their role. I have visited TA units and I know that, in some areas, there was disappointment about some of the decisions that had been made; however, other units that were receiving new equipment and could see their future role felt a sense of excitement and renewed interest. The picture is more balanced than has been said and we do the TA no service by ignoring that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) spoke about the refugees and the work in the camps. A few weeks ago, I was down in Maidstone with the Royal Engineers. All of us—in fact, the world in general—have been hugely impressed by the speed and professionalism with which they erected new camps for refugees. We remember seeing on television the tide of refugees coming across the border. The speed with which that apparent chaos was resolved by getting the refugees into proper camps where they had proper feeding facilities is a tremendous tribute to our personnel, who have continued to work in other camps. That demonstrates the role played by our armed forces in that region.
My hon. Friend mentioned defence diplomacy, which we stress strongly. In the former Soviet Union and in eastern Europe, our military personnel have undertaken a great deal of work, in particular to enable the transformation and evolution of the military in those areas. I have already referred to the retraining work in Russia.
My hon. Friend also referred to the campaign by the International Labour Organisation in respect of 18-year-olds and under-18s in the armed forces. In correspondence with him and other hon. Members, Ministers have set out the reasons why our recruitment policies are as they are. It should be stressed that the real difficulty with the recruitment of young people relates to those who are snatched and forcibly conscripted, either into armed forces, especially those of third world countries, or into paramilitary organisations and roving bands. There is a world of difference between such people and those who have been recruited in proper circumstances, with the consent of their parents, with the option to leave at certain stages, and with a whole range of other protections. We should not confuse the issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East raised one or two procurement issues. We were spared on this occasion questioning by my hon. F the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) who usually asks about that subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East informed me that he had to leave the Chamber, and I will write to him about the matters that he raised.

875
I draw hon. Members' attention to the question of resources and expenditure, particularly in terms of the Kosovo operation. That matter has been raised previously—although not in this debate. Expenditure to the end of May totalled £43 million compared with £37 million to the end of April. That is actual additional expenditure and does not include committed expenditure or the cost of expended ordnance. I thought it useful and important to give those figures to the House tonight.
Kosovo is but the latest and most dramatic example of the wide range of activities undertaken by Britain's defence in the world. First, the Government's commitment to make Britain a force for good in the world is no empty promise. We continue to have worldwide interests and worldwide influence, as well as a huge number of British nationals around the world. Furthermore, the dedication and professionalism of British forces is known and admired across the globe.
Mr. Hancock: How do the Government propose to support the President of Montenegro and his democratically elected Government, who will be subjected to enormous pressure from Milosevic and his regime now that he does not have Kosovo to boss around? Will NATO and the Ministry of Defence give support to the President and his regime?
Mr. Spellar: As I have told the hon. Gentleman, we are concerned about stability in south-east Europe and in the Balkans. As we pointed out to those who were critical of our operations in Kosovo, Milosevic's recent actions were simply the last in a long line of atrocities perpetrated by him and his regime. The countries of Europe—particularly the countries of the region—are anxious to put a stop to that instability and those atrocities. That view is shared by the international community. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the Serbian forces retreated into Serbia—and that was indicated clearly in the documentation.
Secondly, our forces' successes have displayed their capabilities and proved that their effectiveness is second to none. Hon. Members will not be surprised if I join all of those who have this evening paid tribute to our forces. We are not unusual in doing so. One has only to talk to a hurricane victim in central America, a Kosovar refugee or a service man from another country to understand why our armed services are held in such high regard across the world.
Thirdly, while we have rightly heard about the difficulties associated with our forces' levels of activity, we should not forget the up side—to which the hon. Member for Blaby drew attention. As he knows, our service personnel are never more satisfied than when they
876
are actively engaged on operations: when they know that they are doing the job they are trained for and making a real difference to the world.
Mr. Robathan: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I am listening carefully to his speech. British personnel also want to return to their families and have time off at some stage.
Mr. Spellar: We certainly understand that. That is why the Secretary of State has introduced several policies that will make the services more family friendly and help our armed forces personnel to move more easily into the outside world when they finish their service. The adult learning services have provided a great advantage. I visited RAF Cosford two or three weeks ago and I talked to several service men who are taking part in training using their training credits. They greatly appreciate that opportunity, which not only adds to their value to us but gives them portable skills to use in the outside world.
As hon. Members know, the new format of the defence debates, which differs from the previous single-service debates, was devised as a result of a bipartisan discussion about how we could more effectively debate defence roles in the Chamber. I think that it is working, and it will no doubt evolve.
The format raises a deeper issue, to which I alluded when I referred to the speech by the hon. Member for New Forest, East. In the previous Parliament, my colleagues and I argued repeatedly that we needed a more mature and consensual approach on defence matters. For reasons that I shall not go into tonight, the Conservatives did not take that up. We repeated that request from the Government Benches and attempted to accommodate other opinions in the strategic defence review process. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House who take an interest in defence have responded, and we shall continue our endeavours to change the way in which we deal with defence issues. That will be good for Parliament, it will be good for the country and, most importantly, it is the right thing to do for the men and women keeping watch tonight in the hills of the Balkans.
Question put and negatived.

COMMITTEES

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
  That Mr. Derek Twigg be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. Barry Gardiner be added to the Committee—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  Ordered,

  PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
  That Dr Lynda Clark, Mr. Fraser Kemp and Mr. Rhodri Morgan be discharged from the Select Committee on Public Administration and Mr. Desmond Browne, Mr. Brian White and Dr Tony Wright be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Scottish Borders (EU Structural Funds)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
6.51 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am pleased to be able to follow the wide-ranging debate that the House has just had on the important issues on defence in the world. I make no apologies for trying to refocus the attention of the House on the important issues facing the Scottish borders in relation to the distribution of the next programme of European Union structural funds. It would be difficult to exaggerate how important that is to south-east Scotland.
Before I embark on the main body of my remarks, I state my hope that, if my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will allow him to contribute briefly to the debate.
This is an appropriate day for a debate on European funding because we are having a European election, and the importance of the European Parliament in distributing structural funds in future is an essential part of the political argument that has been raging—or not, as the case may be—in the campaign.
Will the Minister say a few words about the consultation process that has been undertaken in recent weeks? Will that process continue? I fully understand that he may not be able to say as much as he would like because the consultation process has to be concluded, and we look forward to that. I heard a rumour, however, that there were early indications of proposed lists that might be published in the next few weeks. Will the Minister comment on that, if he can? I do not seek state secrets, although if he would like to reveal any state secrets, I should be quite happy to hear them. If he has any advance information about that consultation process, it would be good if he could put the Government's position on record.
If the Minister has an opportunity to have constructive meetings with colleagues, then no doubt colleagues not only from south-east Scotland but throughout the world will be beating a path to his door. Such meetings would be useful, and my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale and I would like to underline the earlier request for a meeting that we made in a letter.
As I said, it is difficult to exaggerate the importance of this issue to the future economic well-being of the Scottish borders region. The next programme of European funding will run from 2000 to 2006. Before I turn, briefly, to that programme, I shall, even more briefly, refer to the situation in the remainder of the current funding year.
The Scottish borders is coming to the end of a very constructive and important period of objective 5b funding. I would argue that the money that we have received since 1994—a crucial £24 million or £25 million—has been put to very good effect. The benefits are there for all to see. I hope that, in the remaining months of the current period, we will be able to make the best use of what money there is, and, in the dying days of the existing programme, construct a bridge between it and the new programme, which will take us into objective 2 territory once the reforms are implemented on 1 January next year.
878
The Secretary of State and, indeed, the Under-Secretary, have said that they will use their good offices to divert at the last minute any unallocated funds from other parts of the country. A carefully worked out and detailed programme in the borders would put any unallocated funds that the Under-Secretary might be able to find to very good use. Ministers promised to do their best. I understand that the task is not easy, but anything that the Under-Secretary might be able to say about the process would be extremely valuable to local people, who would then know whether the projects on which they have worked will be confirmed and can proceed. That would be a very valuable bridge from the current programme, as it winds down, to the new one.
We all know that, under the new set-up, objective 2 funds are designed to try to deal with a process of conversion in areas of the European Community that are suffering difficulties. They are supposed to address difficulties in areas facing economic change in manufacturing or service industries, or changing social backgrounds. Declining rural areas are particularly mentioned as targets for objective 2 work over the next six years, and—appositely for the coastal communities in Berwickshire that I represent—depressed fishing areas are specifically referred to as deserving help. Such factors are important and all applicable in diverse ways to south-east Scotland, which puts us in a good position to qualify for objective 2 help.
In passing, I again congratulate the Government on the cushion of the safety net, as a result of which the amount of money available under the current objective 5b status may be reduced only by a maximum of one third. That is a valuable cushion, of which I hope we shall make very good use.
As the Under-Secretary will know, any area of the United Kingdom cannot automatically or easily meet the core criteria. To that extent, the deal was bad for the UK. There is no automatic eligibility for areas such as south-east Scotland, although I would argue that the Scottish borders area has a very good case in many respects. However—I underline this—we need central Government support. Co-operation at ministerial and official level between the Scottish Office and our professionals in the local enterprise company and the local authority has been excellent, and we are grateful for that, but we need some political support from the Government—and we need it now.
I have two or three further points to make—none of them will be new to the Government or the Under-Secretary because they are well aware of the case that has been submitted. I endorse the excellent written submission made by the local enterprise company and the local authority. I shall highlight one or two points of the submission in reinforcing the case.
I should like the Government to look particularly at the new work being done by the Centre for Educational Sociology at Edinburgh university, because it has identified something that I did not realise. The reason why local unemployment is artificially low is that such a high proportion of young people leave the area just after leaving school. Given that many would not find jobs if they stayed in the area, unemployment would be higher than the Scottish average if such people were added to the count. That important factor is argued at some length in the official submission.

879
Secondly, I draw attention to the part of the submission about difficulties facing agriculture, given that 33.3 per cent. of businesses in south-east Scotland in 1996 were based on the primary sector. That is a crucial factor for us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale and I spent Monday afternoon with people from our local National Farmers Union, and they reinforced the fact that was clearly shown in the local authority survey conducted earlier this year—that the agricultural sector in south-east Scotland is having a very difficult time.
It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
Mr. Kirkwood: I have only one more point to make, and I was trying to get it in before 7 o'clock, but I failed.
I want to draw attention to fisheries, because the new objective 2 schemes provide us with a new opportunity to help distressed fishing areas. According to the figures that we have worked out locally, between 10 and 15 per cent. of the Berwickshire travel-to-work area depends on fish landing and processing, and the ancillary sectors.
I know that the Minister is an expert on some of the relevant issues, and realises how important fishing is to coastal communities. Landings of fish at Eyemouth have slumped in the past 10 years from 8,000 tonnes to 5,000 tonnes, according to figures produced in the past few months. That is a worrying trend, and I think that objective 2 funds could address the problem constructively if we use them properly.
The Scottish Office working party report did valuable work in identifying what needs to be done, and came to the conclusion that, in terms of trying to deliver that programme for the future, it was important that continued access to European structural funding should be continued in some way and at some level into the new programme.
Objective 2 status for the whole of the Scottish borders is a crucial target for us, and I hope that we can count on the Government's support in trying to achieve that end.
7.1 pm
Mr. Michael Moore: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) for inviting me to contribute to this short debate, and I also thank the Minister for agreeing to my participation.
Most of the key points have already been made by my hon. Friend, and I shall reinforce some of them. In particular, I must emphasise the grim couple of years that we have had in the borders, with thousands of job losses and the widespread collapse of farm incomes, which affects nearly every significant sector of the local economy.
We have had many responses from the local enterprise company, the council and the Government—a contribution that my hon. Friend and 1 have been more than willing to acknowledge in the past, and I am happy to acknowledge it again. The partnership between the different political parties and the different agencies has worked, and we are keen for it to continue.
880
It is evident to all of us that we need to continue with the diversification of the borders economy and ensure long-term support both for new industries and for the many successful continuing businesses in key sectors such as textiles. In that context, the continuing availability of structural funds for the borders, and winning back assisted area status, will be critical.
My hon. Friend mentioned the borders working party report, which was published as recently as March. It is a solid document with real proposals and good pointers for the future. I want to draw the Minister's attention to two or three of those. On page 7 it is acknowledged that
"The availability of European money has been extremely important to the Borders"
over the past few years. The report continues:
"The Government is … committed to reallocating unused European structural funds for use in the Borders."
Like my hon. Friend, I hope that the Minister will—if not this evening, soon—be able to respond to our concerns and perhaps honour the pledge made to the borders in that respect.
The most important section in the working party report states:
"The Working Party believes that the availability of European new Objective 2 funding will be crucial to the rebuilding of the Borders economy and any reduction or removal of European funding could have a serious adverse effect on the timetable for carrying forward initiatives and achieving the objectives"—
that is, the objectives of the new economic strategy.
The report puts things clearly and eloquently, and I endorse what it says.
A number of the factors that will be difficult for us have already been mentioned and I do not want to repeat too much of what my hon. Friend has said. One such factor is the migration of young people. We have a growing population, but that is accounted for largely by the commuter belt around Edinburgh and by the increasing numbers of retired people, who are welcome in the borders but are masking the underlying trend of young people leaving the area.
We hope that the Government can continue to support our case and will recognise that, with our rurality—ours is the second most sparsely populated area in the United Kingdom after the highlands and islands—and our industrial dependency, which, paradoxically, is the second highest in Scotland, and with 2,500 jobs lost already in the past couple of years, matters are serious and need to be addressed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and I will go to Brussels on Monday to speak to the European Commission about these very issues. We hope that we take with us Government support and can be assured of on-going efforts on their part to secure new objective 2 status. We have seen already that the Government have recognised the problems of the borders and we hope that, in on-going representations to Europe, they will support us in seeking some of the solutions.
7.6 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on securing the debate. I also congratulate both him and the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) on their contributions to consideration of the important matter of European structural funds and the borders. It is not the first time that we have debated the subject. I pay tribute to the way in which both hon. Gentlemen articulated the interests of their constituents in what is obviously a difficult time for the borders area.
As has been said, structural funds have played their part in contributing to economic development in the borders and in Scotland. The benefits are already clear across the whole of the borders area, and we can expect further benefits to flow over the next few years as projects mature and as their longer-term aims are realised.
Both hon. Gentlemen raised two principal concerns—the current borders objective 5b programme and whether additional funding can be found for that, and the prospects for the area in the next round under objective 2.
Structural fund assistance was introduced to the borders as a result of the previous reform, way back in 1993. At the time, the programme partnership, which includes all the local agencies, was unanimously of the view that the level of EC resources provided for the borders programme was inadequate to meet the needs of the area. Although strong arguments for additional resources were then advanced, nothing was done. All eligible areas had been allocated funding based on an agreed set of criteria already used for disbursement of objective 5b funds.
In recognition of the serious impact of recent job losses in the area, the new Government made a commitment last year to try to find unspent EC resources to allocate specifically to the borders, and we intend to deliver on that commitment. On the basis of the Government's commitment, the borders objective 5b partnership drew up a mini-programme, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire mentioned, based on immediate and longer-term need, with the expectation that additional EC resources would be made available at some stage before the end of 1999. The necessary processes take time, and they are still continuing as I speak.
Officials in the Scottish Office Development Department approached various project sponsors towards the end of 1998 and again in February of this year, to establish precisely what the projected spend profiles would be in their various projects. The exercise involved a review of the forecast financial uptake of projects approved to date, together with an accurate assessment of what was likely to come forward for structural fund support during the remainder of 1999.
That exercise concluded that £2.2 million could be reallocated for use by the borders to advance the projects approved by the programme monitoring committee as contained within the mini-programme, and I am pleased to be able to confirm the Government's intention to reallocate that funding.
The process of transferring funds will take a little time as it has to be cleared by the European Commission, although we do not have any reason to suspect objections or difficulties with what we propose. In the meantime, the borders project sponsors will be allowed to proceed with
882
those projects approved subject to the availability of funds, but at this stage it must be at their own risk, given that final approval is in the hands of the Commission.
I have no doubt that the additional EC funds to be made available to the borders, together with an equivalent amount of co-finance from the various public sector authorities, which together amount to a package of more than £4 million, will be of significant assistance to the area. As the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said, the Government promised to find the money last year in recognition of the special problems of the borders. We are sticking by that promise and are well on the way to delivering.
Let me deal with the future of structural funds after the current programme period finishes in December. Briefly to set the context, member states largely signed up to the Commission's broad aims of concentration, simplification and preparing the way for a much-enlarged European Union. However, although we accept that concentration inevitably means reduced coverage for existing member states, we were determined that that should be achieved in a fair and even-handed way among all member states.
For the UK, as has been pointed out, that presented a particular challenge. At the time of the last allocation of structural funds, in the early 1990s, UK unemployment was extremely high and the UK was in the grip of a serious recession. As a consequence of that high unemployment and other factors, the UK received extensive coverage under objective 2.
The picture in the late 1990s and as we head into the next century is very different. The new Government have achieved the lowest levels of unemployment in 22 years. Low unemployment would inevitably mean dramatically reduced coverage of objective 2, unless the UK could negotiate an alternative. That is why the Prime Minister proposed and pushed so hard for a safety net. Securing that safety net in respect of objective 2 was a priority every bit as great for the Government as getting a good deal on the highlands and islands, although it may have received less press attention.
The Prime Minister won his argument on the safety net at the Berlin summit at the end of March. The safety net delivers for the UK as a whole much larger coverage of objective 2 than would otherwise have been available. It doubles the population coverage that we would otherwise have got, from 6.5 million to 13.5 million people.
Having secured the safety net, we must allocate that coverage fairly within the UK, and in a way that is acceptable to the Commission. The first step in that process has been to engage in wide public consultation, as has been mentioned, on objective 2 coverage. That consultation finished on 25 May, and we have been considering carefully the range of submissions received.
The next step is for the Government to propose a list of areas to the Commission. It is intended that that should be done in July, but it is likely to take three or four months before final agreement is reached between the Government and the Commission on the list of designated areas.
As soon as there is a definitive list of eligible areas, decisions can be taken by Ministers in the new Scottish Executive on the mechanics of operating the new programmes. Clearly, the final level of eligibility will be significant in determining programme areas and committee structures.

883
In the interim, however, time will be used constructively. Plan teams in Scotland have been established and have met regularly since the beginning of March to do the preparatory work needed for drafting new programmes. Although the eligible areas obviously remain unknown, it is still possible to undertake much of the economic analyses and priority setting in advance, particularly as all areas currently eligible will receive transition funding at the very least.
Again, it is thanks to the Prime Minister that we shall have six years' transition for all areas losing eligibility, instead of the four years proposed by the Commission for current objective 2 and 5b areas. That will allow all areas the opportunity to develop strategies over a reasonable time scale, even if they fail to qualify for full funding in the new round.
Given the future realities of enlargement, it is important to remember that these may well be the last available structural funds for most of Scotland, whether in transition or fully eligible, and that future eligibility will be concentrated on the areas in greatest need. All partners must accept that, in view of the future concentration, there will inevitably be areas that lose eligibility. With reduced funding available to a smaller population, the emphasis must be on targeting the most deprived areas.
I understand how the borders area is placed, and how the eligibility criteria in the regulations affect its relatively high dependence on the industrial sector, the discernible decline in industrial employment, the sparse population,
884
the out-migration that was mentioned, the high proportion of agricultural employment and the fisheries dependency around Eyemouth or the Berwickshire coast. As has been said, those factors are well brought out in the case submitted by Scottish Borders council.
I appreciate the fact that partners in the borders, along with many others, are concerned about the likelihood of future funding under objective 2. Obviously, I cannot give any assurances at this stage in the process, but I can promise that careful attention is being given both to the cases submitted by areas and to the data available to the Government. The Government will look carefully and hard at the relative and respective merits of the cases put forward and will use open and transparent criteria for the final selection.
Finally, I emphasise the importance of the role of the partners in the borders, and any other area in Scotland which is pursuing objective 2 funding. They know the local priorities and local problems best, and it is for them to develop and implement exit strategies accordingly. It is for the partners to ensure that they make the best possible use of whatever funding they secure, be it objective 2, objective 3, transitional or rural diversification funding.
I hope that what I have said has been helpful to the hon. Members for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale and their constituents, and that this evening's announcement will be positively received in the borders.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Seven o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Seamus Ludlow
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assistance the RUC has offered the Irish police following the announcement of a new inquiry into the killing of Seamus Ludlow in 1976; and if she will waive restrictions preventing witnesses and others assisting the investigation. [86140]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 9 June 1999]On the basis of inquiries to the Irish Government, I have been advised that there has been no such announcement.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to change departmental refrigeration and air-conditioning systems to operate on not-in-kind refrigerants. [86166]

  Dr. Howells
  The policy of this Department is to ensure that no products containing CFCs, HFCs, Halon Carbon tetrachloride 1,1,1, methyl bromide or any other ozone depleting substances are purchased.

  The Department continues to look at alternative methods of refrigeration wherever practical.

  Passenger Service Charge
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the decision of airline companies to separate passenger service charges from the price of their tickets; and what assessment he has made of that decision. [86237]

  Dr. Howells
  I have received one letter on this issue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has lead responsibility for this issue, and I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) on 11 May 1999,Official Report, columns 108–09.

  Hearing Aid Council Act 1968
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to amend the Hearing Aid Council Act 1968 to permit a more streamlined 364
  disciplinary procedure for hearing aid dispensers; and what plans he has to consult on the effectiveness of the powers of the Hearing Aid Council. [85938]

  Dr. Howells
  I am aware of the Hearing Aid Council's concerns about the Hearing Aid Council Act 1968. There continues to be considerable pressures on the legislative programme and I can give no guarantee when time might become available, but will be looking for an opportunity.

  Arms Exports (Indonesia)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the individual items of military equipment licensed for export to Indonesia and their uses which are referred to in the Annual report on Strategic Export Controls as(a) communications equipment, (b) electrical components, (c) electronic equipment and (d) military simulator. [85831]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested relates to 10 Standard Individual Export Licences, and inquiries are being made under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. As confidential information is involved, the parties concerned are being asked if they consent to its disclosure, and this can take some time. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible, and will place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Open Individual Export Licences were(a) applied for, (b) approved and (c) refused during 1998. [86242]

  Dr. Howells
  Detailed information about export licensing decisions made in 1998, including those made on applications for Open Individual Export Licences, will be included in the 1998 Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls, which will be published in due course.

  Oesophageal Cancer
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of 26 April 1999,Official Report, column 29, on oesophageal cancer, what representations he has received that patients' consents were not obtained prior to their admission to the trial procedures. [85717]

  Mr. Battle
  I have not received any representation on this issue.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 17 May 1999,Official Report, columns 252–53, on Special Advisers, if he will list the meetings which his Special Advisers held with members and officials of the United States Government between 10 and 16 October 1998, listing the dates and locations of each meeting and the names of the US Ministers and officials at each meeting. [86283]

  Mr. Byers
  No such meetings were held.

  Combined Heat and Power Generation, Cleveland
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his decision on Enron Europe Ltd.'s notification to build a combined heat and power generation station at the Teesside Gas Processing Plant, Seal Sands, Cleveland. [86826]

  Mr. Battle
  I have today granted clearance under Section 14 of the Energy Act 1976 in response to Enron Europe Ltd.'s notification to build a 45 MW gas-fired combined heat and power station at the Teesside Gas Processing Plant at Seal Sands, Cleveland. The decision has been taken in accordance with the policy set out in the White Paper entitled "Conclusions of the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation and Government response to fourth and fifth Reports of the Trade and Industry Committee" (Cm 4071).

  I believe very strongly that CHP should play a vital and expanding role in the future of the UK power market. The technology has now come into its own, and the efficiency it offers is delivering benefits not just to business users, but to the country as a whole.

  Recruitment information

  Number of staff recruited 1 January 1998 to 31 December 1998

  Gender

  Ethnic background2

  Range

  Permanent

  FTA

  Recurring temp

  Standby

  Short notice

  Other1

  M

  F

  White

  Ethnic minority

  Not stated

  Disability

  Range 11

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Range 10

  6

  15

  —

  1

  —

  —

  17

  5

  19

  3

  0

  2

  Range 9

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9

  3

  11

  1

  0

  0

  Range 8

  18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13

  5

  17

  1

  0

  2

  Range 7

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  1

  9

  1

  2

  2

  Range 6

  16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  13

  16

  0

  1

  4

  Range 5

  8

  —

  1

  —

  —

  9

  8

  10

  14

  2

  2

  1

  Range 4

  19

  3

  —

  —

  —

  7

  11

  18

  17

  9

  3

  2

  Range 3

  9

  —

  2

  —

  —

  25

  24

  12

  24

  8

  4

  3

  Range 2

  25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  17

  15

  27

  20

  17

  5

  0

  Range 1

  11

  2

  —

  —

  —

  5

  7

  11

  15

  1

  2

  3

  Fast stream

  20

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  15

  12

  22

  4

  1

  1

  Total

  156

  23

  3

  1

  —

  71

  137

  117

  184

  47

  20

  20

  1 Includes numbers of casuals, sandwich course students, legal trainees

  2 Note that ethnic data has been suppressed for those ranges where numbers recruited are 5 or less to avoid the possibility of identifying individuals

  The number of occasions on which the permitted exceptions to fair and open competition and selection on merit have been used at each level (except for appointments of up to 12 months) are categorised as below. Details of the exceptions are underneath the relevant category.

  extensions of appointments of up to 12 months up to a maximum of 24 months: none

  recurrent short-term appointments:

  2 Range 3s, 1 Range 5, 1 part-time Range I1 and 6 Range 10s, all employed in the Queens Award office where the work is seasonal

  short-term appointments where highly specialised skills are required:

  1 Range 10 on a standby contract for 20 days providing advice on clean coal generation technology and 2 fixed-term appointments of Range 10 Lawyers to meet unforeseen shortfalls in specific areas of legal services
  366
  Copies of the Press Notice and Section 14 clearance are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Recruitment
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish summary information on his Department's recruitment for calendar year 1998, and the use of permitted exceptions to the principles of fair and open competition and selection on merit, as required by the Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment Code. [86825]

  Dr. Howells
  It is DTI policy that recruitment is carried out on the basis of fair and open competition and selection on merit, subject to the exceptions permitted by the Civil Service Commissioners. My Department has systems in place which ensure that the principles of fair and open competition are understood and followed, in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment Code. These systems are subject to internal check and to external check by the Commissioner's approved auditors.

  The DTI's Executive Agencies and the Government Office network make separate arrangements for publishing recruitment data and the following table and narratives describe only Headquarters recruitment.

  extensions of short-term appointments beyond the initially publicised period, including conversions to permanency:

  1 Range 10 Research Officer whose appointment was extended to oversee the completion of a project; 1 Range 10 converted to permanency due to difficulty of recruiting a Remuneration Specialist

  secondments: 56

  extensions to secondments:

  26, mostly in the export promotion field where it is difficult to attract the right people. Also, it is becoming increasingly difficult to gain agreement for secondees' release from their parent organisation

  re-appointment of former civil servants:

  1 Range 10 Lawyer formerly employed by the Crown Prosecution Service; 1 Range 4 who was originally recruited by DSS, applied to DTI for a casual post and was then reinstated in situ

  transfers of staff with their work (not under TUPE): none
  367
  transfers of staff from other public services without work (unless from a public body staffed exclusively by civil servants): none

  appointments of surplus acceptable candidates to shortage posts: none

  appointments of disabled candidates under modified selection arrangements: none

  any use of the exceptions reserved for the Commissioners (ie appointments on the basis of the proven distinction of the individual and appointments not in order of merit): none.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Celebrations (Promotion)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps his Department took to promote Britain's millennium celebrations at the European Incentive and Business Travel and Meetings Exhibition in Geneva. [85297]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 24 May 1999]As the name indicates, this particular Exhibition in Geneva was primarily concerned with business incentives and business travel. The British Tourist Authority, which is funded by my Department, was present at the exhibition and promoted the millennium celebrations primarily through their "VisitBritain" internet site which was live on the stand with open access for anyone wishing to explore it. In addition, pictures of the Millennium Dome and other millennium projects, such as the Eden Project, were integrated into the overall design of the stand.

  Ministerial Hospitality
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he authorised the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting to accept night club tickets and hospitality arranged by Sony Entertainment and the British Phonographic Industry Ltd.; and what account he took of the Ministerial Code in doing so. [86655]

  Janet Anderson
  There is no requirement for Ministers to seek the advice of their Secretary of State on the acceptance of gifts or hospitality. The DCMS has a clear policy on hospitality, in line with the Ministerial Code, and all Ministers and officials are expected to abide by it.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total monetary value was of the(a) night club tickets arranged for the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting by Sony Entertainment and the British Phonographic Industry Ltd. and (b) hospitality received. [86656]

  Janet Anderson
  There is no charge for entry for guests of members of the Met Bar, Brown's or the Mayfair Club, and, therefore, no monetary value attached to the entry obtained. No other hospitality was received.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Jurors
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what exemptions from jury service are available to jurors with unavoidable child care responsibilities. [86198]
  368
  Mr. Vaz
  If someone applies for excusal from jury service on the grounds of the need to care for young children, the guidance to court staff states that their application should be dealt with sympatherically. Each application is considered by the jury-summoning officer, based on the information provided by the applicant.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  MOX Shipment (Japan)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his oral answer to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), of 18 May 1999,Official Report, column 861, on MOX shipments to Japan, by what means the plutonium in MOX fuel is destroyed in nuclear reactors; and if he will list the evidence on which he based his reply. [85825]

  Mr. Hoon
  Typically, MOX fuel contains between 50 and 70 kilograms of plutonium for each tonne of fuel entering the reactor. It is estimated that after four years of generating electricity, the amount of plutonium remaining in the fuel would have been reduced by about 18 kilograms in each tonne. This underpins the view that the use of MOX fuel reduces proliferation risks by gradually reducing plutonium stockpiles.

  This is supported by an OECD (Nuclear Energy Agency) study ("Management of Separated Plutonium: The Technical Options", OECD, Paris 1997) which has indicated that if MOX fuel is burnt at reasonable levels, the world's stockpile of plutonium can be held steady and then gradually reduced during the first decade of the next century.

  Entry Clearance Applications
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how long, on average, it took between refusal of settlement entry clearance at(a) New Delhi, (b) Bombay, (c) Islamabad, (d) Karachi, (e) Lagos, (f) Accra and (g) Moscow and the dispatch of the explanatory statement to the UK for statements dispatched in (i) September 1998, (ii) December 1998 and (iii) March 1999; and if he will estimate how long it will take for explanatory statements to be dispatched for refusals made in (A) December 1998, (B) March 1999, (C) April 1999 and (D) May 1999. [86101]

  Mr. Hoon
  Information in the form requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Explanatory statements are not prepared until a Notice of Appeal against the entry clearance decision is received. The time limit for this is three months from the date of refusal. In 1998, 81 per cent. of settlement refusals worldwide resulted in an appeal.

  In 1990 guidelines were introduced requiring Entry Clearance Officers to produce and submit explanatory statements to the appropriate authorities in the UK within three months of receipt of the notice of appeal.
  369
  The following table shows the percentage of explanatory statements submitted within three months at the posts named, during 1998:

  Percentage

  New Delhi

  85

  Bombay

  98

  Islamabad

  74

  Karachi

  91

  Lagos

  92

  Accra

  50

  Moscow

  100

  Kashmir
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Pakistan and Indian Governments about Kashmir; and if he will make a statement. [86063]

  Mr. Hoon
  We are deeply concerned by infiltration of militants into Jammu and Kashmir, and fighting between them and the Indian Security Forces. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary recently discussed the situation in Kashmir with his Pakistani and Indian counterparts. We continue to urge both countries to work together to resolve the issues between them, including Kashmir, through bilateral dialogue.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received following recent hostilities on the line of control in Kashmir. [86062]

  Mr. Hoon
  We are aware of the concern of many people in the UK regarding the current situation in Kashmir. We have made clear to Indian and Pakistani governments our hope that they can work together to resolve the issues between them, including Kashmir, through bilateral dialogue.

  Angola
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Angolan Government regarding(a) the activities of UNITA in that country and (b) the international supply of arms to UNITA; and if he will make a statement. [86061]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are in regular contact with the Angolan authorities both in London and in Luanda. Indeed I most recently discussed these issues with Dr. Miranda, the Angolan Foreign Minister, on 23 February when I was in Luanda. We deeply regret the renewal of the conflict for which we hold Dr. Jonas Savimbis' UNITA responsible. We fully support the tightening of United Nations sanctions on the sale of diamonds, on oil supplies and arms for UNITA. We welcome the establishment by the United Nations Secretary-General of expert groups to study the issue. We look forward to learning the results of the visit to the region by Ambassador Fowler, the Chairman of the UN Angolan Sanctions Committee. We shall then discuss with the Angolan authorities, our EU partners and all those members of the international community interested in finding a peaceful solution to the conflict in Angola how best to implement his findings.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Tobacco
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on tobacco consumption in the developing world. [86213]

  Clare Short
  I view with great concern the estimate by the World Health Organisation (WHO) that, if current trends continue, tobacco will be the leading cause of disease burden in the world by 2030, causing about one in eight deaths, and that 70 per cent. of tobacco-related deaths will be in developing countries. I strongly support the priority being given to tobacco control by WHO through its "Tobacco Free" initiative, and the efforts to establish an international framework convention for tobacco control which, in particular, will aim to protect children and adolescents from exposure to tobacco products and their promotion. We are contributing £200,000 this financial year to the "Tobacco Free initiative".

DEFENCE

  Turkey
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the value of defence products exported to Turkey during 1998. [86204]

  Mr. Spellar
  Information on defence exports will be included in the Government's Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls for 1998, which will be published in due course.

  Pay and Personnel Agency
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Pay and Personnel Agency for the financial year 1999–2000. [86911]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive of the Pay and Personnel Agency (PPA) is responsible for providing pay and personnel information services for the Ministry of Defence as defined in the agency framework document. During 1999–2000 the PPA will be set the following challenging key performance targets:

  1. To make 100 per cent. of all payments to staff by the due date (excluding late payments caused by invalid claims or late notification outside the control of the Agency).

  2. To keep error rates within the following limits:

  12 per 1,000 payments of weekly industrial pay

  6 per 1,000 payments of monthly non-industrial pay

  20 per 1,000 awards of pension

  15 per 1,000 payments of expenses

  3. By 31 March 2000 to implement the action plan established from the customer satisfaction survey.

  4. To meet the Department's requirement for implementing agreed pay and grading changes.

  5. By 31 March 2000 to complete training of 60 per cent. of all staff in leadership or change management or customer service as appropriate.

  6. To achieve Agency IIP accreditation before the end of 1999.

  7. To achieve full Y2K compliance of critical systems with revised contingency plans for maintaining business continuity into the next millennium.

  371

  8. To deliver the financial and organisational objectives resulting from the PPA Efficiency Review and in doing so achieve at least a 15 per cent. reduction in operating costs compared with the 1998–99 cash allocation.

  Military Survey Defence Agency
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Key Targets have been set for the Military Survey Defence Agency for the financial year 1999–2000. [86912]

  Mr. Spellar
  The role of Military Survey is to ensure the provision of geographic support to defence operations, planning and training. The Key Targets for the Agency for the 12 months from April 1999 are:

  Key Target 1:

  To satisfy 100 per cent. of requirements for geographic support to current operations within the timescale agreed between the Agency and its customers.

  Key Target 2:

  To establish the baseline for measurement of customer satisfaction with the Agency's products and services.

  Key Target 3:

  To complete the agreed annual production programme on time and to cost.

  Key Target 4:

  To establish the baseline measurement of the effectiveness of the Agency's geographic information holdings in meeting customer requirements.

  Key Target 5:

  To maintain the requirement-readiness state of the required Field Support elements of the Agency as required by the Department.

  Key Target 6:

  To achieve a 3 per cent. improvement in efficiency.

  RAF Personnel Management Agency
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the RAF Personnel Management Agency for the financial year 1999–2000. [86913]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the RAF Personnel Management Agency for the Financial Year 1999–2000 as follows:

  Key Target 1—Peaetime Manning

  To ensure that the percentage of trained personnel either filling posts or on alternative tasks for which there is an approved Manning and Training Margin is 92.5 per cent. or greater.

  Key Target 2—War, Crisis and MOD Authorised Unestablished Tasks

  To man War, Crisis and MOD authorised Unestablished Tasks at 98 per cent. or greater.

  Key Target 3—Career Management

  To ensure that 80 per cent. or more personnel who are given a posting that qualifies for a domestic move receive a minimum of 90 days notice.

  Key Target 4—Manpower Planning

  To ensure that the percentage variation between the actual trained strength and the authorised trained strength, taken as an average over the financial year is no greater than + or - 1 per cent.

  Key Target 5—Efficiency

  To maintain operating costs within a reduced cash allocation of 1.7 per cent. in real terms from the last financial year.

  Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre Defence Agency for the financial year 1999—2000. [86914]

  Mr. Spellar
  The role of the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre is to produce imagery intelligence and imagery products and services to meet MOD and operational command requirements. The Key Targets for the Agency for the 12 months from April 1999 are:

  Key Target 1:

  To satisfy 95 per cent. of operational requirements for imagery, imagery intelligence (IMINT) and imagery-derived products within the timescales specified in the Customer Agreement.

  Key Target 2:

  To provide detached service personnel for intelligence-related support to operations duties (up to a maximum of 6 per cent. of the service strength at any time).

  Key Target 3:

  To satisfy 85 per cent. of non-operational requirements for imagery, imagery intelligence (IMINT) and imagery-derived products and services within the timescales specified in the Customer Agreement.

  Key Target 4:

  To achieve a 3 per cent. improvement in efficiency.

  Key Target 5:

  To establish the baseline for measurement of customer satisfaction with the Agency's products and services.

  Defence Intelligence and Security Centre
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre Defence Agency for the financial year 1999–2000. [86915]

  Mr. Spellar
  The role of the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre is to train the armed forces and other Intelligence agencies in intelligence and security disciplines and conduct after capture; to maintain an operational capability; and to contribute to effective and timely advice to the armed forces on appropriate intelligence and security matters. The Key Targets for the Agency for the 12 months from April 1999 are:

  Key Target 1:

  To satisfy 100 per cent. of operational taskings required by the Department to the standard specified by the tasking authority.

  Key Target 2:

  To deliver the training programme endorsed by the Defence Intelligence Training Policy Group within agreed resources.

  Key Target 3:

  To achieve an overall 80 per cent. measure of customer satisfaction with the quality of training delivered.

  Key Target 4:

  To reduce the real-terms cost of delivering the average training place made available by the DISC by 2 per cent. in FY 1999-2000.

  Milestone Objective:

  To achieve Investors in People accreditation by 31 December 1999.

  Patents
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many patent applications have been passed to his
  373
  Department under section 22 of the Patents Act 1977 in each year since its implementation; how many are still held by his Department; and if he will make a statement on the procedures followed by his Department in respect of this matter. [85352]

  Mr. Spellar
  MOD records show that 4,700 Patent Applications were passed to MOD in the period 1985–98, of which 1,669 are still prohibited from publication. The total number of applications passed to MOD between 1978, when the Patents Act was implemented, and 1984 is not available, because the only information in the computer database relates to those applications which are still subject to prohibition; 471 applications from that period are still subject to a Section 22 prohibition order. Annual summaries of these figures follow: Of the overall total of 2,140 cases still prohibited from publication, 927 are overseas patent applications, which have been filed under secure conditions in the UK. These come from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United States of America, countries with which the UK has reciprocal arrangements for the protection of applications which have been prohibited from publication, and which have procedures similar to Section 22 of the 1977 Patents Act.

  The MOD may not see any prohibited application until either the owner of the application has given permission for this, or until 18 months after the filing date, if such permission is not forthcoming. The MOD endeavours to confirm a prohibition order, or to recommend rescission of the order, within three months of receipt of the applications. 85 per cent. of new applications are dealt with within this time.

  Each application which is prohibited from publication is reviewed annually by MOD to decide whether the prohibition order should be maintained or rescinded.

SCOTLAND

  Warm Deal
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in implementing the Warm Deal programme in Scotland under the New Deal. [85407]

  Mr. Macdonald
  By 31 March 1999, 37,000 houses had been insulated under the Warm Deal by 450 New Deal employees.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Rural Bus Services
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is his policy that all underspend on the Rural Bus Services Grant for 1998-99 will be added to moneys available to improve rural bus services in 1999–2000. [85658]
  374
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]The 1998–99 underspend on the grant has been added to the sum available for allocation to local authority schemes successful in the rural bus challenge competition, as was reflected in the total amount of challenge awards announced on 16 December.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in what ways the harvested material from the genetically modified crop test sites of(a) herbicide resitant oilseed rape, (b) high laurate modified oilseed rape, (c) herbicide resistant maize and (d) herbicide resistant beet will be disposed of. [85942]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]The method by which harvested material from experimental releases of genetically modified crops is disposed of is specified in every consent, the details of each consent are available on the statutory public register held at my Department.

  Typical means of disposal of harvested material include the methods set out as follows:

  (a) Herbicide resistant oilseed rape seed is harvested and buried in landfill sites or incinerated, depending on quantities. The green plant material is treated with herbicide and then incorporated into the soil on site.

  (b) High laurate modified oilseed rape seed is harvested and used for research or stored in bonded warehouses pending decision on future uses. Green plant material is treated with herbicide and then incorporated into the soil on site.

  (c) Herbicide resistant maize is chopped and incorporated into the soil, incinerated or buried in landfill depending on quantities.

  (d) Herbicide resistant beet is taken for analysis and then incinerated. Beets not required for analysis are chopped by farm machinery and incorporated into the soil on site.

  Lead Shot
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from the Countryside Alliance concerning his recent consultation paper on the use of lead shot over wetlands; and what reply he has sent. [86046]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]My Department has received a number of representations on the proposed regulations on the use of lead shot including those of Countryside Alliance. Their views on the Regulations will be considered along with those of other organisations and individuals who have commented.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to lay before Parliament delegated legislation dealing with lead shot. [85917]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]It is the intention of my Department to lay the Statutory Instrument on the use of lead shot before Parliament in time for regulations to come into force in England on
  375
  1 September 1999. From 1 July, any regulations to restrict the use of lead shot in Scotland and Wales will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly respectively.

  Atmospheric Pollution Trends
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on trends in the levels of(a) ammonia, (b) benzene, (c) mercury and (d) phosgene in the atmosphere. [86026]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 June 1999](a) Ammonia—My Department has been funding a nationwide network of around 70 sites to measure the ambient concentrations of ammonia since 1996. To date, there is not a sufficiently long dataset to discern authoritatively any trends, although early indications are that there is substantial seasonal and inter-annual variability. There are larger concentrations in spring and summer, and the largest concentrations are in warm, dry years. On the basis of natural variability, monitoring for more than five years will be necessary to clearly detect changes in response to changes in national emissions. Numbers of livestock and nitrogen fertiliser usage, which are the main sources of ammonia, have declined since the mid 1980s.

  Earlier ad-hoc monitoring campaigns from this period are not sufficient to demonstrate increased concentrations in the 1980s compared with the present. Much longer term datasets of precipitation chemistry and deposition have shown that atmospheric ammonia increased substantially between 1950 and the 1980s, which can be explained by both increases in livestock numbers and nitrogen fertiliser inputs.

  (b) Benzene—My Department has funded the continuous real-time measurement of benzene in the air since 1993. There are now 13 sites in the network, including roadside, urban background, and rural locations. In 1997, the running annual mean for benzene from this network ranged from (rural) 0.5–(urban centre) 2.1 parts per billion. To date, there is not a sufficiently long dataset to discern authoritatively any trends. Results of the monitoring are available in the Department's Digest of Environmental Statistics, and are available on the Department's internet site.

  (c) Mercury—Mercury is predominantly present in the UK atmosphere as either particulate mercury or other semi-volatile mercury compounds. This leads to measurement problems in that it is difficult to measure the two phases in the same sample. My Department has been measuring mercury at three sites—Chilton in Oxfordshire, Styrrup in north Nottinghamshire and Wraymires in the Lake District. These are all relatively remote locations. Measurements have been taken of particulate mercury and of mercury in rain. Table 1 lists the atmospheric concentrations of mercury (ng m-3) at rural locations. The particulate mercury is only a small fraction of the total, perhaps 4 per cent. Table 2 gives mercury concentrations in rain water (.tg 1-1) at rural locations, mercury is rarely detectable in rain water. There is no trend to speak of in either of these measures of mercury concentrations, except that analytical detection limits have improved markedly in recent years.
  376
  Table 1: Atmospheric mercury concentrations (ng m-3) at rural locations

  Year

  Chilton

  Styrrup

  Wraymires

  1992

  0.14

  0.52

  <0.1

  1993

  1.6

  2.1

  0.29

  1994

  0.11

  0.32

  0.18

  1995

  0.095

  0.21

  <0.1

  1996

  0.18

  0.37

  0.23

  1997

  0.07

  <0.2

  0.19

  1998

  0.22

  0.72

  0.49

  Table 2: Mercury concentrations in rain water (µg I-1) at rural locations

  Year

  Chilton

  Styrrup

  Wraymires

  1992

  <1

  <6

  <6

  1993

  <1

  <1

  <1

  1994

  0.026

  0.031

  0.019

  1995

  <0.1

  0.2

  <0.1

  1996

  <0.1

  <0.1

  <0.1

  1997

  <0.005

  <0.008

  0.009

  1998

  <0.006

  <0.006

  <0.006

  (d) Phosgene—My Department has no information on the levels of phosgene in the atmosphere.

  Air Safety
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many random ramp checks on foreign airlines have been undertaken by his Department in the last year; and in how many cases were problems found. [85844]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]The Department asks the CAA to carry out checks on foreign-registered aircraft using UK airports where evidence suggests that ICAO standards may not be met. There were 63 checks in the year from 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999; of these, 28 revealed no problems or only minor differences from ICAO standards, such as, for example, a defective light bulb in the cabin. Six inspections revealed serious problems which required that the aircraft be detained until corrective action was taken. The remaining checks revealed less serious differences from ICAO standards, which were drawn to the attention of the operators and the relevant national aviation authorities.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans Her Majesty's Government have for the future of the Safety Regulation Group following the reorganisation of the CAA. [85882]

  Mrs. Liddell
  holding answer 8 June 1999]The future of the Safety Regulation Group of the Civil Aviation Authority will be considered in the light of responses to the consultations on a public/private partnership for National Air Traffic Services Ltd. and on the institutional arrangements for transport safety across all modes.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what bilateral agreements the United Kingdom has established to govern the arrangements for checking the operating procedures of foreign aircraft flying into the United Kingdom. [85845]
  377
  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]There are no bilateral agreements specifying procedures for checking the operating procedures of foreign aircraft flying into the United Kingdom.

  The UK has agreed with partners in the European Civil Aviation Conference on a Safety Clause to be inserted, as the opportunity arises, into bilateral Air Service Agreements. In brief, the clause allows either party to call for discussions within 30 days when any safety problem arises and to inspect the other's aircraft at any time. To date, insertion of the safety clause has been agreed with 11 countries.

  Multimodal Transport Study (London and South-West Corridor)
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what targets, in respect of the encouragement of rail freight, the multimodal study of the London and South-West Corridor announced as part of the Trunk Roads Review will have. [86196]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A key objective of the London to South-West and South Wales multimodal study is to examine the scope for modal shift. This will include the potential for the transfer of more freight onto the railway. Until the study is undertaken, it is not possible to assess this potential or to consider what might be a realistic target.

  EU Regional Chambers
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what status regional chambers currently have within the acquis of the European Union; what personnel are currently responsible for their administration; and what information is collated centrally concerning their membership functions and activities. [86230]

  Mr. Caborn
  Regional chambers have no formal status in relation to the European Union. However, they provide a mechanism through which regional partners can present a coherent regional view on European issues.

  Regional chambers are voluntary partnerships, and personnel issues are matters for each chamber. However, I have placed details of the current chair and secretary of each chamber in the Library.

  Regional chambers seeking designation under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 are required to provide the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions with a copy of their constitution and a list of members.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will release all parts of the Concession Agreement for the Birmingham Northern Relief Road under the terms of the Environmental Information Regulations 1992 after the end of judicial proceedings. [85824]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Having regard to the outcome of the recent legal actions, my noble Friend the Under-Secretary is giving careful consideration to a request for disclosure of the Concession Agreement.

  Litter
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the power of(a) local authorities and (b) the police to prosecute people who drop litter in the street; and how many people have been prosecuted for dropping litter in the street under these powers in each of the last three years. [85672]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Advisory Group on Litter undertook a wide-ranging review of the litter legislation, including the powers of local authorities and the police, in 1993. A summary of the Advisory Group's report is available in the House Library.

  The number of defendants prosecuted for litter offences under section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in England and Wales is given in the following table1

  1996

  1997

  21998

  Police Prosecution

  455

  377

  377

  Other Prosecution3

  171

  128

  109

  1 Data for the Home Office Court Proceedings Database

  2 Provisional

  3 Includes prosecutions instigated by Government Departments, local authorities (the majority of which fall into this category), private organisations and individuals

  Night Flights
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has reached conclusions following the second stage of the consultation on night restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted; and if he will make a statement. [86775]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  On 17 November 1998 the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions issued the second of two consultation papers on the next night restrictions regime for Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports, to apply from 31 October 1999 until the end of the 2004 summer season. This second consultation paper took into account all relevant responses to the preliminary consultation paper issued on 27 February 1998.

  The November consultation paper was in two parts. Part 1 was concerned with all aspects of the night restrictions regime now applying at the three airports. Part 2 examined options for changes to the preferential use of Heathrow's runways at night. The decisions I am announcing today are concerned with Part 1 of the November consultation paper only. Consideration of the responses to the options examined in Part 2 is continuing and a separate announcement will be made on that in due course. Decisions on Parts 1 and 2 of the consultation paper are not inter-dependent.

  The current night restrictions are among the most stringent in Europe: night movements by Chapter 3 noise certificated aircraft are not limited at most other leading airports. We said in the preliminary consultation paper that we did not expect to propose major changes to the night restrictions for the next regime. To relax the restrictions significantly or to ban night flights entirely would not be consistent with the Government's objectives set out in the consultation paper.
  379
  We have decided to implement the proposals in the consultation paper, but with four modifications.

  (a) The proposal to reduce the seasonal noise quotas for Heathrow from winter 1999–2000 onwards to nearer the level of current usage is to be implemented but with smaller reductions in the noise quotas than proposed. The winter season noise quota will be set at a level which is below quota usage in winter 1998–99.

  (b) The proposal to reduce the seasonal noise quotas for Gatwick progressively from winter 2001–02 onwards is to be implemented but with larger reductions in the noise quotas than proposed.

  (c) The proposal to reapportion the Gatwick movement limits pro rata to the length of the summer and winter seasons is not to be implemented and the current apportionment of the movements limits is to be retained for the next regime.

  (d) The proposal to increase the noise quotas for Stansted, while maintaining the incentive for airlines to use quieter aircraft at night, is to be implemented but the reasons underpinning it differ to some degree from those set out in the consultation paper.

  The overall effect of the decisions is to put in place a new night restrictions regime at the three airports which will contribute towards achievement of the Government's objectives set out in the consultation paper. The decision to reduce the noise quotas for Heathrow to nearer the level of current usage, and in the case of the winter season to a level below usage in winter 1998–99, will help safeguard the improvement in the noise climate during the noise quota period brought about since 1993 under the current regime. The decision to reduce the noise quotas for Gatwick by more than proposed in the consultation paper, in conjunction with the decisions we have reached on other aspects, is expected to bring about an improvement in the night noise climate around the airport over time. The decision not to reapportion the Gatwick movements limits pro rata to the length of the seasons will enable airlines to develop services in summer by more than would have been the case under the Government's proposal, but other environmental benefits will be provided through the larger than proposed reductions in the noise quotas. The decision to increase the noise quotas for Stansted by about 3.5 per cent. per annum will provide for the further development of the airport broadly as envisaged in 1993 and 1994.

  The full decision and the reasons for the decision are dealt with in the document "Night Restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted: Revised restrictions with effect from 31 October 1999", copies of which have been placed in the House Library.

  In reaching these decisions we have taken into account the disturbance caused by night flights and the need to ensure that local communities are not exposed to excessive levels of aircraft noise at night. Account has been taken of the existing noise climate around each airport, the local circumstances of each airport, and the distribution of population under their principal arrival and departure tracks. These have been weighed against the aviation interests involved, the existing air services using each airport and the wider economic considerations. We believe that the decisions announced today will protect local people from excessive levels of aircraft noise at night.
  380
  Copies of responses, except where the author has requested confidentiality, will be made available for inspection by prior appointment at the DETR Information Centre, Great Minster House, 76 Marsham Street, London, SW1P 4DR.

TREASURY

  Aircraft Pollution
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of proposals for(a) an aircraft emissions tax and (b) an aircraft fuel charge, (i) in revenue terms and (ii) in respect of their impact on pollution from aircraft. [85687]

  Ms Hewitt
  No such assessments have been made.

  EU Directive (Taxation of Interest)
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total amount of tax which would have been collected in the fiscal year 1998–99 by paying agents situated in the United Kingdom if the draft EU directive on the taxation of interest payments at the rate of 20 per cent. had been operational and if the UK had opted for the withholding regime. [85833]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is not possible to estimate the revenue consequences of the situation described with any degree of certainty.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 10 May 1999,Official Report, column 58, on Working Families Tax Credit, what will be the effect on their eligibility for Working Families Tax Credit of an employee taking unpaid parental leave under the Employment Relations Bill at a time which coincides with the assessment for their next award period. [85832]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In order to be eligible for Working Families Tax Credit, an employee will need to meet various criteria, which are the same as those for Family Credit, including working 16 hours or more a week at the time of the application or in the period immediately preceding or following the application. Where an employee is on unpaid parental leave, the application will be treated in the same way as any other period of unpaid leave.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what means statistics relating to the flow of capital investment for all, or particular, purposes, from the United Kingdom into each of the other member states of the European Union, are collated following the introduction of the single currency; and what assessment he has made of the effect of the United Kingdom joining the single currency on the collation of such statistics. [86228]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.
  381
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 10 June 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on statistics relating to the flow of capital investment.
  Data sources for information on UK outward capital investment flows are outlined in National Accounts Concepts, Sources and Methods published in 1998 (in Chapters 24 and 25). The data are collected from regular enquiries by the ONS and the Bank of England. Inquiries of this type will continue should the UK join Monetary Union.
  Geographical breakdowns, which include an analysis of flows between the UK and individual member states, are published for direct investment flows but such detailed information is not available for portfolio investment, other investment and reserve assets. Some data are also collected with an EU/Non EU split.

  British Energy
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the recent sale of the Government's holding of debt in British Energy. [86828]

  Mr. Milburn
  The sale of HM Treasury's three bonds in British Energy (£109,861,000 5.949 per cent. bond due 2003, £163,444,000 6.077 per cent. bond due 2006, £134,586,000 6.202 per cent. Bond due 2016) was completed on 4 June 1999. Payment will be made to HM Treasury on 11 June. Proceeds from the sale, net of commissions, will total £392 million.

HEALTH

  Dental Charges
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will abolish all dental charges for pensioners; and if he will make a statement. [85706]

  Mr. Denham
  Entitlement to help with National Health Service dental charges is based on the principle that those who can afford to contribute should do so, while those most likely to have difficulty paying should be protected. Pensioners on low incomes are entitled to claim free NHS dental treatment or help with the cost of charges under the NHS Low Income Scheme.

  NHS Bodies (Running Costs)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated annual running costs are for the last financial year of(a) the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation, (b) Local Education Consortia and (c) the Capital Priorities Advisory Group; and if he will make a statement. [86071]

  Mr. Denham
  For 1998–99, the estimated running costs for the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation and the Capital Prioritisation Advisory Group are £22,000 and £5,000 respectively. These were funded from the Department's running costs (within Vote 2).

  The Local Education Consortia costs are estimated at £5.8 million for 1998–99. These were funded from expenditure on hospital and community health services (within Vote 1).

  Midwives (Grading)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the grading of midwives. [85721]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on 8 June 1999,Official Report, column 458.

CABINET OFFICE

  Electronic Services
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when he intends to publish information on the target set by the Prime Minister to deliver 25 per cent. of Government services electronically. [86827]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  A report on progress by Departments and their key agencies is being published today. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of the House and it will be published on the site www.citu.gov.uk. The report contains information supplied by Departments on a sample of key dealings between the citizen and business and government.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Payments (Barcodes)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if the barcode system to be installed in post offices will be able to record stolen order books; [85861]

  (2) what benefits are planned to be paid through the barcode system to be used in post offices; [85877]

  (3) what visible information on order books will be concealed by the barcode technology to be installed in post offices; [85858]

  (4) if the barcode technology to be introduced on order books will require Post Office staff to ask a security question. [85860]

  Angela Eagle
  The barcode system to be installed in post offices will be able to record stolen order books. System-produced order books for the following benefits include a barcode and will therefore be controlled through the use of the Order Book Control System (OBCS) installed in post offices:

  Attendance Allowance

  Child Benefit

  Disability Living Allowance

  Disability Working Allowance

  Earnings Top Up

  Family Credit

  Guardians Allowance

  Incapacity Benefit

  Income Support Retirement Pension

  War Pensions Widows Benefit.

  383
  No visible information on order books in concealed by barcode technology. Order books continue to include a customer's name, address and National Insurance number. The purpose of the barcode is to hold information which uniquely identifies each order book.

  There are no plans for Post Office staff to be required to ask a security question, and the information contained within the barcode would not support any such proposal.

  Bereavement (Pension Costs)
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the total cost to the Government of paying a SERPS widow's/widower's pension to any person bereaved after 6 April 2000 broken down into the following groups(a) based on 100 per cent. of the amount accrued for any contributions made between 6 April 1978 and the Royal Assent of the Social Security Act 1986, (b) based on 75 per cent. of the amount accrued for any contributions made between the Royal Assent of the Social Security Act 1986 and (i) 5 April 1996 and (ii) 5 April 1999 and (c) based on 50 per cent. of the amount accrued for any contributions made (1) since 6 April 1996 and (2) since 6 April 1999. [86048]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.

  The additional costs of the two options specified compared to current legislation

  £ million

  Year

  (a),(b)(1),(c)(1)

  (a), (b)(ii),(c)(2)

  2000

  50

  50

  2010

  950

  950

  2020

  1,650

  1,700

  2030

  1,850

  1,900

  2040

  1,550

  1,650

  2050

  950

  1,000

  Notes:

  1. The figures are supplied by the Government Actuary's Department.

  2. The figures are in 1999–2000 price terms and are rounded to the nearest £50 million. They represent gross costs excluding income-related benefit offsets.

  3. The figures include SERPS paid to widows below State Pension age, but do not take account of the proposed bereavement benefit changes currently before Parliament.

  4. Real earnings growth of 1.5 per cent. has been assumed.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people employed in(a) his Department and (b) its associated public bodies have benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage. [86023]

  Angela Eagle
  4,397 staff in this Department, out of approximately 90,000 staff, have benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage. This includes the Department's Agencies, and 139 staff in the associated public bodies.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Education Authorities (Private Firms)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what procedures he intends to use to review the progress made by private firms running education in place of local education authorities. [85418]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Contracts for organisations taking on the delivery of education services in poorly performing LEAs will contain a series of key performance indicators and core outcomes against which the contractor's performance will be judged. These performance measures will be linked to a payment mechanism which will ensure that payments to the contractor are based on delivering an improved service. The precise details of such contracts are, of course, a matter for negotiation with providers. The LEA and the contractor will also need to hold regular contract monitoring meetings to review progress against the Service Management Plan.

  In addition, Ofsted will continue its programme of local education authority inspections. These will include inspecting and reporting upon any education services being delivered by a contractor.

  Teaching Staff (Salaries)
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average annual salary for teaching staff in local education authority schools in(a) the south-west region and (b) England. [85421]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The estimated average salary of full-time teaching staff, including heads and deputies, in the local education authority maintained nursery/primary, secondary and special sector received during 1998–99 was £24,100 in England and £24,000 in the south-west region.

  Average salaries at local education authority level are likely to vary for a number of reasons including: the grade structures required by the mix of school sizes, teacher's average length of service and payment of recruitment and retention points. The estimate takes account of the staged pay award in 1998–99, 2 per cent. in April with the full 3.8 per cent. paid in December.

  Technology Colleges
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice and guidance he has issued to schools seeking technology college status. [85424]

  Mr. Blunkett
  A guidance document for schools wishing to apply for Technology College status is available to schools on request, and is also available under `Specialist Schools Information' on the DfEE Web Site (WNN.DfEE.Gov.UK/DfEEHOME. HTM). The guidance sets out the considerations taken into account when deciding to designate Technology Colleges and covers sponsorship, school and community development plans, and location.

  Head Teachers (Leadership College)
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made in the development of a leadership college for head teachers. [85426]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  A prospectus for the College was launched by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 2 June. The prospectus sets out our vision for the College and invites potential external partners to join with us in working to make the vision a reality. Copies of the prospectus have been placed in the Libraries.

  National Childcare Strategy
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress the National Childcare Strategy has made in providing extra child care places. [R] [85430]

  Ms Hodge
  The National Childcare Strategy has had a major impact in its first year. We have funded the creation of 65,590 new child care places in 1998–99 which far exceeds the ambitious target we set of 60,000 places. In the first two years of this Government we have created more child care places than were created during the entire period of office of the last Government.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many young people on the new deal are currently taking part in the education and training option. [85417]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The latest Government Statistical Service figures show that at the end of March 1999 there were 23,190 young people on the New Deal Full Time Education and Training Option.

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress is being made in developing employer-involvement in the New Deal for young unemployed people. [85403]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Employers are playing an ever-increasing role in New Deal. They are helping us strengthen its design, meet business needs through sector initiatives, in hospitality for example, and most importantly, provide sustained jobs for nearly 70,000 young people.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the cost of exempting all university students living in(a) Scotland, (b) Wales, (c) Northern Ireland and (d) England from tuition fees. [84062]

  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 13 May 1999]The following table shows the estimated private contributions to tuition fees from home and other EU full-time undergraduate students studying in universities and colleges in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England in 2000–01. These represent the cost of fee exemption assuming no consequent change to loan eligibility. Estimates of tuition fee income from part-time and postgraduate students are not readily available.
  386

  £ million

  Financial year

  2000–01

  Scotland

  41

  Wales

  23

  Northern Ireland

  13

  England

  333

  For students ordinarily resident in England and Wales it is not possible to estimate separately the contributions from those aged over 21 and over 25.

  The proportions of private contributions from those ordinarily resident in Scotland, and EU students at Scottish institutions, aged over 21 and over 25 are estimated to be 28 per cent. and 6 per cent. respectively. For students ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland the equivalent figures are estimated to be 10 per cent. and 4 per cent.

  Secondary Schools (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has had with the Education Department of the London Borough of Wandsworth on the number of children who have not obtained places in secondary schools in the borough for the September 1999 school entry. [85778]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  None. Arrangements for admission to schools are determined locally by the relevant admission authority, that is the local education authority for county and controlled schools, the governing body for voluntary aided and grant-maintained schools. While parents are able to say which school they would prefer, they may not gain a place at that school if it is popular and oversubscribed.

  The local education authority is responsible for ensuring that a school place is available for every child living in its area whose parents want one. The places do not have to be provided at schools in its area. Where a child is without a school place because he or she has been refused admission to, or excluded from, every school within a reasonable travelling distance, the local education authority has the power to direct a school to admit the child.

  I understand that Wandsworth Local Education Authority is monitoring the position and expects it to be satisfactorily resolved in due course.

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if a participant on a European Social Fund course of training is designated as an employee for the purposes of the(a) Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and (b) Race Relations Act 1976. [85753]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Participation in a course part-funded by ESF does not in itself confer employment status on an individual. An individual could be participating in an ESF course of training as an employee of a company or on a work placement which may confer employment status as a result of the agreed contractual arrangement of the employer and the individual.
  387
  If an individual is an employee then they are afforded the protection of the employment provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976.

  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if a participant on a European Social Fund course of training is entitled to take a complaint against(a) the training provider and (b) an employer with whom they may be doing work tasters or work placements as part of the course to an employment tribunal. [85754]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  A participant in any vocational training course whether or not part-funded by ESF is entitled to bring a complaint of discrimination on the grounds of sex and/or race against a training provider in relation to provision or non-provision of that training which can be heard before an employment tribunal. In addition to any employment rights which a trainee participating in a course may have, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate on the grounds of sex, race or disability in the way he affords or omits to afford access to the opportunity for training in the course of the employment. Any complaint can be considered by an employment tribunal.

  First Aid
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funding is given to schools to provide first aid training to school children. [85699]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There is no specific funding allocated to schools to provide first aid training, but schools may choose to use part of their budget to do so if they wish.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and what percentage of school children currently receive first aid training in schools; and if he will make a statement. [85701]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department for Education and Employment does not collect these data.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will introduce first aid training for all school children. [85700]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  On 13 May, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced his proposals for the review of the National Curriculum in England. These include a non-statutory framework for Personal, Social and Health Education. At Key Stage 2 and 3, it is proposed that to develop a healthy lifestyle and keep themselves and others safe, pupils should be taught basic emergency aid procedures and where to get help and support.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people in his Department and its associated bodies and agencies have benefited from the introduction of a national minimum wage. [86097]
  388
  Mr. Mudie
  No staff have benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage. When it was introduced on 1 April 1999, all staff earned more than the minimum wage.

  Teachers (Consultation Paper)
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many responses to the consultation paper on teachers have been received; and how many and what percentage were received from(a) headteachers, (b) teachers, (c) governors and governing bodies, (d) education authorities and (e) others; [85738]

  (2) in the responses to the consultation paper on teachers, how many and what percentage of (a) headteachers, (b) teachers, (c) governors and governing bodies, (d) education authorities and (e) others, expressed support for performance related pay. [85739]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have received 40,000 responses to the Green Paper, "teachers: meeting the challenge of change". 36,060 respondents replied using the Department's response form. These responses can be broken down as follows:

  (a) 3,007 (8 per cent.) from headteachers;

  (b) 20,752 (58 per cent.) from teachers;

  (c) 11,343 (31 per cent.) from governors;

  (d) 102 (0.3 per cent.) from local education authorities and
  (e) 192 (2 per cent.) from others.

  We will be making the outcome of the consultation exercise public once the responses have been fully analysed.

  Early Years Services
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps have been taken to safeguard the interests of the voluntary sector in early years services. [85423]

  Ms Hodge
  We have taken a number of steps to ensure that voluntary pre-schools and playgroups contribute fully to early education and care. The voluntary and private sectors have to be represented on the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships which plan the delivery and development of local early years service. Each partnership has to provide specifically for the involvement of voluntary providers; to assess the health of the non-maintained sector in their areas; and to show financial support that may be available. Plans for the provision of additional places for 3 year olds, for which we are making available new funding of £390 million over three years from September 1999, must also fully involve the voluntary sector.

  The same principles apply to Sure Start, which will provide integrated and community-based services for 0 to 3s and their families. The voluntary sector is a significant partner in all 60 Trailblazer programmes, and leads some of them.

  In March, I appointed an independent review team to advise on how pre-schools and playgroups can contribute further to the development of early education and child care; the team will report by August. Good voluntary pre-schools and playgroups that are in financial

  389
  difficulties will also be able to apply for special short term grants under the new £500,000 scheme also announced in March.

  Parental Choice
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps his Department has taken to increase the ability of parents to send their children to the school of their choice. [85431]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Our commitment to increase parental choice is made clear in the Code of Practice on Admissions which came into force on 1 April. The Code reminds LEAs and governing bodies that they have an overriding duty to comply with parents' declared preferred school for their child. We want parents to be able to send their children to their preferred school wherever practicable, and LEAs should make every effort to ensure that they have sufficient school places to allow the maximum number of parents to obtain a place at a school of their choice. The funding we are providing to LEAs to meet our infant class size pledge will enable 12,000 extra places at popular schools to be achieved.

  Reading
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps have been taken by his Department to encourage parents to read to their young children. [85408]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have run a series of TV and radio adverts advertising a free leaflet entitled "A little reading goes a long way". The leaflet offers parents practical advice about how to read with their children. Over 1 million copies have been requested so far and a further 2 million have been distributed through various outlets, including supermarkets and doctors' waiting rooms.

  Disability Rights Commission
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received on his proposals for the establishment of a disability rights commission. [85404]

  Ms Hodge
  A public consultation on the Government White Paper "Promoting Disabled People's Rights—Creating a Disability Rights Commission fit for the 21st Century", was held last year.

  Seven thousand individuals and organisations were sent a copy of the White Paper or a summary of it. Out of 626 responses, 94 per cent. supported the main proposals on the establishment and role of the Commission. An analysis of responses compiled by an independent market research organisation has been placed in the Library. The report is available in a range of alternative formats on request.

  Five national consultation conferences on the White Paper held in September 1998 were attended by over 300 delegates from the business, public and voluntary sectors. The views of the delegates are also reflected in the report.

  Literacy
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what provisions the National Curriculum contains to ensure the teaching of literacy in primary schools. [85427]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have successfully introduced the National Literacy Strategy, which includes a literacy hour for all primary school pupils. Under the national curriculum review proposals, the English programmes of study have been aligned with the National Literacy Strategy "Framework for teaching" so that they support it fully.

  Head Teachers
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps his Department has taken to support and train headteachers. [85391]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The contribution of the head is pivotal in leading schools to excellence and we are committed to helping all headteachers to develop the skills and knowledge they need. We are investing £100 million over the next three years to ensure heads have access to high quality, practical and professional training at every stage of their careers. As set out in the Green Paper, "teachers: meeting the challenge of change", we will build on the existing headship training programmes to develop a new national framework of training and development opportunities. Already, some 400 teachers have achieved the National Professional Qualification for Headship and some 6,000 are now in training. We are developing further the NPQH to build on the strengths of the qualification before making it a mandatory requirement for all those coming new to headship. The Green Paper also set out our intention to establish a National College for School Leadership. On 2 June we published our prospectus for the college, which will be a driving force for world-class leadership in schools, providing professional support for heads through cutting-edge training and development opportunities. Responsibility for designing and overseeing the existing headship programmes will move to the national college when it is established in 2000.

  Cycling to School
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funds his Department has allocated in the current and next two financial years to support cycling to school. [85392]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have made over £100,000 available this financial year to support safer routes—including cycling—to school. We will be considering the case for further funding in the next two financial years.

  Community Computer Centres
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the national body to deliver community computer centres will be established. [85411]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We are in the process of establishing a co-ordinating group to steer this important initiative and to advise my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. An announcement will be made
  391
  before the summer and I expect the first learning centres to be established this year, but I can say that the group will have a broad range of members unpaid, including both Government officials and individuals with experience in the private sector.

  Further Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on recent developments in Government action to widen participation in further education. [85425]

  Mr. Mudie
  We are committed to widening participation in further education and have taken action to achieve this.

  We have secured an excellent financial settlement for further education which will enable significant progress to be made towards securing an extra 700,000 students in further education in 2001—02 compared to 1997—98. This expansion is principally focused on widening participation to those who have not traditionally taken advantage of learning opportunities. We have also announced a new Further Education Student Support package, targeted at those most in need, which will come into force from September.

  The introduction of the University for Industry and Individual Learning Accounts, from next year, will both assist in removing barriers to learning and widening participation in further education.

  New Deal (North-West)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people in the North West have been through the New Deal since its commencement. [85428]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The latest Government Statistical Service figures to the end of March 1999 show that 37,790 young people, in the Employment Service North West region, have joined the New Deal for young people since it started in the first Pathfinder areas in January 1998. Of these 17,800 have left, leaving 19,900 still participating at some stage of the New Deal process.

  Schools (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what support has been given to schools to enable them to become accessible to those with disabilities. [85429]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Schools Access Initiative gives capital support to make more mainstream schools accessible to disabled pupils and those with sensory impairments. It has run each year since 1996 and a total of £25 million had been allocated by March 1999. A further £100 million has been earmarked over the next three years.

PRIME MINISTER

  Macedonia
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Prime Minister what undertakings were given to the Government of Macedonia during his recent visit to Macedonia, with respect to(a) levels of aid from the United Kingdom, (b) the willingness of the United Kingdom to accept refugees from Macedonia, (c) assistance and the speed of delivery of assistance from the European Union and (d) help from international financial institutions; and what progress has been made in fulfilling these undertakings. [84788]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 May 1999]During my visit to Macedonia, I gave the following undertakings to the Government of Macedonia:

  (a) The UK would allocate an additional £20 million for humanitarian assistance to the refugees in the region, including Macedonia, making a total of £40 million since the crisis started. £14.5 million of the additional £20 million has now been committed. I also promised £5 million of technical assistance to Macedonia to increase the capacity of the Government to absorb international assistance and to carry out reform. The Department for International Development is in the process of identifying suitable projects.

  (b) I made clear to the Government of Macedonia that the UK was willing to accept refugees from Macedonia provided that they were properly selected by the UNHCR. The Government have since accelerated the arrival of refugees from the region and has now taken 2,782 people.

  (c) I promised the Macedonian Government to press for the European Union to disperse the 25 million euro of budgetary assistance as soon as possible. I spoke subsequently to the President of the Commission to make sure that this happened. The first instalment was paid by the European Commission on 12 May, the second instalment will be released on 1 July and the third on 15 October. The European Commission has also provided technical assistance to the Macedonian Treasury to help them to disburse these funds through the budget.

  (d) On my return from Macedonia, I also spoke to the Managing Director of the IMF in advance of the Donor Conference on assistance to Macedonia on 5 May. I asked that the IMF and other international financial institutions should speed up their support for Macedonia. At the Donor Conference, the international community, including the international financial institutions, pledged ․252 million in financial assistance to Macedonia.

  Post-16 Training and Education
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Prime Minister when he received a report from the Department for Education and Employment on the review of post-16 training and education. [85723]

  The Prime Minister
  As is the case for any aspect of developing government policy, my office has received regular reports on the progress of the Review, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will be making an announcement about our proposals in due course.

  Weapons
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy on the use of depleted uranium and cluster bombs by British forces; and if he will make a statement. [85351]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 June 1999]It is our policy to use cluster bombs in circumstances where there is a military requirement to do so, and our normal
  393
  criteria for minimising collateral damage can be satisfied. Cluster bombs are the most effective weapon available against concentrations of armoured and soft-skinned vehicles, artillery, anti-aircraft artillery or fielded forces. In the current conflict in the Balkans, cluster bombs are being used against specific, identified military targets and a high level of accuracy is being achieved.

  Depleted uranium weapons are not weapons of mass and indiscriminate destruction. They are ammunition designed specifically to penetrate tank armour on the battlefield and do not have effects on the wider population. Their use is not prohibited under any international agreements, including the Geneva Conventions.

  DU-based ammunition have not been used by UK forces during military operations against Iraq since the 1990–1991 Gulf conflict; neither have they been used by UK forces in recent operations in the Balkans. Nevertheless, if the operational situation and the safety of UK troops required such a capability, DU-based ammunition would be deployed and used.

  Correspondence
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place a copy of the letter sent from his chief of staff to the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party on Monday 17 May in the Library. [86138]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 June 1999]It is not the normal practice of Government to publish communications sent in confidence, in line with paragraph 2 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  President Clinton
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 17 May 1999,Official Report, column 267, on meetings with President Clinton, how many meetings he held with members and officials of the United States Government during his visit of 21 to 25 April; and if he will list the dates and locations of each meeting, and the names of the members and officials of the United States Government at each meeting. [86297]

  The Prime Minister
  During my visit to the United States of America in April, I met President Clinton on a number of occasions, both privately and during sessions of the NATO Summit.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  CD-ROM (Official Report)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee when hon. Members will receive the CD-ROM version of the Official Report for the 1997—98 Parliamentary Session, and what plans he has to reduce the time taken to prepare the CD-ROM. [86397]

  Mr. Allan
  The final disc of the CD-ROM of the Official Report for the 1997–98 Parliamentary Session covering the whole of the Session 1997–98 was published on 10 June 1999.
  394
  Hansard in CD-ROM is not produced under the direction of the Authorities of the House and, therefore, the time taken to prepare the CD-ROM is a matter for the commercial judgment of the companies involved.

  Expenses Claims
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee if his Committee will investigate the feasibility of allowing hon. Members to submit electronically expenses claims and other standard forms to the House authorities. [86398]

  Mr. Allan
  The Department of Finance and Administration (the Fees Office and the Finance Office) are actively looking at a number of options, following the results of the Members' survey in January, for making services more accessible to Members, including the submission of claims electronically. There are a number of factors—costs, technical and security issues—to be considered and resolved before it can be established whether such an arrangement could be introduced.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Domestic Violence
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the likely impact on domestic violence statistics of the change of definition which has been issued to police forces. [85918]

  Mr. Boateng
  The previous definition was being interpreted in a number of different ways. A new definition was necessary in order to bring about more precise, consistent and comparable returns to Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary so as to give more accurate knowledge of the number of incidents of violence between current or former partners that are reported to the police.

  Because of the range of interpretations given to the existing definition, it is not easy to gauge the exact result of the change. For some forces, the new definition may not represent a significant change. For others, the new definition will narrow the interpretation which they have been using, with the result that they will probably record slightly fewer domestic violence incidents.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in his Department and its associated bodies and agencies have benefited from the introduction of a national minimum wage. [86098]

  Mr. Straw
  105 people have benefited from the introduction of a national minimum wage.

  Sir Roger Casement
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the nature of the files relating to the black diaries allegedly written by Sir Roger Casement which have yet to be released into the public domain; [86153]
  395
  (2) what representations he has received from the Irish Prime Minister regarding the black diaries allegedly written by Sir Roger Casement; and what plans he has to release further documents at his request. [86225]

  Mr. Straw
  All Home Office records relating to Roger Casement are open to public inspection at the Public Record Office. No representations have been received from the Irish Prime Minister regarding the Casement diaries.

  Asylum and Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the number of (1) new instructions and (2) disposals in(a) asylum and (b) immigration appeals undertaken by (i) the Immigration

  1997–98

  New instructions Asylum

  Immigration

  Appeals disposed of Asylum

  Immigration

  Unit cost £

  Refugee Legal Centre

  6,123

  —

  4,454

  —

  796.38

  Immigration Advisory Service

  3,020

  4,667

  1,279

  3,536

  1640.89

  Immigration Appellate Authority

  —

  —

  218,600

  211,200

  —

  1 Overall unit cost for asylum and immigration cases

  2 Both rounded to the nearest 00

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Slaughtering Industry
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) the organisations currently consulted by his Ministry on the impact of proposed charges on the slaughtering industry and (b) other organisations which have made representations to his Ministry on this issue, or have been consulted on it, since May 1997. [84077]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 14 May 1999]The information requested by the hon. Member has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those areas(a) he will raise and (b) he expects other member states will raise at the forthcoming Agriculture Council meeting on 30 May to 1 June. [85636]
  396
  Advisory Service and (ii) the Refugee Legal Centre for 1997-98 and the number of appeals in both categories disposed of by the Immigration Appellate Authority in the same period together with the unit cost in both categories. [70755]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [pursuant to his reply, 22 February 1999, c. 104]The information requested is shown in the table.

  It should be noted that the figures for the Refugee Legal Centre (RLC) and the Immigration Advisory Service (IAS) are based on outcomes (those cases in which the appeal has been disposed of) rather than outputs (those cases in which representation has been provided, but the appeal may or may not have finally been disposed). The number of cases dealt with by the RLC based on outputs is 8,154. The IAS do not have any comparable statistical information on outputs.

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The meeting scheduled for 30 May to 1 June in Dresden is an informal meeting of EU Agriculture Ministers. As is usual for such meetings, there is no formal agenda and no official documents will be discussed. The only item scheduled for discussion is a German Presidency Paper on "Sustainable Rural Development: Agricultural Structure Policy for Rural Areas".

  Genetically Modified Feed
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to improve the labelling of animal feedstuffs that may contain genetically modified ingredients. [86131]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]The Government are pressing the Commission to forward to the Council its proposed Regulation covering novel animal feeds. This is necessary to ensure fair and consistent labelling in the EU. We are exploring whether national labelling arrangements are feasible pending the introduction of EC measures.

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

Yugoslavia: International Court of Justice Case
Lord Moyne Lord Moyne asked Her Majesty's Government:
What stage has been reached in the case against them before the International Court of Justice by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and whether they are satisfied that they have a watertight defence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, on 2nd June the International Court of Justice rejected the FRY's request that it calls for a halt to allied military action. The court hell that the FRY had not established that the court had jurisdiction at this stage of the case against the United Kingdom. The decision related to the FRY's request for provisional measures. It did not deal with the substance of the FRY's main complaint about the legality of the use of force. We believe that we have a watertight defence. This is an attempt by the FRY to use the judicial process for propaganda purposes.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Do Her Majesty's Government accept that the prima facie case against NATO for crimes against peace is as strong as that against Slobodan Milosevic for crimes against humanity? Do they accept that, unless both sides are equally prosecuted, any verdict against Milosevic will be totally discredited?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: No, my Lords. I do not accept that and nor do Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many international lawyers, wholly independent of the Government, regard international law in this area as being clearly on the side of the action taken by NATO and supported by the leadership of the Government?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords. I thank the noble Lord for pointing that out.

The Tote
3.7 p.m.
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham asked Her Majesty' s Government:
Who owns the Tote.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the Horserace Totalisator Board is a non-departmental public body
1542
whose members are appointed by the Home Secretary. Technically, it is these appointed board members who are responsible for the assets owned by the Tote but they do not actually own the assets. Therefore, before the Tote can be sold it will be necessary to introduce primary legislation to change its status and bring it fully within public ownership.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I asked a very short, direct Question. I was not expecting a very direct Answer. Has the Minister read Section 12(5) of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963? It states:
"The Totalisator Board may regulate their own procedure and make standing orders governing the conduct of their business".
Does not that imply that the Board of Directors owns the Tote and that it alone is responsible for the management of its business and for deciding whether it should be sold; and, if it is sold, as a corporate body to receive the proceeds?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, no; that is not a correct legal understanding of the position. I am familiar with the regulations referred to. Again, once upon a time I acted for and against the Tote—not on the same occasion! If one looks at the Act, one sees that the Totalisator Board is a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal. I believe that the legal description that I gave in my Answer is accurate. Primary legislation will be needed to dispose of the Tote. The Tote can deal with its assets in the way that the noble Lord mentioned, but the Tote itself will have to be the subject of primary legislation.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, may I put it to the Minister that we should not be considering this interesting Question if the Tote were doing what it was initially set up to do; namely, to run pool betting'? Does the Minister agree that on the principle, "If you can't beat them, join them", it has effectively become a bookmaker? Is that not why privatisation is being considered? Is there a possibility that the Tote could revert to being an operator of pool betting? Could it he provided with the circumstances in which it could flourish and get rid of the bookmaking part?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not think that there is a realistic prospect of getting rid of bookmakers in this country. Earlier this week, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, I pointed out that there was bookmaking activity in Alderney. In Hansard it is given as "Orkney", and I believe that to be incorrect!
The Tote still is the pool betting operator in this country. The noble Viscount is right. Over recent years, the Tote has extended its own estate of bookmaking offices—in other words, licensed betting shops. The statement made by the Home Secretary on 12th May is unambiguous. The necessary legislation will be the subject of consultation in due time.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am certain that my noble friend's Answer is right. However, will he forgive me for saying that it makes some of us who are not lawyers

1543
despair of the law? I thought that the Question was fairly straightforward; namely, who owns the Tote? Would it help my noble friend if I asked a subsidiary question; namely, who owns the net profits of the Tote? Can he at least tell us that?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the net profits of the Tote essentially go back into the racing industry. It is an unusual position, but it is not unique. The water authorities are in a similar position, and they were subject to primary legislation; so was British Aerospace. The position is unusual, but not unique. I believe that I have correctly represented the legal position. I am shocked that my noble friend should ever be despairing of either lawyers or the law.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government's proposal to dispose of the Tote is a change of policy, and a snub for the Foreign Secretary, who said clearly and often before the last election that a Labour government would never sell the Tote? Does he agree that the Tote should operate for the benefit of racing, and that that can best be achieved by the British Horseracing Board, which represents racing, taking over the Tote? On what basis can the Government demand payment for the Tote when they have never put a single penny into the Tote since it was created in 1928?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is not a case of demanding payment. It is a case of proposing to both Houses of Parliament primary legislation, which it is then for Parliament to decide upon. When that primary legislation is passed, if it is passed, then the interests of all parties concerned will have to be taken into account. Those were the recommendations in the steering group's report. The report said that the interests to be taken into account were those of the taxpayer as well as other stakeholders. I believe that the Government are acting prudently, as a proper steward of something that may well bring revenue to the taxpayer as well as benefit to racing.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as the Minister is so able, in so far as he can argue for and against the Tote according to the temperature of the day, does that mean that the views that he expresses on the House of Lords Bill should be taken with equal abandon?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it was not the temperature of the day that mattered; it was the fee of the day that mattered. Alas, I am no longer in that happy position.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us on this side of the House have difficulty in understanding why a Labour Government are proposing to privatise the Tote? Is he further aware that, unless the interests of the racing industry and the considerable contribution that the Tote
1544
makes to the industry are taken into account and safeguarded, some of us will not be happy with the proposed legislation and may well even oppose it?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I said in my earlier Answer that it would be necessary to introduce primary legislation to bring the Tote fully into public ownership, which I am sure my noble friend would welcome. Thereafter, as the report of the steering group makes absolutely plain, there are a number of legitimate interests to be taken into account. One is the interest of the taxpayer and the public; one is the interest of the racing industry, which is very important. I stress that we are looking to consultation with all those who are concerned and all the different legitimate interests.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, are the appointments to the board made in the normal way that appointments to public bodies are made? If so, how many women directors are, or have been, on the Tote board?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not know how many women are on the board. However, I shall make it my business to discover that interesting fact this afternoon and immediately write to the noble Baroness and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
Viscount Head: My Lords, the recent report by the government steering group set up to review the Tote stated, at paragraph 17, that,
"If the Tote were given to Racing the taxpayer would gain nothing".
As I understand it, the taxpayer has no reason to expect anything from the Tote. The Tote has never been the recipient of taxpayers' money—quite the reverse. The taxpayer has benefited from betting duty which the Tote has paid since the duty was introduced in 1966. Is it therefore possible for the Tote to continue to provide funds for racing, which it has done with increasing success since it was instituted in 1928, by being granted trust status, whereby it could manage its own affairs for the continued benefit of horse racing?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is a notional alternative. The noble Viscount mentions paragraph 17 of the report. I further invite the attention of the House to paragraph 18, which states:
"The Steering Group concluded it would be difficult to justify to Parliament an option which ignored the legitimate interest of the taxpayer completely".
That is the Government's stance.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, before the Minister leaves the point, does he accept that the steering group was not an independent body? Out of the six members of the steering group, five were his officials from the Home Office.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes, my Lords, but we had the independence of the Treasury official as well and the chairman of the Tote.
Lord Renton: My Lords, having had responsibility 40 years ago for helping with the piloting of the relevant

1545
legislation, may I assure the noble Lord that in his original first answers he seemed to get the legal position right. The purpose of that legislation was to help the racing industry which was then in a poor way. We regarded the Tote as trustees for the racing industry.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as was indicated earlier, the Tote was set up in the 1920s. It has changed its function, as the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, indicated. It is not simply running pool betting at the moment, it runs a considerable number of licensed betting offices. We thought it right to set up the steering group. We examined its conclusions and we believe that all interests—I stress that—can be legitimately considered and properly reflected through consultation, with a view to the introduction of primary legislation.

Graffiti Removal, Northern Ireland
3.23 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to remove litter and graffiti from public sector housing in Northern Ireland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, district councils and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive have a statutory authority to remove litter and graffiti from all public sector housing in Northern Ireland. Both carry out regular clean-ups of the areas for which they have responsibility.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his speedy return from Belfast. Will he, as Minister responsible for these matters, start some pilot schemes of environmental improvement on those estates that have been the most subject to violence in the past? Will he ensure that local residents are consulted in advance, that local people are employed on cleaning up and that the local residents are encouraged and enabled to take responsibility for their environment in future?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, certainly the housing executive has contracts in place for the removal of litter and graffiti which must be honoured. However, I have asked the executive to explore how the New Deal might be used in such instances. I understand that the housing executive is in discussion with the training employment agency, which is responsible for taking the new deal forward. I add that the housing executive tends to work through a community action group which in turn has links with tenants' associations on estates throughout Northern Ireland that are run by the housing executive.
Lord Eames: My Lords, does the Minister agree that quite apart from questions of cleanliness and morale in such areas in Northern Ireland there is unfortunately a rather sinister element to some of the graffiti which are used for purposes of intimidation and threat against
1546
individuals or groupings? These graffiti, particularly on estates, are to be deplored and should surely be removed as soon as possible.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, one would certainly wish them to be removed. But there are difficulties in that it is hard to remove them if those graffiti, regrettably, have the support of local people. If housing executive officials try to remove the graffiti, they themselves are liable to threat and intimidation. The personal security of housing executive staff and contractors is an important consideration. But I accept the desirability of removing such graffiti wherever possible.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, does the Minister agree that graffiti on all housing estates is a deeply demoralising feature? Is he aware of the projects the Walthamstow action housing trust has produced? Walls decorated by local people have for several rears been without graffiti because local people have been involved.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I agree about the undesirability of graffiti on housing, wherever it occurs. I am not familiar with the work in Walthamstow but I shall make it my business to find out quickly.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not true that, if there is an incentive to clean up graffiti, someone with a spray can could write, "Do nasty things to the Bishop of Rome" or "King William", on whichever side of the divide he happens to be? There develops a vicious circle of money being paid to clean up the graffiti. followed by the fun of spraying more on, followed by more cleaning up. All that happens is that the taxpayer is conned.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am afraid that that is a rather depressing view of human nature. It is not one to which I subscribe, although there are instances where there may be some truth in it. To get rid of the graffiti it is desirable and often essential to have the support of local people. Where that support is forthcoming, it is fairly straightforward to remove the graffiti. Where local people do not give that support, the job is much harder.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the problem of graffiti is one not solely for public sector housing? Some two years ago, just before the Drumcree incident, we had loyalist graffiti sprayed on the walls where we lived. We contacted the local authority who removed them within two days. Over the Whitsun Bank Holiday weekend, some fly tipping occurred near us. We rang the Ards borough council on 1st June: it was removed on 2nd June. In non-public sector housing it is perhaps easy for the authorities to do that. I agree with the Minister that in public sector housing it is sometimes dangerous for staff to remove graffiti. Does he agree that the housing executive and local authority staff are to be congratulated on the good work they do, often in difficult and dangerous circumstances?
Lord Dubs: Yes, my Lords, I am certainly in agreement with the noble Lord. I believe that both the

1547
housing executive and the staff of the district councils in Northern Ireland do a good job, sometimes in difficult circumstances. They carry out clean-ups and get rid of graffiti and other mess in local areas.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, offers a break-out from the vicious circle described by my noble friend Lord Onslow? In a recent case where the local community had provided the art work for a mural on a previously hideously defaced wall, the only graffito that arrived was the signature of Picasso.
Lord Dubs: Yes, my Lords, it is an interesting proposition. I wish to discuss it in Northern Ireland with the housing executive and other people who might have a part to play. From my own experience, when I had the privilege of representing the constituency of Battersea in the other place I know that some of the community murals on the walls—albeit pretty hostile to the Conservative Party—were never defaced and stayed there because local people regarded them as reflecting their views.

Passport Applications: Processing Arrangements
3.27 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the current delays in responding to applications by British citizens for passports are likely to continue or to be repeated during this summer.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the processing of passport applications is currently taking longer than normal, but the Passport Agency is prioritising applications to meet applicants' declared travel dates. The agency is meeting travel dates in 99.99 per cent. of cases and will continue to do so throughout the summer.
The agency is recruiting more than 300 extra staff to help reduce the arrears. Its work is seasonal; intake falls from July onwards. This and the action the agency is taking to reduce current delays will bring turnround times back to 10 days by September.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. With long delays reported at passport offices outside London—for example, at Liverpool 10 weeks for postal applications and at Glasgow five-and-a-half weeks—is the noble Lord aware of the widespread anxiety of people who have arranged holidays abroad this summer? What he has just said in some ways improves the situation. Do the causes of the delays include the breakdown of a new computer system and the time spent on a new procedure for children under 16?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I certainly sympathise with those who have booked holidays and
1548
are troubled as to whether they will have their passports in time. I am grateful for the noble Lord's support. I repeat that the agency meets travel dates in 99.99 per cent of cases. To put it into a wider context, of the 4.8 million passports serviced last year, in 95 cases travel dates were not met. This year the figure is about 60. The advice that I give is to apply in plenty of time before the holiday, if at all possible; to make sure that the form is correctly filled in and that all the documentation is in order; not to attend a passport office in person; and, in the context of your Lordships' House, not to ring me up and see what I can do about it.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of a case in the north-east last week where a group of disabled children was at risk of being prevented from going to Disneyland because of passport delays and that, following representations, the head of the Passport Agency made a personal intervention, making two telephone calls on a Sunday to one of the organisers which resulted in the children going on their holiday? Will my noble friend join me in congratulating the head of the Passport Agency on that particular occasion and agree that that represents the acceptable face of bureaucracy?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, by and large the Passport Agency does extremely well. It is very heartening to see that what is apparently an inflexible bureaucracy can respond flexibly and sensitively to the particular instance. There have been computer-related difficulties but, by and large, the story is a good one and it is not always fully reflected in the newspaper headlines.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is the new regulations relating to children under 16 which cause panic in some households—certainly in the McNally household? Can the noble Lord clarify whether all children under 16 need new travel documents or whether, where they are on passports that remain valid, they can still travel on that documentation? Certain newspaper reports indicate that all children under 16 will need travel documents this summer, which I believe causes some of the panic and rush.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, where a child is on a passport that does not need renewal, no new application for a child's passport needs to be made. It is because children on new applications must have separate passports that there has been an increase in the number of applications. I do not think that there is need for panic. There is a need for prudent thought. I believe that most people book their holidays in advance. It is a sensible precaution to check a passport and make application at least four weeks before the date of travel.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, can the Minister explain why the change relating to children has been made? What prior notice was given, and what is now being done to rectify an obviously difficult situation? In a recent case of a different kind that affected my

1549
passport, I could not have been more grateful for the conscientious and thorough manner in which an individual acted on a Saturday morning.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks. The reasoning behind the introduction of children's passports was that they provided a certain degree of extra security. If a child is on his or her parents' passport, there is simply a bare description. It has been found that if a child has a separate passport it is an additional security, sometimes in the interests of the child and very often in the interests of checking whether those who come to this country are who they claim to be.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is not just that passports take a little longer to process but that this year it is taking six times as long as last year? Concern has also been expressed that these very serious backlogs are being addressed by lowering the security checks being made on passports and the recording of those checks. Is that so?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is not. In response to the noble Lord's question, we are not lifting or diminishing security checks but encouraging a sensible use of discretion—for example, in relation to the concept of a person of similar standing who is required to sign the application and photograph. There have been delays. I repeat that in terms of meeting travel dates the success is very remarkable. Last week we processed 133,000 documents, which is an increase of 20 per cent over last year.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is not surprising that the Passport Agency meets a very high proportion of travel dates because a great number of people apply for their passports in very good time? However, does that not mask the increase in the time taken to turn round an application for a passport? One cannot get away from that. The situation is much worse this year than it has been in the past. Does the Minister also agree that the reputation of the Passport Agency certainly between 1994 and 1997, when I served at the Home Office, was high, and its record for turning round passport applications was also exceptionally good?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness is right. Most people have the sense when booking their holidays to check their passports. I believe that we are in agreement in that respect. The turnround time now in London is six working days. We should be looking to 10 working days for each of the agency's offices. Difficulties have arisen in part from the increase in application numbers, which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, identified, and in part from the problems of introducing computer systems in two centres. I do not pretend that the picture is entirely satisfactory. I believe that I have made that plain. We hope to reach the 10-day target by September.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in Liverpool it is the frontline counter
1550
staff in particular who face the fury, and often abuse, of people who have to stand in queues for many hours for passports? Will my noble friend make clear to the general public that it is not the frontline staff who are responsible for the enormous delays but someone much higher up the chain? Does he also agree that the frontline staff deserve the utmost credit from the Home Office and all those concerned for the valiant job that they are attempting to do?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am happy to do that. I am in entire agreement with the observations of my noble friend. It is not the fault of the staff when delays occur; it is not the fault of Ministers either—at least not Home Office Ministers. The fact is that some people panic unnecessarily and do not adopt the prudent steps which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, identified. It is no good abusing people who are trying to do their best in difficult circumstances. Sometimes the position has been exacerbated by ill-informed media stories. The situation is not as bad as has been described. I repeat, we hope confidently to achieve a 10-day turnround by September.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, highlighted a particular problem about obtaining passports in case of emergency. What particular arrangements are in hand when passports are required for family visits abroad, perhaps for illness or other reasons, and will the noble Lord publicise such information?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, if one wants to make a family visit abroad, normally it is possible to plan ahead in the way identified. On occasions that is not possible; there may be family emergencies. As has been indicated by a number of questions and observations from noble Lords, I believe that the Passport Agency does its best to meet those urgent cases. But what one does not want is everyone claiming that his or her case is urgent. That simply clogs up the entire system and does a disservice to everyone.

Kosovo
3.38 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, with permission I shall repeat a Statement made at 10 o'clock last night in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"I come to the House with some important and welcome news about the situation in Kosovo. At the end of many long and hard hours of discussion and negotiation, General Sir Michael Jackson has announced that he has signed the military technical agreement on behalf of NATO, setting out the detailed conditions for peace in the light of the draft United Nations Security Council resolution.
"The agreement sets out in detail how all the Serb forces should conduct a phased, verifiable and orderly withdrawal from Kosovo. It provides, as General Jackson has made clear, an agreed basis for the

1551
deployment of an international security force, known as KFOR, to establish a secure environment in Kosovo.
"The House will appreciate that this agreement is a major political and military vindication of NATO's policy, of its resolve and of its determination to end the horrific ethnic cleansing conducted by Milosevic and his troops and regime. It will pave the way for the eventual return of the refugees.
"We expect that the United Nations Security Council resolution will be passed shortly and that the necessary measures will all be in place for the rapid deployment of KFOR, but I must warn the House that we have been misled by Milosevic before. We have learned not to trust his words and we will need to see his troops on the way out of Kosovo. We will want to see verifiable compliance with the terms of the agreement before allowing NATO to suspend the bombing campaign.
"That is up to Milosevic. For our part, we look forward to being able to move to the next and very demanding stage and to the enormous challenges that lie ahead. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear, there is now a huge job to be done as the Serb forces go out, the international force goes in and we get the refugees home. We are ready for that task and British forces will be among the first to cross the border into Kosovo. All the House will, I am sure, be proud of that effort and join me in wishing them and their NATO allies every success in the difficult weeks and months ahead."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement, but I thought that it might be helpful to your Lordships if before taking questions I updated one or two of the passages in it. I can tell your Lordships that an orderly withdrawal of Serb forces from north Kosovo has begun and has been verified. Accordingly, about two hours ago, the Secretary-General of NATO ordered suspension of the bombing campaign. The military and technical agreement to which I referred is now in force.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the House will be most grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend last night. As he said in his closing words, a great deal has happened since then. The Minister was kind enough to ring me early this morning, when I was casting my vote, and to offer this Statement. I am sure your Lordships would agree that we were right to accept it because of what the Minister will be able to tell the House after the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and myself have spoken. I read the Statement in Hansard of another place and everyone will be glad to have heard it today.
I, and I am sure the whole House, wish to express appreciation for the work of General Mike Jackson and everyone involved in bringing the matter to its current state. It will be no surprise to hear another Statement tomorrow—there will be one early next week—because the House will wish to hear how events are progressing, and authoritatively from the Minister rather than from the newspapers.
1552
In the past the Minister has accused me of asking impossible questions. I shall probably do so again today. However, in asking questions, I am only too well aware that many of them cannot be answered either for reasons of security or because events are happening so fast that the Minister does not know the answer.
When will the first troops go in? We see the suggestion in today's Evening Standard that the Parachute Battalion will go in tomorrow and that they will go up the road to Pristina from Skopje. The newspapers always mention the Paras in the way that at the time of Aden they always mentioned Colonel Mitchell. His battalion was the only one the newspapers could get near and therefore he received all the publicity. But there are many troops around Kosovo and we must not concentrate too much on the Paras, however well they operate.
Secondly, I hope that the Minister can assure the House that NATO will not repeat the serious mistake which happened immediately after the war, when Germany was partitioned. Within years we experienced the closing of the Iron Curtain, which prevented other nationalities from going into another part of Germany. That would be a most serious position and I hope that the United Nations Security Council and NATO itself will concentrate on that issue.
Thirdly, has the Minister anything to add on the role of the Russians? That question relates to my previous remark, but it is vital to achieving peace in Kosovo.
The right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State said last night that we could not trust Milosevic. I hope that that is his view and that the Minister will be able to confirm that plans are in hand to reverse the cessation of the bombardment and everything else that goes with it should things go wrong. Let us hope that that is not necessary, but it might be.
It is now time for rebuilding, but who will pay for it? In particular, speaking from the domestic stance, who will pay for the British share? Will the military costs come from the defence budget or will they come from the FCO fund which can be used for such disastrous occasions? If the cost is to come from the defence budget, we shall be in a very serious position.
I hope that when the Minister speaks after the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and myself he will be able to give encouragement that what we have now is a genuine and lasting peace.
Many other issues come to mind, but I believe that your Lordships will wish to concentrate on those that I have raised and other fundamental points. I repeat that I am most grateful to the Minister, to the Secretary of State, to all British and other armed forces and to others working around Kosovo.
3.47 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made last night in another place and for updating us on it. I congratulate the British negotiators, in particular General Jackson, on the determination with which they have carried this through so far. We all recognise that the crisis is by no means over yet. We must ensure the reconciliation of

1553
the different factions in Kosovo, the removal of the main Serbian forces, and see that the presence of working troops in north-east Kosovo does not lead to division. I understand that they will be associated with Italian forces but not fully under NATO command. There will he some 3,000 Italian troops in north east Kosovo and up to 10,000 Russian troops. Clearly, there is a great deal more to be done.
I wish to look forward and to remind the Government that in the course of this long crisis a number of long-term commitments have been made to the region, some by the British Prime Minister himself, and they must not be forgotten now that the fighting has stopped. Europe as a whole has committed itself to sustaining not only Kosovo and Bosnia, but also Albania, Macedonia, Bulgaria and Romania, which have suffered the economic costs of the war for a considerable period. We also have a job to do in helping to rebuild Serbia. The Serbian Government have clearly been appalling throughout, but all Serbs do not share that responsibility. If in the long run we are to return Serbia to civilised Europe, there is much that Britain and other countries can do together to revive democracy in that painfully damaged country.
As the Minister will be aware, my party has throughout strongly supported the Government's action. We believed that it was correct and right for Britain and our allies to do so. I noted with puzzlement occasional wobbles among the Right-wing press. I am hound to say that I considered some of John Keegan's articles to be the oddest, particularly that in which he suggested that support in Britain from the right quarters would be stronger if only the NATO spokesman spoke "proper" rather than speaking with an East London accent.
The St. Malo initiative has been half hidden by this crisis. However, I think it is relevant—and perhaps the Minister might like to add to this—that while the Kosovo crisis has been going on the British and French Governments have been pushing forward with an initiative to strengthen European defence, and it is quite clear that the two are interrelated.
A n American spokesman in Brussels last Friday said that we all need to understand that Kosovo is America's last European war: that if there is one region in the world which the Americans now feel they can leave to those in the region to look after it will in future be Europe; and that therefore the move towards greater European autonomy within NATO is a matter that we clearly have to take further forward. The projected move of the Secretary-General of NATO to become the Secretary-General of the European Council is clearly highly symbolic and I hope will also be effective in that regard.
Finally, as we hope to have resolved the crisis in Kosovo, I ask the Minister to say a little about whether the Government and their partners will be considering how other potential crises around Europe's borders might in future be met, and what implications they will have for our military planning and that of our allies. We have the unresolved problem of Cyprus; we have a number of problems in the Caucuses; and, above all, we have the Arab/Israeli crisis. We hope that they will
1554
not deteriorate into fighting which will involve British forces. I understand that there are British forces present as observers in Abkhazia and there are British forces in Cyprus. Europe and it surrounding regions are not yet entirely secure.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I begin by thanking both noble Lords for their generous remarks about General Jackson. I am sure that they meant to include a reference to the efforts so far made by the British Armed Forces, air, land and sea.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, asked when the first troops will be going in. I cannot answer that question. I can, however, tell him that it would he possible for British troops to go in tomorrow. The event that would bring that about would be the passing by the Security Council of a resolution, which I understand is already in blue form and which will no doubt be debated later today. It would then be up to the North Atlantic Council to approve an ACTORD. At his discretion, General Jackson would then be in a position to move his first troops forward tomorrow.
The noble Lord asked about partition. I can assure him that NATO's planning takes full account of the dangers of partition. We are determined that the outcome of these unhappy events of the past many weeks will not result in a partitioned Kosovo. To that end, there will be a unified control for all allied troops and also for non-NATO troops in Kosovo.
The noble Lord asked me about the role of the Russians. I cannot answer that question. These matters are still being discussed at the moment. They are being discussed in Moscow. I hope that the matter will become clear fairly soon. All sorts of figures have been bandied around as to a Russian contribution—anything of the order of approximately 1,200–10,000 men. I believe that it is a little improbable that we shall see the higher figure. As your Lordships will know, the Russians also have troops in Bosnia and they have local difficulties of their own. They are determined to contribute and they have worked in a very responsible and constructive way to reach the solution that we have so far achieved. NATO would certainly very much welcome their participation in KFOR as soon as they feel able to do so.
The noble Lord also asked me whether or not there are plans to reverse the cessation of the bombing if things go wrong. The answer is an unambiguous yes. The noble Lord asked me who will pay for the rebuilding. That, of course, will be a matter for negotiation with our partners in the EU and NATO. However, I can assure him that no costs will fall to the Ministry of Defence budget. They will be taken care of in other ways, with the well known generosity of Her Majesty's Treasury leading the way!
The noble Lord asked me his final impossible question: whether or not we can guarantee a lasting peace. Of course we cannot guarantee a lasting peace. That is in the hands of others. I believe that it will be a very long time before anybody else starts clown the course that Mr Milosevic has taken in that part of Europe.

1555
The greatest hope that we all have for the future is the introduction of the stability pact, in which our Prime Minister has taken the lead—and I am sure that he will be followed by our EU and NATO partners—to make sure that that part of the world is not forgotten, in particular all the front line states which have suffered very serious economic damage as a result of the necessary activities of the past 11 weeks.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, began by stating that things are by no means over. He is, of course, absolutely right. I believe that I said at this Dispatch Box not very long ago that the fact that troops were entering an unopposed environment did not mean to say that it was a safe environment. I have to warn your Lordships that it is very possible that we shall yet see some British and allied casualties. All sorts of risks will face our forces going into Kosovo. Of course, we pray that that will not happen, particularly in the light of the fact that in this brilliant air campaign, which has lasted 11 weeks, not a single allied pilot has suffered from enemy action from start to finish.
The noble Lord suggested that the Russians will go in with the Italians. He may be right, but he is possibly being a little premature in that regard. As I said a moment ago, I do not believe that the disposition of any Russian troops that show up has yet been decided.
He asked about long-term commitments to the region. I believe I have already covered that matter.
The noble Lord said that Serbia had to be rebuilt and asked who would rebuild it. Of course Serbia has to be rebuilt. However, I can tell your Lordships that certain parts of Serbia will not be rebuilt. Those are the military barracks, the military petroleum depots, the ammunition dumps, and all the other ingredients of Milosevic's military dictatorship. Their rebuilding will be down to the Serbian government, if they wish to spend their money on such activities in the future, which I very much doubt.
The noble Lord referred to Mr John Keegan's articles. Let me say one thing in defence of Mr Keegan. I am a great admirer of Mr Keegan. I admire him even more for his article in the Daily Telegraph in which he had the courage to admit that he had been wrong. I salute him for that, particularly as I have personally stuck my neck out, saying that I was convinced that air power could win this conflict; and it has been shown unambiguously that it did win this conflict. Many commentators thought that it could not be done simply because it had never been done before. He is the first person quite unambiguously to recognise that things have changed and that his original assessment was mistaken.
The noble Lord rightly suggested that one of the good factors to emerge from the recent conflict is the initiative of the British and French Governments to stimulate a European defence consciousness, which has been hugely advanced as a result of the military campaign of the past 11 weeks. The noble Lord referred to somebody quoting this as "America's last European war". I hope that it will be the last European war for
1556
all of us. I must say that I cannot see the events of the past few weeks being repeated as far ahead as any of us can see.
The noble Lord asked, finally, how crises would be met in the future, and the implications of recent events for the planning of this country and the countries of our allies. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if I give the British Ministry of Defence a pat on the back at this stage. I believe that what has been demonstrated is the good sense of the underlying principles of our Strategic Defence Review. I am glad to say that more and more of our European allies are seeing the good sense of restructuring their forces to deal with crises outside their own territories, a course in which I believe we have led the way in Europe.
Finally, I am able to tell your Lordships that NATO has approved the release of the military technical agreement. I shall be placing copies of it and the relevant map in the Library as soon as possible.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, it is very good news indeed that the Serb forces are now withdrawing and that the bombing has been suspended and, it is to be hoped, ended. Not least among the good news is—and I freely acknowledge it—the demonstration of the strength and cohesion of NATO in pursuing goals which all of us wished to see achieved. But we are dealing with a tragedy. If we can now say that Act II has come to an end, Act III, as I am sure my noble friend would acknowledge, in which the expelled Kosovars are now to return to their shattered homes, burnt out villages and smashed communities, will be a dangerous, difficult and far more prolonged experience than what we have gone through so far. Looking beyond that, to what might be called Act IV of the tragedy, the securing of peace and prosperity in the whole of that region will be an even longer and more difficult process to achieve.
I conclude by putting a question to my noble friend. Does he not agree that, while we have reason to be soberly pleased with what has been accomplished so far, we would be very wise to think hard about the lessons of this whole experience and, above all, to reflect on whether in the very long term we have yet found the right way to proceed when one country, within its own frontiers, behaves barbarously to a part of its population?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. He is right to say that this is a terrible tragedy. The real tragedy is that the terms that the Serb government have just settled for were available to them before any bombing took place. It is the Serb people who have paid a terrible price for Mr Milosevic's intransigence. My noble friend asked whether this was the best way of dealing with the situation. I cannot really answer that question. All I will say to him is that I think it absolutely inconceivable that we shall see scenes of this kind again in Europe. I think that he is possibly a little too pessimistic when he says that the worst is yet to come. In my remarks I was referring to the dangers facing our troops. As far as concerns the Kosovar refugees, particularly the displaced people still hiding

1557
inside Kosovo, there is an end to the repression, the brutality and the violence and they can return to their homes.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm for the record that the proposed United Nations resolution covers the disbandment and disarmament of the Kosovo Liberation Army?
Lord Gilbert: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that historians on the whole do not make very good military commanders when they are in retirement? That is why I have not spoken until now on the Kosovo problem. But there is one thing which I think historians are entitled to do and that is to draw attention to the problems which have existed over centuries in this area. The problem I am thinking of is of the Serb holy places. Have all our British commanders been briefed on the historical background to this problem and the necessity of ensuring that the centres of Orthodox Christianity in Pec, in Pristina and in that north western part of Kosovo are taken into account and that those places will be guarded by NATO troops? I raise this point not out of any sympathy for the barbaric President Milosevic and his accomplices in the Serbian army and his murderers in the Serbian paramilitary forces but because I think that this is a matter which deserves consideration.
There is something to be said for ethnic cleansing. We carried out ethnic cleansing in 1945 when the whole of the Silesian German population and the whole of the Sudeten German population were expelled. In one sense that was sensible and inevitable. But I hope that when NATO troops go into Kosovo it will be understood that there are areas which are specifically holy to the Serbs and other places which are the homeland of the Moslem population.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am sure that the House would not expect me to follow the noble Lord in his advocacy of ethnic cleansing, however accomplished. But I will say to him, with regard to the first part of his question, that General Jackson and his officers are fully seized of the importance of the religious monuments in Kosovo and the need for them to be protected. I do not doubt that the officers of the other NATO contingents will be similarly briefed. It may well be the case—I am not sure whether final arrangements have been made—that there will be some Serb presence to protect those monuments in the future.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, as far as concerns the Security Council, is my noble friend able to advance any additional information about the position of the Chinese Government? Secondly, with regard to the position in Kosovo, we have rightly given considerable protection to the innocent Albanian community. Is my noble friend prepared to ensure that we give equal consideration to the innocent Serbian community in Kosovo?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am not sure whether the Chinese have announced their position on the resolution,
1558
which is in blue form. I understand that they have no intention of vetoing it, though they may abstain. With regard to my noble friend's second point, NATO forces are going in to make sure that there is no more mayhem or violence in Kosovo against any element of the population there. We can only hope that we are successful in bringing that into effect.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the Minister welcome, as I do, the agreement reported this morning between various Kosovar interests; namely, the KLA arid Mr Rugova? The noble Lord said earlier that there w:11 be a unified military command. Will that also extend to the civilian component of administration and to economic matters?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I was not aware of the developments with respect to the KLA to which the noble Lord referred. But anything that brings more unity into that strife-torn country is greatly to be welcomed. One of the difficulties we feared was the vociferous nature of the various elements in the KLA in the weeks ahead. What was the noble Lord's second point?
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I asked about M r Rugova, who was shadow prime minister.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I was saying that I hope very much that there will be unity among the KLA element. I thought that there was another part to the noble Lord's question.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, if the evacuation of Kosovo leads to conflict between the Albanians and the Serbs who are still in that province, what arrangements exist for the enforcement of peace on the part of NATO, the Russians and the rest, or will the matter be left to be resolved by the warring bands?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I thought that I had already answered the last part of that question. In the early days the responsibility for day-to-day policing will necessarily fall to the military forces as they move into Kosovo. Subsequently—as soon as possible, we hope—that responsibility will pass to the civil administration that will be set up under the United Nations. I believe that that answers the second part of the question from the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. The noble Lord, Lord Burnham, kindly reminded me that it was whether or not we propose to have a unified civilian command. The answer is to start with, yes, under the auspices of the United Nations.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, will the Minister, first, inform the House what rules of engagement have been issued to our ground forces? Is he satisfied with them? Secondly, is arresting and, therefore, turning over to justice those who have committed the dreadful atrocities and who still remain in Kosovo a priority?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, on the noble Earl's first question, I am sure that your Lordships realise that I will never discuss rules of engagement across the Floor

1559
of the House. As regards attempts to capture those responsible for some of the atrocities, I believe that the noble Lord will be aware of the brilliant efforts of British forces in Bosnia in that direction. I am sure that our troops will be diligent in that respect in Kosovo—if any war criminals stay in Kosovo and allow themselves to be caught.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that the House and the country owe a debt of gratitude to General Jackson and those who took part in the demanding negotiations? Does not the situation provide vindication of the military and political leadership involved as well as demonstrate the modern relevance of air power? Does my noble friend also accept that the United Kingdom has provided the lion's share of the action taken by Europe, as it did in the Gulf War. Does he feel it appropriate that those eagerly pursuing the question of a foreign security policy in Europe should recognise that Britain cannot always, and should not always, provide that lion's share?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I must point out that NATO already has something like 17,000 troops in Macedonia and this contingent comprises representatives from no fewer than 14 NATO countries. No fewer than 14 NATO air forces took part in the recent campaign and no fewer than eight of those air forces mounted strike missions.
The plan for the immediate future is to build up KFOR to something of the order of 50,000 personnel. Our contribution is intended to be of the order of 13,000. However, it may briefly go as high as 19,000. We expect at least 7,000 troops from the French, a similar number from the Germans and possibly 5,000 or more from the United States. It must be remembered that the United States has contributed of the order of 85 per cent of the air campaign. The French had more fast jets in the air than the United Kingdom, although we had responsibilities elsewhere, of course.
It is a little unhelpful—if I may say so to my noble friend—to try to compare contributions of various NATO allies. The important matter is the solidarity that has been demonstrated by the leaders of all the countries and, in most cases, by the parliaments and by public opinion across NATO. I believe that that has been a truly remarkable aspect of the last three months. As my noble friend pointed out, the United Kingdom has made a major contribution. That is one of the prices that you pay for supplying the headquarters and the leadership in a campaign like this. This country cheerfully makes that contribution.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I want to follow the question from the noble Lord, Lord Hardy. Does the Minister agree that as there have been huge military costs, and there will be major reconstruction costs, it is fair that those costs should be shared among the NATO countries? That could best be done according to the GDP of each country. Currently, the United States has 48 per cent of NATO GDP; Germany, 13 per cent; France, 9 per cent; the United Kingdom, 8 per cent;
1560
Italy, 7 per cent; Canada, 4 per cent and Spain, 3 per cent. That comes to 92 per cent. Is it not sensible for us to consider whether all those costs should be put into a pot and allocated according to each country's GDP and not necessarily according to the efforts put in by each country?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am sure that a sensible way will be found to allocate the costs among EU countries, NATO countries and other countries in Europe. We realise that we have to make sensible contributions. While the noble Lord was on his feet, I wondered why he did not take the opportunity to withdraw a couple of remarks he made the last time he intervened when he said that Mr. Milosevic was winning the campaign, that we were losing it and that air power would never win.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, from my point of view, the Prime Minister must be congratulated on showing considerable moral courage. He has shown a leadership to which most other parts of NATO have failed to respond. Having said that, will he please give an undertaking never again to say, "I will never use ground forces" because that has prolonged the campaign? I do not say that we should use ground forces, but I am suggesting that he should never again say that he will not use them. Mr. Wilson made that mistake over Cyprus and Rhodesia and Mr. Hague followed in the House of Commons. The criticism is fairly blanket. Will he, please, never do that again?
Can the Minister say how long he believes that this venture will last? Will it be a long imperial adventure lasting forever? On a minor piece of information, is he aware that the 50,000 troops he foresees going into Kosovo are equivalent to the number of British troops who managed to hold the British Empire in the Far East from Hong Kong to Aden in 1935?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I shall he happy to convey to the Prime Minister the encomium that the noble Earl delivered in his initial remarks. I was not sure whether he was asking me or the Prime Minister to give all sorts of assurances. He says that the Prime Minister should never have said that we would not use land forces. What on earth makes the noble Lord think that Mr. Milosevic necessarily believed the Prime Minister or anybody else who said that? We happen to know that the Yugoslav forces were deployed in various directions because they thought that a land invasion might come from places from where it did not come. That reduced the number of their forces available in Kosovo. I can assure the noble Earl of the force of what I am saying.
The noble Earl and myself have discussed this privately. Air power did win the campaign. Some people believe that Mr. Milosevic settled when he did because he was afraid of a land campaign. To those who believe that, I say that the prospect of a land campaign was a remote and uncertain one. Mr. Milosevic was really turned around by the prospect of a certain continuation of the bombing for another three months.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, it will be no surprise to the Minister to hear that I welcome the

1561
Government's confidence in the delivery of success in this campaign by the use of air power alone. Never the less, would it not have been helpful if the use of ground forces could have been considered more firmly and earlier? I believe that that could well have shortened the length of the air campaign.
I add my congratulations to General Jackson and his learn on the achievement of a significant agreement. In that agreement, are there any arrangements to renegotiate if hitches occur in the process of moving the Yugoslav forces out, for example, if a bridge that is thought to be safe is found not to be or if there are other matters which mean that the planned move will not occur? It would be helpful to know what arrangements have been made for that. Finally, can the Minister say anything further about the arrangements which may be made to incorporate the command of Russian forces within the overall force structure of KFOR?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and gallant Lord for his remarks in relation to the professionalism of our air forces and their success. I did not say that the use of land forces was never considered; I merely said that the idea had been rejected. Of course it was considered very early on and was rejected very early on. In point of fact the air campaign could have been a lot shorter had we not had such bad weather; and had we not been quite so fastidious in our choice of targets, weapons and rules of engagement. But that is history and it is not helpful to carp about details of what was a brilliantly successful, professionally waged campaign in which we should all take pride.
I am afraid I have nothing more to add to what I said a few moments ago in relation to the arrangements for Russian troops. Those matters are being discussed at this time.

Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill
4.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Noble Lords will no doubt have followed the progress of this modernising legislation in another place. Reforming the welfare state to meet the needs of the 21st century is one of the biggest challenges facing this Government.
Beveridge's welfare state assumed that men would be in 40-hour, 40-year jobs, which in turn could fund insurance against the risk (not the likelihood) of old age and sickness, while women, their wives, worked at home, depended on and derived their benefits through their husbands. That world has gone for ever. The position of women, employment patterns, family structures, life expectancy have all changed radically. To take just one example. Only one married woman in eight worked in Beveridge's day; now around three-quarters do, earning their own entitlements with
1562
dramatic implications for employment benefits, widows' and disability benefits, for pensions as well as the more traditional role of carers.
We must rebuild the welfare state to reflect today's world, applying the ethics of Beveridge to today's very different society. The Prime Minister recently described the key principles underpinning our modernisation plans. First, our commitment to tackle social exclusion. It is scandalous that one in five children live in households without a parent at work and therefore the face of poverty in this country is the face of the child. One in three children now live in poverty.
Secondly, the Prime Minister said that we are determined to encourage a relationship of mutual responsibility between the individual and the state. The third principle he enunciated was that our reforms will ensure that security is provided for those in greatest need through a mixture of universal and targeted help. He committed us also to building a system secure from fraud; then, to develop effective and innovative delivery mechanisms, not just to rely on the traditional methods of government.
Finally, we must remember that there is more to the welfare system than just social security benefits. Active welfare is about services too—schools, hospitals, the whole infrastructure of community support. It is about rebuilding employment around the New Deals, the working families' tax credit and the national minimum wage. It is about tackling child poverty, by offering work to workless households, increasing child benefit and reforming the child support system. All of that is part of our society's welfare and well being.
In this Bill we are modernising the benefits, pensions and national insurance system to deliver essential changes in five key areas. First, we are introducing a radical package of measures to keep people in touch with the labour market, including the one service.. which is the work-focused interview pilots in the new employment zones. We believe that the only way out of poverty is access to the labour market.
Secondly, we are modernising disability benefits so that they provide more help for disabled people in greatest need, as well as providing help and opportunities for disabled people who want to work. Thirdly, we are modernising and extending entitlement to bereavement benefits to help families with children who need it most. Fourthly, we are starting the process of pension reform to ensure the system provides security in retirement for future pensioners, including people who divorce, through pension sharing. Fifthly, we are modernising the benefits of the national insurance system, extending maternity allowance to low paid expectant mothers and aligning the NICs and tax earnings thresholds.
I should like, if I may, to take your Lordships through the measures in the Bill in greater detail. It seems appropriate to start with the one service—the new single, work-focused gateway to benefit; a radical change in both approach and culture in the benefits system. This change had all-party support when it was discussed in another place.

1563
For years too many people have been written off, or written themselves off, and been resigned to a lifetime on benefit; and too many children growing up in workless households have come to expect nothing better for themselves. Frank Field once told the story at a meeting I was attending of a school he visited where he said to a 10-year old boy, "What do you want to do when you grow up?". He thought the child might reply, "Drive a train" or "Fly a plane". The 10-year old boy said, "When I grow up I want to claim my giro payment".
The Government are determined to break the cycle of disadvantage by tackling that poverty of expectation. That is why we have focused resources on providing £4 billion of help through a range of New Deal programmes. The one service builds on the New Deal by providing everyone of working age with advice on their options, on work, training and childcare, together with help in claiming the benefits to which they are entitled. Everyone of working age entering the benefit system will, for the first time, get the help that they need and have a right to expect; and they will get it in one place, at a one-stop shop.
In turn, we believe they have a responsibility to take up that help. So they will be required, as a condition of benefit, to take part in an interview to find out about the opportunities open to them. We want these interviews to open windows for people since, as we all accept, people do not know what they do not know. The Government have a responsibility to help them to find out and to empower them with that knowledge.
We will of course be sensitive to people facing specific difficulties. We know that for some people with severe disabilities work will never be an option. So such individuals will not be required to take part in an interview. I must stress that these requirements stop at interviews; it is about empowering with information and choices. Nothing in this Bill will force anyone to take a job or follow a particular course of action. What is important is that they discuss the help available.
The one service is part of a wider strategy to ensure that people have the opportunity to work and to ensure, through the working families' tax credit, for example, that work pays. The Bill provides for two further measures to help people into work. The Bill requires joint claims to jobseeker's allowance from, initially, young couples who do not have children so that both of them get access to support and advice from the Employment Service, and if they have been unemployed for six months, to the New Deal for young people. All our research shows that that will be welcomed.
The Bill provides for the new £112 million programme of employment zones to cut through red tape and focus resources on areas that suffer from persistently high unemployment. By pioneering a different approach, we are doing more to help people get into work. But that is just one part of our reform programme. We are also determined to help people who cannot work.
1564
So the Bill also reforms and modernises support for disabled people. The Government have made absolutely clear their commitment to improve the opportunity and support available to disabled people; and we have wasted no time delivering on that commitment by investing £195 million in the New Deal for disabled people; by introducing the disabled person's tax credit which, from October, will provide a guaranteed minimum income of at least £150 a week for a single disabled person moving from benefit to full-time work, earning the national minimum wage; by doubling, as those of your Lordships who took part in the WFTC Bill will know, the child premium in working families' tax credit for a disabled child, worth £25 million to 27,000 families: £1,000 a year extra for every low-earning family with a disabled child; by creating the new disability income guarantee, worth at least £128 a week for most severely disabled people under 60 getting income support; by spending £2 billion more by the end of this Parliament on benefits for disabled people—more help for more people who need it; and, of course, by building on our commitment, shared round this House, to comprehensive civil rights with the Disability Rights Commission.
All those reforms are an essential part of our approach. We want to do more to help people into work, and we know that disabled people want to work. Two million already do so and 1 million more have told us that they would like to. We want to provide opportunity where once there was none.
The new personal capability assessment ends the incapacity benefit all-work test, ending the assumption that everyone on incapacity benefit is not able to work. After all, everyone on incapacity benefit was once in work. This new assessment will look at what they can do; not whether they cannot lift a sack of potatoes, but whether they can use a keyboard, for example, or a telephone. I repeat, no disabled person will be forced into work but if they want to work, as they tell us they do, we will do all that we can to help make that possible for them.
If we want to do more for the people who need help most, we have to ask how best to use our resources. There are two further changes to incapacity benefit in this Bill, neither of which will affect people currently getting benefit. Incapacity benefit was and is intended to be an earnings replacement benefit when illness or disability unfortunately forces people to stop work. Over the past 20 years, however, it has become for many an unemployment benefit. Four in 10 of those who receive incapacity benefit were previously unemployed—not in work and becoming disabled while in work, but unemployed. Indeed, someone who worked for only six months over 20 years ago and who has been unemployed ever since would qualify for incapacity benefit now. We do not believe that is right.
Our changes to the contribution conditions make quite clear that entitlement to incapacity benefit is based, as was its intention, on recent work. The new rules will not create onerous requirements. They can be satisfied if someone has done some work in either one of the previous two years. That means only four weeks' work within two years for someone on average earnings, or

1565
as little as 12 weeks' full-time work for someone on the minimum wage over the two years. That two years may very well—given the difference between social security years and tax years—be more like three and a half years.
The Government are determined to do more for carers. We are therefore making special provision for those getting ICA, to ensure that they can still qualify for IB. We will also protect people who have been off IB for a short spell and have not had the chance to rebuild their national insurance contributions. We will make sure that they do not lose out.
The second change to incapacity benefit introduces a fairer partnership by changing the way that occupational or personal pensions are treated in IB. Fifty years ago very few people had occupational pensions. Today, 86 per cent of men and 77 per cent of women working full-time have an occupational pension. Even so, these changes will not affect four people in five on incapacity benefit in future; but of the one-fifth who will be affected nearly half have occupational pensions which take them into the top 40 per cent of income distribution. Around 100,000 of those who get a pension get one of more than £230 a week, with IB of £66 a week paid on top. Is it reasonable that the state should be paying incapacity benefit to people who already have high pensions?
We are determined to reward thrift and saving. People should see reward from making their own pension provision. There will therefore be a partnership. People will keep the first £50 a week of any early retirement pension paid, but their IB will be reduced by 50p for every additional £1 received.
May I also remind your Lordships that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has made it absolutely clear, both at Second Reading and again at Report stage in the other place, that the £50 threshold will be reviewed to ensure that it is set at a fair and reasonable level? The Secretary of State has emphasised that the principles are right but that the details are not set in stone: they can be reviewed.
We are also increasing help for those disabled people who need it most—those young people 'who are disabled from birth or early in life who have never had the opportunity to work and save. Currently, the help available to them through severe disablement allowance, SDA, is paid at the rate of £54 a week. It is simply not enough. Seventy per cent of people on SDA have to claim income support because SDA is so low. The changes in the Bill will mean that young disabled people who claim before they are 20—in other words, who have not had the opportunity to build up a contribution record by being in work—will be given a new entitlement to incapacity benefit without requiring them to meet the usual contribution conditions. After a year this will boost their weekly income by over £26 to over £80; for many, floating them off income-related benefits and providing real help to those young disabled people who need it most.
The Government received representations that it would be wrong to penalise disabled young people who stay on after school to go into higher education or
1566
training. We have therefore amended the Bill to raise the age limit to 25 for claiming incapacity benefit for young disabled people who begin training or higher education before they are 20.
This Bill also extends the higher rate mobility payment in DLA to severely disabled children aged three and four—a measure which I know your Lordships will welcome. It is worth £37 a week in extra support and also gives these children, and importantly their families, access to the Motability scheme, to allow them the vehicles to carry the heavy equipment that some children may require, such as oxygen cylinders and the like.
The Bill also modernises bereavement benefits to focus help on those who need it most. None of these changes will affect existing widows, widows over pension age, or war widows. The current system must be reformed, however. It is out of date. If your Lordships started afresh, we would not devise the present system.
When widows' benefit was introduced 50 years ago most women, certainly married women, did not work. The system now helps many women on good incomes, who have no children to care for and who have no financial need. Yet it does nothing for bereaved husbands struggling to bring up young children. It spends most on those who need it least. Seventy-five per cent of widows' benefit goes to women without dependent children. Forty per cent of women getting this benefit are in the top half of the income bracket. Yet at the same time the 35,000 poorest widows see nothing, because their widows' benefit is deducted pound for pound from their income support.
For the first time, therefore, we will help bereaved husbands and their children on the same basis as bereaved women, through a weekly, non-means tested benefit worth an average of £75 to £80 a week. Because we believe that the current system does not provide enough help with immediate costs, we are doubling the initial lump sum to £2,000. We also recognise the need to provide transitional help to those without children in the period immediately following bereavement. This Bill therefore provides non-means-tested help for widowers and widows alike without children for the six months following bereavement. So it provides an initial lump sum, a six months' bereavement allowance, and a payment to men and women alike if they have dependent children when they are widowed.
We will ensure that older widows, over 55, without dependent children, without income and without the prospect of work—a group I am sure your Lordships are concerned about—are no worse off as a result of these changes by providing extra help through income support.
We will also ensure that the system does more to help the poorest widows and widowers and their children, who, up to now, lose their benefit pound for pound. We will therefore change the regulations, in a move which I very much hope your Lordships will welcome. to give additional help to the poorest bereaved parents worth up to an extra £10 a week—effectively a £10 disregard on their income support for their widows' benefit. These

1567
reforms look to the long term and to the needs that we know we will face in the future. It is because we are looking to the long term that we are also reforming the pension system.
In December we published proposals for far-reaching reform of the pensions scheme; and this is our first Bill on it. It delivers the commitment made by all of us in this House to enable pension-sharing. I am delighted more than I can say to be here today on behalf of your Lordships to bring forward proposals which I hope and trust will be warmly welcomed. However, my only regret is that the much loved Lady Seear is not here to celebrate with us. She fought so doughtily for us shoulder to shoulder, to coin a phrase.
For the first time, pension rights can be shared like other assets at the time of divorce, providing greater flexibility and choice for divorcing couples and courts. It offers fairness at last to older women who have helped to build their husbands' careers and then have been "traded in", in the phrase used by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who, along with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, so powerfully argued the case. It will also help younger women make a fresh start.
We are setting out the framework for the new stakeholder pension schemes, which are central to ensuring that those who can save for their pension do so. We believe that they have a responsibility in that respect and that we ought to offer them the opportunity. For the one-third of employees who do not have the opportunity of joining an occupational pension scheme, a personal pension is currently the only option. However, only about half of the 10.75 million people earning between £9,000 and £20,000 a year—after that, they tend to look after themselves rather better—are in occupational schemes. Personal pensions are not suitable for many, such as low earners or contract workers. So millions of people today do not save towards their pension.
Through the new stakeholder pension schemes this Bill will give millions of people without a second funded pension a better opportunity to save. Up to 5 million people could benefit from these proposals. We are ensuring that they are run in ways that will put the rights and interests of members first, meeting specified standards. Stakeholder pensions will be cheaper with lower charges; they will he safer because of our trust arrangements; and they will be more flexible, thereby ensuring that they are suitable for those who need to take breaks from work, particularly women; those who change jobs frequently, such as the self-employed; or those who are on short-term contracts. We will also ensure that stakeholder pensions are transparent as well as being easy to understand and compare.
Through our radical, structural reform of the pension system and measures to ensure that more people take out a funded second pension, we will ensure that people get better pensions, a better retirement and a better future. We will subsequently be bringing forward measures to ensure that those earning below £9,000 a year have access to the new state second pension in due course.
1568
The Bill also contains measures to modernise the structure of national insurance, building on the improvements already made in this House, such as the transfer of the responsibility for national insurance from the Contributions Agency to the Inland Revenue. The changes we propose to make to the national insurance threshold will ensure that it is fully aligned with a single person's tax allowance. More importantly, we will be taking about a million people out of national insurance altogether. Seventy per cent of the working population (16½ million people) will see a cut in their contributions. However, at the same time, we are ensuring that entitlement to contributory benefits is protected for people with low earnings. We are also closing a loophole in the current legislation to ensure that people disguising their employment through the use of service companies pay the same tax and NICs as those people employed directly.
Finally, as well as helping women by introducing pensions sharing, stakeholder pensions, providing extra help and support in finding work and modernising bereavement benefits, the Bill delivers on the Budget commitment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide better help for working mothers. We are extending entitlement to state maternity allowance to pregnant women on low earnings who currently find themselves in the ridiculous position that they have the right to take time off work to have their baby but do not get any financial support to do so. Indeed, 14,000 low-paid women will be provided with this money for the first time—a major and much-welcomed step forward.
We are ending the second-class status of the self-employed. Self-employed women will now receive the full rate of benefit—£59.55 instead of £51.70. We are also helping self-employed women with low earnings. If they hold a certificate exempting them from paying national insurance contributions, they will be treated as having notional earnings of £30 a week and will receive maternity allowance.
Taken together, the measures in this Bill represent substantial modernisation of the welfare system. We believe that we are planning for the long term, meeting the needs of our society, which have changed over the past 50 years, and seeking to anticipate the changes of the next 50 years. As a result, we believe that we are contributing towards a popular and modern welfare state, modernising universal, contributory and means-tested support to deliver effective help where and when it is needed most. We believe that this will help people to help themselves and that it will provide them with opportunities for independence. But, above all, and equally importantly, it will provide greater security for children and the elderly and, indeed, for those who need it most. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
4.44 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, before I respond to the elegant speech of the noble Baroness, I must immediately declare an interest as I am chairman of a

1569
company pension scheme which may, to some extent, be affected by the provisions of this Bill. At all events, the Bill now before us is in may ways typical of other legislation because it tends to disregard to a significant extent the question of parliamentary scrutiny and the way in which the legislative process ought to work.
The Bill is not, in reality, a single Bill. It could certainly be represented as being two or three Bills, wrapped up in a single Bill. Indeed, one could argue that it is five or six Bills, each of which would deserve a Second Reading, a Committee stage, a Report stage and a Third Reading of its own, if it were to be properly scrutinised. That will create considerable problems for your Lordships' House because the extent of the measures in the Bill is very wide. First, we have some major provisions, which the Minister outlined, as far as concerns the stakeholder pension. This raises a whole series of issues on which there have been many representations from outside bodies.
Secondly, there are the provisions for pension splitting and pensions as regards divorced people. That is a provision which we have welcomed in many respects, although the more the proceedings went on in the House of Commons the more doubt we had about some of the measures. Thirdly, there is the whole structure for the single work-focused welfare gateway, on which the noble Baroness put such considerable stress. Then there are a number of measures which gave rise to great controversy in another place and which will penalise those who are bereaved, on incapacity benefit or. indeed, severely disabled. Again, those provisions will require very careful examination, which I am sure noble Lords in all parts of the House will wish to give them. In addition, extensive changes are proposed to the whole question of national insurance contributions.
Finally, there is a provision to which I believe the Minister devoted only one sentence—namely, that contained in Clauses 70 and 71—which was introduced in the most extraordinary way in another place. If noble Lords were to peruse the House of Commons Official Report of 17th May, they would see that it is quite clear that the reason for the provision suddenly appearing at the very latest stage was that the Government were anxious to change the timing of the proceedings in order to ensure that an embarrassing vote on some of these other controversial matters did not take place at a time when the matter was likely to receive maximum attention. In the event, that attempt failed. However, it seems to me quite extraordinary. We are in a era where spin-doctors are now so pervasive that whether a clause is introduced in this Bill rather than in some other way—and at the very latest stage in a Bill—appears to be a matter of presentation rather than content.
I shall refer to this matter a little more than the noble Baroness did later because it has given rise to a considerable degree of protest in the past few days from myself and many of my noble friends, who no doubt will be joined by those on both sides of the House, as regards the way in which the provision has been put forward. I believe that the Government will live to regret putting through this amount of legislation in the form in which it appears before the House. If the legislation is
1570
not properly scrutinised, the reality is that sometimes such measures may cause considerable problems later on.
Today we are concerned with the principles of the Bill. Those principles are clear, but not those which were put forward by the noble Baroness. After half a Parliament of this Government, we are familiar with the general way in which they work. The Government have tended to transfer power and responsibility in many matters away from the Department of Social Security to the Treasury. In that context one cannot but note the way in which the Government have failed to achieve the objectives which were clearly set out by the Prime Minister before and immediately after the election when he said that the intention was to reduce welfare bills and spend 'the money that was saved on education and health. The Government have clearly failed in that objective. The noble Baroness shakes her head. But instead of cutting expenditure on welfare, the Government now propose an increase of some £38 billion over the next three years. While there are some increases in expenditure contained in this Bill which we welcome, it also includes measures—for example, on the disabled—where small sums of money by national standards are to be saved to the considerable disadvantage of people who are ill able to cope with the consequences of the legislation, and in particular the consequences of Clauses 58 and 59, to which I shall return in a moment.
As I say, the first objective of this Government is a shift of power to the Treasury. The second is the undermining of the contributory principle. We have stressed this on a number of occasions. I refer in this connection to the transfer of responsibility for the Contributions Agency from the DSS to the Treasury. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has frequently reminded us, although the national insurance scheme is not an insurance scheme in the normal sense, the fact that one receives benefits because one has paid contributions has had considerable importance since the time of Beveridge. I believe it is still an important principle.
This Bill further attacks the contributory principle from both ends. On the one hand there are proposals to deny contributory benefits to those who have contributed. I refer in particular to the measures on pensions and incapacity benefit. On the other hand, the Bill will enable people who have not contributed to receive contributory benefits. The principle is being eroded from both ends. There is wide concern, I believe, about the way in which the contributory principle is being undermined. That is seen as dangerous. There are obvious implications for the national insurance pension. The noble Baroness, Lady Castle, is not present at the moment but I know that she will be concerned about its status. As a contributions benefit, it has, of course, already been eroded to a considerable extent by the extension of the so-called minimum pension guarantee.
That brings me to the third objective; namely, that the Government are extending the principle of means testing with regard to a number of different provisions in the Bill. I refer to incapacity benefit, widows' benefit and so on. Fourthly, the Government are increasing dependency. We discussed this at length earlier in the week in relation to the working families' tax credit. The

1571
Bill not only increases dependency but it penalises the prudent and deters people from saving. We shall need to examine the matter carefully in the later stages of the Bill. As I say, the Bill is based on the principles of shifting power to the Treasury; undermining the contributory principle; means testing, increasing dependency and deterring prudence. The Bill, I repeat, comprises a number of individual Bills.
I turn to pensions. The stakeholder pension constitutes a major proposal on the part of the Government. We waited and waited for the Green Paper. Eventually it emerged. But we are still not much further forward. Consultation papers are still appearing. We shall need to probe this matter carefully. Certainly, people outside who are involved are deeply concerned about the Government's proposals.
The Green Paper states that occupational pension schemes are the great welfare success story of this country. I stress the words "this country"—as the Green Paper does—because I believe that the total amount of funded pensions in this country is greater than the total of the funded pension funds in the rest of the European Union. The noble Baroness indicates assent. However, in their first Budget the Government altered the situation with regard to advance corporation tax, penalising such occupational pensions by some £5 billion a year.
I refer to the stakeholder pension and the rather vague proposals for a government second pension to replace SERPS and the lifelong individual savings accounts (LISAs) which the Government seem to talk about even less. There are considerable problems with these proposals. I shall outline one or two of them. There is grave concern among the business community with regard to the ability of individual small firms—many small firms will be affected by stakeholder pensions—to select a suitable stakeholder pension provider and to take responsibility for saying to employees, "You ought to choose this one rather than another".
There is also grave concern with regard to advice on pensions. The Government have blown hot and cold on this matter. Successive Answers to Parliamentary Questions, the Green Paper and statements in another place reveal that the Government appear to be fluctuating widely as to whether advice is essential or whether it should be paid for by the individual who is taking it and so on. When we look at the range of pension provision which now exists and the additional provisions which the Government are introducing, it is absolutely clear that good advice will be essential if we are not to have further mis-selling in the future. We all deplore the mis-selling that occurred in the past. The situation is not in the least clear. Therefore, even at this early stage, I ask what is the Government's position with regard to people obtaining advice on pensions.
Some people are particularly concerned about the Government's uncertainty—they switch back and forth and we do not know where they will end up—with regard to whether people who take out stakeholder pensions will also be able to take out other pensions such as personal pensions or occupational pensions. Again, it can be seen in Parliamentary Answers and statements by the Government that one week they say
1572
one thing but another week they say another. I again ask the noble Baroness whether the Government are now in favour of people who have stakeholder pensions also taking out other pensions.
There is considerable doubt as to where the Government stand on the issue of compulsion. On the issue of trustees the Government have switched back and forth. Should stakeholder pensions have trustees or should they not? This is a serious matter. However, it will be difficult to find effective trustees. As I know from my own experience, the responsibilities of trustees are considerable and indeed not without dangers in some respects. I believe that even at the moment a criminal case is being pursued against the trustees of a charity who are alleged to have breached existing regulations. One cannot say that it is easy to appoint trustees. Having said that, perhaps the noble Baroness will tell us whether the situation now is that stakeholder pensions are to have trustees or are not to have them.
All these are matters which we will need to examine very carefully. But the real problem is the danger that because of the provisions the Government are making for means-tested benefits people may subscribe to a stakeholder or other pension and then find at the end of the day that they have really gained nothing because the pension they will get will be offset in such a way that they receive no more than someone who has never contributed.
That is a very real danger which I think we need to examine further. Those who say, "That is no danger at all because of course the Government would not dream' of doing such a thing", have only to look at Clause 58 where we find that those who are in receipt of incapacity benefit are to be penalised because they have made provision for their pensions. These are major issues which we will need to examine very carefully so far as pensions provision is concerned. This is the first big opportunity we have had for doing so. Certainly we on this side of the House will do everything we can to ensure that the legislation is properly scrutinised.
The noble Baroness referred to pension sharing. I have already done so, and my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever will hope, during our debates on the Bill, to cover this and other points. There is a real problem, given the scope of the Bill, as to what one should focus upon. I think that the noble Baroness recognises that.
Similarly, the single-focus gateway is something we shall need to examine in considerable detail. It raises particularly the question of compulsion. The noble Baroness will know only too well that many outside bodies are gravely concerned, particularly as regards the disabled, that there will be a degree of compulsion concerning the interviews. There may be too much emphasis on the possibility of obtaining work or the ability to take work. Again, we will need to look at that carefully.
I am conscious of time, but I want to say a word or two more about Clauses 70 and 71, of which the noble Baroness made only passing mention. It is really quite extraordinary that the Government should have introduced this matter at the very last moment in the other place for the reasons that I have mentioned:

1573
namely, a tactical question of presentation and whipping. It would have been far more appropriate for it to he included, since it reflects the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own proposals in his Budget, in financial legislation rather than in legislation here. We shall nonetheless have to examine it very carefully.
It is a classic example of the Government again, contemptuous, I think, of the proceedings, taking powers to deal with a great deal of matter through Henry VIII clauses, statutory instruments and so on rather than spelling out the detail. The representations that one is already receiving express grave concern about the repercussions which these clauses may have, not on those against whom they are apparently directed but on many other people who have small limited companies and so on.
The difficulty with this Bill will be to get the right balance between the various controversial points that it contains. I am conscious of that situation. We are concerned about the question of widows' benefits and the bereavement allowance. The noble Baroness did not refer to what had prompted some of the changes; namely, the question of the human rights decision with regard to widowers. Perhaps it might have been appropriate to mention that in passing. At all events, we are concerned about the way in which the Government, instead of facing that particular challenge, have decided to curtail the amount of money spent by cutting widows' benefits rather than dealing with the matter in the way that perhaps the court might originally have envisaged.
I turn finally to the question of disability benefits, and in particular Clauses 57, 58, 60 and also 61 and 62. These matters caused great distress to honourable Members in the other place and indeed resulted in a considerable rebellion. I am sure it is right that this House should scrutinise the clauses very closely. Indeed the noble Baroness held out some hope of change in her remarks, I noticed, as far as—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I had hoped to avoid interrupting the noble Lord in the same way that he was courteous enough not to interrupt me. I did not hold out hope. Let me make it very clear. I said that the Secretary of State had made it clear that while he firmly supported the principles he was open to discussion about the details. It was the Secretary of State.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I do not doubt, after the rebellion which took place, that the Secretary of State was well advised to say something of that sort, but I think we ought to make it absolutely clear—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, this was at Second Reading, well before any discussions or, as the noble Lord prefers to describe it, a revolt in the other place.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, he may have been a little prescient in feeling that perhaps the proposal would not go through quite as easily as he might have supposed, even when he introduced it at Second Reading. Be that as it may, in our view the principle involved here is
1574
wrong. We are very concerned indeed at the way in which the question of entitlement to incapacity benefit is to be reduced because people have been prudent enough to provide for a pension. It seems to us a most extraordinary provision. It is sad that the Government, having failed to introduce radical reforms to curtail public expenditure on welfare, are resorting to this sort of change. It is a matter of broad concern on all sides of the House. We take the view that it is wrong in principle and changing the actual numbers here or there does not alter that point.
Similarly, as regards the restriction on incapacity benefit and the length of time during which people have made contributions, we are withdrawing here something to which people have previously been entitled but which is now to be restricted because benefits will only be available if contributions have been made in the immediately previous period. Again we believe that is wrong.
The abolition of severe disablement allowances is a matter on which outside bodies have expressed some dismay. When Mr. Frank Field was asked to look at some of these issues he was told to think the unthinkable. There are those who say that he did so and that that has been the problem as far as Mr. Field is concerned. I would have thought that the abolition of the severe disablement allowance might well have been something which the noble Baroness might also have regarded as unthinkable. She has sought to justify it today, but I think we need to probe the matter very carefully.
All the issues I have mentioned represent a change in attitude on the part of the Government which we cannot support. I believe it is right that we should deal very carefully with them during the later stages of the Bill. As I said at the beginning, this is not one Bill but several Bills rolled into one. We will need adequate time made available to deal with all these matters, to examine them in detail, and to improve the Bill. If need be, as has been much stressed in recent months, we ought to take the opportunity to ask the House of Commons to think again. There is much in this Bill on which the House of Commons will need to think again, and we shall do everything we can to ensure that matters are scrutinised properly and that good sense prevails.
A very difficult task lies ahead of us because of the complexity, scope and extension of the Bill into so many different areas. I believe it is right that we should give every attention to the legislation. Although the noble Baroness sounded very plausible in many respects, we believe—and it is quite clear from outside representations—that there are serious problems with the Bill which need to be put right.
5.10 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, wearing my other hat, one of the skills I have tried to acquire is that of going through a large, unsorted box of loose papers stretching through several centuries and, at a glance, plucking out those which may relate to the few years on which I happen at that moment to be working. Were I try to apply that skill to a few loose leaves torn out of the Bill,

1575
I should be unable to date it with any precision. I think that I would be able to place it as emanating from the Department of Social Security, probably in the 1990s. I do not think that I would be able to tell from anything in the contents of the Bill from which government in the 1990s it had originated. It does not bear on the face of it any clear philosophical mark of its political origin.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, hit the nail absolutely on the head when he said that this is not a single Bill. It is not even really a collection of small Bills; it is a collection of miscellaneous clauses. So when I set about the task of trying to identify the general principles of the Bill for Second Reading, I could not do so. Even quite late last night I had not succeeded in planning the general outline of a speech. I finally came to the conclusion that the general principle of the Bill is that general principles are not there.
I know that we have had a great many general principles stated. The Minister has stated some about changes in the status of women since Beveridge wrote. She is right about that. I do not see that that bears particularly clearly on the contents of the Bill—except in the case of widows, where I am moving increasingly to the suspicion that the Government, although they have made a good attempt, have nevertheless got it wrong.
I know that the Prime Minister has plenty of principles. But the Prime Minister's principles, like the proverbial flowers that bloom in the spring, are nothing to do with the case. I looked at the Prime Minister's Beveridge Lecture delivered on 1 8th March last for a guide to the principles which the Prime Minister is trying to apply to this subject. He said first that he was trying to take up,
"a great challenge: how we make the welfare state popular again".
The Prime Minister was tilting at a windmill. Mr. Peter Lilley knew perfectly well that the welfare state was popular. That was why, although he made various damaging pinpricks at small outlying parts of it, he left the heart of it severely alone. In making that statement the Prime Minister has fallen victim to his own propaganda about Thatcherism.
He has also fallen victim to the first-past-the-post illusion that 43 per cent is a majority. It is not. We should be very careful indeed about forming assessments of political opinion based on the supposition that 43 per cent is a majority. So that is one area where the Prime Minister is tilting at a windmill.
More generally, the Prime Minister has suffered quite badly because either he or, more likely, someone in his office rather a long time ago, had the misfortune to read Charles Murray. Again in the Beveridge Lecture, he said:
"a welfare state that is just about 'social security' is inadequate. It is passive where we now need it to be active. It encourages dependency where we need to encourage independence, initiative, enterprise for all".
The sentiments are unexceptionable but they are absolutely in the wrong place. That is why I said that they have nothing to do with the case.
1576
The Minister spoke about people who have written themselves off and have poverty of expectation. I agree that that needs changing, but one does not change it by changing the benefit system. The Prime Minister is barking up the wrong tree. I shall not soon forget listening to the single-parent debate in another place at the end of 1997 and to the Members for the north-east, one after another, listing the number of unemployed in their constituencies and the number of listed vacancies. Even if one assumed that the listed vacancies were only one-tenth of the actual vacancies, their point still stood.
Moreover, there is sense in the free market principle that if there is a job it should be incumbent on an employer to make it sufficiently attractive for people to take. The Prime Minister said also that we must have a situation of people having an obligation to take jobs or risk losing benefit. If one sees that as simply a matter of the morals of benefit, I can understand why he said it. But we should think also about the distorting effect on the market of supplying employers with, in effect, a conscripted force of labour which, within the very small limit set by the minimum wage, is bound to take a job whether or not it is sufficiently attractive. That is a particular problem.
The Prime Minister said that,
"any citizen of our society should be able to meet their needs for income, housing, health and education".
That sits a little uneasily with a Prime Minister who has perhaps a greater addiction to disentitlement than any other I can remember. He did not even refer to those who had met his contract but to "any citizen". I do not think that he meant it. So the Prime Minister's principles are really nothing to do with the case.
We have instead a departmental agenda. Whitehall departments are like tankers; they have considerable momentum and a very slow turning circle. They respond—and will always respond—to a very clear signal of change of direction. They do not get that from the sentiments of the Prime Minister, which are nothing to do with the case, and so they continue along the agenda we have been along before.
That is most clear in what the Minister said about incapacity benefit being used as a form of unemployment benefit and a form of retirement. My noble kinsman Lord Henley and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, are not at present in the Chamber. During the passage of the 1994 incapacity Bill, I am sure that they remember churning out almost exactly identical phrases. Those phrases are pure hypothesis. We do not know that that is the reason for the increase in incapacity benefit. If the Minister is to pursue that point, I should like to hear some evidence to justify the hypothesis.
Perhaps I may suggest at least one other hypothesis. The Acheson Report—it repays study—draws attention to the fact that there has been a considerable decrease in mortality but no corresponding decrease in morbidity. Twenty years ago, a great many people who are now receiving incapacity benefit would not have been in work. They would have been dead. It is also a well-known fact that unemployment has a serious effect on health, especially on mental health. If people who

1577
have been unemployed for more than two years are suffering illness, they may be ill because they have been unemployed.
The Acheson Report also stresses that benefits are by no means always adequate to maintain health. I shall return to that point in Committee. Many of these people may be ill because they are on benefits which are insufficient to give them adequate nourishment. To use that as evidence that people are trying to fiddle their way out of the labour market—which is the innuendo, even if the Minister did not intend it, left in people's minds when those words are heard—is entirely misleading. Fortunately my noble friend Lord Goodhart and I are able to enjoy a division of labour. My noble friend will be dealing with the pension-splitting section of the Bill. I join in the warm congratulations to the Minister on her part in that. I thank her for her kind words about Lady Seear. We are delighted that the provision is included. If we give it careful scrutiny, it is merely for the purposes of making it work. I am sure that the Minister would expect no less.
I am interested in the provision relating to widows. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. It stems from provisions in the European Convention on Human Rights. It is a move towards gender equality, and one must welcome that. One must also welcome the increase in the immediate lump sum bereavement payment. However, there is a question as to whether this is going at too breakneck a speed, and whether it too greatly whittles down the area of choice within marriage.
The widow's parent's allowance will continue only until a child who continues in education is 19. That is very hard on those children with widowed parents attempting to enter higher education. I know painfully well that people cannot usually complete their higher education without a vast amount of help from their parents, or an unacceptable amount of paid work during term time, which interferes with their studies. Therefore, in Committee I shall examine that limitation to age 19 to see whether there is any give for those in higher education.
I am more concerned with the six-months' limitation on the bereavement allowance. This is purely a provision of gender equality. I respect the principle behind it; namely, that if the two sexes claim equality, in the case of bereavement both must be prepared actively to seek work. But the provision contemplates a very big cultural change. That change has already taken place in some households; in others it is nowhere near beginning. We on these Benches feel strongly that it is a vital principle that couples should have a choice as to whether they both go out to work or whether one of them is the specialist carer—and not necessarily the woman.
There is a tendency to restrict choice. Also, if such a change is to be brought in, it must be done in such a way that those people who begin their pension provision reasonably early in life should do so knowing that this is the position that their widow or widower will he in. There is a real problem in regard to what lawyers term "legitimate expectation". So if the Minister intended to introduce such change. it should have been
1578
introduced with a very much longer time lag before its commencement. If it were to come into force in 2020, then it would be theoretically justifiable. As it is, the provision appears draconian and a cultural imposition.
On the question of the single gateway, 'there is a compulsory interview—I agree with the Minister that it is merely an interview—for all those who move on to benefit, with provision for loss of benefit if they do not attend. Here there are two conflicting, valid principles. On the one hand, it is a good principle that people should not be paid benefit for doing nothing. We on these Benches accept that. But it is also a valid principle that, in the words of the Prime Minister in his Beveridge Lecture, anyone has an entitlement to basic physical support. Here, those principles clearly conflict. We on these Benches will not vote against the principle of the single gateway. However, we have severe misgivings about its practicalities. We have misgivings about who will be exempted from the interview; the travel requirements; such people as illiterates, who may not know that they have been summoned to attend; and the qualities of those who will conduct the interview.
I am sure that the Minister will never forget the BIP—a story from which she emerges with so much credit. I must rely on her to ensure that those who conduct the gateway interviews do not include unqualified people who may make the kinds of mistakes that were made in the course of the BIP. I am sure I need say no more.
The Minister will need to think about how far all these extra requirements are compatible with the requirements of the change programme, by which the running costs of the Department of Social Security were to be reduced by 25 per cent. Mr. Peter Lilley said that that filled him with despair. The more I look back on that statement, the more I think how right he was. I hope that the Government may see grounds for agreeing with him.
Turning to Clause 56, I am in sympathy with the changes to the all-work test that the Government propose. But I wonder whether the Government have appreciated quite what a bad test it is. That was the worst element of the 1994 Act. I am sure that the Minister is familiar with the CAB report, An Unfit Test. Perhaps I may take one example from the report and use it as a proxy. It is the example of someone who had a severed tendon in his hand, with nerve damage as well. He was found to be fully capable of work because no descriptor takes into account the length of time needed to complete tasks needing the use of both hands. It is not an objective test. It is objective only in those matters that the compilers of the test happen to have thought of. Being human beings, they are subjective.
The Minister will also be familiar with DSS Research Report No. 86, the study tracking those who had left incapacity benefit, both voluntarily and involuntarily. It found absolutely no correlation between their test scores and their prospects of future employment. That is a worrying finding. I should like to hear. From the Minister, in replying, that she is prepared to do a great deal more to change the all-work test than merely he points that she has set out. There cannot really be an all-work test, because there is no single activity known as work.

1579
Clause 57 deals with the restriction of incapacity benefit to those who have paid recent contributions. I have said a little on that already. There is more wrong with it. It is geographically discriminatory. In certain areas of the country people have no reasonable prospect as they get older of having been able to do work within the two years prior to a claim. The ward next door to my own is a case in point; and there are plenty of such areas in the north-east. So this clause will penalise people for where they live. That is unfair. It will penalise women extremely severely, mainly through an interaction with the exclusion of those who are working but who are cut off by the lower earnings limit for national insurance; or people who are doing several part-time jobs, each of them below the lower earnings limit. Many people who are in that position have made serious attempts to work and should not be penalised for not trying. The provision will also work extremely harshly for carers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, may be about to tell us. I shall listen carefully to her remarks.
Clause 58 deals with pension payments. I understand the theory of what the Government are trying to do. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I have heard the Minister complain many times about the number of perverse incentives in the benefits system. She is here creating another. She is creating an incentive not to save. However good the theory, it will not do. If the practical effect of introducing the clause is damaging, even if the theory is perfect, it still should not be done.
There is a great deal more that needs to be looked at: for example, Clause 64, on compulsory production of national insurance numbers for obtaining child benefit. I have spoken to the Minister before about the difficulty many people have in getting national insurance numbers. I shall come back to that.
My final point is on Clause 77 which allows authorisation of forward expenditure by statutory instrument. Because of the revolutionary tendencies of those who manage business in another place, this fell victim to the guillotine, so it received less scrutiny than many people would otherwise have wished. It concerns a number of the committee chairmen in another place, not least my honourable friend Mr Kirkwood, chairman of the Social Security Select Committee. I understand what the Government are trying to do and why they are trying to do it, but we shall want to examine that carefully in Committee, and a great deal else.
5.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bradford: My Lords, I wish to make a modest contribution to the debate which, as one would expect, will be of a different order. I am not competent to discuss the details of the Bill and I have no party political flag to fly. I wish to speak on behalf of quite a number of clergy and others who spend a great deal of their time living among people who are poor and for whom we hope the provisions of the Bill will provide some relief.
1580
I was greatly interested to hear the Minister talk about the ethics of Beveridge. I believe I quote her correctly. People are concerned to know what are the ethics and principles behind the Bill and what is the vision of the society which the Bill seeks to help to create. People are frequently bemused by the mass, the torrent of words which are written and pour out in debate. But a vision is something which many more people can come to terms with. What are we designing the Bill for? What do we hope to achieve? How can the people who need it most understand and respond to it?
Christians are called to pay particular attention to the needs and circumstances of the poorest people in society. That is a view shared by people of other faiths and no faith at all. It means a great deal more than helping individuals in their need. It means a great deal more than creating charitable organisations. It means providing a fair and accessible system for the delivery of state provision of welfare.
I underline the word "accessible". The comment that is made time and time again to those of us who are not expert in these matters but who talk to people most affected is: "We simply do not understand. How do we find out how we can get help?" It is not merely clergy, not merely people of that order. I think I am right in saying that in 1997–98 the citizens' advice bureaux had something like 6.2 million problems referred to them, 2 million of which concerned the social security system. It is a strange community in which poor people who are frequently disadvantaged and unable to speak for themselves have to go to volunteer experts in order to understand the provision which is designed to help them most.
I hope we shall have a vision and that in the vision and principles we will have something that will give us encouragement in that direction. It may be a foolish thing to ask, but perhaps a bishop is the best person to ask foolish things in your Lordships' House—a fool for Christ's sake. One of the great learning processes we have been through in the diocese of Bradford was called "powerful whispers". We went to four of the most deprived areas in Bradford and Keighley, took the so-called great and the good of the area in politics and public life, including the bishop, and made them sit down for two hours without speaking a word, in order to listen to people who lived in those deprived areas saying: "This is what it's like to live here". Those people needed a lot of help to do that; they are not used to standing up and speaking for themselves. I ask the Minister this: who has sat down and listened to such people when creating a vision and seeking to construct the Bill? It is a foolish thing to ask, but we are dealing not with statistics and concepts such as the poor and the unemployed; we are dealing with human beings.
I may not understand a lot of what happens in this debate, but I understand a little about the human beings who will be affected. It is easy to do good for other people. I ask: at what stage has there been a real listening to people who are most affected? I hope it has been good and I shall be greatly encouraged if so.
Speaking of the stakeholder pension, the Minister said, "It will be simpler, easy to understand and to compare". I cannot comment about stakeholder

1581
pensions, but if that statement proves to be true of the Bill and the welfare provision in this country for ordinary people, perhaps I may be the first through the Lobby to exercise my vote as "Content".
I hope that in this vision we shall have a strong word about mutuality. I wish to quote briefly from a superb report produced by the Roman Catholic Bishops' Conference. It is called The Common Good:
"The common good … implies that every individual, no matter how high or low, has a duty to share in promoting the welfare of the community as well as the right to benefit from that welfare".
One way of understanding social inclusion, though it may not be the technical way, is to enable the people who are the poorest and most deprived to feel that they have something to contribute and to say to the rest of us: "We have something to contribute". We live in a community which is mutually supportive. That is why, when the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, spoke about the undermining of the contributory principle and the problems with means testing, I began to nod. People to whom I have spoken may not have used precisely those terms, but they said: "We are very concerned about what we think is the disappearance of the contributory principle and what we perceive, rightly or wrongly, to be the increase in means testing". That view is not only expressed here, it is expressed in other words elsewhere.
I hope that in this Bill we shall seek to support human dignity. Perhaps I may explain what I mean with a simple example. In the 1960s I became the vicar of two country parishes in Northumberland As vicar, I was chairman of the trustees for the charitable fund for the poor of the chapelry of Hebron, of which your Lordships will no doubt be aware. We could not give away a penny because no one wished to be known as "the poor of the chapelry of Hebron". "What right have you got to know what I earn and what are my circumstances?" We had to go to the Charity Commissioners and say: "May we take the over-60s out to the theatre? Otherwise we'll never get rid of the money". People wish to have their dignity and privacy. Those are precious human virtues which I hope will not be undermined in the course of the development of the Bill.
It is quite clear that modifications have to take place. Fifty years or more is a long time. I hope that the Government will be kind enough to paint a vision which people can understand, even if words are not their normal currency. I hope that there will be clearly underlined principles, not financial principles but the moral and ethical principles to which the Minister referred. I hope that in that vision we shall have at least one or two of those elements: a society where members feel and take responsibility for each other, from the poorest to the richest, and in which all feel they have something to contribute. I refer to a system that is based on the contributory principle in which the dignity of each human being is preserved and enhanced; a system with clear and easily applicable rules that are generally felt to be fair; and a system devised by those who have genuinely listened to the poorest and most vulnerable members of society which can be understood by those people.
1582
It is foolish to pretend—I do not do so for one moment—that the detailed provisions of the Bill can be dispensed with; they are essential, but unless we have a vision that fires us, wins our confidence and encourages us as we deal with the derailed provisions of the Bill, I fear that we shall finish up with a bonfire of clauses to which no doubt the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will be glad to add the flames.
5.41 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, in preparing for today's debate I have been much struck by the similarities in attitude towards this Bill and the House of Lords reform Bill which has just completed its Committee stage in your Lordships' House. In the short time that I have been here I have never met anyone inside or outside this House who does not agree that reform is necessary. On this there appears to be universal agreement. The problems appear to arise only when we go on to talk about the form that it should take. Similarly, in all my years as a campaigner I have never met anyone who says that the benefits system does not need reform. Usually, we can even agree the reasons for the reform, which would include: that the welfare state is not delivering enough to those in greatest need, and that the benefits system has not kept pace with the changes in society since the system was introduced.
The example that I know best is that of carers, who were not even recognised in the benefits system until the mid-1970s, and married women were granted invalid care allowance only as recently as 1986. When, however, we try to agree the shape of the reform we run into problems. Too frequently opposition to reform concentrates only on defending the status quo. Again, the similarities between this Bill and that relating to reform of your Lordships' House are quite striking.
I declare at the outset my belief that we must take the same line on welfare reform as the Government have taken on reform of this House. A start must be made, but we must bear in mind that this Bill represents just that, a start. This is a key building block in the development of a welfare system which will meet the needs of our society, especially those who are most disadvantaged, for the next 50 years or so. We cannot make those changes overnight or even—as is also the case with reform of your Lordships' House—agree the final shape of those changes. But if we wait until we achieve consensus on those matters we shall never agree the reforms which everyone accepts are necessary. We shall be left with a welfare system that does not provide adequately for those most in need and continues to work on an outdated set of assumptions.
We know what those assumptions are: that some people work and some do not; that all those who work are engaged in the same job until they reach retirement age; that men die shortly after retirement age (one year after retirement in 1945); and that few people with disabilities live very long, never live independently and are rarely in paid employment. We must establish a new set of principles by which welfare benefits are provided; and, above all, we must make a start.

1583
I turn now to the Bill itself and will comment only on some parts of it. The first part of the Bill is concerned with pensions. I must record my delight that the proposals for second state pensions are to be extended to carers. The recognition that caring affects families not only practically and emotionally but also financially is welcome and long overdue. Taken together with the other proposals contained in the national carers strategy, it will give carers not only increased financial security but also what they most deserve: recognition by society of the contribution that they make willingly and with love.
I also welcome the proposals for a single gateway. Too many benefit recipients have to deal with a confusing array of different agencies with little attention paid to them as individuals. A single gateway will enable them to be treated as individuals to ensure that the benefit they claim is the right one and, drawing on the evidence of the New Deal, give them information about job opportunities. But there must be a word of warning here. A single gateway will work well for disabled people and carers only if it is tailored to individual needs and takes account of individual variations. To try to push people into a pre-set mould because that suits someone's convenience—assuming that everybody can work because the majority wish to do so—will cause distress and result in injustice. Those who administer a single gateway must be selected for their sensitivity and properly trained so that they are aware, for example, of the special problems of those with mental health difficulties and so on. This must be a priority if the single gateway together with the individual interviews on offer are to be seen as a helping hand to the individual—I am sure that the Government wish them to be helpful and not negative—and not as a barrier to be overcome.
Much has been said on the subject of disability benefits. It is vital that we take note of those who are closely concerned and in touch with disabled people. My colleagues in the disability movement are united in agreeing that there are many good things in the Bill. It is very important to remember that rather than to concentrate on the very few issues which divide us. The Bill puts £2 billion more into the system in the lifetime of this Parliament. That includes more money for low income disabled people with severe care needs and up to £26 a week more for those severely disabled early in life.
My colleagues in Contact a Family who represent parent carers are naturally delighted that DLA will be extended to three and four year-olds so that they will be able to receive up to £37 a week more. This group of carers has frequently been ignored in the past and this proposal is particularly welcome. The Government may wish further to recognise the needs of this particular group by reviewing how the exceptional mobility costs of children can be met, for example when they need to visit hospitals and health clinics and cannot use public transport. More help is also to be made available to those with disabilities who are in paid employment. This, too, has been welcomed by campaigning groups.
1584
As to the proposed changes to incapacity benefit, we shall no doubt have many opportunities to explore these in detail at later stages of the Bill. For the moment, I simply remind your Lordships of the original purpose of invalidity benefit, which all campaigners welcomed when it was introduced. It was to be a benefit which compensated those who gave up work because of long-term illness. We all know that that is not what it is now. Although no doubt we will disagree as to the reasons for it, we know that IB has become an alternative to long-term employment or early retirement. There has been a threefold increase in the numbers who claim IB over the past 20 years which cannot be explained simply by the increase in the number of people with disabilities living longer.
There is absolutely no question of fraud in these cases, as I am sure your Lordships will acknowledge. Disabled people do not defraud the system, as the benefit integrity project very clearly demonstrated. It is simply that the benefit is now being used for a purpose for which it was never intended. I understand the view of the Government that this cannot be ignored and must be addressed. We must remember that absolutely no existing claimants will be affected. Any changes which the Bill introduces will apply to new claimants only. There will be time before the Act comes into operation for expectations to be changed and for a major information campaign to be mounted. I hope that the Minister will be able to commit the Government to such a campaign and also help disability groups with their own information campaigns, which have always proved so vital and effective. Moreover, we must learn from this experience of IB about the kind of benefit which is effective for people with long-term illnesses and ensure that that learning is fed into the next stages of welfare reform.
There has been much discussion of the contributory principle in relation to IB. Some have even suggested that this is the first time that the contributory principle has been breached. One wonders whether they have given thought to the question of contributions to the fees required for residential and nursing home care for the elderly. They may have paid their national insurance contributions but they certainly do not have a right to free care. Your Lordships will remember that those changes were made by stealth, not brought to this House in a Bill. It took this Government to set up a Royal Commission to redress that problem. We still await the Government's response to the Royal Commission. I very much hope that it will be soon and I very much hope that they will take the needs of older people in that regard firmly into account.
The use of IB for a purpose for which it was never intended makes the case for re-establishing the link between recent work and benefit. I am aware that claimants would have to have made contributions for only 12 weeks during the past two tax years, but I very much hope that the particular case of carers can be taken into account during interviews since they are a group of people who often have difficulty in maintaining regular work simply because of their caring responsibilities. I believe that I understood the Minister to say that the claiming of ICA in the previous two years could be seen

1585
as a substitute for contributions, certainly for some groups. Perhaps she will clarify that. I hope that the Government will be able to take that line where clearly the claimant has been kept out of work because of caring duties.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that we must be concerned about people who work part time and are below the lower earnings limit and those who have several part-time jobs, but each is below the lower earnings limit. These people can never build up a contributory record and therefore can never get on to IB. At present, if they are 80 per cent disabled they can claim the severe disablement allowance. However, what will happen when SDA is abolished? I hope that the Government may find a way to bring such workers, the majority of them women and many of them carers, into the national insurance fold.
Currently, IB disregards the fact that more than half of all claimants now have an occupational pension. This is one of the major changes in our welfare system since it was introduced and the effects of such pensions on income have to be taken into account, however opposed many of us are to means testing. I speak as one who was brought up on the terrible stories my grandmother told me of how the means test operated in the Depression and who as a young social worker in Moss Side, in Manchester, saw the way in which means testing disadvantaged those who needed help most.
I stated clearly that I am emotionally opposed to means testing, but I am beginning to wonder whether in our current society and in some cases the redistribution of income rather than universal provision may better meet the needs of those who, for whatever reason, cannot achieve independence or provide for themselves.
However hard some of us find it—and I do—maybe we have to look at whether it is right that someone who is receiving £10,000 a year in occupational pension receives the same IB as someone with only the state pension. Redistribution of income would surely enable us, as the reform of the system proceeds, to raise the inadequate level of the retirement pensions, which I know would find favour with many of your Lordships.
I very much hope that the Government will be able to make concessions both as regards the threshold at which this happens and the level of pension one may keep before the taper kicks in. The last thing we need is for saving habits to be discouraged. It was encouraging to hear that the Secretary of State is willing to think carefully about this.
In conclusion, we must remember that most of our welfare system has its roots in Beveridge. Time for radical reform is overdue, but radical reform is difficult, as your Lordships know perhaps better than any other group. I hope that we can use the debate and discussion here to address the problems with the Bill, as well as to acknowledge its attributes. Above all, I hope that we shall bear in mind that these proposals are a start, and a start only, at giving us a welfare system which at last reflects not the needs of some society in the past, but the needs of our current society.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Freeman: My Lords, since Beveridge there have been a number of important landmarks in the provision of supplementary pensions. As the Minister said, the enormous growth in occupational pension schemes, particularly in the nationalised industries immediately after the Second World War, was a landmark development. Indeed, the degree of provision now made by the occupational pension schemes rivals that of any industrialised nation in the world. In considering any legislation, we must be careful to ensure that the great advantages of occupational pension schemes are not endangered.
The supplementary earnings-related pension scheme is soon to be replaced and renamed, which is another landmark. Some 10 years ago, we saw the introduction of private pensions, sadly tarnished by mis-selling as a result of incentives placed before the salesmen who sought to persuade people to leave occupational pension schemes. Nevertheless, that was a landmark.
Now we have the stakeholder pension, which is a regulated private pension. It is more flexible and I welcome it. Indeed, there are a number of features in the Bill which should be welcomed. I agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, when she spoke of the extension of the second pension to carers. That is right, as is also splitting pensions on divorce. Some three years ago, on behalf of the previous administration in the other place, I welcomed that change and gave a commitment in principle to accept it. I am delighted to see it in the Bill after detailed preparation.
Furthermore, I am sure that your Lordships welcome the annual pension statement—I believe that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford will welcome it—providing people who are not familiar with the complexities of pensions with a simple annual statement of their state and private pension entitlements. Although that is a modest measure according to some, in my judgment that is a landmark improvement.
As regards stakeholder pensions, the Bill contains a number of welcome provisions. First, there is a greater proportion of pensions made from private provision. That must be welcome. According to the Green Paper, up to 60 per cent of total pension provision comes from non-state sources. That must be right. Secondly, there is an encouragement for those on modest incomes—that is, from about £9,000 to £20,000 a year—to provide for themselves an additional, supplementary pension. That, too, must be right.
I share with the Minister the belief that there should be no compulsion either on employers or employees in the making of supplementary pension provision. I welcome that. Finally, I welcome the excellent innovation that contributions can be made to a personal pension scheme when one is out of work for up to five years. Again, that is a very important and welcome development.
However, there are a number of general concerns to which I shall wish to return in Committee. I am sure that to some degree they are shared on both sides of the House. First, we must be careful about encouraging, perhaps unwittingly, any unnecessary move from the

1587
benefits provided by what are technically called "defined benefit" schemes but are occupational pension schemes which guarantee a pension related to one's salary—in other words, what the company can afford—to schemes which are technically called "defined contribution", money schemes where one gets out what one puts in. Secondly, during the past 10 years many people unwittingly moved from the protection of generous occupational pension schemes into perhaps the harsher world of money purchase schemes when that was unnecessary. In my concluding remarks, I shall suggest a solution to that problem to which I shall wish to return in Committee.
A second general concern is the level and clarity of advice provided to those who are not normally familiar with pension details. I refer to the level of advice available to those who may be inclined to make a contribution to a stakeholder pension. I do not believe that the Government's present proposal, which I understand to be that the operational costs of the stakeholder pension scheme shall be limited to 1 per cent of the value, is acceptable. One per cent of the modest minimum payment of £10 a month, £120 a year, will not buy much advice. We must return to that issue in Committee.
Perhaps I may flag up one major concern, and a possible solution, to which I shall wish to return in Committee. I believe that this is a problem which faces up to 100,000 of those who are employed by small companies in this country. I refer to the situation where small companies which have an occupational pension scheme, perhaps not very generous, may be inclined to consider closing it in the face of the advent of stakeholder pensions. According to the Bill it is compulsory for companies to facilitate their employees to provide a stakeholder pension; it is not a matter of compulsion that the employer should make a contribution.
Sadly, therefore, as I think history shows over the past 50 years, I believe that small companies under pressure, particularly those not necessarily in a very competitive position, might seek to close their occupational pension scheme, cease their contribution, and rely on their employees to provide for their supplementary pension through stakeholder pensions. My calculations indicate that up to 100,000 people might be affected out of the 5 million or so to whom the Minister referred as benefiting potentially from stakeholder pensions.
As the Minister will know, the Association of Consulting Actuaries conducted a survey of 572 smaller companies, employing up to 250 staff. The survey revealed that 12 per cent of those companies indicated that they would close down their occupational pension schemes, and therefore the employees would be worse off. It may seem a matter of detail but it will affect provision for pensions for employees in those smaller companies. I should like to return to that at Committee stage. I believe that there is a solution.
I understand that in a newspaper interview a number of weeks ago the Secretary of State at least held himself open to a favourable consideration of dual membership. Dual membership is a mechanism which would require the agreement of the Inland Revenue. Dual membership
1588
is a provision whereby, if one is employed by a company, one can stay in its occupational pension scheme and top up one's pension provision through stakeholder pensions. I believe that this is an important principle. The reality of life today is that in one's working life one can move from one employment to another. The facility to come in and out of an occupational pension scheme leaving behind the accrued benefit, rather than suffering the penalty of an inadequate transfer value, and having one's own stakeholder pension which is consistent and runs through one's working life—and one can use it as the main provision to top up pension provision when one is in work or self-employed—is a sensible way forward.
It requires the co-operation of the Inland Revenue. In retrospect, I should say that the inability of the Inland Revenue to concede dual membership when the last administration of which I was a member introduced personal pensions inevitably led to problems. Mis-selling, of course, was a separate issue, and compensation has been provided. However, I think that if we had been wise before the event a decade ago and had required the Revenue to be more flexible and to provide a more generous tax regime, we would not have experienced some of the problems that we have had. It is easy to be wise after the event. I think that we should be wise before the event in the introduction of stakeholder pensions.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I welcome the Government's welfare reform programme in general and this Bill in particular, albeit with some important reservations. I welcome particularly the proposals to extend the higher rate mobility component of the disability living allowance to three and four year-olds; to provide for young, disabled people to receive incapacity benefit, with its higher rate, rather than the severe disability allowance; to launch employment initiatives for disabled people; and to provide the disability income guarantee.
These proposals are important and are not given the credit they deserve. The emphasis on helping disabled people to obtain work is excellent. In that respect, I warmly congratulate my noble friend Lady Hollis for her superb presentation. She is a fine advocate for the Government.
I turn now to my reservations. My concern is in relation to disabled people who are unable to work. That is why I wish to concentrate on the proposed changes to incapacity benefit which restrict it and means test it. The Government are proposing fundamental changes to well established principles. If the proposed changes are accepted, they will, without a shadow of a doubt, cause great and undeserved hardship to thousands of disabled people. That is my main objection.
Another concern of supporters of the Government is that a generous Government have become widely perceived to be a mean one as a result of these proposals. Why have they been put forward? Why have the Government suddenly added these lamentable proposals to sensible policies? We now have a Bill

1589
which precisely proposes to reduce benefit entitlement for 170,000 people. Clause 57 would disqualify disabled people from receiving incapacity benefit if they had not paid national insurance contributions in the past two years. The Government do not seem to understand the basic insurance principle or have deliberately decided to flout it.
Claimants may have been paying contributions for 20 or 30 years, may have been medically certified by an eagle-eyed Benefits Agency doctor, not a sympathetic general practitioner, to be too incapacitated to work, and yet by Clause 57 could be denied incapacity benefit. I do not understand it. This irredeemably outrageous tearing up of a moral contract between the state and the people rests on the flimsy basis of wanting to relate incapacity benefit to recent work.
Regardless of the fact that the public has unquestionably accepted that national insurance contributions guarantee them incapacity benefit if they become incapacitated, just as they guarantee a retirement pension in old age, and regardless of how severely disabled they may be, the blind, the deaf, the sufferers of multiple sclerosis, the paralysed, will all receive the answer that no incapacity benefit is payable if they have not worked and paid contributions for the previous two years, irrespective of how long they have paid contributions. Such a policy defies understanding, logic, morality and compassion. However, I am far less concerned in this debate with compassion than with understanding, logic and morality.
Perhaps Ministers have been thrown off balance by assertions that the previous government encouraged unemployed people to claim incapacity benefit in order to reduce the embarrassingly high unemployment figure. I think they probably were. However, the question of whether that may have happened in the past is totally irrelevant to the future. The demarcation is clear, especially as the Government's Bill proposes no action against those who are allegedly on incapacity benefit without justification. It deals solely with future claimants.
Ministers talk about the past but intend to do nothing about it. They use the past as an excuse to hit disabled people in the future, even though they are medically certified to be incapacitated and pass the necessary medical tests. This must be one of the most remarkable political non sequiturs in parliamentary history. Ministers and other members of this House talk of the growth of benefit claims as a justification for action, but they act on a totally separate and unrelated matter, that of future benefits for entirely different people. They are using the classic diversionary tactic of all magicians and spin doctors, and I regret it. If they want to ensure that the gateway to the benefit is appropriate, I would strongly support them. But their present policy is inexplicable, inappropriate and incomprehensible.
The second major blemish is the proposal in Clause 58 to means test incapacity benefit. Anyone with an occupational pension of more than £50 a week starts to lose 50p of their incapacity benefit for every extra £1 of occupational pension. Perhaps Ministers are under the illusion that many incapacity benefit claimants with
1590
occupational pensions are millionaires. How else can we explain their constant repetition that 44 per cent of incapacity benefit claimants are in the top 40 per cent of the income distribution band? We have heard that from my noble friend and from other Ministers time and time again. What impression are they trying to create? We have heard talk today of the 100,000 people having around £234. What is 100,000 out of 1.7 million people? The vast majority are nothing like wealthy or well off. The Government should acknowledge that people with average incomes—these people are not well off—are also in the top 40 per cent of income distribution.
The propaganda about "wealthy" disabled people on incapacity benefit is unacceptable. The Government have included the disability living allowance as part of the income of invalidity benefit claimants. Everyone knows that that is inappropriate because the DLA is solely for the extra costs of disability. Furthermore, many recipients are receiving the old, higher invalidity benefit rate, which is £20 higher and inflates tine income figures. Future claimants, to whom the Bill refers, will not get that higher rate so their income will be lower. Therefore, the figures given for those people are in a real sense misleading.
Again, Ministers point their finger at one group but take action which includes another. They assert that 44 per cent are in the so-called higher income brackets but go on to clobber some of the other 56 per cent who are in the lower income brackets. Although the £50 limit is not in the Bill, it was in the consultative document. Why on earth are a Labour Government proposing to penalise disabled people because they have an occupational pension starting with an amount as low as £50 a week? Those people have £6,000 a year. Compared with average incomes of some £15,000 a year and average earnings of some £20,000 a year, people on £6,000 a year are far from well off. Those are the people who will be hit by the proposals in the Bill if the House accepts them. That is what is wrong with the proposals.
Ministers say that one can have a pension of approximately £10,000 a year before losing all benefit with the tone of those who believe that. £10,000 a year is a king's ransom. In fact, it is well below the average income. To take the whole incapacity benefit away from people receiving this, and who are incapable of work, is genuinely shocking. Are Ministers really surprised at the outrage expressed by disability organisations? In fact, the numbers on incapacity benefit are now 5 per cent lower than when it was introduced in 1995 and the expenditure has fallen in the same period from nearly £9 billion to £7.4 billion. Compared with Europe, our expenditure is low.
I hope that the Government will reconsider in the light of the reservations and criticisms expressed in this House. After the debate I shall be tabling amendments to get rid of Clauses 57 and 58. I understand that those amendments will have support from noble Lords on all sides of the House. We will debate them in Committee in great detail. I hope that the Government will be able to proceed without damaging many thousands of disabled people in the future, as these proposals will damage them. I hope that the Government will honour their moral contract to people who have paid

1591
contributions in good faith. I hope that they will reject the notion of poor disabled people subsidising very poor disabled people. I hope that they will withdraw Clauses 57 and 58 and think again so that we can offer them warm and unreserved support.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for so clearly introducing the Bill. It will be no surprise that I intend to confine my remarks to the parts of the Bill affecting disablement. At this first stage of the Bill, I declare again an interest as having received a war disability pension since World War II. It is relevant if I now add some background information. I have passed through various stages of immobility and disablement, from being strapped down to a hospital bed in body length plaster, through months of being bed-bound in hospital, then in wheelchairs, then on crutches, and, about two years after being wounded, on my pins again with calliper help, which I have needed ever since. I mention that because I have experienced those various aspects of disablement and I think that I understand them. I am now partially disabled, a credit to St. Bartholomew's Hospital where the damage and paralysis caused by a bullet passing through my middle were expertly treated, operated on and reduced.
As I have previously made clear, I consider that reform is necessary and I favour it. My objections to some of the clauses are that the Government are proceeding in the wrong way. That is also the view of the 12 leading disability organisations which resigned from the Government's Disability Benefits Forum. They resigned for a second reason also. The impression was being given by the Government that they had agreed with the proposals in the Bill. In fact, their complaint was that there had been little consultation after the Green Paper, consisting mostly of platitudes with which few could disagree, of March last year, and that little attention was given to their views when they were consulted. By good chance of the ballot in this House I was able to initiate a debate on reform immediately afterwards—early in April last year—and I publicly encouraged the author of the Green Paper, the then Minister for Welfare Reform, Mr Frank Field, in his endeavours. Soon afterwards, he dropped out of the Government.
Reform in the area of disablement cannot be carried out sensibly by rough, draconian measures. Careful pruning and adjustment are needed if glaring anomalies and considerable distress among disabled people and their families are not to be created. I accept some blame for the present complex system of benefits and the need for rationalisation and simplification. Forty years ago, when I entered Parliament in the other place, state benefits for disability were virtually limited to war disability and industrial injury. I was conscious of that and became involved in finding remedies. The noble Lords, Lord Morris and Lord Ashley, entered Parliament a few years after me and in the Parliamentary
1592
Disablement Group, along with other parliamentarians, we drew attention to the particular needs of disabled people.
The Beveridge report led to the national insurance scheme starting in 1948. It did not contain provisions for disablement. Understandably, in 1948, it was principally concerned with unemployment and with situations causing lack or loss of work. Disablement qualified only for national assistance, the then basic safety net.
The big change occurred in the 1970s. The pressure came from an organisation called the Disablement Income Group (DIG), which I helped to start in the mid-1960s. Some noble Lords will remember the founder, the late Megan Du Boisson, a housewife in a wheelchair. They may also recall the special arrangements made to give access to the first wheelchair in the Public Gallery of the other place when she attended a debate on disablement, which I initiated in the late 1960s.
The new benefits for the disabled were introduced in the 1970s. The attendance allowance came into existence in 1971 when I was a member of the Cabinet and the mobility allowance in 1976 when the noble Lord, Lord Morris, was the Minister for Disabled People. Of course, there were others. I hope that the House will note that at those times both Conservative and Labour governments were in office.
In that connection, I was puzzled by a reply from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, to a supplementary question that I asked on Wednesday 26th May. I drew the attention of her private office to her reply on Monday, but I have not heard any more. The noble Baroness said:
"Disability benefits were introduced immediately after the Second World War".—[Official Report, 26/5/99; col. 924.]
Was she referring to war disability payments? As I said, I am not aware of any disablement provisions applicable to the public in general in the first 25 years after the war. That was the main reason for the founding of DIG.
Earlier I confessed to being partly responsible for the need for rationalisation and simplification. The system became complicated as more special benefits and allowances were introduced to meet particular disability situations. In past years, I drew attention to the need for them and I supported their creation, so I accept some blame for the present complex system.
Turning to the Bill, the main effects on disabled people are that someone who has worked and paid national insurance contributions for 10 or many more years and who has become so disabled that the Benefits Agency's doctors assess him or her as unfit for work will not be eligible for incapacity benefit however severe the disablement if they have not paid national insurance in the last two years. As the Government are abolishing the severe disablement allowance for new claimants, the same person—who has perhaps been out of the labour market for two years looking after children will not have access to the lower level benefit either.
At present SDA is the replacement benefit available to those who do not have enough national insurance credits to claim incapacity benefit. If a new claimant

1593
is eligible for incapacity benefit—meeting the Benefits Agency's medical test—and has paid national insurance in the past two years, that claimant would face a means test as soon as the pension income reached £2,652 a year. For every pound over £50 a week in pension income, the Government would withdraw 50p of incapacity benefit, which is already taxable. By the time the pension income reached £9,542 for a single person, all the incapacity benefit would have been withdrawn.
Changes were made in 1995 by the previous government who carried out a reform of incapacity benefit. It does not seem necessary to do all this now. The present Government propose to transform the situation by the two-year provision and by means testing. Since he left the Government, Mr Frank Field has stated his opposition to means testing on the grounds that it is a disincentive to saving and to earning through work.
It has also been pointed out that disabled people who have been saving to supplement their benefits, especially those who know that their disabilities are likely to worsen and force them later to give up work, will feel totally let down by the introduction of a means test as, in the past, they have been encouraged to save to supplement the benefit.
It has been pointed out by the Disability Benefits Consortium that the proposals in the Bill, especially those in Clause 60 abolishing the severe disablement allowance, will have a greater impact on disabled women than on disabled men. That appears to conflict with the Government's pronouncements and with the presence of a Minister for Women in the Cabinet who is also the Leader of this House and the observations on women made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in her opening speech.
In due course, I look forward to a clearer explanation of the new gateway, or gateways, and I shall defer inquiry and comment about the compulsory interviews until later stages of the Bill. However, what is proposed for the existing "all work test?" I detect a certain ambivalence, indeed an apparent contradiction, within the Government. The parliamentary statement that accompanied the Green Paper in March last year stated that the test writes off too many, but before the general election, over two years ago, Labour opposition spokesmen were complaining that the test was too severe and did not write off enough people as a result. That raises the question whether a test should be of what a disabled person cannot do, or what a disabled person can do. I am in favour of a positive attitude to helping disabled people to find out what jobs they can do. However, I draw attention to a strong recommendation by the National Association of Citizen Advice Bureaux which recommends that,
"any test which is to determine whether a person is entitled to benefits on the basis of being unfit to work should be divorced from questions about the person's future capacity for work".
I hope that the Government will take that recommendation into account.
I must also emphasise that the scope for moving disabled people from welfare to work is strictly limited. Although what can be done is very welcome, the Green
1594
Paper confirmed that at least two-thirds of disabled people in this country are over working age. Recent censuses confirm that of those who are of working age, a sizeable proportion are already in full or part-time work. That is good news. But others are too severely disabled to do any work or can do only very specialised and rare jobs. So the Government will find, if they have not realised it already, that they have little scope where disabled people are concerned of moving them from welfare to work. They should be concentrating on areas where they have much more scope; that is, on able-bodied people of working age now unemployed, especially those in their 30s or 40s.
The noble Baroness is no doubt anticipating lively debates at later stages on particular matters affecting disablement. I am sure that they will take place, and I intend to take part.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: It is a common device of Ministers of all governments, when introducing legislation about whose reception they are a little uneasy, to begin with a stream of social statistics with which nobody can disagree. The Minister did that brilliantly this afternoon; she is very good at it. I share the admiration of my noble friend Lord Ashley for her Front Bench skills, but I felt the hungry sheep looked up and were not fed.
I was waiting, and I suspect the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford was waiting, for a drawing-together of that picture; an analysis of the elements and new security we could introduce into people's lives and how we could best help them to close the gaps in the security which our people seek. When the Minister spoke I was reminded of the nursery rhyme:
"Little Jack Horner sat in a corner Eating a something-or-other pie. He put in his thumb and pulled out a plum And said, 'What a good boy am I'".
The Minister was able to pull out all sorts of plums—this person will get so much and that person will get something or other. But it is not really the way to draw up a social policy. Everything, we know, in this harsh life has to be paid for. The question is: who is paying for whom? If we analyse the whole picture—which we have not been given this afternoon—we will find that the extra extras given to the poorest are being paid for by those people who are only just a little less poor.
This Government have a slogan: "We are not going to go back to tax and spend". Of course, we cannot spend unless we tax or we cut. What the Government mean is that they are not going to have any sort of radical distribution of wealth by, for example, restoring the 50 per cent income tax rate for the richest 80,000—I got the figure from the Library the other day. No, we must not do that. Rather, when we want to help the widowers, we must take it from the widow. So the broad distribution of income throughout society remains the same.
The best speech so far this afternoon came from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford when he asked: where is the vision? I ask: where is the concept?

1595
Where is the analysis? The Minister will reply, "Of course we have vision. Have not the Government in their briefing on this Bill started with 'Our central principle is that those who can, work; and those who cannot get security'?" I entirely agree with that, though I do not know why it is flaunted under the banner of new Labour. That was propounded by Beveridge 50 years ago when I was a stripling, comparatively speaking, and campaigning at street corners for the implementation of the Beveridge Report.
Beveridge had a work ethic. He said, "If you can work, when you work you will be compelled to contribute for your own security for the days when you cannot work". But he had machinery for it—a contributory, compulsory national insurance scheme covering everyone. So that everybody, when they were working, was compelled to put into the fund, and when they could not work they drew out as of right. How right the right reverend Prelate is to emphasise above all the burning need for people to have dignity.
What shocks me about this debate is that there has been a theme running through it—particularly in speeches from the Benches opposite but also from some on this side—that we cannot give benefits as of right to people who have saved and acquired a good occupational pension. No; they must be means tested. I have two comments to make about that. First, I have never heard a greater disincentive to save and earn than the propositions that have come from many spokespersons this afternoon. Anybody who saves above their national contribution rate should receive what they produce by savings as of right, and it should not affect any other income they have. Otherwise, why save?
I receive lots of letters from pensioners and they are great eye-openers. It is like going among a crowd of those who are struggling, and listening to their stories. One I received recently was from a woman who said she was on a basic pension of £68 a week. She was saying that because she had certain savings, she was not entitled to income support. But, she added,
"My friend, who is on income support, will receive £78 a week and rises in line with earnings".
That is because she is on income support. Because the writer of the letter receives a contributory pension the Government say they cannot afford the earnings link; they can only afford to keep people in indignity. Incidentally, means-tested benefits are much more expensive to administer. It costs £5 a week more to administer a means-tested benefit than to administer the basic pension scheme.
The letter writer concludes, rather sweetly,
"I don't begrudge my friend what she gets".
Because she is on income support her friend is getting this extra and that extra. She even gets free treatment for her pets at the PDSA, which the letter writer is denied. However, she says,
"I feel very bitter that I have worked all my life, saved, brought up a family and bought my own home when I would have been better off staying at home and having a good time".
1596
I urge the Government, in all solemnity, to brood on that letter, because it has echoes in hundreds more. We are making it disadvantageous for people to scrape and save for their old age because, when they get there, many millions of them are no better off, and it does create bitterness.
If I am allowed a slight digression, I am reminded of a lovely cartoon in the Daily Telegraph recently which amused me. Two old boys sitting in wheelchairs, with rugs over their knees, in an old peoples' home. One said gloomily to the other, "To think we gave up smoking for this!". I am a smoker myself and so it struck a chord. People are saying, "To think I gave up a good time for this. I would have had more fun. If I had been a bit more of a ne'er-do-well, I would be getting all sorts of benefits".
The great challenge that anyone who wants to give us a modern welfare system has to face is how to build up satisfactorily benefits as of right, on top of which—and Beveridge always said this—those who wanted extra could save for it. That was the principle when some of us in the 1974 Labour Government genuinely sought to modernise Beveridge. We did not confuse modernising with reducing. What we said was, "We can't do everything; it is not right we should try. But we want to secure for everybody a basic income which will be adequate to lift them above the indignity and the disincentives of means-testing, and on top of which they can build any further improvement for which they may wish to save". So we had the compulsory second-tier state pension—SERPS.
I will now touch briefly on the pensions aspect of this Bill. It grieves me that this Government, and my own Government I am afraid, set out with an exactly opposite intention—as far as I can make out. That was, first, to allow the basic state pension to wither on the vine by refusing to operate it in line with average earnings and, secondly, to destroy SERPS.
They talk about partnership. You can imagine how the pensions industry watched this rebellious redhead when she was put in charge of drawing up a new pensions scheme. I remember that we ended by hugging each other. Lord Byers, who was then representing the pensions industry, threw us a party to celebrate the passing of our legislation. Only the other day I had somebody to tea in the House dining room—I will not reveal the name of the firm, a private insurance company—who said "Yes, we welcomed your scheme. We thought it had consensus. We thought we had taken the politics out of pensions and at last had a real partnership, which was not undermining our industry but dealing with the people we know private pensions cannot deal with. We do not want the responsibility for dealing with them. Let the state take them off our hands and then we are free to go ahead and entice them to save a bit more".
It breaks my heart when I think of all the hours we spent considering the logistics of this new scheme—and of course the costs. I will just say this about SERPS. This Government have turned their back on it—it is too expensive. In the pensions review, on which some of us have wasted the last three years—I was going to say the

1597
best years of my life—because nobody took any notice of what we said, of course, the Eagle Star Life Assurance Company in its evidence to the Government said of SERPS:
"it presents enormous benefits in terms of absolute portability. extremely low costs and an efficient system of distribution, but",
it adds, dismissing it,
"it is poorly understood".
Of course it was poorly understood because, a year after we introduced it, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, came into office and she made darned sure that nobody understood it because she wanted to destroy it. She only succeeded in halving its value. It was too popular.
It is tragic that nowhere in their pensions review have my own Government sat down and said, "Let us weigh them all in the balance". Of course contributions will have to go up if we continue with SERPS and the state pension; but so does the national wealth. Let us look at what the alternatives are. If people do not have this, what are they to have? What do they want? Give them choice. That is all I plead for.
In any sane analysis of this new type of society in which we live and its needs we shall find there is a place for state insurance, strongly reinforced as we sought to reinforce it, modernised as we modernised it, and the private insurers for those who are wealthy enough to take advantage of them. So, yes, as far as I have any influence, this House will be asking the Government to think again.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, one of the great dreads of my early days in the theatre was the possibility of having to earn a living by taking part in twice-nightly weekly rep. Happily, I managed to avoid that theatrical hard labour but I fear I may be accused of giving a second house performance this evening, following on the brilliantly delivered prologue voiced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the equally wide-ranging first house performances given by the opening eight speakers. If, therefore, your Lordships believe that you have heard all my lines earlier, I apologise, but I hope that you will listen all the same. After all, my inflections may be slightly different, for they underline some of the worries so many of us feel about a number of sections of the Bill.
I will not have been alone in following with interest the debate in another place and in the press about welfare reform. It strikes me that there are certain objectives shared by supporters and opponents of the Bill. When the welfare reform project kicked off last year it was clearly stated that the Government intended to establish a new contract for welfare—a transparent system in which people build up entitlements on which they can rely and be rewarded for so doing. All those are laudable aims which are widely accepted. The Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill must be considered in the light of those promises. I must confess that I have difficulty in reconciling such aims with the package of measures on disability benefits and widows' entitlements now before us.
1598
It will not surprise your Lordships that while I make common cause with those who speak for disabled people in general, as president of Mencap I have particular concerns for the effects of the Bill on adults and children with learning disabilities, and on their families and their carers. The word "reform" is being used fairly extensively as if it had intrinsic value. Reform is being heralded as the ultimate political achievement. Indeed, the media have challenged those who oppose certain aspects of the Bill as though they are reactionaries, standing in the way of progress. I hope that your Lordships will not construe my criticisms of the current proposals as veiled criticism of inventiveness or progress.
We are told that people are wise to ways of abusing the system—most notably men in their early fillies and sixties who are nearing retirement age. We are told that what is needed is a greater link between incapacity benefit and work, and consequently that the plan is to restrict incapacity benefit to those who built up sufficient national insurance contributions through work in one of the last two years.
I am afraid that I am not impressed by the argument that if someone has had a spell of unemployment, has been seeking work, and then presents himself as incapable of work with medical evidence to back that claim, that constitutes abuse. It is not inherent in the human condition that unemployment cannot be succeeded by genuine incapacity. It seems quite straightforward that people are more likely to become incapacitated as they grow older. Indeed, one ought to look sympathetically upon those who continue their job search for as long as they can and only gradually reconcile themselves to the limitations of their disability.
It is worth taking a moment to illustrate the possibly unintended consequences of such a policy. Mary has a severe disability. After school, she went into further education, followed by two years' paid work in which she paid full national insurance contributiors. At this time her disability increasingly limited her ability to do the job. She was forced to give up and look for a different position. For two years she has been trying hard to get a job and failing. Mary will be aged 24 when the Bill arrangements begin. She has paid no contributions in the past two years. She is not at college and her past contributions count for nothing. She will get no incapacity benefit because it is more than two years since she paid any contributions; and, of course, she will not be able to fall back on severe disablement allowance because it will have been abolished.
I would not view Mary's claim to incapacity benefit as abuse. I do not see Mary's loss of benefit under the Bill as constituting anything I could call "welfare reform." There are many Marys in this country. That is why the Government expect to save £700 million on this measure. In the first year, 45,000 disabled people who cannot work will be worse off, rising to 335,000 people over 10 years. Gone is the promise made a year ago that the savings would come as people with disabilities were helped back into work.

1599
I hope the Government will explain the basis for excluding a person from incapacity benefit when that person will have passed the stringent all-work test. There is nothing in this measure which will actually help disabled people get back to work. In fact, one could argue that the onus will be on the individual to get out of work as soon as possible to ensure eligibility for incapacity benefit. This clearly runs counter to the Government's philosophy "work for those who can" and—if anything—compounds what the Government call "debilitating welfareism."
The general view that the Government want to target more help on the most severely disabled has been used to legitimise the abolition of severe disablement allowance and the payment instead of incapacity benefit to sick or disabled people under the age of 20. Here again, we have a broad brush policy which, when you scratch the surface, reveals specific anomalies and injustices.
Let us take, for example, the case of Colin. He attends a school for children with severe learning disabilities. He is likely to be recognised as eligible for incapacity benefit when he reaches the age of 16. That is his right and very welcome. His elder brother David has the same diagnosis and the same degree of disability. He receives severe disablement allowance now and is already aged 20 and attending a day centre. He will, under the Government's current proposals, continue to get his severe disablement allowance but will never convert to the higher rate of benefit which is paid out to his brother. It seems nonsense that with the same severity of disability and a similar lifespan, all things being equal, one youngster is entitled to more support than the other. In monetary terms the difference is £27.70 a week.
The abolition of severe disablement allowance will also have a profound impact on women who are assuming a caring role or whose wages bring them below the national insurance lower earnings limit. A relative of one of my colleagues at Mencap, Gill, who is a qualified physiotherapist, is a good case in point. The heavy lifting involved in her work inevitably took its toll on her back. Following the loss of her mother, Gill assumed sole caring responsibilities for her elderly father. Forced to give up physiotherapy, Gill took a part-time job in a local chemist payable at the minimum wage, under the lower earnings limit for national insurance. When the degeneration of her back eventually forces her to give up all work, as it will, she will not be able to receive severe disablement allowance because it will have been abolished. She will not have sufficient national insurance contributions to qualify for incapacity benefit and will not receive any income support because her husband's modest savings will be taken into account.
Ironically, if Gill had given up work earlier, she would have been entitled to incapacity benefit; or, if she had asked the state for invalid care allowance, she would have some protection. But because she chose to be financially independent for as long as possible, she will be penalised. That cannot be what the Government intended. The notion of a contract between state and
1600
citizen is totally absent from these reforms. There are at least half a million people with disabilities earning well below the lower earnings limit who could be affected in this way. Can we rely on the new disability income guarantee to protect them? The answer, unfortunately, is no, as only a narrow group is eligible for the "guarantee"—and that is before the means test is applied.
Under "the help for those who need it most" banner, the Government have also introduced an extension of higher rate disability living allowance mobility component to a younger group of children. I am delighted that the Government have acknowledged in the Bill that they can support the families of disabled children in this way. The Government's changes only cover the higher rate component down to the age of three and exclude the lower rate. The Government argue that all children need some help. However, the issue is not whether most young children need some help or supervision; it is whether some, because of disability, need much more help. No one is asking for an automatic entitlement. I merely ask for recognition of the fact that very young children who can only be moved with a respirator or a suction tube, or other kinds of equipment, are certainly less mobile than other young children—and that is possibly from birth. I urge the Government to consider some further change and I return confidently to the assurance that the Bill was not designed with the objective of saving money. Given the level of overall savings, more moneys could well be invested in disability living allowance for disabled children under the age of four.
Another general assertion with which your Lordships may be familiar is the view that a million people on incapacity benefit say they would like to work. The single gateway has become a rallying point for those with reformist zeal. The incentive of the scheme is the prospect of dedicated advice and support on employment opportunities and the range of benefits available. The sanction is the policy of depriving people of benefits for not attending an interview. The single gateway scheme does indeed sound convincing. However, I am still waiting to hear a firm assurance that reality and compassion will be factored into the design of the scheme, and that staff will be trained to assist a wide range of carers and disabled people in a wide range of circumstances—including those with learning disabilities.
Take, for example, the circumstances of Janet who cares for her 11 year-old son with severe learning disabilities. She claims invalid care allowance and is called for a work-focused interview. On the day of the interview Janet is up with her son at 1.30 a.m. He has wet three lots of bed clothes, the carpet and the bedding. By the time she arrives for the interview, Janet has changed the beds, cleaned the mattress and carpets, and done a pile of washing. The following day is a school day but the class is going on an outing and the teacher does not have sufficient support to enable Janet's son to attend, so he will be back at home tomorrow. I wonder whether the adviser understands work as well as Janet understands it, and I wonder whether a compulsory interview is really appropriate. It was the noble Lord,

1601
Lord Morris of Manchester, who said that a disabled child makes a disabled family. There may be positives, too, but it would be foolish to ignore the difficulties and the realities.
We have heard from the Government that,
"Me most severely disabled will not be required to attend an interview".
I urge the Government to learn the lessons of the disastrous benefit integrity project, to look again at specifics, and to consider using the stages of this Bill as it passes through your Lordships' House to bring forward amendments to make this measure explicit on the face of the Bill.
My final comments at this stage in our consideration of the Bill concern widows, many of whom are also carers. I am at a loss to understand what led to the Government targeting widows to the tune of £500 million a year by the year 2020. The good things, such as extending a bereavement allowance to widowers and doubling the bereavement payment to £2,000, camouflage the abolition of the widow's pension, a benefit to which many have contributed in the expectation that their widow would receive it. Widows seem to be something of an easy target. They do not know when they will be bereaved and they probably will not know what they could have expected under the old dispensation. Widows are also hit by measures contained in this Bill which re-enact the intentions of the previous administration in halving the entitlement of those widowed after April 2000 to inherit their husbands' state earnings related pension, as referred to so effectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn.
In all seriousness the current situation clearly breaches the contributory principle and, as I have suggested on earlier occasions, may also breach the Human Rights Act. The Minister has still not adequately answered that point, despite three opportunities so to do. I shall, when occasion offers, suggest some possibility of a compromise. At this stage I simply note that compensation could be formulated according to loss with the use of a simple formula. I am sure that the noble Baroness will be amenable to constructive suggestions which attempt to minimise the damaging effects on vulnerable widows.
I return to where I started. There is a case for welfare reform; it is the case for breaking the link between welfare and poverty, and for better protecting the dignity of people receiving benefits, not least those benefits which are theirs by right of disability or contribution. Reform requires principles, but principles with clear effects, not principles which result in complicated ambiguities, disincentives and hardship. The only clear effect of this Bill is the effect on the Treasury. What is on offer is a raft of obstacles to work, penalties for saving and lower incomes. I do not believe these reforms bear out the Government's original intentions in any way and therefore I urge the Minister to read tomorrow's Hansard and reflect carefully upon the examples given in my speech and those of other noble Lords. According to my dictionary, reform means the,
"removal of abuses, especially in politics; improvements made or suggested".
1602
I regret that the very title of this Bill is in itself an aberration, as are many of its contents
7.4 p.m.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Rix, the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, the right reverend Prelate and many other speakers in this House, on reading this Bill I, too, was struck by the lack of any sense of strategy or vision—at least any strategy that bore out the claim to be a radical reform of welfare. The problem in this area is that when one strings together a whole set of individual measures—however well-intentioned—without a clear strategy, one ends up increasing the complexity of the social security legislation. That increased complexity compounds the problem of social deprivation because people cannot understand or implement such complex measures.
There are some measures in the Bill which I can support on a stand-alone basis, but many cause me concern. I can support the notion of a gateway for benefits and a gateway interview because that fits my belief that people have an obligation to support themselves if they can. I think it is right that they should be presented with opportunities to find work if suitable work is available. I suspect that that process will have been made more difficult by the minimum wage legislation which has reduced the number of those jobs which might have been the first step into work. Like many speakers tonight I have doubts about the reforms of incapacity benefit and removing the right to incapacity benefit through means testing. I have no doubt that we shall return to that matter.
I wish to spend a little time discussing the pensions part of the Bill. I declare an interest as an officer of a financial services company that is a provider of pensions, although I speak in a personal capacity this evening. It seems to me that this is the one area where the Bill fails lamentably to address the issue that in set out to address; namely, that we have a pensions funding problem in this country. The problem is less severe here than in some other countries but, as has been well explained, there is the problem of the increasing cost of pensions in the future if they are to be funded by future taxpayers rather than funded as we go.
Of course many people in this country already fund their future pensions through occupational schemes, personal pensions and other private provision. Therefore the problem concerns those people—particularly those on lower incomes—who are not in a funded scheme arid who do not have either the cash or the incentive to put those savings aside at the moment, or have reached a point in their career where they are unable to save up enough to provide for themselves in future. One route of dealing with this that has been mentioned is compulsory schemes. The Government have decided against compulsory schemes and on the whole I tend to agree with that.
However, I do not believe that the stakeholder pension as set out in the Bill provides a solution for the majority of people who are not able or who do not have the incentive to fund their own pension at the moment. This legislation increases the guaranteed minimum

1603
income for people who do not have adequate pension cover but reduces the incentive to save. I believe that these stakeholder proposals do nothing to give people an incentive to save if they are not already doing so. The stakeholder pension is merely a substitute, or rather an additional option, for people who are already saving. I do not think that on the whole it is a good alternative to the options which already exist. It is not obviously better to have a stakeholder pension than one that is provided through current private schemes, particularly if one requirement of the stakeholder pension is that it has limited investment options.
The very fact of introducing a new stakeholder pension alongside the other schemes adds to the complexity of choice and as such will tend to discourage more people from trying to "get their head around" pension provision. As the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, said earlier, the attempt to impose a maximum commission of 1 per cent or thereabouts on a stakeholder scheme—while it might appear populist—is unlikely to be sufficient to fund adequate schemes and adequate management, particularly if the Government seek to impose on these schemes what I think is the unnecessary overhead of trustees. It certainly is not sufficient, I suspect, to fund the kind of advice that people need if they are to be faced with such a complexity of choices. I await with interest the Government's clarification of the importance they attach to the advice in the pensions debate. I wonder whether they are prepared, on the other hand, for people to opt for a stakeholder pension without advice, with the risk that they may in fact opt for a form of saving which ties up their capital in a way which may not be appropriate for an individual.
The scheme that does nothing to solve the basic problem. Add to that the complexity of it, and I can only believe that it is largely driven, like LISAs before it, by a desire to create something with a more politically correct name but with substantially more complexity in order to leave behind a legacy under the Government's manifesto.
What is the answer? The noble Baroness, Lady Castle, said that it was SERPS and probably pre-funded pensions. However, that does not address the basic issue of being able to fund pensions from savings. In future the system will rely on people funding pensions as they go. I think there is a better solution. It was worked on by the Department of Social Security and the Treasury before the last election. Many of your Lordships, whose memories go back before 1997, may remember the scheme that was announced at that time. It focused on new people entering the workforce, on the ground that these were people who had time to build up funds, if funds were put aside regularly. It gave them a big incentive to have a pension fund of their own by putting a large part of their national insurance contributions into a fund that was invested and accumulated over their lifetime. If, as expected, that fund accumulated sufficiently to provide them with a pension that exceeded the state pension provision, then it would replace that state pension provision. If, for whatever reason, the fund did not accumulate to the level where
1604
it exceeded that of the state pension then the Government would have guaranteed that at least the minimum state pension would be provided.
That scheme provided people with their own pension and gave them the incentive by providing funds with which to do it. Part of the proposal worked out by the Treasury at the time was that to avoid the cost falling too heavily on the Treasury in the early years it would be offset by moving tax relief on pensions from the beginning of the pension to the end. In that way there was a shift in tax relief which would offset initial funding costs. That scheme not only met the test of dealing with the funding problem in the future; it met the test that a number of speakers have mentioned this evening: it gave people dignity. It gave people, of right, a fund of their own with their own name on it which they would accumulate over their lifetime.
It was an imaginative scheme, initially welcomed by the Opposition at the time. It was then rapidly disparaged by them, I can only believe because they saw some electoral advantage by making it out to be a pensions scare, a privatisation. I think that pensions are too important an issue to be the object of party political dispute. The futures of too many people are affected by the matter. I challenge the Government, even at this 11th hour, to look back with an open mind at the fundamentals of that scheme and in considering some of the benefits it might have brought see whether it does not offer a better way forward than a stakeholder scheme which fails to deal with any of the fundamental problems. The Government are fond of committees. If necessary, they could form a committee of pension specialists to look at this side by side with the stakeholder scheme and report back to the House.
If the Government do not get pension reform right this time round, within a few years a future government will come back to this House and another place with a scheme that addresses the matter. The only scheme I have seen which does address the issue is the system that I have just explained. I would rather that it were introduced now than have to wait another few years before another government brings back the scheme. I ask the Government to look at the issue again.
7.14 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, as my noble friend is aware, I welcomed many of the measures this Bill provides for when she unveiled them last October. I did so as Labour's first Minister for Disabled People, architect of the basic disability benefits and author of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.
Most of all I welcomed the decision to give more help to disabled children. I also thanked my noble friend for her explicit assurance of no cuts in benefit levels, and warmly acknowledged her role in scrapping the benefit integrity project, BIP. My noble friend clearly shared the concern felt in all parts of this House about the inhumanities of that disastrous project, which humiliated disabled people and brought some to the brink of suicide.

1605
BIP's relevance now is the striking testimony it provided to the honesty of disabled people in relation to the benefits system. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister, in an article for The Times on 15th January 1998, wrote:
"We spend more on disability and incapacity benefits than we do on the entire school system in the UK. Benefit fraud, estimated at £4 billion a year, is enough to build 100 new hospitals".
But the figure of £4 billion, used also in a report from the National Audit Office, was quickly shown to be entirely bogus. Indeed, on the same day, 15th January 1998, replying to an oral intervention, my noble friend, speaking for the DSS, told me:
"My Lords, I am happy to take my noble friend's intervention … The report of the National Audit Office … is based on old information from the benefit project inaugurated by the previous government. I repeat what 1 said to my noble friend on Tuesday; namely, that in the benefit integrity project … we have, so far, in the 35 per cent of cases that we have examined, not found a single case of confirmed fraud".—[Official Report, 15/1/98; col. 1142.]
After that date many thousands more disabled people had their cases investigated by DSS officials visiting their homes, but again not a single case of proven fraud was found. Yet the demonstrably bogus figure of £4 billion is still quoted as one of indisputable truth. As recently as 19th May, in an article prompted by the Commons vote on the Bill's proposals on incapacity benefit, Simon Jenkins wrote in The Times:
"Benefit fraud still runs at £4 billion a year. Benefit abuse must be many times that sum."
But as with fraud, so with abuse, the truth will out. And again it came from my noble friend Lady Hollis who, replying to the debate here on my unstarred Question about the take-up of social security benefits on 29th April, revealed that if take-up of disability living allowance and attendance allowance increased, not to 100 per cent but even 90 per cent, spending on these benefits alone would rise from some £8 billion to over £13 billion a year.
Therefore",
she said,
"there is an under-claim of £5 to £6 billion by disabled people whose needs entitle them to that level of benefit".
With her customary candour and decency, my noble friend, notwithstanding the effect on her department's budget, also said that she personally:
"would be cheering if that happened".—[Official Report, 29/4/98; col. 513.]
So the real story is not that disabled people are abusing the system, but that the system is abusing them. For although a cruise missile can now be targeted at a phone booth in another country, we seem unable to deliver statutory entitlements to disabled people in this country. Yet without them disabled people are doubly disabled and left to live in double despair.
What is also very disturbing is that the reason frequently given by disabled people for not claiming their entitlements is fear of being branded as what some in the media call "something for nothing merchants". The same reason is often given by frail elderly people,
1606
more especially single women living alone, for riot claiming income support. Shame on any or all of us here if, by commission or default, we condone or allow to go unchallenged those who inflict unmerited distress on such vulnerable people.
My right honourable friend Frank Field, then Minister for Welfare Reform, emphasising in another place the Government's top priorities in welfare reform on 26th March 1998, said in a ringing declaration:
"Our commitment to the vulnerable is not negotiable".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/3/98; col. 686.]
More recently, in an interview with The Times on 4th March 1999, my right honourable friend Alistair Darling's emphasis was on fraud.
"The prevention of fraud",
he said,
"has to be at the top of everything we do at the DSS".
In response, while granting the importance of preventing fraud, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said in our debate on the take-up of benefits on 29th April that.
"Surely the top priority for the DSS is the delivery of benefits to keep people alive; and nothing else should allow a Secretary of State to forget that".—[0fficial Report, 29/4/99; col. 508.]
Knowing my right honourable friend, whose appointment as Secretary of State for Social Security came after the Green Paper was published, I feel sure that his concern to stamp out fraud will be matched by a determination to ensure that the benefits Parliament has legislated for reach everyone entitled to them. If that is so, he will be as concerned as I am that the Green Paper—which paved the way for this Bill—made no reference to take-up despite the enormous scale of under-claiming. He will recognise too that failure to tackle low take-up frustrates the will of Parliament and that it is not only disabled people who under-claim. Over £2 billion a year in income support goes unclaimed by the most vulnerable elderly people.
Of course, higher take-up means spending more, and I shall come to affordability as I proceed. But first I want briefly to look at how disabled people have fared in relation to others over recent years. Much media comment assumes that they were years of joy unconfined for people dependent on disability benefits. In fact their incomes were frozen for 18 years after 1979,when the link forged by the previous Labour government—more particularly by my noble friend Lady Castle—between benefits and average earnings was broken by our successors.
Had the link been kept incapacity benefit would now be £24.15p a week higher. By breaking the link, the Treasury saved £18 billion on that benefit between 1980 and 1997, a brutal switch of resources to more fortunate groups in society. Now it is proposed to deny the benefit in future to large numbers of people who today would qualify. They would include severely disabled people who, having contributed by their national insurance contributions for a contributory benefit in good faith over many years, will feel cheated to the extent that they would take legal action if an insurance company treated them in the same way.

1607
Sir Peter Large, than whom no one, as the late Dr Margaret Blackwood used to tell me, is more deserving of the ear of any Minister, said in a recent letter:
"It means redistribution of resources from the less well-off to the least well-off, from those in need to those in greater need.
When disability is the true cause of inability to work, even if the inability to work follows a period of unemployment, it is cruelly unjust not to pay incapacity benefit in order to save money by reducing the number of beneficiaries by 170,000.
The proposal to reduce the benefit by 50 per cent of any occupational or personal pension above £50 is another strange example of fairness. What justice is there in penalising people who forego pleasure today in order to pay for safeguarding their future?".
I speak as former chairman for 18 years of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Scheme and, therefore, as guardian of the pensions of almost all present Cabinet Ministers—not to mention that of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins—in judging it wrong in principle to means test a contributory benefit in this way. It confuses reform with retreat and it is not too late to think again.
I turn now to affordability. Commending the Green Paper in another place, Frank Field spoke, in relation to spending on pensions, of his concern that,
"the costs of the system will become unsustainable".—[0fficial Report, Commons, 26/3/98: col. 682]
But Britain is today near the bottom—indeed in the relegation zone—of the league of 21 OECD member states for the proportion of GDP spent on "social protection" —that is, social security, health and education.
Again, although huge media emphasis is placed on the fact that social security costs more in Britain than education, health and law and order combined, the same is true in most developed countries. To balance all the hype about social spending being out of control, why cannot Ministers publicise—or even mention—the Government Actuary's highly expert advice to them that, due to relatively low benefits here:
"Future costs of social security in the UK look more manageable than in other European countries".
Such countries, he goes on authoritatively to say:
"also have a more significant problem of ageing than the UK since we have already made significant changes which will keep future costs down".
Let that be made more widely known and let Ministers, no less than everyone else, now recognise that to link unemployment among disabled people solely to the benefits system is to bark not just up the wrong tree but in the wrong forest. The surest way to improve their job opportunities is to expedite access to public transport and tackle the many thousands of employers who refuse even to interview disabled job applicants.
Whitehall departments are among the biggest employers in western Europe. Their attitude to employing disabled people is thus fundamental to the Government's moral authority in confronting other discriminatory employers. Yet the Treasury, even with men of the social awareness of Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling at the helm, employed only 1 per cent
1608
of disabled people at the latest date for which figures are available. And how do we justify the still further job losses now at REMPLOY?
Most disabled people want the Government to be tough on fraud and tough on the causes of fraud, not least where it arises from administrative incompetence. They are not resistant to change, since there are many reforms disabled people want to see. There has been much talk in this debate of the need for vision. All the disability benefits I introduced in the previous Labour government, not least the mobility allowance, were about empowerment and social inclusion for disabled people. They were commended to the taxpayer, as acts not of compassion but of enlightened self-interest and moral right. Our preoccupation was with value as well as cost. We saw disabled people as givers, not receivers, and demonstrated that there are marked cost savings in assisting disabled people achieve their potential as full and fully participating members of British society. That was our vision.
7.27 p.m.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: My Lords, at Second Reading on the Tax Credits Bill I promised the Minister some revenge for the constant use of initials by retaliating with PUPs, PILs and EPBs when we reached the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. However, on reading the Bill, I have to concede that the noble Baroness will probably have the last word. The Bill is a weighty document. It is rivalled in weight only by the Explanatory Notes. No doubt we shall have some fun as this important Bill passes through your Lordships' House.
In my speech I shall be concentrating on some specific issues relating to pensions and on one matter relating to national insurance. Before dealing with the specifics, I should declare an interest. I am a partner in Watson Wyatt, the leading actuarial and human resource consulting firm. However, the views I express here are mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of my colleagues at Watson Wyatt.
I have probably reached the stage in my career when I can indulge in some reminiscing. When I look back over the years, and particularly those that I have spent in this House, I come to the uncomfortable conclusion that the political process over 25 to 30 years has in many ways failed to deliver to one or more generations of pensioners the benefits to which they feel entitled. Looking at the Bill, I fear that we may be in danger of failing the next generation of pensioners.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn, who is no longer in her place, for all the work that she did between 1974 and 1978. It is true, as she said, that consensus was reached at that stage, and everyone in the industry felt pleased to have reached that position, however much it may change over the next 20 years. I shall not dwell on the reasons for that, but no doubt Members on the opposite Benches may like to remind me.
There has been constant meddling with pensions provision over the past 20 years. This may also not cast much credit on my colleagues on these Benches. The

1609
last change, the major one introduced by the Labour Party shortly after coming to power—namely, to deprive pension funds of income by removing tax dividend credits—has certainly not helped in the process.
It is not too difficult to sympathise with the sentiments of the Government as expressed in the Bill. They are all ones to which we can subscribe: the targeting of limited resources on those who are most in need; provision of a pensions vehicle for lower and middle income employees; support for occupational pension schemes as the most appropriate pensions for the majority of employees; and the promotion of better information on pension arrangements.
Yet I cannot help but think that confusion still exists in the mind of the Government on how to deliver all of this,. I fear that no amount of consultation will help them. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, indicated, the first big problem with the Bill is that while it may be large in sentiment it is lacking in principle. I also fear, as I said, that the next generation may well suffer from the results of the Bill. The small amounts that they will be invited to contribute could amount to zero, as they may not have sufficient moneys to put away.
I believe that there is general agreement that funded pensions through occupational pension schemes have been a success over the post-war period. The conditions attaching to these final salary schemes have gradually improved over the period, sometimes in the face of antagonism from the pensions industry. We are now moving, or have moved, into a period of growth in defined contribution schemes—or money purchase schemes as they are known. But it will be highly ironic if lower inflation in the late 1990s has the same destructive impact on defined contribution schemes because of poor annuity rates as high inflation had on such schemes in the 1970s. It is important to accept a change in our mindset. Low interest rates and low annuity rates are a direct result of the policies of successive UK governments and policies of other mature western economies. I do not believe that that is a temporary phenomenon; it is a feature of all such economies. It has significant implications, not only for the annuity market, but for the whole underlying concept of investment strategies and the valuation of liabilities in our funded pension plans, to say nothing about the long-term implications for the mature economies.
Tinkering around the edges with annuity products may not be sufficient. I welcome, as I understand it, the Treasury's investigation into this important area. I have no doubt that it will examine the experience of the United States, where retirement practice is different.
I raise the issue of annuity rates because I have been unable to find any indication in the documentation on the stakeholder pension that it will be other than a defined contribution plan, and that an annuity or pension will be taken from that. It is therefore extremely important to pay attention to annuities. Otherwise, the expectations of future pensioners will be severely dented, and that may well be the next scandal in the field of pensions.
1610
It must be recognised that changing policy every 10 years or so is not a feature of good planning. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said that we are at the start of a new series of social reforms and that building blocks are important. Many pensioners may well come through our doors hurling those particular building blocks at us unless we get on with the work that is in process.
From the employers' point of view, the great danger is that, faced with yet another piece of legislation, they will simply say, "Enough is enough", and will stop providing good benefits for employees by contracting out and offer money purchase schemes of relatively lower quality. We shall then end up once again with future generations of pensioners on income support—one of the elements that SERPS was introduced to deal with. I hope that, despite the complexities of the Bill, the Government will produce a user friendly method for the co-existence of stakeholder pensions arid occupational pension schemes.
I now turn to four specific areas of the Bill. I should like to deal first with Clause 3, under whose terms considerable onus is placed on the employer, after consultation, to "designate" a stakeholder pension scheme. That places an onerous duty on an employer which in many instances the employer is not able to fulfil. Nor am I sure how such a responsibility would tie in with the regulations covering the provision of financial advice.
My second point relates to the 1 per cent charge that can be levied on stakeholder pensions, the minimum contributions being as low as £10 per month. One of my clients, who I am sure will recognise himself from this comment, would say, "Come on, Buckinghamshire. do a reality check". I urge the same reality check on the Government and ask whether they have thought through the interaction of the new personal savings plans, ISAs, with the stakeholder pension.
My third point relates to the impact on occupational pension schemes. It was touched on earlier by my noble friend Lord Freeman. There is a tremendous need for "concurrent membership". Some newspapers have carried reports that the Government are willing to accept that. I urge them to do so. Many of the problems with the mis-selling of personal pensions earlier in the decade were linked to the inability to be in both an occupational scheme and a private personal pension scheme at the same time. Thus employees were forced to make a choice.
My fourth point relates to the early retirement offset covered under Clause 58. A number of noble Lords have spoken strongly about this aspect of the Bill. I strongly urge the Government not to means-test early retirement or long-term permanent health benefits to which an individual is entitled. I find particularly objectionable the fact that incapacity benefit will be reduced by the notional amount of the pension that an individual would receive if he elected to take early retirement. Here the matter becomes even more convoluted. Account would then be taken of the actual entitlement when the pension came into payment at an actuarially higher figure (those dearly beloved words) which would not have been

1611
payable had the pension in payment been the notional pension. Gunn's law of fog surrounds that phraseology. If it seems convoluted to noble Lords, I ask them to think about the poor individual who is coming up to early retirement and invalidity benefits and is trying to sort it out.
In addition, I am sure noble Lords will agree with me that it is a particularly mean-spirited piece of legislation, doing nothing to strengthen the position of funded occupational pension schemes in this country—one of the stated objectives of this Government. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, spoke clearly on the issue, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn. If we use the logic used by the Minister tonight, it is only a short time before this kind of means-testing is extended to the future basic state pension in this country. I am sure that the savings we could make by means-testing would be far greater than anything we could do with invalidity benefit means-testing.
Now, just to show my versatility, I turn to the issue of national insurance contributions. It was touched on by my noble friend Lord Higgins in his opening remarks and relates to Clause 70 of the Bill. It covers in particular national insurance contributions due in respect of engagements through personal service companies. For example, suppose that I set up Bucks Ltd, owned entirely by myself. Bucks Ltd then contracts with another company to supply my services. At the moment, the only money subject to national insurance is what I take out of my company as salary. As I understand it, the Government want to collect national insurance on everything that the contractor pays for the service as if I were its direct employee. We need to return to that at a later stage.
Another objection I have is that, as drafted, the Bill simply gives powers to make regulations to achieve all that. The really objectionable part is that if the regulation-making powers are not big enough, the Government can make a regulation to enable them to have those powers under Clause 70(9). The ominous words are:
"If, on any modification of the statutory provisions relating to income tax, it appears to the Treasury to be expedient to modify any of the preceding provisions".
it can do so with the concurrence of the Secretary of State. Welcome back Henry VIII! I ask the Government to re-think that part of the Bill.
In conclusion, this is an important Bill. Other Members of your Lordships' House have already commented on the fact that it is more than one Bill covering more than one subject in one piece of legislation. I am sure it will be thoroughly scrutinised by all Members of your Lordships' House. I have had the opportunity tonight to reminisce and raise some of the issues which I think are important. There are many more which will come to the fore as the Bill progresses through your Lordships' House.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, when you speak this far down the batting order, it is almost inevitable that
1612
virtually everything you wanted to say has at least been touched on, if it has not been dealt with entirely, so I shall not detain your Lordships long tonight.
I wish to confine my remarks to Part V, Chapter I, which will come as no surprise to anyone in the field. The title alone shows what we are dealing with: Part V, Chapter I, volume 3, book 6—it goes on and on. The noble Baroness's opening speech was a masterpiece of parliamentary fencing, when all is said and done. It threw more in: yes, things will be happening here, there and everywhere. But I shall concentrate on one fairly small part of the Bill.
The disability benefits, the playing around with benefits and the effect of the insurance type of benefit have attracted virtually everyone's attention. The noble Lords, Lord Morris and Lord Ashley, are still in their places. They summed up my feelings about Clauses 57 to 63 when they said that Clauses 61 and 62 are good. Clause 63 is very good, making sure that no one is prosecuted for over-claiming benefits unless they have committed some fraudulent act, if I read it correctly. That may be the only good thing to come out of the benefit integrity project. The name "BIP" sums it up better than its full title, in my opinion. It was a disaster and proved that under-claiming of benefits is probably a much more widespread problem than over-claiming. I hope we have banged a nail into the coffin of the idea that the social security system is run totally for scroungers and that is where it has been left. We have looked at the evidence and it was not so. I hope that every politician involved in the subject will take that on board and pay attention.
Much of my attitude towards the matter was summed up when my party looked at the entire social security system and said: "It is not about to bankrupt the country". When we gave contributory benefits to people we said, "With these you are insuring", giving the idea of insurance. Even if it is a misnomer, it is one that has been sold to the public. The idea of insurance should be there; but if you contribute for 30 years to get one benefit and think it is guaranteed but may be unemployed for three and not get it, it is an absurdity. The parts of the Bill which state that that will happen are absurd.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, gave examples of where something goes wrong and does not fit into the system. Someone may work for a few years but because they are not young enough to claim lifelong benefits for a deteriorating illness, they lose out. I looked at that situation and believe that around the edges there are further absurdities. When the Government talked about targeting, it was inevitable that this would happen. What they mean by "targeting" is "focusing". You focus on one area, your vision is good there but it becomes blurred around the edges. We always know, when dealing with disabilities, that it is not the most severe cases who have the most problems, it is those at the edges who do not fit into the categories. It is those who do not fit the label, the rubber stamp, who are the ones who suffer.
People with hidden disabilities have had a rough deal for a long time. I speak with full knowledge; I should now declare that I am a dyslexic. We are in that group

1613
of people who have had terrible trouble with the welfare system simply because it means filling in forms. That is one area where we will have trouble. Remember, those people at the edges, who have deteriorating conditions, may well be able to soldier on till the last possible minute and then call for help, whether or not the disability is physical. Those people are the ones who will he hit hardest. I should have thought the Government would focus on them when they were targeting the disabled.
We must look at one part of the Bill with an open mind: the single gateway. My noble friend has disappeared because he decided that the Bill was too demanding to sit through the whole of the debate without eating. I have sympathy with the noble Baroness the Minister on that score. If the single gateway is too narrow it will lead to a logjam. If that gateway does not have the right type of support service to get the information out of the applicants, there is the potential for disaster. I referred to hidden disabilities, and I have received briefing from many mental health charities and others. The people concerned may well find an interview incredibly stressful. They may well give the wrong answers.
It has already been acknowledged by almost everyone that we have a problem with under-claiming. If we have the single gateway without the correct back-up services and training, it will go wrong and give a false impression. If we have the forms phrased in a certain way, we will get answers that allow the form to decide. We must build flexibility into the whole approach and train those who carry out the interviews. They cannot know the answers to everything and must have the opportunity to go away and think again and call in experts. If we try to put an expert in every single office we shall find that one place has all the expertise for one problem and another place has all the expertise for another and some people will fall down the middle. If we can extend the process and make sure that every person who attends an interview receives the correct help it may prove to be a tremendous benefit. That is undoubtedly correct.
We must also ensure that we gel: people to these interviews and that we are not overly draconian about it. There has already been some movement. We must consider people with a literacy problem, which does not just mean dyslexia. Those who do not have English as their first language are another huge group. If people do not understand the letters that they receive, how on earth can they turn up for the interview on the date specified? These people are also the least likely to be on the phone. In the case of those who do not speak English it would not be much help anyway.
We must work at getting people to these interviews and making sure that they are beneficial to them in all ways. We must not merely say that there is a job out there or that he or she can get into a job. We must accept that some will need help in the process of getting into society and receiving the full benefits of our social security system. I very much hope that that is still what we are about, not merely fending off the hands of the Treasury when it says, "We shall make savings".
7.51 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Higgins said that this Bill was three to six pieces of legislation all rolled together. I think that he is quite right. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said that he would concentrate on Part V, Chapter 1. He also said that, as far down the list as he was, what he intended to say had probably already been said by someone else. He has just spoken to the single gateway, which is what I had intended to deal with. However. t shall still do so, in the hope that, although I shall not speak as well as he has, I can at least emphasise the facts to which he drew attention.
I welcome with the single gateway work-focused interview the emphasis on the practicability of work and work requirements and the applicant's abilities rather than disabilities. However, the interviews should be forward-looking. Emphasis should be placed on the idea that the individual is of value to his family and of use to the community. It must also be constructive for those whose disabilities are so handicapping that they make the idea of paid work remote. These people too should be pointed in the direction of help that is available to make their lives interesting and constructive.
Where a carer who, because of his caring commitments, is unable to work is interviewed, the caring position should be examined to see what help is needed. Information at interview will be given on in-work benefits. However, will advice on out-of-work benefits be given to those who cannot 'work?
The provisions of the Bill as I read them mean that an applicant has no right of advocacy. Will the interviewing officer have special training, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, in the problems associated with the disability, physical, sensory or mental? Will there be any training at all in disability? Most people with a disability will be able to communicate but a number will have problems, some severe. In particular, what about those with a mental disability?
The summons to interview may cause them considerable stress, which may result in a relapse in their condition. Some may behave irrationally or be frightened and ignore the summons to interview and, consequently, risk loss of benefit. Some may well give misleading information through delusion; others may mislead through a desire to return to work. resulting in inappropriate advice being given. There should be a right of advocacy for those with disabilities. Interviewing officers must be properly trained, particularly in all types of disability.
The Government have said that interviews at home will be available. Who decides where the interview will be held? If it is at a DSS office, will travelling expenses be paid? Will out-of-pocket expenses be paid for a carer or advocate? Will a carer be able to recoup the cost of paid cover when he or she leaves the person cared for to attend an interview? Will the pilot interviews promised by the Government be properly evaluated before the scheme is put fully into effect, or is it to be a case of learning on the job and letting some suffer due to inadequate knowledge or mistakes? In this case it is likely that those who suffer most will be those with disabilities.
7.56 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill reflects a recognition by government that the world of work and home at the beginning of the 21st century cannot be compared with that of the 1970s or the 1940s, when Labour's great reforming government implemented the Beveridge Report and created the welfare state. The 1940s Labour government, as my noble friend Lady Castle reminded us tonight, was in turn modernising and updating the ad hoc set of welfare reforms that had taken place since the early years of the century.
My starting point tonight is that it is the duty and responsibility of democratic governments regularly to revisit both the practices and principles of welfare provision and to ensure that the management of that provision meets the realistic needs of the times in which we live. By "realistic" I mean: does welfare provision measure up to the fight against poverty, the need for equality, the level of economic aspiration and the need for access to work that our age reflects?
The way that we live in Britain in terms of working patterns, women's lives, medical advance, the scale of government intervention, rates of private insurance provision and occupational pensions has changed out of all recognition since the 1940s, with the clear exception of women's pay, which still drags behind that of men. Yet we know as we celebrate National Carers' Week that the benefits system has not kept pace with modern society and that the welfare state is not delivering enough to those who are in greatest need. Two-thirds of current spending on benefits has its roots in decisions taken even before Beveridge.
This Bill is a first step in a fairly radical change in the culture of the benefits system and represents a new relationship between rights and responsibilities and between the state and the individual. It is summed up in a phrase that we have heard many times tonight: "Work for those who can; security for those who cannot". In the context of life and work in 1999 and the desperate need for access to be opened up to all who can and who wish to work, the phrase becomes less a slogan and more a sign of the times.
Despite certain controversies surrounding this Bill in another place and, from what we hear tonight, in this place, too, the desire of the Conservative Party to re-invent itself as a party which opposes means-testing and supports the contributory principle, much of the Bill's provisions have been welcomed and found support in its first drafting among welfare organisations. But I am acutely aware that among noble Lords taking part in the debate are some of the great social welfare reformers, thinkers and activists of the past 50 years from all Benches in this House. Because of their great eminence and experience, when any one of them raises concerns about aspects of the Bill—be it IB or widow's benefit—it would be wise, if they are reasonable concerns, for the Government to listen, as I am sure they will.
However, to those who simply dismiss the entire Bill as a crude cost-cutting measure, I say that they are wrong. For example, in the short term, the improvement
1616
to benefits for the poorest and most severely disabled people in this country will cost more than the savings from the changes to IB. In National Carers' Week we know that an extra £140 million will be made available to support carers. In the long term, extending the state second pension to carers and disabled people with broken work records will cost in excess of a £2 billion.
The Labour Party watched for too long in 18 years in opposition while the various Conservative governments blundered their way through the welfare state for it to have no more vision on taking office than crudely to cut costs.
There are five main measures in the Bill. They are: a single gateway to the benefits system for those of working age; the introduction of the new stakeholder pension schemes; pension sharing for divorcing couples; modernised benefit for widows and widowers; and, finally, modernising the benefits structure for people with disabilities or long-term illnesses. I, too, want to concentrate for a moment or two on the single gateway, as did the noble Lords, Lord Swinfen and Lord Addington. Mr Malcolm Wicks in another place said that at its best the single gateway could become an Arc de Triomphe in terms of inclusion if the training of staff and the quality of service offered to people at that gateway is of the high standard.
The strength of the single gateway will be the provision of a single access point to the entire benefits system. When people are at their most vulnerable, that cannot be underestimated. And, although an obligation will be placed on the claimant to attend the interview, the single gateway will treat people as individuals or as people around the edges, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, put it so well, rather than categorising them and stereotyping them as unemployed, a lone parent or disabled. That individual attention will mean that everyone will have access to a personal adviser, who should help them assess their option with assistance and information on work, benefits and services.
The gateway will be a radical departure from the present system, which does not actively encourage or help people to find work; which pays benefits passively; and which is fragmented, with claimants having to deal with an array of different agencies, leading to duplication and confusion.
There has been some fierce criticism of the compulsory element in being called for interview. I do not believe that such compulsion is unreasonable, so long as it is sensitively applied to people in different circumstances. After all, no one would be forced into work. All that is being asked is that people take part in an interview to discuss the range of help available. Many of my former constituents in Birmingham will welcome the single gateway as a vast improvement on a system which makes them feel powerless and confused.
In conclusion, there is one section of the Bill which has not been as loudly debated as others, which may be as a result of its late entry. But it has a resonance for me in the work I did in the European Parliament; that is, the extension of entitlement to state maternity allowance. In 1992, as chair of the European Parliament's Women's Rights Committee, I piloted

1617
through the Maternity Leave Directive in the teeth of trenchant opposition from the British Conservative Government of the time. That directive opened up maternity leave to thousands of British women who hitherto had no access, or very little, to it. And so it is with great satisfaction that I see the Government in this Bill taking forward further measures to build on that directive and addressing a number of serious flaws still present in the current maternity leave and pay arrangements. For instance, low-paid. pregnant working women earning less than £66 a week now have the right to take time off work, thanks to the directive, but receive no financial help to do so. And 20 per cent of working women are potentially excluded from maternity benefits because they do not earn enough to qualify.
Reform in this area of benefit is long overdue. At a difficult, demanding and vulnerable time in their lives for them and their families, pregnant women should not have to struggle against outmoded benefit priorities and it is extremely heartening to see the Government institute these reforms, which, as my noble friend the Minister said, will benefit 14,000 low-paid women.
This is a complex, omnibus Bill which has set out to change the priorities and culture of the benefits system. While acknowledging the need for the Government to listen carefully to the serious critics of the Bill, I wish it well in its twin aims of opening up greater economic independence for those who can and who wish to work, while at the same time increasing help towards a proper, civilised and sustainable quality of life for those who are the most vulnerable in our society.
8.7 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, one of the few issues with which I can agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, is that this is a complex and omnibus Bill. However, I believe that it is seriously flawed in several areas. I shall confine my remarks today to just three of the welfare provisions in Part V.
I am aware that I am further down the batting order than the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen, but I feel so strongly about several aspects of the Bill that I believe some things are worth repeating in the hope that the Government may listen. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, that my remarks are not based on new beliefs, newly discovered for short-term political advantage. They are based on work in the social security field for 30 years. I believe that my noble friends contributing to the debate have the same conviction.
The Government say that they wish to get the sick and disabled back to work where possible both for their own good and for that of the Exchequer, while boosting aid for those who really need it. However, the Bill as it stands penalises thousands of people who are genuinely unable to work and it fails to tackle the real problems of welfare dependency. There is here no developed welfare strategy for those people who are unable to work because of their caring responsibilities, old age illness or disability. There is no vision, as the right reverend Prelate was the first to remind us. The real message of this welfare Bill is simply that the Treasury has seized
1618
control of social security policy. It is a point which the Minister rejected, but I look forward to the Committee stage when I shall rebut in detail the erroneous arguments put forward by the Government over the past few months. I certainly shall not test the House by trying to do so at Second Reading.
These proposals will hurt people who are genuinely disabled. Surely the way to deal with any misuse or adaptation of policy intention is to ensure that eligibility criteria are effectively applied. We should not simply be reducing benefits indiscriminately.
Worse still, the proposal to means test incapacity benefit undermines the national insurance principle. In doing so, it attacks personal responsibility and prudence, a word which was very much on the lips of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the very virtues that the Government claim to be promoting, and cuts people off from the contractual bargain into which they thought they had entered.
The Bill continues the shift from national insurance to means testing to a significant extent. I agree with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux—and I declare an interest as honorary president of my local branch—that the Government should now make a clear statement on what sort of social security system they are trying to build and how national insurance fits into their vision, if vision there can be, of work and security. Without that vision, we are being asked to take far too much on trust.
Last month, several charities resigned from the Government's Disability Benefits Consortium. That body was set up a year ago to enable the Government and aid organisations to talk to each other about changes to disablement benefits. The charities had already started to lose patience when over 300 submissions they had made in response to the Green Paper last autumn were effectively ignored. The Bill was published virtually unaltered. As Joe Corner of the RNIB said:
"There was a lot of anger when the Bill was published but the trigger for resignation was when the Government started to give the impression that our membership implied support for the Bill. which was not true."
They were particularly angered by three proposals: first, the restriction of IB to recent national insurance contributors; secondly, the penalising of IB recipients who have occupational or personal pensions; and, thirdly, the SDA changes, which I shall leave for consideration at Committee stage.
As other noble Lords have explained, incapacity benefit will in respect of future claims be restricted to those who have been recent contributors to the national insurance fund. Ministers have said that there is a problem with disability benefits in that the original policy intention, the morality behind it and the ethics, to which the Minister referred in her opening speech, are not now being met because of changes in society. However, I argue now, as I shall in Committee. that the Government have not yet produced any evidence to prove that to us. Even if it were true, the problem would be among existing claimants and not among future claimants.

1619
The Minister said in this House on 26th May:
"We are saying that the contributory contract—the moral contract … is the contract which establishes the entitlement to benefit, based on recent work".—(Official Report, 26/5/99; col. 923.]
In other words, the contract will now mean what the Government say it means today, not what it meant when the benefit was introduced. It is not good enough simply to say that. One has to look far more deeply at the reasons behind any change. As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who, I notice, is momentarily not in his place, and the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, have stated in far more graphic detail, it could mean that people with 20 or 30 years' national insurance contributions would be punished if, for instance, they had been unable to find a job in the two years before they claimed. That must be wrong.
Many part-time workers are women, often combining caring for their children with one or two part-time jobs. They pay no national insurance contributions, but they may have worked full-time and paid those contributions for many years before their children were born. If Clause 57 is enforced, they will lack the necessary contribution record to protect their earnings through IB should they become disabled. Clause 60 makes matters even worse, because they will in future be unable to claim severe disablement allowance.
The second reason why the charities walked out of the Government's consortium is that those who do qualify for incapacity benefit but who have also contributed to an occupational or personal pension will in future lose 50p in every £1 of their weekly pension income over £50. I shall not go into detail. Other noble Lords have effectively exposed the problems behind the change and the way in which Clause 58 again weakens the contributory principle of social security benefits and penalises those who have taken steps to provide for their future.
My final remarks relate to another part of the Bill which is punitive but has received virtually no media attention. I am pleased that it has received considerable attention in your Lordships' House tonight. I refer to the part which attacks widows' benefits. There is no suggestion by anyone that widows are abusing state benefits. Yet, instead of the current guaranteed widows' pension, bereaved spouses will henceforth receive benefit for only six months, after which they will be expected to get a job. The Government are thus managing to attack vulnerable people, the contributory principle and marriage all at once.
These proposals mean, for example, that a woman of 50—I choose that age not merely because it is my own for a short while longer—who has not worked for many years will suddenly be forced to work in order to support herself a mere six months after the death of her husband when she still may be barely able to cope with getting through the day and sorting out papers for proving probate.
The Social Security Minister, Stephen Timms, in another place justified this measure by saying that these
1620
days most married women work, and we have today heard some statistics on work patterns. But he must know that most married women who work do so on a part-time basis and that they are low paid. As the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, said, that is still wrong. Even where wives work to supplement the family income, they do not earn an income which could support them; it is secondary to the main family income.
By this Bill, therefore, widows will be punished for having stayed at home to look after their children. Men who have paid national insurance for decades in order to provide for their wives after their death now find that the Government are going to renege on that contract. It is not good enough for the Government to say that men should have taken out other provision and that many have done so. We should be worried about those who have not been able to take out other pension provision and those who did not do so because they genuinely believed that the government contract would not be cancelled.
In the debate in another place, Stephen Timms said that widows should not settle into a lifetime of dependency. I can tell him that they do not. They tend to be the first to seek work as soon as they are able but often find that their lack of skills and experience when they seek to re-enter, or indeed sometimes enter, the work market at a mature age means that they cannot find work which will support them, however hard they try.
I still believe at heart that this is not really about easing people away from dependence. I have a horrible feeling that it is simply about destroying the insurance system over a long term. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out, the Labour Government over the past two years have set out to systematically destroy the insurance system.
I agree with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux that there should now be a full and open debate on the position of the contributory principle in social security in the 21st century before any further changes are made. Noble Lords and especially, I am sure, the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, who is for a few moments not in her place, will receive many letters from members of the public who are worried by this Bill.
One of them—I have her permission to mention the circumstances—is a lady who suffered a stroke in her late 40s. She had to leave the job she loved and retired on a National Health Service pension. As an existing claimant, she will not fall foul of the Bill. The measures simply will not apply to her. However, future claimants in her position will be damaged. She said, "Incapacity benefit has allowed me to stay in my own home and pay my own way". Her pension is not, as Mr Darling seems to think, about £230 per week. Nor is she in the top 40 per cent of earners. She added, "If the new rule applied to me, I would seriously have to think about selling my home. I am sure that there are thousands in similar positions to me who are frightened for their future". She hopes that the House of Lords will amend the Bill. I hope to help her dream come true.
8.18 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, we have listened to a series of notable speeches, including the last one. No one doubts that the Minister is a caring person. We know that if it were left to herself, she would not make exactly the same speech as she has made today, but that is true of so many of us who have been Ministers. We forgive her and continue to admire her and hope that the Prime Minister will have the sense to put her in the Cabinet. Unfortunately, however, politics is not like that. The ancestor of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, when Prime Minister, said "Politics is a courtesy profession". As long as it keeps a Minister out of the Cabinet, I endorse that sentiment. That is by the way, but the Minister was doing her stuff. We all understand that.
Taking the Bill as it stands, we have to recognise that it is admired by experts. On balance, it is admired by experts like the noble Lords, Lord Morris and Lord Ashley. But there are some defects. So I make my contribution from a rather Rip Van Winkle point of view. People have referred to Beveridge as though he were a god. He was not exactly a god.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: He just thought he was.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said that he thought he was. He did not exactly think that, but when a journalist said to him, "Sir William, are you the cleverest man in England?", he paused and then he said, "Well, inductively perhaps yes, but deductively Maynard has it". So he did not exactly think that he was God because he had limitations. Maynard Keynes was ahead of him. That was Beveridge. I was with him for three years and I have dragged him in only because he has been mentioned. He did wonderful work with the foundation of the welfare state. The morning after it was completed I went into a newsagent to try to buy a paper. The lady said, "It's no good trying to buy a paper here. That Sir William Beveridge is going to abolish want, so all the papers were sold out". Later that day or the next day I asked him to come to lunch. I was meeting with Evelyn Waugh, an old friend and famous writer. They did not get on at all well. Evelyn Waugh said to him at the end, "How do you get your main pleasure in life, Sir 'William?" He paused and said, "I get mine trying to leave the world a better place than I found it". Evelyn Waugh said, "I get mine spreading alarm and despondency"—this was in the height of the war—"and I get more satisfaction than you do". So he did not meet with universal acclamation, but nearly everyone admired Beveridge at that time. He was a wonderful man.
The right reverend Prelate, in a fine speech, referred to Beveridge and ethics. One of Beveridge's ethics was to leave the world a better place than he found it. But, on the other hand, was he a Christian? In all the years I was working with him, he was not. He said that he had been brought up without Christianity. But later in life he took part in a debate in your Lordships' House on Christian unity and made an eloquent speech in favour of it. I said to him at tea afterwards, "Sir William, you seem to be very Christian these days. What denomination do you belong to?" He paused, so I said,
1622
"When I was a boy at Eton, if someone could not get his son down for a house, he put him down on the general list". Beveridge said, "Put me down on the general list". So he finished up as a Christian. So, if anyone wants to know about his ethics, they were ultimately Christian. That was Beveridge.
In the field of disability the noble Lord, Lord Morris, is a Beveridge. He produced a great Bill which revolutionised the treatment of the disabled. He carried it through the Commons. I had the great honour of carrying it through this House. It was not that what I said mattered very much but we had these wonderful people here—the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Darcy de Knayth, in wheelchairs. That Bill was carried. As far as I am concerned, my two instructors in social matters are Beveridge over the whole field and the noble Lord, Lord Morris, on disability.
What is the message? It is the same as that delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, whom I admire in a slightly different way. The way in which he has overcome his disability is an inspiration to the whole disabled world. I really think that is a terrific achievement.
I follow the noble Lord, Lord Morris, almost blindfolded. Clem Attlee was my hero but I did not agree with everything he said. Later in life, after he came here, he confided in me—I do not think that I am breaking a confidence—and said, "I have never liked the Germans". He had been Prime Minister dealing with the Germans and I had been Minister for Germany. He said, "Of course Vi and I"—that was his wife—"once had a German maid and were very fond of her. She was an exception". So he had his difficulties. I do not think that anyone is perfect, but in the particular area of the disabled I am not likely to disagree with the noble Lords, Lord Morris and Lord Ashley, Barbara Castle and the noble Baroness Lady Turner.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, will the noble Earl allow me to intervene? He has been extraordinarily complimentary but I must tell the House that I have not only never had a German maid hut I have never had a maid in my life. He is possible confusing me with someone else, but I warmly appreciate—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Attlee!
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, if anyone complains, my articulation does not get any better as the years pass. When I was talking about Lord Attlee, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, thought that I was talking about him. There you are. I admire the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, very much and I admired Lord Attlee very much but it was Lord Attlee who had the German maid. I hope that is clear.
Coming down to business, the noble Lords, Lord Morris and Lord Ashley, Barbara Castle and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and I are old Labour. There is now what we call new Labour. New wines you put in new bottles but they do say that when in a month's time there is the new wine the old one is better. I am not saying that that is necessarily true but I regard new Labour as the children of old Labour. It is rather a credit

1623
to us that they have different ideas. But it would be a betrayal of the principles of old Labour if the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society—the disabled, some 300,000 of them—were penalised at a time when this country is becoming richer and richer. So far as I am concerned, that is the issue. In the last analysis I shall fall back on support for the noble Lords, Lord Ashley and Lord Morris, but also on my own principles. If we are becoming richer and richer as a country and then we decide to penalise the most vulnerable members of our society, there is something wrong. It can be put right. It would be horrible if the Bill went through just as it is.
A poet called Crosland—it was not Tony Crosland but a Crosland—wrote:
"I trod the road to Hell, There were things I might have sold but did not sell".
To sell the disabled would be a terrible betrayal, but I do not believe that this Government will do it.
8.27 p.m.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, it is a great privilege to take part in a debate in which there have been so many distinguished contributions, most notably by the Baroness, Lady Castle, whose analysis I thought was brilliant, although I am not sure "analysis" is the right word; it was more like "dismemberment" of the Government's policies. I agree with much of what she said.
I have been very disappointed by the Bill. Shortly after the general election we were told that the Government would carry out a radical overhaul of the welfare state. I therefore looked forward to such a radical overhaul. I expected to find that there would be a real explanation of the principles on which the new welfare state would be built. For example, how important would the contributory principle be? How much reliance would be placed on money that that brought in? How far was it to be financed out of general taxation? How far were people to be expected to make their own contribution, as it were, direct as through pension schemes? I expected that we should be given a coherent explanation of the relevant importance of those matters.
However, we have heard nothing of the kind. It seems to me that we have compounded what was already wrong with the welfare state. One worry was that costs may spiral out of control unless reined back. There was the worry about the complications of the system. I certainly came across that as a constituency MP. It is not simply the citizens advice bureaux that deal with the 2 million inquiries a year about social security benefits. I think that every person who has ever been, and is now, an MP will find that much of their correspondence and many of their advice bureaux are taken up with precisely those difficulties. Many people find it extremely intimidating.
Finally, we have the unfortunate darker side of the welfare state, usually called the "dependency culture". A vivid example was given tonight of the boy who, when asked what he wanted to do when he grew up,
1624
said that he wanted to receive his Giro cheque. I can recall some years ago being chastised by a young woman who was about to get married because she said that, "the social" had refused to pay for her wedding dress, and how could she be expected to pay for it on what she was getting. That is perhaps a rather light and flippant example.
There is a worry about dependency, so I hoped that the Bill would take a radical look at the whole situation. But that is not the case. As the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, pointed out, that is not to say that there are not some plums that are worth plucking out, but the consideration of over-arching principles on which we can go forward into the next century seem singularly lacking.
I shall deal with one or two issues that I have found particularly worrying. In principle, I thoroughly applaud pension splitting on divorce, but it seems that it is an extremely difficult matter to deal with in practice. So far I have heard nothing that suggests that there are some practical ways in which this will be tackled.
The memory of the Child Support Agency always haunts me. I still consider it a brilliant idea but, as always, the devil was in the detail and I can see that the devil may be in the detail of pension sharing as well. I hope that the Minister may give us some words of comfort on that when she sums up tonight.
I turn next to the gateway principle. I believe that it is a sound way of dealing with benefits; and it should certainly make it simpler for the individual. However, that will work only if the staff are fully trained to deal with it. I suspect that that will be a much harder task than appears to be the case at first sight. There will need to be considerable training and rethinking on the part of those who are asked to engage in that. Quite a different culture will be required from the one for which most of the staff will have been prepared.
Perhaps I may give an example of an analogous situation. I am associated with a charity called Tomorrow's People, whose aim in life is to help the long-term unemployed back into work. Such a scheme operates in the city of Plymouth, with which I was associated for a long time. Last week I visited some case workers in their respective offices. They were able to tell me a great deal about the difficulties that they find in seeking to help people who have been unemployed for a long time. They talked about need to spend several hours with an individual at a first session, and needing to work with them for a period of months not weeks. They had to raise their self-esteem and they had to get them into the habit of thinking in terms of obtaining work. Often they needed to supply them with suitable clothing so that they could attend an interview for a job looking the part. They also helped them with their CVs. Even after those individuals had managed to get a job, the case workers helped to ensure that they still had the habits of punctuality and reliability to which all employers look.
Dealing with the most difficult area of the population—the long-term unemployed—is a major undertaking. I am not sure whether government Ministers have appreciated the difficulties involved.

1625
I am, of course, in favour of any increase in the help that can be given in that way. However, I do not know whether the Government have addressed this—whether there are sufficient jobs for such people to undertake in any given area. It is no good saying that everybody who could work shall work and only those who cannot work should be given real help, if the jobs that they are able to do are not there. We appear to have no assessment of the number of jobs that there may be in any given area of the country.
I should like to make one suggestion. I remember the community programme with some affection. It gave fairly simple work to people who would otherwise be unemployed. It created work artificially. But if we want to establish the principle that people should work if they are able to, perhaps we should think in terms of a rehabilitation or reassessment of that kind of scheme, where the Government or a local authority provides fairly simple work that people can do. Otherwise, I can foresee a mismatch between the aspirations implicit in the Bill and the reality of being able to give people work. If we raise their hopes only for them to be dashed, that is a very worrying feature.
The hour is late and many people far more qualified than I am have dealt with the issue of disability benefits and the erosion of the contributory principle. However, I make this observation. I believe that the trend to erode the contributory principle, particularly where people have been reasonably led to expect that they could receive certain benefits in return for contributions already made, is a serious one. I suspect that if one entered into a contract or a policy with an insurance company and that company failed to deliver on the grounds that it had changed its arrangements, one would say that it was ratting on its obligations. The company may even be sued, with success, in the courts. I fail to see any distinction between a private organisation or company and the Government ratting on their obligations.
8.37 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I want to congratulate the Minister on her elegant and comprehensive speech. Having spent 10 days reading the Bill—or series of Bills as it appears to be—I am amazed that she could make it sound so coherent.
I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, who is not in her place, that I am someone who believes that your Lordships' House was perfect as it was, or as perfect as anything can be in this world, before all this unhappy hoo-hah.
It will not, I fear, come as a great surprise to your Lordships that I shall talk about pensions in regard to war widows. As your Lordships know, war widows are lovely, brave, self-sacrificing ladies who do not push forward their own interests.
Your Lordships will also know that my noble friend Lord Freyberg won a great victory for all war widows when he moved, and managed to win, the amendment by which all war widows, who would lose their pensions by remarrying, had those pensions reinstated at the end of the second marriage. That was a tremendous victory,
1626
and for that all war widows are immensely grateful. I still get letters from ladies who had lost their pensions and have had them restored at the end of a subsequent marriage.
The Minister was also battling on our side on this, and perhaps I may add without embarrassing the noble Baroness that she is a true friend to war widows, which they all very much appreciate. I know the noble Baroness says that this Bill does not affect war widows, but I believe there is a connection. We still have some unfinished business. There is a group of around 2,700 post-1973 war widows who have two sorts of pension. They have the ordinary war widow's pension and they also have an attributable pension to which their husbands contributed. Servicemen have been able to do this since 1973 and currently 7 per cent is docked from their pay as a pension contribution. That decreased from 11 per cent in 1973 to 10 per cent in 1986 and 9 per cent in 1991. I believe Members of another place contribute 6 per cent. to their occupational pension. Incidentally, the pension is calculated not on the gross pay, but on the net pay from which the contribution has already been deducted.
I am not going to go into this at the moment, but it is an interesting fact worth bearing in mind. These ladies, who are not very many when we consider how many people there are in this world, therefore have two different war widow's pensions; the ordinary one and what is called the attributable pension, to which their husbands contributed. If they remarry they lose both pensions, and they will not get reinstated at the end of a subsequent marriage.
In 1995, in his report of his team's independent review of the Armed Forces manpower, career and remuneration arrangements, Sir Michael Bett recommended that spouses' attributable pensions should be awarded for life and not withdrawn on remarriage, in line with what had become standard private sector occupation pension scheme practice. The Goode report had previously made the same recommendation. The Bett report is even more relevant today, when the award of spouses' pensions for life has since been introduced into a public service pension scheme—the Local Government Officers Scheme. Moreover, the present Government have acknowledged that,
"The Armed Forces are a unique group of workers because of the nature of the work that they do",
and confirmed their support in the 1999 report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body for the principle of comparability with the private sector as the basis of military salary rates.
Current events worldwide show, and sadly not just in the Balkans, that even as the new millennium approaches, man's capacity for inhumanity to man still knows no bounds. It follows that the lives of British servicemen and women will continue to be at risk in battle practice training and in actual operations for the foreseeable future. As the noble Lord, Lord Morris, said last July,
"Of all the duties it falls to Parliament to discharge none is of more compelling priority than our bounden duty … to men and women who were prepared to lay down their lives for this country and the dependants of those who did so".— [Official Report, 10/7/98; col. 1536.]

1627
Given the nomadic and uncertain nature of service life and overseas postings, many service wives are unable to work and build up stakeholder pensions of their own. I was reminded of this both in Cyprus and Northern Ireland when talking to wives there who were unable to find local employment. I ask the Minister to ensure that the safeguards and employee benefits of the stakeholder pension scheme as defined in this Bill are incorporated into the Armed Forces Pension Scheme currently under review.
It would also be helpful if the noble Baroness could give us clarification about pension sharing on divorce, which comes in Part IV of the Bill, Section 23(3). If a divorcee is entitled to her "earned" share of her husband's future pension, that share is hers by right and cannot be taken away even if she remarries or cohabits. The pension will be administered by the Treasury, which will then be paying a pension to a divorcee who will retain that pension whatever her subsequent marital status, but would not permit a war widow to receive her pension should she remarry. That does not seem to me to be right. War and service widows must have at least as good a deal as divorcees. I do not know what the moral of this is.
Many of the post-1973 war widows have hesitated about remarrying; at least 99 per cent of them have not remarried. Even if they have the opportunity of rebuilding stable family units and providing their young children with a father, they simply cannot afford to do so as they would then lose all their pensions. If the attributable pension were to remain for life, many of them might remarry. And because they no longer had to pay out the basic pension, the Government would be considerably better off.
Finally, in relation to the bereavement benefits, I do not believe that the 26-week period for which that allowance is paid before the widow is required to have a "work" interview is sufficient in many cases for many war widows. I thank the Minister especially for her sympathy and understanding of the particular and peculiar circumstances that can surround death and the lack of a body, which can be particularly relevant to death in action in the forces. It is not unusual for a body not to be retrieved immediately and this means that the grieving process is delayed. War widows also have to move house and re-establish their lives, and may, as I have said before, not have had the opportunity to be in work. I therefore ask that this period of entitlement be extended for those ladies.
Perhaps I can conclude by telling your Lordships a small story. It is something which my husband remembered the other day from his own wartime experiences, long buried in the layers of old memories and suddenly emerging like a pebble out of clay. He was with the 1st Commando Brigade in Germany and was walking up a slight hill when he suddenly found a soldier, alive but obviously in a very bad way. He stopped to hold and comfort him as best he could. There was clearly little else that could be done. And suddenly this unknown soldier opened his eyes and looked at him and said, "Tell her I love her", and then he died. That is what we must do.
8.46 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, the Minister has received many congratulations on her speech, but I thank her for her diligence in remaining here for so many hours to listen to all our speeches. I say that before I move into critical vein.
There have been many occasions in the past when I would have welcomed the elements in this Bill which reduce benefits to those whose need seems less or who have greater resources. But my mind was changed, as in the case of many in this country, by the writings and speeches of the Minister's former colleague, Frank Field, who in the past year or so—I have attended meetings and read his pamphlets—has had a profound effect on my thinking and altered it. I say without any insult to the Minister that had Mr. Field still been in office this would have been a more imaginative Bill. His theme seems to have been that of Beveridge; that universal compulsion demands universal benefit.
As many noble Lords have said, this Bill breaks that pattern. I do not want to dwell on the incapacity benefit; I merely underline what has been said. If one has an occupational pension, one loses one's incapacity benefit. There are two objections to that, already mentioned in the debate; nothing new can be said. The first is that incapacity benefit is a national insurance-funded benefit. People who have paid 30 years' contributions, as my noble friend Lady Fookes pointed out, have suddenly had the contract ripped up because, if they become incapacitated afterwards, that is what happens.
The second point is this. The measure clearly penalises those who work hard and save money in any pension scheme, as the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, pointed out with graphic evidence. This Bill will result in making someone who has saved for a pension little better off than someone who has not.
It is worth underlining what people will have to face. We are talking about a person who is totally incapacitated. As I see it, he could get his old age pension of £1,619.80 a year. Let us suppose he had a modest occupational pension of about £5,840. That is a total of somewhere between £8,000 and £9,000.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. Did he really mean an old age pension? No one on incapacity benefit would simultaneously receive an old age pension. Incapacity benefit ends at the point of the old age pension. I may have misunderstood the noble Lord.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I am sorry I did mean incapacity benefit. On a pension of about £6,000 to £7,000 he would lose his incapacity benefit. Incapacity means that your living costs you more. If we are to be honest, living on £6,000, £7,000 or £10,000 a year is now very near the poverty line. It is hard enough to live if you are healthy; if you are incapacitated, your having saved will result in your being disadvantaged. The Government ought to bear that in mind. There is a moral issue here.
I turn to another moral issue—the widows over 45 who lose their pension. It is true that they will be getting a £2,000 bereavement allowance, but that only

1629
fill s a gap for a short time. The noble Baroness presented a picture that ladies who do not work are in a minority in society. But the object of a caring society is to care for minorities. These ladies could include someone who has had a husband with a serious illness whom, for many years of her life, she has had to look after and has therefore been unable to work. It might be someone with children who have had difficulties and she has therefore had to remain at home. The husband dies when the woman is in her late forties or early fifties. She has not worked since her marriage. Under the Government's proposals she has to go on to the labour market and has to try to find a job. I do not think that the sociological picture presented by the noble Baroness—which was rightly criticised by the noble Baroness, Lady Castle—actually dealt with the reality of these people.
The Bill seems to penalise those who have saved money for their retirement. More than that, it penalises a devoted woman who has a sick husband. You may say it is a minority and that anecdotes do not make cases, but these people do exist and an Act of Parliament has an effect on them.
We all want to help the truly poor and deprived. The point of my speech tonight is this. I believe that the result of the Bill will in time produce a rebellion by people who earn between £20,000 and £30,000. They will refuse to pay the higher national insurance contributions or any kind of insurance contributions. They will put enormous pressure on political parties and, since we all want votes, they will have an effect.
The Bill hits at the very roots of the welfare system. Our ability to help the poor—it is what Beveridge realised, what has been built on over the years, and what Frank Field has convinced me of—depends on the good will of the better-off to pay their national insurance. But the good will of the better-off depends on their getting some reward for their contributions. Certainly, those who are modest savers will be very angered by the Bill, which places them in a worse position than others.
It may take five years, it may take 10 years, but I prophesy that there will be pressure—pressure encouraged by some political parties—for people to contribute to private schemes rather than to national insurance and, in the end, to make the very poor depend on the taxation system. To some extent that is the situation in the United States and we are going the same way.
Of course we are all for reducing benefit fraud in order to save money. But, in the end, what we are all concerned about—and there is no political point in this, because for the last 60 years all parties have recognised the necessity for a welfare system—is to see that this system prevails. Frank Field is absolutely right. It can only prevail if there are benefits for all. If you want to alter it and get more money, then, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, there are many other ways of doing it. To proceed with this Bill will in the end produce a disaster which will be very destructive of our community.
1630
I hope that the Government will think again. Certainly, when any amendment is proposed, I will vote against the proposals regarding incapacity benefit and in relation to widows. I do that in the interests of the welfare system.
8.55 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the very detailed and comprehensive way in which she introduced what is a very difficult and quite complex Bill. There are many good things in it, as she and other noble Lords have emphasised. I am not, however, very comfortable with the underlying philosophy, which is very different from that of past Labour governments, as the Minister herself acknowledged.
Basically, what we have here is a continuation of the policy of public withdrawal in favour of private provision, markedly so in that part of the Bill dealing with pension provision. It is clear that the aim is to confine the role of the state as far as possible to the provision of minimum incomes to those for whom the private market cannot cater and those whose working lives have been interrupted by caring responsibilities or by long periods of incapacity. Incidentally, I welcome the new provisions in regard to carers. The Bill itself represents a radical departure from the concept of social insurance with which we have lived since Beveridge.
Dealing first with pensions, there is to be a minimum income guarantee. That is to be welcomed. On the other hand, it still falls short of what would have been available to pensioners had the basic pension link with the wages index not been broken by previous Tory governments. I gather that the single person pension would now have been around £90 compared with the MIG of £75. Moreover, this guarantee presumably involves means-testing, which would not have been the case had the basic pension been increased in line with the intentions of the last Labour government.
SERPS is to go, despite a manifesto commitment that it would remain. The reason given for its discontinuance is that, being earnings-related, it does not help the least well-off. Had the plan originally introduced by my noble friend Lady Castle been maintained instead of being undermined by the previous government, that aim would have been achieved. Three key elements in the Castle plan have all gone: the commitment to pay pensions based on the best 20 years' earnings, so favourable to women; the original accrual rate; and the commitment to increase the basic pension in line with wages rather than prices.
As it is, we are to have a new state second pension. It seems that the Government intend this as some kind of transitional scheme until the stakeholder provision gets off the ground and everyone who can be catered for by it, or by personal or occupational schemes, is being provided for in that way. Then the SSP will simply exist as a flat rate top-up for very poor people in receipt of a basic state pension which will be drastically declining in value.
Those moderately remunerated on £9,000 to £20,000 a year will be expected to be covered by private provision of one sort or another.

1631
The stakeholder concept has been welcomed by sections of the financial services industry for obvious reasons, although many of them have said they believe that the second tier pension—the stakeholder pension, if that is what it is—should be compulsory. Clearly, the Government intend that safeguards should be built in which did not exist with personal pensions and which were such a disaster. The expenses incurred in administration are expected to be lower than for personal pensions. The products will have to be simple and easily understood. Standards will apply, which it is felt will reduce the need for expensive advice, although I have some doubts about that.
Trade unions and other representative bodies will be able to act as providers and must be given access to workforces by employers. But there will be no obligation upon employers to pay into such schemes on behalf of employees. Further, it is doubtful whether individual employees will have the remotest idea of the amount they will have to put away if they are to provide adequately for themselves, without any employer contribution.
The latter leads to another concern. It is clear that we are in for a period of low interest rates. Pressure is now on in the UK for them to come down even further. They are still much higher here than in the rest of the EU. That may he fine for manufacturing industry, and one hopes that it will check the growth in unemployment. But it is no good for savers. All those people with money-purchase schemes are likely to find that the return they expected on their investment may not materialise. The Government want people to save, and, of course, putting money aside for a pension is a major form of saving, perhaps the biggest investment most people will make apart from taking out a mortgage to pay for a house. The argument that low inflation will protect savings may not appeal greatly to older people who look to savings to provide a small additional income. Moreover, it has been estimated that in order to secure a very modest pension of about £10,000 a year, a young person taking out a pension contract would need to be thinking in terms of an ultimate nest-egg of around £200,000, which is an incredibly high sum for most people.
Therefore, there seems no doubt that the best route for most people aiming for security in old age is to seek a job carrying a final salary pension. In that way, the employer bears the risk and the employee has some idea of what his or her eventual entitlement will be. For people not fortunate enough to belong to such a scheme, what is on offer does not seem to me to be as good a deal as the former SERPS. This did not have problems in regard to transferability and provided defined benefits.
I am glad to learn that the Government support occupational pensions. I hope that they will continue to urge employers to set them up where they do not already exist. They have played a major role in the past 20 years, as many noble Lords said, in ensuring that a whole generation of pensioners is a great deal better off than its predecessors. I note that the Government propose that stakeholder schemes should be established under trust
1632
law. Clearly, the intention is to ensure a greater degree of security and, presumably, to involve lay member trustees in scheme governance. That I welcome, but more will need to be done to ensure that trustees are well versed in the requirements of such responsibilities so as to ensure that the rights and interests of scheme members are adequately protected.
Much more could be said about the pensions aspects of this important Bill, but no doubt further opportunities will arise when we reach the Committee stage. I am sure that a great deal more needs to be explored before the Bill leaves this House. In the time available to me this evening, there is just one other aspect of the Bill to which I should like to refer. Much could be said about the provisions with regard to disability. Many of my noble friends who have spoken know more than I do about that aspect. Indeed, I believe that it has been very adequately dealt with in previous debates.
My noble friend the Minister will not be surprised to learn that I want to talk about bereavement benefits. As she knows, I am a trustee of the Widows' Advisory Trust. I welcome the proposal that both widows and widowers will be entitled to a tax-free lump sum bereavement payment of £2,000. Of course, it has been frozen since 1988 at £1,000, so the increase is above the inflation rate for that period. It will make a significant contribution to meeting the expenses faced by bereaved people at a time when they are least able to take financial pressures. I also welcome the fact that widowers will benefit for the first time.
However, I am less happy about other proposals. I am glad that the Government have said that those currently receiving widow's benefits will continue to do so. But this will not apply to future widows or widowers. At present, the most important benefit in this category is the widow's benefit, with more than four times as many claimants as for the widowed mother's allowance. Essentially, the widow's benefit will be abolished. Widows or widowers over 45 years of age with no children will instead receive a weekly age-related benefit (with no SERPS component) for six months only. This represents a transfer of benefit support from women to men. Childless men will gain, but childless women will lose. Widows with children whose widowed mother's allowance ceases after they are 45 will lose up to 19½ years' benefit and all the additional pension their husbands paid for through national insurance contributions.
A widow whose children are no longer in education may find it difficult to rejoin the labour market, as other noble Lords have said, after perhaps 20 years spent looking after a family. She will have to sign on for jobseeker's allowance at an age when other women are preparing for retirement. I am particularly concerned about the loss of SERPS rights. The husbands of these widows will have been paying their national insurance contributions to build up entitlement to a benefit which is to be abolished.
It has been said that the benefit is outdated and that most women now work or else benefit from their late husband's occupational benefit scheme. But, as many speakers have said, this is abolition of a contributory

1633
benefit. I find that unacceptable; it is a breach of a contract. Moreover, most occupational schemes—unless they are expensive ones of the so-called "top-hat" variety—are based on the assumption that there will be some addition of state benefit. This is true of survivors' benefits in most occupational schemes.
I sometimes think that there is a possibility that those who draft policies believe that things have changed rather more than they have. The type of work available to a woman who has spent much of her time bringing up a family is not likely to be very remunerative, even supposing that jobs are available in her locality. The abolition of this benefit is likely to benefit the Treasury to the extent of £600 million a year. I really do not think that that is fair. I hope to return to this subject when the Bill is in Committee. In the meantime, I once again thank my noble friend the Minister for the way in which she presented this complex and, I think, really rather controversial Bill.
9.7 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I shall be brief, having omitted to put my name down to speak in this debate. I apologise to the House that I was not able to be present for the first two speeches.
It is not appropriate, speaking in "the gap", to launch into great detail about what I want to say. In any case I have described the Resource Economics UNITAX approach to reform of the tax and benefit system in previous contributions in your Lordships' House and the Minister has had the opportunity to study the relevant papers. The problem I always have in mentioning this is that it is a cross-departmental idea and therefore each department can only really consider a part of it.
There are two aspects of this proposal, however, that have a bearing on what this Bill could have been. First—I have referred to this previously—the total government spend on benefit is much higher than it should he because of the job shedding effects of value added tax. I know that this is a Treasury matter but I think that it is still worth saying in a social security debate. This is indicated by mathematical proof and starkly demonstrated by statistics from Eurostat. Unemployment in European Union countries soared from the day they adopted VAT, in contrast to Japan and the United States which did not.
Secondly, there is an issue with which this Government, or some future government, will have to grapple; and that is the matter of whether individuals are looked upon as individuals or as part of a couple. This was highlighted in an interesting debate between my noble friend Lord Russell and Frank Field at a Centre for Reform seminar a few months ago. Mr Field described how the cohabitation rule was honoured more in the breach than in the observance. The basic income element of the resource economics proposition would treat each individual person as an individual so that a couple who were, say, not married but considering living together because they had a child would be able to aggregate their basic income—which we calculate is around £117 a week on present calculations—rather than, as at present happens, being forced to live a kind
1634
of hole-in-the-corner existence dodging the social security inspectors. This would give the couple a greater chance of "making it" as a couple and a family. The cohabitation law should he looked at.
Can the Minister tell me under which aspect of the benefit system parents may receive £35 a week if their children are diagnosed as having what I and many others consider to be the spurious condition of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder? I see two problems with this arrangement. First, it invites parents to have their children labelled in order to obtain w hat is a considerable extra payment for poor families. Secondly, it enrols the drug companies that supply the Ritalin which inevitably follows the labelling as co-conspirators in this further drain on the social security budget.
9.11 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said in opening his speech; namely, that this Bill comprises more than one Bill. My noble friend Lord Russell and I have divided our responsibilities. My noble friend spoke mainly to one of those Bills, the welfare reform Bill—or perhaps in view of many of the speeches we have heard today it would be better to describe it as the welfare reduction Bill, at least as regards Chapter I of Part V. That is the shortest but most important part of the Bill and it is certainly the most controversial part of the entire Bill.
I shall speak mainly to what I might call the pensions Bill—that is, Parts Ito IV and Chapter II of Part V. In terms of quantity of legislation that is, of course, much the greater part of the Bill, but it is less controversial arid indeed we are happy to give it a considerable measure of support. However, there are many issues in the pensions Bill which need to be probed and some of the provisions will need to be challenged.
I start with Part I and stakeholder pensions. This is something to which we give strong support in principle. It will provide access to effective, low-cost pension schemes for employees who are on broadly average incomes or somewhat lower. I am not minded to accept that a 1 per cent charge for costs is inadequate. I believe that excessively high costs are incurred by many pension funds at present because of the amount that is spent on advertising and marketing. One potentially good result of stakeholder pensions which has been forecast in some newspaper reports is that they may bring down the charges of some non-stakeholder pension funds.
There is, we believe, certainly a need for stakeholder pensions, and the main problem with Part I is not what is in that part but what is not. Stakeholder pensions were originally visualised as part of a wider reform of the pension system, involving a state second-tier pension, replacing SERPS, together with stakeholder pensions as an alternative to the second-tier pension targeted on those earning rather more than £9,000 up to about £20,000.
The Government now say that, subject to the availability of parliamentary time, they will legislate for this in the future. I am afraid I find this depressing. The trouble with the Bill is that it therefore leaves the reform at the halfway stage. It leaves SERPS to continue for

1635
the indefinite future and provides stakeholder pensions as no more than voluntary alternatives to personal pensions. It does not provide for the second-tier state pension.
It therefore does not achieve the result, for example, of providing carers with adequate pensions—a proposal which was warmly and rightly but prematurely welcomed by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. I wonder therefore whether the Minister can give us any indication of the firmness of the Government's intention to proceed to introduce the second tier state pension together with a possible date for that introduction.
However, that is not the end of it, because we Liberal Democrats have long argued for a system which combined a basic state pension with a compulsorily funded second-tier pension. In fact there was a problem with that idea in its simplest form, which was that low earners have little to gain from a funded pension because it would not take them very much above the income support level or, as it now is, the minimum pensions guarantee.
The second-tier state pension is in fact an ingenious and effective way of getting round that particular problem, and so we are very happy with the idea of a basic and a second-tier state pension, with stakeholder pensions for earners in, say, the £10,000 to £20,000 bracket in place of a second-tier pension. The stakeholder pension in our view, to be effective, must be compulsory both for employees and employers. Without compulsion, stakeholder pensions will simply not be adequate. At present employers are required to pay only 3 per cent of earnings towards SERPS or contracted-out personal pensions, and employees pay only 1.6 per cent.
This is inadequate to build up a proper personal pension for those who choose them. Aggregate contributions may be built up over time—we are not suggesting that it should be done all at once—to at least 10 per cent of wages up to the upper earnings limit, to be provided by both employer and employee. I would add that compulsory stakeholder pensions would also deal with the problem of closure of small schemes, which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, and which is, I believe, a potential problem.
The noble Baroness asks "why?". It is because the idea is at present that the small companies would often see the stakeholder pension as a way of getting out of the provision of pension schemes at effectively a reduced cost to themselves. We would therefore like to see stage two of the reform contain not only a second-tier state pension but compulsory membership for stakeholder or other approved pension schemes for those earning more than, say, £12,000 or something significantly above the £9,000 level, with a requirement of adequate contributions from both employers and employees.
Meanwhile, with the proposals as they stand in the Bill the National Association of Pension Funds has raised a number of issues, mostly of a probing kind rather than objections. I certainly hope to take these up during the later stages of this Bill. In particular I would
1636
want to look at issues such as whether stakeholder pensions could also provide personal pensions so that someone whose contributions are rising above the stakeholder limit does not have to transfer to a different scheme. Again I think we should look at the question of dual membership, as the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, suggested.
So far as it goes then, I believe that Part I of the Bill is broadly satisfactory but must be regarded as being only stage one of the reforms which are needed to ensure proper pensions for those in the vital target area of earnings between £9,000 and the upper earnings limit.
Part II of the Bill on bankruptcy is pretty technical and fairly straightforward, although some of the details may need to be looked at in more detail at Committee stage. Turning to Parts III and IV, pension sharing on divorce is plainly an idea whose time has come. It has been discussed for many years. The earmarking of pensions is plainly an inadequate alternative and we therefore strongly welcome the introduction of pension sharing.
Again there are some aspects which will have to be looked at in more detail, in particular the proposal that pension sharing should only apply to divorce proceedings commenced after the Act came into force. I think this will create problems. It may lead to wives—and I presume it is mostly wives who will be seeking pension sharing—deferring divorce actions until after this part comes into force, which is something that does not appear to me to be in the public interest. It might also lead to husbands bringing petitions of their own before this part comes into force in order to forestall their wives' rights to claim a share of the pension.
The alternative may be to defer financial arrangements beyond the date when they would normally be decided or agreed and to allow them to be dealt with in cases where the divorce petition is launched before the Act comes into force. I recognise that a long period of deferment is also unsatisfactory. In order to avoid a complete blockage of divorce proceedings, should not the pension-sharing powers apply at least to divorce proceedings commenced after the Bill has received the Royal Assent even though it is not yet in force?
That is a fairly limited point and there may be a number of other points that we will need to look at in more detail; some are certainly discussed in the Select Committee's report. I envisage that we will have a significant debate on the pension-sharing arrangements. However, that does not prevent us from regarding them as absolutely right in principle. We will give the Government every assistance to ensure that they pass through the various stages in the best form that can be achieved.
Perhaps I may now move on to Chapter II of Part V and, in particular, to Clause 70. The Government will be aware by now that that is a highly controversial provision. It requires that those whose services are provided by contract with their employers are for tax purposes to be treated as employees of those for whom the services are provided. I have already received many representations on this subject; no doubt the Government have received many more.

1637
I recognise that there is a tax abuse which needs to be stopped. A one-man company, where a shareholder simply hires out his or her own services and takes payment by way of dividend from the company rather than by way of salary is undoubtedly serious tax avoidance. It needs to be blocked. However, there are a considerable number of bona fide operations that should not he caught and which, if the regulations do not take the correct form, could be caught by Clause 70. That is especially true in the information technology world where contracting arrangements are very widespread.
In the representations I have received, some of the arguments put forward against Clause 70 are undoubtedly self-serving and should be rejected. However, that is by no means true of all of them. I will not go into the reasons, but this clause did not get anything like adequate debate in the other place, where it was introduced at a very late stage. We need to look at it extremely carefully in your Lordships' House to ensure that Clause 70 does not have potentially unfair and damaging effects. In particular, we shall need something in the nature of a specific purpose clause which will exclude cases where tax and contribution avoidance are not a purpose of the arrangements.
In winding up for these Benches, I cannot ignore the welfare reform part of the Bill, even if I have concentrated mainly on pensions. There are indeed many aspects which raise concern and we have heard many eloquent speeches about them from all sides of the House. The question of the widow's pension causes concern, as to some extent does the single gateway. But I refer above all to the changes in incapacity benefit in Clauses 57 and 58.
There may be a case for saying that incapacity benefit should depend on a contributions record that indicates a commitment to work on the part of the contributor. But I simply cannot imagine how anyone could have come up with a set of rules that ignores 30 years of unbroken contributions and takes into account only the contributions record in the last two years. How does that deal with the problem of the miners or shipbuilders whose jobs have simply disappeared and who live in communities where work is simply not available for untrained 50 year-old men? How do those rules deal with people who find it difficult to get work at a late stage because of a slow deterioration in their condition which has not yet been diagnosed but is sufficiently serious to damage their capacity to work to the satisfaction of their employers?
Turning to Clause 58, I can see, although I do not agree with it, an intellectual case for saying that incapacity benefit should be converted into a means-tested benefit. But the Bill does not make incapacity benefit a fully means-tested benefit. It simply sets off incapacity benefit against one type of income, and one only; that is income from pensions or disability insurance. Why should someone who has taken out an insurance policy to pay mortgage instalments on his or her house and to provide for the security of a young family lose the right to incapacity benefit when, if the same person had been fortunate enough to have inherited wealth, he or she would receive incapacity benefit in full? I ask the Government to listen to the
1638
arguments that have been so powerfully expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Ashley, Lord Rix, and many others, and to drop Clauses 57 and 58 from the Bill. If that is not done, when the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, moves his amendments we on these Benches will give them our unconditional support.
9.27 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as an unpaid director of the Officer's Pension Society Investment Company. I also have a daughter who is autistic and dispraxic, and who therefore needs full-time care. In declaring that interest, I feel that I have hands-on knowledge of the frustrations experienced by the parents of disabled children.
This has been a full and thorough debate. I agree with my noble friend Lady Fookes that it has been an honour to take part with so many distinguished speakers. I also echo the admiration expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, for the Minister's presentation skills at the Dispatch Box. I thought that the noble Baroness's own presentation skills were also pretty good. I was particularly interested in her comments on means-testing.
I feel a certain sympathy for the noble Baroness the Minister, who has had to listen to some critical and very effective speeches from her own Benches. I suspect that her natural inclinations are to sympathise with such principled views, which show great concern for the less fortunate in society, and in particular the disabled.
I remember the noble Baroness's powerful speech on the amendment introduced by my noble friend Lord Swinfen to the Disability Discrimination Bill in 1995. It is worth pointing out, in the light of the problems that she may experience at later stages of the Bill that her primary tactic on that amendment was to encourage my noble friends to take a principled stand on the issue and vote against their own side. After much personal lobbying, the noble Baroness even persuaded me to vote with her.
The Government's approach to the Bill is clearly dictated by a need for sound bites rather than a desire for genuine reform. It is clear that behind slick presentation and loud fanfare, there is considerable panic and confusion in the Government about how to deliver on their promises. The Bill is a further example of confused thinking. My noble friend Lord Blackwell pointed out that the Government have no clear strategy.
Employers have voiced strong opposition to the proposals that will require those firms without occupational schemes to nominate a stakeholder pension. My noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire touched on the point. Many employers without schemes lack the resources and experience to judge which one is most likely to be in the best interests of their employees. A small manufacturing company making, for example, bin liners, will hardly be expert in the field of pensions. After all, actuaries get paid large sums of money for pension scheme selection precisely because the area requires such expert advice. Furthermore, small businesses will have to take regular financial advice to ensure that a nominated scheme continues to buy good value. It is yet another example of costs that this Government are forcing onto small businesses.

1639
If employers have to select a scheme, their employees will inevitably associate them with the nominated scheme and look to them if things go wrong. The problems around personal pensions have made employers particularly sensitive to the dangers inherent in recommending a particular product. The Government have not thought this through.
My noble friends Lord Buckinghamshire and Lord Freeman raised the issue of concurrent membership of a stakeholder and occupational pension scheme. I agree that, if a future mis-buying or mis-selling scandal is to be avoided, it is essential that membership of a stakeholder pension scheme should not preclude concurrent membership of an occupational one in relation to the same period of employment. I strongly urge the Government to reconsider the issue.
I turn now to pension sharing. The Opposition welcome the relaxation announced during the Committee stage in the other place to allow scheme members who, at the time of their divorce, earn less than a quarter of the earnings cap to rebuild pension rights lost as a result of a pension-sharing order. However, we are concerned that in practice this relaxation will be of little real value. Those individuals who are entitled to will often not be able to afford to do so; and those who can afford to do so will not be allowed to. We urge the Government to extend this relaxation to all individuals who become subject to a pension-sharing order following a divorce.
We are concerned that the proposed arrangements will mean that the beneficiaries under a pension-sharing order will be able to take their share of the pension and add as much as they want up to Inland Revenue approved limits. The scheme member, conversely, will be constrained and unable further to build up his pension. Does the Minister agree that this doubly penalises the divorcing scheme member who has built up the pension fund?
The Government have stated that they expect that pension-sharing will be optional and not used in all cases. Is it not likely that that is precisely what will happen, since pensions are often the most significant element of financial planning that a working spouse makes? I should be grateful if the Minister will indicate whether the Government have any estimated figures as to the proportion of divorce cases in which they expect a pension-sharing order to be made. The noble Baroness states that it is 50,000.
I turn now to the aspect of this supposedly "fair and reasonable" Bill which attacks widows' benefits. There is no widespread suggestion that widows are cheating the state. Yet instead of the current guaranteed widow's pension, bereaved spouses will henceforth receive benefit for only six months, after which they will be expected to get a job. My noble friend Lady Anelay hit the nail on the head when she said that the Government had managed to attack vulnerable people, the contributory principle and the institution of marriage in one fell swoop.
1640
Several noble Lords have referred to the restrictions on entitlement to incapacity benefit. They include the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who has devoted himself to helping the disabled, and the noble Lord, Lord Morris, the guru of the noble Earl, Lord Longford. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, made some very powerful points—as one would expect from the first Minister for the Disabled and someone who has had such an outstanding record of service to disabled people—as did the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, who said that these measures defied understanding, logic and morality. His words carry especial authority, not least because he is chairman of the All-Party Disablement Group which he set up with a Tory MP, my uncle, the then Member for Newbury.
The Government have made mention of their manifesto over and over again when debating House of Lords reform. I have searched high and low through their manifesto without success to find anything on proposed cuts in incapacity benefit. I was intrigued to note that Tom Clarke, the shadow Minister for disabled people's rights in the previous Parliament—with whom the noble Baroness worked so closely in opposition—voted for Amendment No. 12 at Report stage in the other place. I shall not tonight ask the Minister whether she agrees with her colleague who said that the Government's policy was logically flawed and morally without justification.
The Government's proposals penalise those disabled people who have attempted to save for their retirement. The Government claim to encourage people to save and yet in practice they penalise those who do so. Those with degenerative diseases will be particularly discouraged from working. Disabled people make a valuable contribution to our society and these changes are a huge step in the wrong direction.
My noble friend Lady Anelay referred to the Disability Benefits Forum set up by the Government to give the disabled a pivotal role in shaping policy and to ensure a proper dialogue between the Government and disability organisations. What was the result of that dialogue? As my noble friend Lord Campbell said, 12 charities resigned from the forum, claiming that consultation was a sham and that the Government had no intention of listening to them. My noble friend Lord Pilkington referred to Frank Field. The Government's commitment to welfare reform really died the moment that Mr Field was forced from government last July. I am sure that this Bill would be very different if he were still a Minister.
My noble friend Lord Higgins and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred to the Government's new Clauses 70 and 71. These target what the Chancellor sees as tax avoidance by one-man limited consultancies and have alarmed business lobby groups, accountants and professional bodies alike. Accountants know their business. They see the rules as little more than tax increases by stealth. This is all the greater since it appears that this legislation will apply far beyond the area in which the Inland Revenue perceives abuse, to the point where it will adversely affect many small companies engaged in the knowledge-based industries. Because of skill shortages in this area, it is likely that any increased tax or national insurance burden on such

1641
companies will be passed on to their clients. Therefore, the proposed legislation could produce severe price increases.
Alternatively, it may lead to many of the people who work for these companies going abroad to countries offering tax incentives, especially in computing, with a subsequent brain drain in the United Kingdom economy. The Institute of Chartered Accountants, in a scathing memorandum to the Inland Revenue, has attacked the proposals. It says that they would create a massive administrative burden, prevent small companies from growing and fail to generate the expected £450 million revenue.
The operation of the rules is extremely burdensome if not unworkable and indiscriminate in that they apply whether there is disguised employment or not. We have seen from the Tax Credits Bill that this Government, despite their claim of wanting to help small businesses, are intent on dumping on them more and more complicated rules, regulations and red tape.
I was particularly touched by the speech of my noble friend Lord Campbell. I have always admired him for the brave way he has withstood his long personal experience of disablement resulting from his war wounds. I agree with him entirely that the Government are proceeding the wrong way on this; Bill.
I opened my remarks with reference to the politics of principle. The Prime Minister himself has stated that,
"If this Government is to he judged by no other measure in its time in office, then it must he judged by its approach to welfare reform".
This Bill is far removed from the politics of principle and is more to do with the politics of deception. What has been introduced is not welfare reform; it is an attempt not to pay out, masquerading as reform, supported by new Labour's tales of mystery, imagination and spin. Many noble Lords on all sides of the House have raised powerful concerns on a number of key points related to the Bill. After it was debated in the other place, and when hostility was expressed by many of the Government's own Back Benchers, the Social Security Secretary was quoted as saying that constructive amendments by your Lordships' House would be considered. I therefore urge the Government most strongly to reconsider their approach to this Bill in the light of the many flaws that have been exposed. If they are serious about delivering on their manifesto commitment to reform the welfare state, they will have to do a great deal better than they have done so far.
9.42 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is wonderful to have some exercise! We have had a powerful and eloquent debate. We have also had a debate of almost six hours. To answer all the points would take almost as long, and I am sure that your Lordships would not wish for that. Therefore, with permission, I shall write to noble Lords. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to reply in writing in particular to some of the more detailed points on pensions, service contracts and so on. I hope that your
1642
Lordships will allow me to answer in writing not because I do not feel able to give an immediate response but simply because of the pressure of time tonight.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and many others complained that the Bill lacked principles. I shall return to that issue at the end of my speech. The noble Lord then went on to say that we had failed to cut the budget. I was not sure whether he was arguing that we should spend more or less, but on both counts he did his best to damn us and said that we had failed to cut the budget. What we have said, which remains the case, is that we have cut the rate of growth to half that which was anticipated by the previous government, given the natural demographic trends of more elderly people living longer. The growth during the previous Parliament was 4 per cent and we have cut that to 2 per cent. We have been able to do so by cutting expenditure on economic failure—that is on unemployment—by encouraging more people into work with the New Deal and, in time, the working families' tax credit. At the same time it allows us to increase our costs on disabled people and pensioners and, of course, to invest £40 million in health and education. My noble friend Lord Morris said that the government social security bill and budget was manageable. He was right, if you compare it with other countries, primarily because at least half of the social security budget goes on benefits to those over 65 and, of course, that responsibility—I do not call it a burden—is properly shared in this country with private providers in a way that is not clone in Europe.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, then went on to say that we were undermining the contributory principle. I have to say that I thought that was a bit rich from a government that could cut contributory unemployment benefit, and various other contributory benefits, down to six months. But, as he will no doubt tell us, the job of opposition is to oppose and to hell with consistency. Throughout this, we have been trying to retain a link with the principle of contribution—
Lord Higgins: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will allow me, as I pointed out, it is being cut from both ends. Not only are people not getting benefits to which they have contributed but also, under some clauses of the Bill, people will now be getting benefits who have not contributed when there were previous contributed benefits.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord is therefore saying that he regrets the fact that people who are currently on SDA will in future be entitled to IB—the sort of constituency that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, represents. They are the people who are currently not on a contributory benefit, who will in future be entitled to IB. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has just been deploring that. That is what he said; that is what he means. I am sorry, my Lords, that is the group of people which will in the future enjoy a benefit equivalent to contributions, though they have not paid them, namely those who have, for example, severe learning difficulties and have therefore not been able to store up contributory benefits by virtue of being in work.

1643
The other group will be carers. If the noble Lord wishes to say that carers, too, should not have an entitlement to things like a state second pension or continuing entitlement to IB, he should take this opportunity to tell the House that he objects to our proposals to help severely disabled young people and carers. They are the two areas into which we are extending benefits that were formerly contribution based. I am sorry that he regrets both of those developments.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the noble Baroness has totally misinterpreted what I said. I was referring to the clauses relating to national insurance contributions and so on. But we can go into this at Committee stage.
A noble Lord: Playing both ends against the middle?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, so am I; precisely that. As I have said, it is not true that we are reducing the contributory principle or indeed that we are increasing means testing. It is certainly true that means testing increased under his government. Something like 16 per cent of social security expenditure was means tested back in 1979. When his government left office, it had risen to 34 per cent of the total social security budget. We expect that 34 per cent of the budget to be reduced to something like 32 per cent by 2002. His government were responsible for doubling the proportion that was means tested. Under this Government, that proportion has been reduced primarily because non-contributory, non-means-tested benefits, such as DLA, have grown in demand even though we have not done as we would have wished and been able to encourage all those entitled to it to claim it.
Nor do I like the kind of language which talks about increasing dependency. Traditionally, the dependents on the social security system were women. We are encouraging women to acquire their own entitlement through their own rather than their husbands' rights. The fact that three-quarters of all women are now in work and that the vast majority of them build up an entitlement because they are above the LEL means that those women will be able to enjoy benefits in their own right. They were traditionally the groups that we talked about in terms of benefit dependency.
Moving on to some of the detailed points raised on individual aspects of the Bill, the first set of contributions was about the issue of the single work focus gateway. I was delighted to hear my noble friend Lady Crawley welcome these proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, as I would have expected, asked me a series of very detailed questions as to how they would work. He had misgivings, firstly, about exemptions from the requirement for interview. We are not introducing category exemptions. We are responding to people individually. What clearly matters is that all people, including those who may never work, should still have access to information about the benefits and support services to which they are entitled. If they cannot come into the office, we will visit them in their homes to ensure that they get the information to which they as individuals are entitled relating to their understanding of
1644
the benefits system and the opportunities available to them. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, also asked about travel requirements. If people have transport difficulties, we will contact them in their homes. We are also exploring in some locations a mobile phone service and telephone linkages. We want to be imaginative and I hope that your Lordships will help us to develop that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, asked us whether, in terms of the interviews, people would be free to bring in an advocate. Yes, they will be. I had not considered the question of the travel costs of the advocate, but we will have a look at it and see what we think should be done about it. The noble Lord also asked about what would happen to those who are mentally ill. We recognise that for some people with mental illness it would be appropriate to waive or defer the requirement for an interview, but for others, even those with mental illness, it may be right to try to help them, possibly with the attendance of a friend, a family member or an advocate, to sort out the benefits that they are entitled to and ensure that their welfare needs are properly identified. We see this as an opportunity for help and not for harassment.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked what we could do to help people who are illiterate—not just people suffering from dyslexia but who are illiterate. If a person fails to attend for an interview because he does not understand the requirement—for example, on grounds of illiteracy—that would almost certainly constitute good cause and therefore questions of censure would not arise. Equally, we have made a commitment that where any such issues do arise, if we cannot make telephone contact with people who should be responding to us, we will go for home visits to try to make sure that we have not lost someone through the system—whether it be a woman who has left home in fear of violence, or someone who belongs to an ethnic community and is reluctant to come into a benefits office, or someone suffering from mental illness. We would seek to visit them, if appropriate, rather than expect them to visit us. We want this to be helpful.
Perhaps I may move on to the issues raised on pensions. Several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked whether the 1 per cent charges would be too low to offer advice. I was glad to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. It is clearly in the interests of the organisations to try to push that up on stakeholder pensions but many schemes can be provided with 1 per cent advice. We think that it will be a challenging but realistic target. We want information to be circulated to people. We are working with the Financial Services Authority to do so. We believe that a 1 per cent figure is realistic and challenging and will be our best way of ensuring good value.
I was asked whether stakeholder pensions will come under trustee law. Yes, but we are willing to look at other forms of governance provided that they offer similar or equal protection to that of trustee law. We will continue to discuss this issue with the organisations.

1645
The noble Lords, Lord Freeman and Lord Goodhart, asked whether it would be possible to run stakeholder pensions with other pensions. We are consulting on that and we are reflecting in the light of the responses to the Green Paper. The question is obviously tax treatment. It is a matter for quite complicated discussion with the Inland Revenue as well. But it is being reflected upon. The Government have not closed their mind to it.
I am not quite sure why, the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, thought that employers would close occupational pensions, unless it was for the reason advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that stakeholder pensions would now be so much more attractive that they would not bother. The employers I have met and talked to regard good occupational pensions as a way of attracting and keeping good quality staff. I am confident that they will continue to do so. I certainly do not expect them to close down a scheme on the grounds of stakeholder costs, because no costs are involved for the employer. It will be run not by the employer but by the trustees and appropriate organisations.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked about compulsion. There is already considerable compulsion within the second tier system. One either has to have NICs rebated into a scheme or be in SERPS. Our difficulty is that those who do not pay tend to be those who for the most part cannot afford to pay, with the possible exception of the self-employed who tend to regard their business as their pension. So we are hoping that the attractiveness of the stakeholder pension will induce people to come within that scheme, particularly the self-employed. But it is precisely because those who are low paid cannot afford to pay to produce the kind of pot to which my noble friend Lady Turner referred that we will also be developing state second pensions.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. Is it not the case that one of the big advantages of having compulsion would be that it would he possible to require employers to make a proper contribution towards the stakeholder pension and not merely the 3 per cent that they would have to pay on the present system?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I suspect that is one of the reasons why many organisations are opposed to compulsion. However, it is certainly something that we have been considering. That is still an open question, particularly when it comes to some of the more detailed regulations. At the moment the consensus is that those with over £20,000 can look after themselves; those with between £9,000 and £20,000 will he offered the alternative to the SERPS scheme that currently exists; and we shall have to help those with below £9,000 through to a state second pension. That is the way in which our strategy is developing.
The noble Lord, Lord Blackwell praised the Tory basic pension plus. Rather like the privatisation of British Rail, it was a scheme which, as far as I can recall, sought to throw an awful lot of taxpayers' and Exchequer money at a scheme that was essentially a privatised pension to no great advantage to its recipients. Therefore, it is not one that I would want to recommend.
1646
The noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, made many detailed points about pensions. I shall write to him as many are highly technical points.
Given the time, I want to move on to the issue of pension sharing. The noble Baroness. Lady Fookes, asked me whether it will work. I am confident that it will. We have consulted widely, and I think for the first time ever we published a draft Bill as the basis for that consultation, so we have the breadth of experience of consultation and the support of the industry. I am sure that there will be some teething problems that we have not anticipated, but we have put a huge amount of work into the consultation because we realise that we are breaking new ground.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked whether we could arrange for such a provision to be retrospective. I believe that there are problems. His solution is an ingenious one and we shall have a look at it. However, I have to say that the broad position of the Government is that legislation should not be retrospective. Incidentally, that was the mistake made by the Child Support Agency. I think it unlikely that we shall be able to pursue his position, but we shall certainly have a look at it.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am sorry to rise again, but is it not the position that this legislation will, in a sense, inevitably be retrospective because you are enabling pensions to be split which were bought at a time when pension sharing was not possible'? To that extent it will be retrospective. Compared to that, my suggestion seems to involve a small degree of retrospectivity.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I think that is a bit of sophistry. Any change changes what currently exists. Therefore, to that extent it is retrospective in the sense that anything that exists was what you entered into. I am not sure that the noble Lord's argument is a valid one.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, pressed me on the point about rebuilding. I take the point that he makes, that there is a concern that people, particularly men who divorce later on, should be able to rebuild their pensions and that the Government should encourage that. However, I would ask him to remember that most people have huge headroom in their pensions. My understanding is that only 5 to 10 per cent of people in both occupational and personal pensions contribute to the maximum. In other words, 90 per cent plus do not and, therefore, there is headroom.
Secondly, the average age of divorce is in the early 30s and, therefore, there is likely to be adequate time—I am not saying ample time—to rebuild the pension, given the amount of headroom, providing someone's income permits. The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, pressed me on Army spouses and their eligibility for pensions. We are hoping that the civilian wives of servicemen who have held jobs in the United Kingdom, who have perhaps gone to Germany, and who have contributed to a stakeholder pension, will be able to benefit from the five-year rule that allows them not to contribute during those five years, or to contribute if

1647
they wish during those five years, and to keep their pension going. We think that that should be particularly attractive to service families.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will the noble Baroness allow me to intervene?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am in your Lordships' hands. I have a huge amount to get through.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I wanted to say that some servicemen who are married are in Germany for longer than five years. It is unusual, but it does happen and it is a point that needs to be taken on board.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I take that point. I was trying to show that here uniquely we have a pension which will allow people to continue to pay over five years, possibly with the help of a partner, even though they are not in work. That might be particularly useful for service families. It does not exist in other forms of pension provision.
My noble friends Lady Castle and Lady Turner commented on the implications of the state second pension and the stakeholder pension replacing SERPS. Both my noble friends made the point, and I entirely agree with them, that the previous administration did a hatchet job on SERPS, both in 1986 when they went from the best 20 years to whole life; and then again in 1995 when we had the equalisation of state pension age for women, the 20 per cent rather than 25 per cent accrual rate and changing the accountancy rules which over time reduced the value of SERPS from £40 billion, first to £20 billion and then to £12 billion. To restore those cuts would produce expenditure of around £30 billion a year in 2050 and we do not now believe that to be the best way forward.
There was no manifesto commitment on SERPS; there was on citizenship pensions, which are now state second pensions. We are proposing, first, a SERPS without the earnings-related section. The state second pension is SERPS without ER. I hope that my noble friends welcome that because, unlike SERPS which gives more to those who earn most, the state second pension will ensure that anybody who earns between the lower earnings limit of £3,500 up to £9,000 will be credited with a pension as though they were earning £9,000. That will be a bigger redistribution of wealth to those, particularly women, particularly carers, including many disabled people, in their old age than anything so far conceived. It will be worth double what SERPS will be for those people on £6,000 to £9,000 a year, for example. That is far more generous than anything previously considered.
Unlike SERPS, the stakeholder pension is not in competition with occupational pensions; it is meant to be in competition with personal pensions, so we hope it will be safe under trustee governance, portable, flexible, inexpensive with the 1 per cent charges, but
1648
comprehensive in the sense that the self-employed will also be able to come in. We hope it will attract employer's contributions, but we believe it will offer for the first time a reliable, good, funded second pension.
I shall not go into some of the NICs points. If noble Lords will allow me, I will write. I want to go on to two other major areas before closing the debate. The first relates to widows and the last to disability. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that we were moving at breakneck speed. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked whether we were not being unfair to women who had been at home and had not worked and who were expected in their 40s and 50s to find a job. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, made a passionate speech on behalf of widows.
I simply ask whether it is right that a widow who is in no financial need because she has a generous occupational pension, is not unemployed because she is in a well-paid job, has no dependants because her children are grown up, should nonetheless receive a widow's pension until she retires even though she has no financial need and no dependants, whereas a man struggling to bring up young children and who may have to leave work receives no such benefit at all. I cannot believe that we should still perpetuate the myths of a woman's dependency and a man's independence.
Let me give your Lordships one statistic. I have talked about three-quarters of married women being in work. Most widows will be in work when they are widowed and will want to return to work as quickly as they can, obviously. But I remind your Lordships, if we look at the employment figure of widows compared to widowers, 53 per cent of widowers between 45 and retirement are in work; and 54 per cent of widows. We are talking about generations here. The generation of the widow who had stayed at home and never worked for money, that is—had brought up her children, had supported her husband, never went into the labour market, never earned an entitlement of her own for her own support, belongs to the generation of the 1970s or even of the 1950s. Now as many women are in work as men: as many widows are in work as widowers, and women have the right to be treated with the dignity of their own independence as they acquire those benefits.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, says that we have not had a satisfactory reply to the ECHR question. May I gently suggest that it is a reply that may not satisfy him but does satisfy me. It may be simply that he disagrees with the reply.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for allowing me to interrupt. It is merely that no legal argument has been placed in her answers to date. I would appreciate it if it were possible to have a legal opinion as to the question of the human rights in relation to SERPS and the contributory pensions.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I signed exactly that at the front of Section 19, and that could only be based on the best legal advice I had available to

1649
me within the department. I know that the noble Lord disagrees with our response but it was given to him on the basis of the legal advice I had. If he has other legal advice, I would he very happy to discuss it with him.
The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, raised the issue of war widows. They are not affected by this Bill. The issues she raised are a matter for the MoD, and they are conducting a review at the moment.
Finally, I turn to disability issues. I am sorry about the time but I have taken quite a lot of interventions and I have done my best to respond to them.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, this is a Second Reading on an important Bill and I am trying to be helpful to the House.
The points made on disability issues were, first, that the contributory principle was set in stone, even if only one contribution or six months'-worth of contributions had been made 20 or 30 years before. Almost like a down-payment, that entitled you to a national insurance benefit for the rest of your life. The second point made was that any calculation of any alternative income was inappropriate.
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley has said. TB has increased not because of fraud but because it was used by the previous administration for early retirement. It continues to be the case that nearly half of all people going on to incapacity benefit are not currently in work; they are currently unemployed.
I was pressed as to whether none the less the changes that we proposed were not undermining the basic contributory principle, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, said that if any private insurance company did this they would he in breach of contract. I do not know about her insurance company but over the years my insurance company has changed the rules about subsidence, about contact lenses, about my sons' bicycles when they lost them and, what is more, if in any one year I had failed to make the requisite payment for that insurance policy it would have been invalid and I would not have continued to have protection. It is perhaps worth recalling that, if we are speaking of a notion of insurance and a pay-as-you-go scheme, there exists a mutual responsibility.
We are not saying that anyone who fails to meet the contributory conditions should not have the appropriate benefits; what we are saying is that incapacity benefit is a benefit linked to recent work. If you have been unemployed for a long period of time, the appropriate benefit is likely to be income support with a disability premium. I remind your Lordships that income support with a disability premium is considerably more generous than incapacity benefit itself. No one is necessarily a loser by being on a different benefit but on the appropriate benefit.
The second point made was that it was unreasonable not to take into account pensions starting at £50 with a taper. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State
1650
has made it very clear that we are perfectly willing to consider discussing figures; that these were not set in stone and so on. However, if we take the example of a family with a disabled man who is on IB and who has a dependent wife and children, I should remind your Lordships that he would have to earn over £16,000—in other words, as my noble friend Lord Ashley said, above the average earnings of £15,000—before he lost all entitlement to that benefit. On top of that, he may well receive DLA, as we'll as having savings, given the level of occupational pension that he may have acquired during his work, which will remain unaffected.
My noble friend Lady Castle said that such a move was a disincentive to save. I disagree with her. I believe that people save for a pension not, I suggest, because they fear the risk of disability, but because they expect the certainty of many years of old age. That is why people save. I am sure that that will continue to be so and that people will continue to save to prepare for their old age.
I was asked about carers. Their position will indeed be protected as regards TB. I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the all-work test and its adequacy. I agree with him that scores do not reflect incapacity. Someone who is exempt and is registered blind may have more work capacity than someone with a relatively moderate mental health problem which none the less makes it very difficult for that person to hold down a job.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Morris. I am happy to reaffirm that within disability benefits we are not talking about fraud and we are not talking about abuse; but we are sometimes talking about people not being on the right levels of benefit.
There is one further point on SDA that I should like to deal with before I conclude the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that this affected women. That is true. However, as with our assumptions about widow's benefit, that comes from the view that women do not work and that women derive their protection only through their husbands or through an entitlement which has nothing to do with what they have earned. If a young girl, a woman or anyone becomes disabled before they are able to enter the world of work and they would normally have gone on to SDA, they will now go on to incapacity benefit, which is considerably more generous; indeed, some £25 to £30 more generous. If they are in work when they become disabled, they will be entitled to incapacity benefit. If they are of working age but not in work and become disabled while unemployed, they will be entitled to income support plus disability premium, which is £7 or £8 more generous than incapacity benefit.
I ask your Lordships: is it reasonable that, say. a woman—and that was the example given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell—who has not worked, who has family income that floats her off income-related benefits, who has not contributed and whose disability

1651
costs are not sufficient to generate DLA, should automatically receive SDA irrespective of her income? I do not think that that is right.
At the very beginning of today's debate I was asked what principles lay behind the Bill. We outlined those principles in both our Green Paper and our White Paper. I tried to suggest earlier that what we have sought to do in the Bill is address the ethics of Beveridge to today's society of changing work and changing families. I was asked by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bradford about those ethics, forged as they were in the years during the war; born perhaps out of a concept of Commonwealth, recognising the fact that people wanted the opportunities and self-esteem that come from being full members of a society, with a determination never to revisit the grim landscape of the 1930s.
Beveridge caught a public mood that my noble friend Lord Longford will recall. He caught a mood in which society was determined that its people would not be defeated by the giants which stalked the land: the giants of want, ignorance, idleness, squalor and disease. Beveridge sought to slay those giants: so do we. With idleness, or unemployment, we are seeking to bring people back into work through the New Deal and through the working families' tax credit. We are seeking to overcome ignorance, the second of Beveridge's giants, by investing in education at primary level by way of Sure Start and by widening the opportunities for higher education. We have a £40 billion investment in education, as we have in health, to tackle the third of Beveridge's giants, the giant of disease. As regards squalor, we are encouraging local authorities through our local authority legislation to develop leadership and entrepreneurship and to rebuild their communities.
The fifth and last of Beveridge's giants is the giant of want and of poverty for those who cannot work. I was asked what are the principles of Beveridge. The ethics of Beveridge are those that we are applying in this Bill. Those are the principles that lie behind our determination to reform the welfare state. However, Beveridge's means of tackling those giants, which was based on a contributory system, has broken down given family changes, labour changes, the changing position of women and the demography of our society. If we want to be true to the ethics of Beveridge, we must adapt and reshape the means by which we deliver the benefits, the security and the opportunities that Beveridge would want to see. That is what we propose to do in this Bill. I hope that your Lordships will accept it.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, continual reference has been made to the ethics of Beveridge. I worked with that famous man for three years. If my noble friend quotes Beveridge to that extent, I am at least able to ask her whether she is aware that Beveridge would have liked most of these provisions but not all of them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, having read the Beveridge Report, I agree with my noble friend.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Professions Supplementary to Medicine (Speech and Language Therapists Board) Order of Council 1999
Professions Supplementary to Medicine (Clinical Scientists Board) Order of Council 1999

Professions Supplementary to Medicine (Paramedics Board) Order of Council 1999
10.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman) rose to move, That the draft Orders of Council laid before the House on 18th May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the orders before the House tonight extend state registration to the three professions of speech and language therapists, clinical scientists and paramedics under the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960. We have carefully considered the case for each group on its merits. Their very diversity highlights the enormous range of skill and dedication deployed in the modern healthcare team.
Recently in your Lordships' House we have spent many hours debating the need to strengthen and modernise professional self-regulation. As for strengthening, I know that the three professions concerned, and the nine already state registered, are united in warmly supporting this proposal to widen the scope of regulation to include them. As regards modernising, they are all equally anxious to get on with updating the framework within which they work. For the future, the Government are committed to consulting on proposals to bring the existing legislation up to date and to reflect the enormous changes in healthcare provision, professional practice and education since it was first enacted. We believe that it is right to proceed with the measures before your Lordships not only because of the work that each of the professions has put into building a case for registration, but also because they and the public will then benefit at the outset from any revised statutory framework that Parliament may agree.
I turn to the three professions that we are considering tonight. Speech and language therapists work across the whole range of human communication disorder. However, the majority work with children. Communication problems may result from learning difficulties, stroke, head injury, cancer of the mouth and throat and degenerative disorders such as Parkinson's disease. Speech and language therapists enable clients to communicate to the best of their ability assessing the nature of the problem and providing treatment, advice and support sometimes through the use of sign language, communication aids

1653
or other methods of communication. They work closely with families, carers and members of other professions in a wide range of settings.
Clinical scientists apply scientific principles to the delivery and development of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and services. They develop equipment, participate in problem-oriented research and development and are involved in the audit of the services provided. They work closely with medical staff and with other healthcare professionals. Clinical scientists practise in one of several disciplines including audiology, biomedical engineering, clinical biochemistry, clinical physiology, clinical microbiology, embryology, genetics, haematology, immunology and medical physics, working in different ways depending on the specialty. Some clinical scientists interact directly with patients and others give advice on which critical decisions are based.
Lastly, paramedics: they provide immediate care to the public and patients with acute clinical emergencies. They assess, treat and monitor patients in a systematic way according to national clinical protocols adapted to the requirements of local communities. The treatments provided include invasive procedures such as intravenous cannulation, intubation and the insertion of chest drains and the administration of a specified range of emergency medications, including analgesics. Paramedics typically will be the first health professionals on hand in an emergency.
The broad effect of the orders before us is to extend the 1960 Act to these professions alongside the nine already covered. Those nine are chiropodists, dieticians, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, radiographers, medical laboratory technicians, orthopists, prosthetists and orthotists and arts therapists. Each order establishes a professional board within the umbrella of the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine, the CPSM.
Each board's function is to promote high standards of professional education and conduct within the framework of the CPSM whose duty is to co-ordinate and supervise the activities of all boards. Each board has a duty to prepare and maintain a register; approve institutions, courses of training and qualifications leading to state registration; determine applications for admission to the register on the basis of qualifications and experience obtained either in the UK or elsewhere; and set up investigating and disciplinary committees to produce guidance on conduct and to deal with individual cases of misconduct.
Once registered, practitioners will be entitled to call themselves "state registered speech and language therapists" or "state registered clinical scientists" or "state registered paramedics." The use of those titles by a person who is not registered will be an offence, as will the use of any title or description which falsely implies that he is registered under the 1960 Act.
The Act requires that the board should have a majority of members from the profession concerned. The boards will each have a total of 15 members appointed by the CPSM of whom eight will be nominated by the profession in the first instance and thereafter elected by registrants. The remaining members will include medical practitioners,
1654
educationalists, representatives with special interests in each profession and—a development which the Government strongly support—representatives of employers and of patients and carers.
If each measure is approved, the membership of the CPSM will also increase from 27 to 36 because the Act requires that all boards have a professional representative on the council and that the number of medical and professional members should be equal. The third, lay, member for each board preserves the balance of the representation between professional and medical and other members.
Statutory regulation is a privilege and should not be granted just because the profession concerned aspires to it. It should be justified because it provides safeguards for the public which would not otherwise be available. We are satisfied that unlicensed practice in any of these fields has the potential for harm to patients and that state registration provides better protection for patients and the general public.
There are currently some 7,500 speech and language therapists registered with the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. The training required is exacting and the normal route to qualification is a four-year honours degree course leading to a certificate to practise issued by the college. Speech and language therapists work with some of the most vulnerable members of the population; with children in pre-school settings, nurseries and community clinics and in mainstream and special schools, and with children who have communication problems which may be part of a physical, learning or emotional difficulty. Some of the children have autistic spectrum disorders, stammering or severe language disorders, which will make accessing the school curriculum very difficult.
Adults with learning difficulties may be seen in their own homes, while adults with neurological problems may be seen in an acute hospital setting. The most common danger to the public is the promise of easy cures or simplistic diagnosis, leading to psychological damage, financial loss and deterioration in the patient's condition. Patients and their carers need to know that a registered speech and language therapist will offer a service based on accredited training and professional guidelines and that any complaint will he appropriately dealt with.
There are an estimated 2,500 clinical scientists employed in the NHS in Great Britain, of whom 1,700 are voluntarily registered. All entrants to the basic training require a first degree in an approved science subject. On completion of a further vocational training, graduates are eligible to join the voluntary register held by the Registration Council for Scientists in Health Care following the satisfactory completion of designated vocational training.
Clinical scientists work across a broad range of patient groups, from before birth to extreme old age. Most clinical conditions directly or indirectly involve the services of clinical scientists who provide advice directly to doctors. They apply scientific principles to the delivery and development of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and services. It follows that

1655
clinical scientists have a great capacity to do harm if they lack or misapply the skills required of them. Protection of the public can be achieved only if high standards of education, training and conduct are applied to ensure that clinical scientists are competent to practise.
Perhaps I may now turn to paramedics. There are an estimated 9,000 qualified paramedics in the United Kingdom who provide an integral part of pre-hospital care. All entrants to training are required to complete a 400–600 hour course at ambulance service centres. The syllabus, qualifications and awards are overseen nationally by the Institute of Health and Care Development, which issues the paramedic certificate to those individuals who have demonstrated professional competence at the conclusion of the training programme. The profession promotes and manages effective and efficient ambulance services within the public sector and seeks to develop education and training for the highest standards of pre-hospital care.
Paramedics' practice routinely involves invasive or risky procedures. The capacity for harm by staff who are inadequately trained or experienced is considerable. They act on their own initiative, exercising their own judgment, often in an unsupervised capacity when delivering emergency patient care. They will only use standard and well-established clinical procedures.
Each of the three professions has consulted widely on the proposals now before the House. They have balloted their members, who have overwhelmingly supported them. These proposals are endorsed fully by the CPSM, which has secured the support of all nine of its existing boards; and the professions have also canvassed support from a wide range of other health professions.
The sole expressions of concern have been from the Institute of Biomedical Science and two non-NHS ambulance services. The IBMS supported state registration of clinical scientists but favoured a joint board for them and for the medical laboratory scientific officers who are already covered by the 1960 Act. Similarly, the ambulance services supported state registration of paramedics but wished to strengthen participation by non-NHS staff in areas such as access to and recognition of training.
We have considered all the representations very carefully, obviously including the concerns that have been expressed. As far as concerns the points made by the Institute of Biomedical Science around career and education pathways for biomedical and clinical scientists, we are anxious that the boards and the professions concerned should explore all possible avenues for closer working. I have asked the chairman of the CPSM, Professor Brian Edwards, to convene a meeting shortly of all the interested organisations to explore the scope for greater collaboration. I understand that particular options under consideration include such areas as a joint secretariat, exchanges of observers and members and a joint education forum. I hope that we can take these proposals forward in a way that will satisfy some of the concerns expressed.
We also believe that there is scope for further explanation and dialogue between all parts of the paramedic profession around such issues as participation by individual practitioners, access to initial training and updating and the treatment of qualifications and experiences obtained outside the NHS. Again, these are essentially matters for the profession itself to resolve. The concerns that have been expressed should not outweigh the clear benefits in terms of public protection that state registration will deliver. We believe it to be wrong that professions that have well-prepared cases which command wide support and are consistent with the Government's commitment to strengthening professional self-regulation should be delayed and that the public should lose the benefits of proceeding now.
The merits of state registration begin and end with the patient. State registration offers the public an objective assurance of the high standards of training, conduct and practice to be expected. It also offers incidental benefits, such as providing a benchmark for employers; assisting in workforce planning by keeping a continuous record of the pool of qualified staff; offering an opportunity to strengthen collaboration between the family of health professions; and providing a coherent mechanism for dealing with overseas qualified practitioners, including those from the European Economic Area, wishing to exercise their right to freedom of movement.
The Government are committed to promoting excellence in the NHS through the introduction of clinical governance and to ensuring the protection of patients and the public. More open and accountable systems of professional self-regulation have an integral part to play in this. We want to work with the professions to build on and strengthen them.
The CPSM has striven over the years to improve its accessibility and is currently responsible for a total of some 103,000 registered practitioners. Adding these professions will further increase the number of registrants and provide an opportunity for the CPSM to play a leading role in strengthening public protection. These measures, if approved, will provide a scheme of self-regulation at arm's length from government and funded by the practitioners themselves.
The Government are satisfied that speech and language therapists, clinical scientists and paramedics have sufficiently developed standards, identities and purpose to join the family of mature professions already regulated by the CPSM. Therefore, I commend to the House the making of these orders by the Privy Council. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Orders of Council laid before the House on 18th May be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Barness Hayman.)
10.30 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her usual clear exposition, and also her very precise pronunciation at this late hour of the tongue-twisting nouns "prosthetists" and "orthotists", which require a knowledge of ancient Greek.
What is not at all clear is why the Government have chosen only these three professions, and why this has to be done now. As the Minister mentioned, there are many

1657
suitable professions that need to be included. Apparently, the significance of trying to push these three under the wire is that there will be a freeze-out after 1st July which is likely to be quite a long one. So surely that is a reason for getting on with examining all the applicant professions and getting down to considering the importance of patient protection and what the priorities in that area should be.
Clearly, ambulance paramedics would be seen to qualify. But what about speech and language therapists? Is there really a threat to the public from unregistered speech and language therapists? I do not quite understand the Minister's case. The trouble is that accepting these three professions will necessarily mean excluding the others for a considerable length of time. Does the Minister know quite how long that will be?
The issues relating to clinical scientists are somewhat different. Medical laboratory technicians are already included, but clinical perfusionists and other groups of scientific and technical staff are excluded. Surely there are arguments for having some unified body for these professions. We should like to have seen appraisals and evaluations for these professions in some sensible document setting it all out. We are really being asked to make a choice without evidence and evaluation. We are concerned with the important issues of prioritisation and are being asked to approve it just a few days before the door is shut, after the Government have admitted that the existing regime is flawed.
But it is not just a problem of prioritisation of applications from different professions. If the statutory instruments are approved, there will be in perpetuity a two-tier system: the old professions under PSMA and the new professions which will not be devolved at first but eventually will be different in England, Wales and Scotland. Will the existing PSMs, including the three in the statutory instruments, retain rights of appeal to the Privy Council, or have the Government decided that the successor body is to lose the rights? If the PSMs are to retain the right, will it be only those established under the old regime, thus further emphasising the two-tier system that is being introduced?
In summary, first, there is an unacceptable lack of any coherent argument for giving these cases priority. There has been no systematic appraisal, no evaluation and no details of the objectives. There has been no comparative analysis of competitive bids. We are really being bulldozed in the dark. Secondly, a case has been made by the Government for changing the system, but why not wait, instead of forcing this through under what the Government describe as an obsolete system, if the new system we are to get will be better?
Those professions that are brought in under the new system cannot be guaranteed a single unified professional regulation for the UK. But siphoning off pressure with these three, it makes it less likely that the others will be sorted out. It may be good news for the three professions, but bad news for the others waiting in the wings. It is also bad news for the public to the extent that these are not the right priorities. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments.
10.36 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord McColl, in thanking the Minister for her thorough examination of the desirability and effect of the orders. I know that the professions concerned under the orders are appreciative of the way in which she has dealt with them and brought them in at this stage. They are also grateful to her for treating the professions as established professions for the purposes of consultation on the Health Bill.
On these Benches, we are well aware that as soon as the Health Bill is passed, the newly constituted boards for the professions will disappear. However, those professions, having had discussions with the Minister on the new Bill and its effects, must accept the situation. That is the nature of the way in which the abolition of the 1960 Act takes place. The opportunity will then arise on the passing of the Health Bill, not only for restructuring of the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine, but also for the introduction of protection of title. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister what timescale is envisaged for the granting of that protection and what type of protection is being contemplated. I assume that it will go further than the ban on using the words "state registered", which is what the current legislation provides for.
It is to the Minister's credit that she has pressed on with those professions who were ready to do business. However, the schemes should not be set in concrete for all time and the Minister was reassuring on that. There is a view which the Minister mentioned that there may well be advantages in some of the professions being regulated jointly with others. It has been represented to me that there may be a case for clinical scientists being regulated alongside closely related other professions such as the medical laboratory scientific officers mentioned by the Minister. That may or may not he the case, but it would be helpful for the noble Baroness to indicate that there is a considerable degree of flexibility. I thought it was also helpful in that context that she mentioned the dialogue being encouraged between the different professions.
It is a difficult moment. We are seeing the end of regulation by one Act and the beginning of a new era under another Act. The points relating to devolution raised by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, may make this process somewhat lopsided. However, because certain professions have been identified earlier than others we on these Benches do not want to impede progress on these orders. We are content to support them because of the protection that they will give to patients. We wish these professions well in their new status.
10.40 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken and will try to reply to the points they have made. The Government have not simply picked out three petitioning professions from among a range and given them priority. These cases were already prepared. It takes quite a long time to prepare a case under the Professions Supplementary to

1659
Medicine Act, and the provisions of that legislation are available now. These professions took two or three years building up a case which was considered carefully first by the CPSM and finally by the Government. We saw no justification for waiting until new arrangements were up and running and losing the opportunity to extend public protection. The noble Lords who have spoken are right to say that we are in a transitional phase, but the judgment was that because these three professions had worked up petitions that were valid and considered appropriate it would have been wrong to turn them down.
The noble Lord, Lord McColl, asked whether there was really a danger to the public from speech and language therapists. Apart from the vulnerable groups already referred to, with whom speech and language therapists work—sometimes in their own homes—n the acute sector speech therapists work with people who may have swallowing difficulties following strokes. In that area competence is an essential quality; indeed, the situation may be life-threatening. I believe that they have a case for state registration.
In terms of the law, it is for the CPSM to satisfy itself that all the criteria that apply in considering petitions have been met. The only ground in law for rejecting the recommendations would be if the Privy Council did not agree that the groups concerned were professions supplementary to medicine to which it was appropriate to extend the provisions of the Act. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, said it was difficult to judge how valid these applications were and what criteria were used. Very clear and detailed criteria are set out by the CPSM. I would be very happy to send these to the noble Lord if he might find it helpful. I believe that the petitions themselves have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord McColl, asked about the future in the context of appeals to the Privy Council for the successor body to the CPSM. The Government have said that that is a matter for consultation when draft orders for the successor body are published. However, as I said during consideration of the Health Bill, the Government expect appeal and reporting arrangements to remain as they are now; that is, to the Privy Council.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about the joint regulation of clinical scientists and bio-medical scientists. This will be for the boards themselves to decide. The Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act is about self-regulation of the profession. However, as I said earlier, there are obvious joint interests and overlaps. We will be doing all we can to encourage those boards to work closely together in the ways I suggested earlier.
1660
The 1960 Act is not an ideal framework for professional self-regulation. It fails to protect common title, its disciplinary procedures are outdated and inflexible and the absence of procedures for continuing competence and continuing professional development means that sick, incompetent or out-of-date practitioners can continue to work without pressure to improve. Educational requirements are inflexible and do not allow for modern methods of delivery. The structures constrain multi-professional working, strategic leadership and effective lay input. That is why we are so keen to get on with the job of reforming professional self-regulation for professions supplementary to medicine.
But something is better than nothing. These professional groups feel that it is important to take advantage of even the system we have at the moment, and even for the limited period of time. We are right to listen to that. We have considered carefully all the representations. We have considered the issue of timing but we have concluded that the professions have well prepared cases for state registration which command wide support and are consistent with the Government's commitment to strengthening professional regulation. That includes our intention to modernise the overall regulatory framework. I believe that these three new registered professions will be able to play a full and constructive part in developing those future arrangements. I commend the orders to the House.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can she touch on the point about protection of title? Can she give an indication of how the Government's mind is working in terms of the type of protection of title that could be given to these professions?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, if the noble Lord is trying to draw me on what titles would be protected, that is an issue on which the professions themselves would have to put forward suggestions. There are difficulties and we alluded to some of them during proceedings on the Health Bill. It is one of the areas in respect of which there have been difficulties in the past. We are committed to protecting common title. What exactly the common title or titles will be for each of the 12 professions is something that we will have to look at for the future.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Imperial College Bill
The Queen's Consent signified and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Yugoslavia: EU Oil Embargo
  Yugoslavia: EU Oil Embargo
  Klecka and Volujak, Kosovo: Forensic Investigation
  Klecka and Volujak, Kosovo: Forensic Investigation
  Geneva Conventions and Yugoslavia Conflict
  Geneva Conventions and Yugoslavia Conflict
  Satellite Launches from High Seas Platforms
  Satellite Launches from High Seas Platforms
  Rambouillet Accords: Legitimacy
  Rambouillet Accords: Legitimacy
  Asylum Seekers: Family Provision
  Asylum Seekers: Family Provision
  AS90 Howitzers: Enhancements
  AS90 Howitzers: Enhancements
  Royal Parks Events: Environmental Effects
  Royal Parks Events: Environmental Effects
  Italian Deficit: ECOFIN Action
  Italian Deficit: ECOFIN Action
  Greenfield Levy Proposal
  Greenfield Levy Proposal
  Electronic Delivery of Government Services
  Electronic Delivery of Government Services